For Sale By:Private Seller
Exterior Color: Black
Interior Color: Gray
Power Options: Cruise Control, Power Locks, Power Windows
Drive Type: None
Pearl River, Louisiana, United States
Those loony Brits at Top Gear have named their Car of the Year, and if you're thinking it's the McLaren P1, Jaguar F-Type, Land Rover Range Rover Sport or Rolls-Royce Wraith, we're sorry to inform you that none of those Anglo automobiles earned the crown. In fact, the winner of Top Gear's most prestigious award is quite the surprise.
Of course, those cars weren't without their own awards. The P1 was the top hypercar (sorry, Porsche 918 and Ferrari LaFerrari), while the F-Type netted best convertible and the Range Rover Sport was voted SUV of the Year. Other honorable mentions included the Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG Black and S-Class, the Porsche 911 GT3, the BMW i3 and the Ferrari 458 Speciale. The winner, though, wasn't even a high-dollar supercar. It was the Ford Fiesta ST.
Yes, the Fiesta ST beat out some off-the-wall cars like the revolutionary Volkswagen XL1 and the bonkers Peugeot 208 T16 Pikes Peak, not to mention all the cars we listed above, to take the title of Top Gear Car of the Year. And if you've driven one, you'll completely understand why.
When Ford made the decision to end production of the Falcon sedan and Territory CUV in Australia, it wasn't a popular move Down Under. The large, four-door Falcon had been in production for 50 years, and while Ford has reaffirmed its commitment to the Australian market, it's understandable that some people still aren't all that crazy about the Blue Oval's decision.
Speaking to CEO Alan Mulally after Ford's Go Further event in Sydney, Australian site Go Auto reports that the decision was not one made lightly, and that the automaker is doing everything possible to respect the Falcon and Territory's "stakeholders." It's an interesting piece that shows a softer side of a corporation, while demonstrating that Ford is doing everything in its power to make the end of production as smooth as possible for all parties.
Head over to Go Auto for the full series of remarks from Mulally, and then let us know what you think of Ford's handling of the Falcon and Territory discontinuations, in Comments.
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.