Custom 1931 Ford Sedan Street Rod Chevy 350/350 Ps Pb A/c All Steel Body on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Is it time for American carmakers to give up on dual-clutch transmissions? [w/poll]

Last week, in the midst of Detroit's first days seeking relief in Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code, Automotive News contributor Larry P. Vellequette penned an editorial suggesting that American car companies raise the white flag on dual clutch transmissions and give up on trying to persuade Americans to buy cars fitted with them. Why? Because, Vellequette says, like CVT transmissions, they "just don't sound right or feel right to American drivers." (Note: In the article, it's not clear if Vellequette is arguing against wet-clutch and dry-clutch DCTs or just dry-clutch DCTs, which is what Ford and Chrysler use.) The article goes on to state that Ford and Chrysler have experimented with DCTs and that both consumers and the automotive press haven't exactly given them glowing reviews, despite their quicker shifts and increased fuel efficiency potential compared to torque-converter automatic transmissions.
Autoblog staffers who weighed in on the relevance of DCTs in American cars generally disagreed with the blanket nature of Vellequette's statement that they don't sound or feel right, but admit that their lack of refinement compared to traditional automatics can be an issue for consumers. That's particularly true in workaday cars like the Ford Focus and Dodge Dart, both of which have come in for criticism in reviews and owner surveys. From where we sit, the higher-performance orientation of such transmissions doesn't always meld as well with the marching orders of everyday commuters (particularly if drivers haven't been educated as to the transmission's benefits and tradeoffs), and in models not fitted with paddle shifters, it's particularly hard for drivers to use a DCT to its best advantage.
Finally, we also note that DCT tuning is very much an evolving science. For instance, Autoblog editors who objected to dual-clutch tuning in the Dart have more recently found the technology agreeable in the Fiat 500L. Practice makes perfect - or at least more acceptable.

Ford Police Interceptors win acceleration war against Dodge, Chevy

Just last month, Ford announced its first-ever non-pursuit-rated version of the Police Interceptor sedan for agencies looking to maximize fuel economy, but that doesn't mean that Ford is giving up on chasing down the bad guys. While the Dodge Charger can lay claim to the fastest lap time at the Grattan Raceway test facility held by the Michigan State Police, the results are now in for the Police Vehicle Evaluation acceleration tests. And Ford's Police Interceptor duo (sedan and utility) came out on top.
In the acceleration tests, Ford says that the Taurus-based PI Sedan with the newly available 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 was the quickest among prospective police cars in both 0-60 and 0-100 mile per hour times. The sedan posted a 0-60 time of 5.66 seconds with all-wheel drive and 5.71 seconds with front-wheel drive, besting V8-powered competitors like the Chevy Caprice and Dodge Charger by more than 0.3 seconds. These rivals close the gap on the AWD sedan in the 0-100 test with the Ford taking 13.5 seconds compared to the Chevy's time of 14.35 and the Dodge's time of 14.7.
As for utility vehicles, the Explorer-based PI Utility, which accounts for 60 percent of Ford's police vehicle sales, essentially went head-to-head with the V8-powered Chevy Tahoe with similar results. Equipped with the new EcoBoost engine option, this big SUV hit 60 mph in just 6.28 seconds and 100 mph in 15.51 seconds compared to times of 8.22 seconds and 21.95 seconds, respectively, for the Tahoe. Other important tests in the PVE include braking and top speed, but while no automakers have stepped up to boast about their numbers in either of these categories, Ford's images show that the V8 Caprice had the highest top speed of the cars at 155 mph while the Tahoe's 139-mph speed made it the fastest utility vehicle.

Nuclear-powered concept cars from the Atomic Age

In the 1950s and early 60s, the dawn of nuclear power was supposed to lead to a limitless consumer culture, a world of flying cars and autonomous kitchens all powered by clean energy. In Europe, it offered the then-limping continent a cheap, inexhaustible supply of power after years of rationing and infrastructure damage brought on by two World Wars.
The development of nuclear-powered submarines and ships during the 1940s and 50s led car designers to begin conceptualizing atomic vehicles. Fueled by a consistent reaction, these cars would theoretically produce no harmful byproducts and rarely need to refuel. Combining these vehicles with the new interstate system presented amazing potential for American mobility.
But the fantasy soon faded. There were just too many problems with the realities of nuclear power. For starters, the powerplant would be too small to attain a reaction unless the car contained weapons-grade atomic materials. Doing so would mean every fender-bender could result in a minor nuclear holocaust. Additionally, many of the designers assumed a lightweight shielding material or even forcefields would eventually be invented (they still haven't) to protect passengers from harmful radiation. Analyses of the atomic car concept at the time determined that a 50-ton lead barrier would be necessary to prevent exposure.