4 Wheel Drive, Long Bed W/3rd Seat, Triton 4.6 V8 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2021 Ford Raptor vs Ram TRX Specs Compared

Hopefully by now you've had a chance to read our thorough 2021 Ford F-150 Raptor review. If not, check it out, 'cause you'll find a lot more detail and expertise than normal (for Autoblog or anywhere) thanks to Dan Edmunds' vast engineering and off-roading background. If you want all the dirt on the Raptor, pun intended, that's where to turn. If you just want to gaze at the specs, however, and wonder how they compare to the old Raptor or to the Ram TRX, check out the chart below. There you will find dimensions, clearances, angles, weights, capacities, engine output and fuel economy for the 2021 Raptor with both 35-inch and 37-inch tires. As Dan explains in his first drive, there's actually more going on there than just tire sizes. You'll find the same specs for the outgoing second-generation Raptor plus the 2021 Ram 1500 TRX and the less extreme Ram Rebel trim level in the chart, too.  Other reviews and deep dives about the F-150 and TRX 2021 Ram 1500 TRX First Drive Review Our review of the Raptor's chief competitor, the mighty TRX. That just sounds like we're talking about Jurassic Park.    2021 Ram TRX Suspension Deep Dive and RTI ramp test Follow along with engineer Dan Edmunds as he takes you under the TRX and explains everything there is to know about its suspension -- and how it's able to do what it does.    2021 Ford F-150 Full-Line Review   2021 Ford F-150 Suspension Deep Dive It's a totally different F-150 flavor to be sure, but even the volume-selling XLT received a lot of work for 2021. Dan Edmunds takes you underneath the truck to show you what's different and what difference it makes.    Photo Galleries of Each Truck 2021 Ford F-150 Raptor 2021 Ford F-150 Raptor View 16 Photos   2021 Ram 1500 TRX 2021 Ram 1500 TRX front 3/4 in motion View 53 Photos   Ram 1500 Rebel 2019 Ram 1500 Rebel View 42 Photos   Second-Generation Ford Raptor 2019 Ford F-150 Raptor View 37 Photos

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time. The changes will not only affect the window sticker, but also the effect that the C-Max Hybrid (and the five other Ford vehicles that had their fuel economy figures lowered last week) have on Ford's compliance with greenhouse gas and CAFE rules for model year 2013 and 2014. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? There are two technical answers to that question, which we've got below, as well as some context for how Ford's mistakes will play out in the bigger world of green vehicles. Let's start with Ford's second error, which is easy to do since we documented it in detail last year (the first, needing to do a software update, was also covered). The basic gist is that Ford used the general label rule (completely legally) to test the Fusion Hybrid and use those numbers to figure out how efficient the C-Max Hybrid is. That turned out to be a mistake, since the two vehicles are different enough that their numbers were not comparable, despite having the same engine, transmission and test weight, as the rules require. You can read more details here. Ford's Said Deep admitted that the TRLHP issue is completely separate from the general label error from last year. Now let's move on to last week's announcement. What's interesting is that the new recalculation of the MPG numbers – downward, of course – was caused by a completely separate issue, something called the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP). Ford's Said Deep admitted to AutoblogGreen that the TRLHP issue had nothing to do with the general label error from last year.

Watch these Australian Ford and Holden muscle cars duke it out

Australia's Motoring has put together a little video on two of the great performance vehicles available down under - the Holden VF Commodore HSV GTS and the Ford Falcon FPV GT R-Spec. And while both FPV and the Falcon might be on their way out, there's still plenty of time for a little head-to-head comparison between the two.
The cars aren't all that well evenly matched, though. The Ford boasts a 5.0-liter, supercharged V8, which the Aussies measure out at 449 horsepower and 420 pound-feet of torque. The HSV, though, with its Corvette-derived, 6.2-liter, supercharged V8 is just too powerful - 576 hp and 545 lb-ft of torque.
Predictably, it doesn't end too well for the Ford. As the guys from Motoring point out, the new VF Commodore is just too new and too good, with its extra power and its adaptive dampers (GM's excellent MagnaRide). Interestingly, Motoring did point out that the Holden's electric steering is better than the Ford's hydraulic steering, which is a lot like a Porsche purist saying they prefer water-cooled engines to air cooled.