2015 Ford F350 Lariat Super Duty on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford Mustang chief engineer, mid-engine Corvette | Autoblog Podcast #488

Note: There were some technical difficulties that prevented some of you from downloading this week's podcast. The player and link below should be working now, and the file has reached iTunes and other feeds as well. Thanks to everyone who wrote in to let us know of the issues! On the podcast this week, we have some questions for Ford Chief Engineer Carl Widman. Plus, Associate Editor Reese Counts joins Mike Austin to talk about the latest news, most notably the spy photos of the upcoming mid-engine Corvette. We also chat about the Jaguar F-Type Coupe, the Nissan Armada, and why 0-60 mph is a stupid performance figure. And, of course, we get into some Spend My Money advice, telling strangers what car to buy. And new this week is a cost-no-object what-cars-would-you-buy game. The rundown is below. And don't forget to send us your questions, money-spend or otherwise, to podcast at autoblog dot com. Autoblog Podcast #488 The video meant to be presented here is no longer available. Sorry for the inconvenience. Topics and stories we mention Mid-engine Chevrolet Corvette spied Chevy Bolt EV comes with 238 miles of range Ford will sell self-driving cars by 2025 Jaguar F-Type Coupe 2017 Nissan Armada (yes, Mike knows it's not a Patrol) Ford Mustang Chief Engineer Carl Widman interview Spend My Money - we give purchase advice Why 0–60 mph is a stupid performance test Rundown Intro - 00:00 The news - 03:30 What we've been driving - 16:20 Carl Widman - 26:44 Spend my money - 37:03 New fun game - 51:48 0–60 mph is overrated - 56:50 Total Duration: 1:04:57 Get The Podcast iTunes – Subscribe to the Autoblog Podcast in iTunes RSS – Add the Autoblog Podcast feed to your RSS aggregator MP3 – Download the MP3 directly Feedback Email – Podcast at Autoblog dot com Review the show in iTunes Podcasts Chevrolet Ford Jaguar Nissan Car Buying nissan armada mid-engine corvette jaguar f-type coupe

Consumer Reports criticizes small turbo engines for misleading performance, fuel economy claims [w/video]

Consumer Reports has taken aim at at small-displacement, forced-induction engines, saying the powerplants don't manage to deliver on automaker fuel economy claims. Manufacturers have long held that smaller, turbocharged engines pack all power of their larger displacement cousins with significantly better fuel economy, but the research organization says that despite scoring high EPA economy numbers, the engines are no better than conventional drivetrains in both categories. Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports, says the forced induction options "are often slower and less fuel efficient than larger four and six-cylinder engines."
Specifically, CR calls out the new Ford Fusion equipped with the automaker's Ecoboost 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine. The institute's researchers found the engine, which is a $795 option over the base 2.5-liter four-cylinder, fails to match competitors in acceleration and served up 25 miles per gallon in testing, putting the sedan dead last among other midsize options.
The Chevrolet Cruze, Hyundai Sonata Turbo and Ford Escape 2.0T all got dinged for the same troubles, though Consumer Reports has found the turbo 2.0-liter four-cylinder in the BMW 328i does deliver on its promises. You can check out the full press release below. You can also read the full study on the Consumer Reports site, or scroll down for a short video recap.

American automakers fall in latest Fortune 500 rankings

Not that it means anything beyond bragging rights, but if you're fixated on the positions of domestic automakers on the annual Fortune 500 list, both General Motors and Ford are still on it but they've slipped a couple of notches. The list ranks American companies and they're ordered solely by revenue. GM, fifth last year, came in seventh, while Ford fell from ninth to tenth even though both companies saw small gains in annual revenue.
GM's $152.3 billion in revenue was less than a third of that of the first company on the list: Wal-Mart, which regained the title from Exxon Mobil. Berkshire Hathaway and Apple are the firms that moved GM down. Ford, displaced by energy company Valero, had $134.3 billion in revenue.
On a side note, profitability isn't a factor, but both GM and Ford were down in this year's list compared to last year's: GM declined from $9.2 billion to $6.2 billion, Ford fell from $20.2 billion to $5.6 billion. If profits were included, Exxon Mobil would probably still be king: although the energy company made almost $20 billion less in revenue than Wal-Mart's $469.2 billion, it posted $44.9 billion in profit compared to Wal-Mart's $17 billion.