14 Dodge Srt Viper Gts Nav Rear Cam 6 Speed Pdc Harman Kardon 4k on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2020 Colorado Winter Driver's Notes | Behind the Wheel S02 // E12

2020 Mercedes-AMG GLC 63 I’ve had bad luck with SUVs this winter. Especially performance ones. First, I got a 2019 Range Rover Sport SVR delivered on summers right as two feet of snow fell, rendering it undriveable. Then, coronavirus cancelled Easter Jeep Safari as well as my trip out to Moab in the 2020 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon Diesel. Thankfully, when this 469 horsepower luxury mall crawler was dropped off, the sun shone down and the snow (mostly) held off.  The first thing that I noticed was there were a few blank buttons throughout the cabin, something that you may see in an entry model vehicle, but IÂ’m not accustomed to seeing in an AMG. Not a great look for a vehicle with an $80,000 price tag. Thankfully that was where the disappointment ended. As soon as you press the start button, the engine fires up and the exhaust note is incredible. Hopping on the highway ramp near my house, I floored it, and the biturbo V8 had me pressed back into the driver's seat, and this wasnÂ’t even the S version that our staff drove last year. Inside and out, the GLC 63 was everything youÂ’d expect from Mercedes. The interior was immaculate, and while the infotainment wheel and touch pad may take some getting used to for someone who isnÂ’t familiar, by now I have it down so that I can use it without looking. And while the V8 left me smiling ear to ear, I was most impressed by the amount of useable interior space there is. I happened to be moving at the time of this review and while all of my large furniture was shoved into the back of a moving van, I was able to fit almost everything else in the back of the GLC. 2019 and 2020 Fiat 500X Trekking ItÂ’s hard to say goodbye to an AMG and then turn around and be excited when a Fiat 500X pulls in your driveway (I know, I know, automotive journalist problems). That being said, when the red Fiat pulled up, I found myself admiring it. I am very familiar with the 500X. Back in 2016 Autoblog had one for a year as our long term test vehicle. I drove that car everywhere, multiple trips up north in Michigan, and even tracked it at Gingerman Raceway for a few laps before the brakes started smoking.  The 2019 model I had in my driveway and the 2020 model I drove in the snow up in the mountains feel very similar to that car. The interior is stylish and surprisingly roomy. The greenhouse is airy.

Top torque-to-weight ratios under $100k, $50k and $25k

Horsepower may steal a lot of headlines, but the always-more-complex torque figure is often a critical one for both the workingman and the motoring playboy. The measure of rotational force represents the twist that can liquefy one's tires or haul one's horse trailer. Good stuff.
It follows then, that as with the horsepower-to-weight list that we assembled for you a few months ago, a list of cars that offer the most pound-feet with the fewest pounds to carry, is an interesting one to break down. Sure, there's a big difference in how the torque is applied from a turbocharged six-cylinder in a Swedish luxury sedan and a massive heavy-duty truck's turbo-diesel. But being the car/stat geeks that we are, we think it's kinda neat that those two vehicles rank near each other where torque and weight intersect.
As with the horsepower list, we've given you figures as pounds per every one pound-foot. Again broken down into broad price categories, we've got a mixed bag of 2014 and 2015 models here, too. Every effort has been made to select the most up-to-date prices and specs, and we've also to omitted some '14 cars that won't be re-upped after the ongoing yearly changeover.

Killing the Dart and 200 might lower FCA's fuel economy burden

Killing the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200 could allow FCA US to take advantage of an intriguing quirk in the next decade's fuel economy regulations. By increasing its ratio of trucks versus cars, the automaker might not need to worry so much about hitting the more stringent efficiency rules. At first thought, it might seem harder for an automaker with a ton of trucks to meet the government's mandated 54.5 mile per gallon corporate average fuel economy for 2025. However, every company doesn't need to hit that lofty figure, according to The Detroit Free Press. The exact target varies by the product mix between trucks and cars. "While passenger car and light truck categories have separate CAFE targets, it's still true that more trucks versus cars in a company lineup means a lower combined CAFE target," Brandon Schoettle, Project Manager Sustainable Worldwide Transportation at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, told Autoblog. "While passenger car and light truck categories have separate CAFE targets, it's still true that more trucks versus cars in a company lineup means a lower combined CAFE target." FCA US' current product blend has 80 percent pickups and CUVs, which means the company stands to benefit from a lower fuel economy target. It might not seem entirely fair environmentally, but this is a great move from a business perspective. The new CAFE rules aren't set in stone, according to The Detroit Free Press, but potentially taking advantage of the regulation is just one more reason to cut the Dart and 200. Modern crossovers also aren't gas guzzlers like older SUVs, which could make it easier to hit the fuel economy target. "Utilities offer practicality and versatility that cars do not, and now, built on car architectures, they do not penalize consumers on fuel economy as they once did," AutoTrader Senior Analyst Michelle Krebs told Autoblog. Schoettle warns that FCA is still making a gamble by killing the small sedans. "Depending on the previous sales volumes and how much these vehicles might have exceeded their specific CAFE targets, it's possible that these cars helped earn CAFE credits for FCA that they could bank for future use," he said. "Future sales breakdowns [car vs.