2014 Ford Focus Se on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Peel and Ford Transit do a great Austin Powers impression

It's no secret that the average fullsize cargo van is big. Like, really big. Expressing that size, though, without actually seeing the van in question, is a pretty tall order. When viewed from the right angle, even something as big as a cargo van can appear very small (look up forced perspective, to see what we mean). That's why it's always good to have a second object on hand, to provide a sense of scale. Ford took this simple idea to the extreme, illustrating the size of the new Ford Transit by pulling the world's smallest production car, the Peel P50, nose first into the van's 487-cubic-foot cargo area. That's no big deal, though, right? After all, at just 54 inches long and 39 inches wide, the Peel would fit quite happily in even the smallest fullsize truck bed. Ford takes it a step further, though. With the help of an actual reverse gear (we're guessing this is a CVT-equipped, electric model), the P50 manages to turn itself around and drive out. It does this in less than two minutes. So yeah, the Ford Transit is a pretty big van. Take a look below for the video from Ford. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Related Gallery Peel P-50 and Trident News Source: fordvideo1 via YouTube Auto News Humor Ford Minivan/Van Commercial Vehicles Videos ford transit

Ford Mustang Mach-E fails Sweden's moose test

The infamous moose test has claimed another casualty. This time it's the Ford Mustang Mach-E AWD Long Range, which was tested in an electric four-way alongside the Tesla Model Y, Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Skoda Enyaq iV (an electric utility vehicle closely related to the Volkswagen ID.4 that is sold in the United States). According to the Swedish testers at Teknikens Varld, Ford's electric car not only failed to hit the speed necessary for a passing grade, it didn't perform well at slower speeds, either. To pass the outlet's moose test, a car has to complete a rapid left-right-straight S-shaped pattern marked by cones at a speed of at least 72 km/h (44.7 miles per hour). The test is designed to mimic the type of avoidance maneuver a driver would have to take in order to avoid hitting something that wandered into the road, which in Sweden may be a moose but could just as easily be a deer or some other member of the animal kingdom elsewhere in the world, or possibly a child or car backing into the motorway. Not only is the maneuver very aggressive, it's also performed with weights belted into each seat and more weight added to the cargo area to hit the vehicle's maximum allowable carrying capacity. The Mustang Mach-E only managed to complete the moose test at 68 km/h (42.3 mph), well below the passing-grade threshold. Even at much lower speeds, Teknikens Varld says the Mach-E (which boasts the highest carrying capacity and was therefore loaded with more weight than the rest of the vehicles tested in this quartet) is "too soft in the chassis" and suffers from "too slow steering." Proving that it is indeed possible to pass the test, the Hyundai and Skoda completed the maneuver at the 44.7-mph figure required for a passing grade and the Tesla did it at 46.6 mph, albeit with less weight in the cargo area. It's not clear whether other versions of the Mustang Mach-E would pass the test. It's also unknown if Ford will make any changes to its chassis tuning or electronic stability control software, as some other automakers have done after a poor performance from Teknikens Varld, to improve its performance in the moose test. Related video:

Should heavy-duty pickup trucks have window stickers with fuel mileage estimates?

If you were to stroll into your nearest Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Nissan, or Ram dealership, you'd find a bunch of pickup trucks. Most of those would have proper window stickers labeled with things like base prices, options prices, location of manufacture, and, crucially, fuel economy estimates. But you'd also run across a number of heavy-duty trucks with no such fuel mileage data from the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA doesn't require automakers to publish the valuable miles-per-gallon measurement for vehicles with gross weight ratings that exceed 8,500 pounds. That makes it difficult for consumers to compare behemoths powered by turbocharged diesel engines – between one another, and between smaller, gasoline-fueled trucks. Consumer Reports doesn't think it should be this way, and it's spearheading an effort (PDF link) to get the government to require manufacturers to publish fuel economy estimates. In its own testing, CR found that heavy-duty pickups powered by Ford's Power Stroke, GM's Duramax, and FCA's Cummins diesel engines (which doesn't include the Ram's EcoDiesel) get worse fuel mileage than their lighter-duty gas-powered siblings. We're not so sure HD-truck buyers are unaware of this fact – big diesels don't really come into their own until big loads are placed in their beds or attached to their trailer hitches. Under heavy workloads, the diesel trucks will almost certainly return greater efficiency than a similar gas-powered truck. What's more, HD trucks with lumbering diesels in general make the driver feel more confident while towing due to greater torque at low engine RPM than gas trucks. They also offer greater max-weight limits. Still, we agree EPA fuel mileage estimates should be offered for heavy-duty pickups. And we think the comparisons provided by Consumer Reports might be interesting to potential buyers. Click here to see the results of CR's tests, and let us know what you think using the poll below. Related Video: Featured Gallery 2017 Ford F-Series Super Duty: First Drive View 22 Photos News Source: Consumer Reports Government/Legal Green Read This Chevrolet Ford GMC Nissan RAM Fuel Efficiency Truck Commercial Vehicles Diesel Vehicles poll gmc sierra hd chevy silverado hd