2014 Navigation Sunroof 20s Aluminum Leather Heated Cooled V8 Lifetime Warranty on 2040-cars

Auto blog

UAW warns automakers: Restarting U.S. plants is 'too soon and too risky'

WASHINGTON/WARREN, Mich. — The head of the United Auto Workers union on Thursday said it was "too soon and too risky" to reopen auto plants and Michigan's economy in early May, citing insufficient scientific data and coronavirus testing to assure workplaces are safe. The warning from UAW President Rory Gamble on Thursday afternoon came as General Motors Co , Ford Motor Co and Toyota Motor Corp took new steps toward reopening North American vehicle manufacturing operations in an environment where consumer demand is uncertain and worker safety paramount. The union has said that 24 of its members have died from Covid-19, though it was unclear whether they might have become infected in the workplace. Unionized Detroit automakers and non-union German and Asian automakers have been preparing to restart U.S. vehicle making operations by early May. Companies have shifted reopening dates amid uncertainty about government stay-at-home orders. Gamble's statement appeared to derail plans by the Detroit Three to start bringing UAW workers back to vehicle manufacturing jobs on May 4. The longer the automakers cannot produce profitable U.S.-made trucks and sport utility vehicles, the longer they burn cash. The UAW leader's statement was also aimed at Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who has come under pressure from conservative groups and President Donald Trump to ease coronavirus stay-at-home restrictions. "At this point in time, the UAW does not believe the scientific data is conclusive that it is safe to have our members back in the workplace. We have not done enough testing to really understand the threat our members face," Gamble said. "We strongly suggest to our companies in all sectors that an early May date is too soon and too risky to our members, their families and their communities." Gamble said the union was "happy with the auto companiesÂ’ response and cooperation on working through the health and safety protocols we will need in the workplace when it is appropriate to restart." Earlier Thursday, GM began notifying front line managers to come back to work next week to get trained on new safety protocols designed to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus as workers return to plants.

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.

Ward's calls out Ford's EcoBoost engines for their crummy fuel economy

With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case. Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list. In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.