1923 Ford Roadster Model-t 350 Turbo Hotrod on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Junkyard Gem: 1971 Mercury Comet 2-Door Sedan

When Ford introduced the original Maverick for the 1970 model year, Dearborn tradition required that a Mercury-badged version be created. That car ended up being the Comet, built from the 1971 through 1977 model years. Here's one of those first-year Comets in rough but recognizable condition, found in a Denver self-service yard not long ago. The Comet name had spent the 1960s affixed to the flanks of Mercurized Ford Falcons (1960-1965) and Fairlanes (1966-1969). Since the Maverick was the successor of the Falcon — sales of which went into an irrecoverable downward spiral once its sportier Mustang first cousin hit the streets — it made sense to move the Comet name over to the Mercury version. Nearly every American Mercury model ever sold was a U.S.-market Ford model with a different name and some gingerbread slapped on. Notable exceptions to this tradition include the 1999-2002 Mercury Cougar (mechanically based on the Contour but with a unique body) and the 1991-1994 Mercury Capri (an Australian-built mashup of Mazda components borrowed from the Ford Laser). The Comet was by far the cheapest Mercury model available in 1971, though it was considered more prestigious than its Maverick counterpart. The price tag on the '71 Comet two-door sedan started at $2,217 (about $16,505 in 2022 dollars), while the '71 Maverick two-door sedan cost $2,175 ($16,193 today). Meanwhile, AMC would sell you a new Hornet two-door sedan for one dollar less than a Maverick, Chevrolet had the Nova coupe for a dollar more than the Maverick, and Plymouth offered the Valiant Duster for $2,313 ($17,220 now). Toyota had a Maverick competitor as well that year, with the Corona at $2,150 for the sedan and $2,310 for the coupe. Having driven every one of the aforementioned models, I'd take the Duster if I went back in time and had to choose one (as a 1969 Corona owner, I'm not a fan of the 1971 facelift, though the Corona's build quality beats the Duster's). The build sticker on this car tells us that it was built at the Kansas City Assembly Plant (where Transits and F-150s are made today) and sold through the Los Angeles district sales office (there was a DSO in Denver, so it's a near-certainty that this car didn't start out in Colorado). The paint started out as Bright Blue Metallic (it's neither bright nor metallic 51 years down the road) and the interior was done up in Medium Blue Cloth & Vinyl.

Best cars for snow and ice in 2023 and 2024

What's the best car for snow? The real answer is "the one with winter tires." What do we mean by that? You could have the finest, most advanced all-wheel-drive system or four-wheel drive in the world, but if you're running all-seasons (the spork of tires), your fancy four-wheeler won't matter much. The odds are, any vehicle on the road running good winter tires will probably perform adequately in slippery, slushy and/or snowy road conditions. (Here's a more complete explanation of why winter tires are totally worth it). In other words, you don't really need any of the cars on this list. With a set of winter tires, countless others will do the job, and even these will be at their best with proper rubber. You can find a variety of winter tires for your car here at Tire Rack. Keep in mind that you will need a full set of four snow tires for safety and performance, no matter what you're driving. The days of your dad putting just two snows on the family truckster to get it moving in a straight line are long gone. Don't get us wrong, getting a car that performs well in snow and ice is still a worthy criteria for car buyers. According to the U.S. Transportation Department, 70% of Americans live in places that get snow and ice. And much of the country has been blasted with arctic air for much of the new year. So let's look at the cars. First, we're highlighting choices for a variety of buyers and price points. Second, we're not just considering snow; we're considering general wintery conditions people will experience driving to work or school. As such, these are all choices with advanced all-wheel-drive systems, usually with "torque-vectoring" systems that not only automatically shunt power front and back, but side to side between the rear axles. Most have extra ground clearance for getting through deep snow, and we prefer those vehicles with more responsive steering, throttles and transmissions that provide a greater sense of vehicle control in slippery conditions.    Acura RDX Read our Acura RDX Review Acura's Super-Handling All-Wheel Drive system was one of the first to offer torque-vectoring, and besides often being touted for its ability to greatly enhanced dry-road handling, its benefits in the slick stuff can be profound. It's actually surprising that Acura hasn't leaned into this capability further by offering more rugged versions of its vehicles.

Why the Detroit Three should merge their engine operations

GM and FCA should consider a smaller merger that could still save them billions of dollars, and maybe lure Ford into the deal. Fiat-Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne would love to see his company merge with General Motors. But GM's board of directors essentially told him to go pound sand. So now what? The boardroom battle started when Mr. Marchionne published a study called Confessions of a Capital Junkie. In it, Sergio detailed the amount of capital the auto industry wastes every year with duplicate investments. And he documented how other industries provide superior returns. He's right, of course. Other industries earn much better returns on their invested capital. And there's a danger that one day the investors will turn their backs on the auto industry and look to other business sectors where they can make more money. But even with powerful arguments Marchionne couldn't convince GM to take over FCA. And while that fight may now be over, GM and FCA should consider a smaller merger that could still save them billions of dollars, and maybe lure Ford into the deal. No doubt this suggestion will send purists into convulsions, but so be it. The Detroit Three should seriously consider merging their powertrain operations, even though that's a sacrilege in an industry that still considers the engine the "heart" of the car. These automakers have built up considerable brand equity in some of their engines. But the vast majority of American car buyers could not tell you what kind of engine they have under the hood. More importantly, most car buyers really don't care what kind of engine or transmission they have as long as it's reliable, durable, and efficient. Combining that production would give the Detroit Three the kind of scale that no one else could match. There are exceptions, of course. Hardcore enthusiasts care deeply about the powertrains in their cars. So do most diesel, plug-in, and hybrid owners. But all of them account for maybe 15 percent of the car-buying public. So that means about 85 percent of car buyers don't care where their engine and transmission came from, just as they don't know or care who supplied the steel, who made the headlamps, or who delivered the seats on a just-in-time basis. It's immaterial to them. And that presents the automakers with an opportunity to achieve a staggering level of manufacturing scale. In the NAFTA market alone, GM, Ford, and FCA will build nearly nine million engines and nine million transmissions this year.