2013 Ford Edge 4dr Limited Fwd on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Chevy's latest Silverado videos assume we're idiots

UPDATE: This article has been revised to reflect that any mention of materials used in a future Chevrolet Silverado is speculation. Can we have a sound, rational debate about the merits of aluminum versus steel? According to Chevrolet's latest marketing videos pitting the Silverado against the Ford F-150, the answer is no. The tone of all three ads is almost Orwellian: steel good, aluminum bad. Of course, this will all be a hilarious joke when an aluminum-bodied Silverado comes in 2018. That's an if, as a member of the General Motor public relations team has reminded me that any articles regarding future product are pure speculation. Until then Chevy needs to sell the current Silverado, with its body comprised chiefly of steel, against the Ford F-150's lightweight aluminum panels. Instead of touting the merits of the "most-dependable, longest lasting pickup," the strategy seems to center around negative propaganda towards the 13th element. The tone of all three ads is almost Orwellian: steel good, aluminum bad. Of the three videos, the most fair is Silverado vs. F-150 Repair Costs and Time: Howie Long Head to Head. Basically: aluminum costs more than steel, it's more difficult to repair, and requires special equipment for body shops. In terms of Chevy versus Ford, the blue oval truck costs more and takes longer to repair - an average of $1,755 more and 34 more days in the shop, according to the ad. But why stop there when you can have pitchman Howie Long raising an eyebrow at random facts? When Silverado Chief Engineer Eric Stanczak says of the Ford, "It's manufactured in a way that combines aluminum, rivets, and adhesive in a process that's different than Silverado." Long responds, "Huh. Interesting." At the end of the video, Long says "I'd be interested to know what happens to insurance costs." Note he's not saying anything substantive. If Chevy's legal team could sign off on some facts about insurance rates, it would be in this ad. On our Autoblog Cost to Own calculator, there is no significant difference in projected insurance costs between the two trucks. But at least that ad has facts. The other two videos are pure hype. In Cages: High Stength Steel, real people are asked what they think of aluminum and steel in a room with two cages. Then a bear is released into the room, and the subjects scurry to the safety of the steel cage.

Big electric trucks won't save the planet, says the NYT

When The New York Times decides that an issue is an issue, be prepared to read about it at length. Rarely will a week passes these days when the esteemed news organization doesn’t examine the realities, myths and alleged benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles, and even The Atlantic joins in sometimes. That revolution, marked by changes in manufacturing, consumer habits and social “consciousness,” may in fact be upon us. Or it may not. Nonetheless, the newspaper appears committed to presenting to the public these pros and cons. In this recently published article titled, “Just How Good for the Planet Is That Big Electric Pickup Truck?”—wow, thatÂ’s a mouthful — the Times focuses on the “bigness” of the current and pending crop of EVs, and how that impacts or will impact the environment and road safety. This is not what news organizations these days are fond of calling “breaking news.” In October, we pointed to an essay in The Atlantic that covered pretty much the same ground, and focused on the Hummer as one particular villain, In the paper and online on Feb. 18, the Times' Elana Shao observes how “swapping a gas pickup truck for a similar electric one can produce significant emissions savings.” She goes on: “Take the Ford F-150 pickup truck compared with the electric F-150 Lightning. The electric versions are responsible for up to 50 percent less greenhouse gas emissions per mile.” But she right away flips the argument, noting the heavier electric pickup trucks “often require bigger batteries and more electricity to charge, so they end up being responsible for more emissions than other smaller EVs. Taking into consideration the life cycle emissions per mile, they end up just as polluting as some smaller gas-burning cars.” Certainly, itÂ’s been drummed into our heads that electric cars donÂ’t run on air and water but on electricity that costs money, and that the public will be dealing with “the shift toward electric SUVs, pickup trucks and crossover vehicles, with some analysts estimating that SUVs, pickup trucks and vans could make up 78 percent of vehicle sales by 2025." No-brainer alert: Big vehicles cost more to charge. And then thereÂ’s the safety question, which was cogently addressed in the Atlantic story. Here Shao reiterates data documenting the increased risks of injuries and deaths caused by larger, heavier vehicles.

2020 Ford Escape plug-in vs. Toyota RAV4 Prime, Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV: How they compare on paper

This year is when the entry-level plug-in crossover market really starts to heat up. Both Ford and Toyota have new models in the 2020 Ford Escape and the 2021 Toyota RAV4 Prime. They join the segment veteran Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV, which has been available in the U.S. since the 2018 model year. And of course that means it's time to look at how the numbers add up while we wait for our chance to drive the new competitors. You can find a chart with all the details immediately below, followed by more detailed analysis. Powertrain One of the key factors for any hybrid, particularly plug-in models, is how little fuel they use. Overall, the Ford Escape is the winner with 100 mpg-e, the fuel economy equivalency for the vehicle when assessing it with a full battery. The Toyota is close behind with 94 mpg-e. We're expecting the Escape to also be a bit more efficient when running only on gas, as it reportedly gets 41 mpg. The RAV4 will likely get 40 mpg, or possibly slightly less, since the non-plug-in RAV4 Hybrid achieves 40 mpg combined. Running solely on electric power, though, the RAV4 edges out the Escape with 42 miles of range versus 37. Behind both of them is the Mitsubishi with just 22 miles of range, 25 mpg on gasoline only, and 74 mpg-e with a full battery. One unique feature the Mitsubishi claims is DC fast charging capability, meaning 80% of its electric range can be restored in just 25 minutes, possibly allowing for more electric use depending on where you're driving it. While fuel economy is a priority for hybrids, customers won't want to compromise on other features. The Toyota is easily the least compromising, as it returns impressive range and efficiency while also providing a whopping 302 horsepower and all-wheel drive. The Mitsubishi also has all-wheel drive, but a comparatively paltry 190 horsepower. The Ford produces slightly more power at 200, but is front-wheel-drive only. While low in comparison to the RAV4 Prime, the Mitsubishi and Ford have very competitive output to many comparably-sized conventional crossovers with base engines, such as the Honda CR-V, Chevy Equinox and others. Size and space Naturally one of the reasons for buying a crossover is for its practical shape for comfortable hauling of people and stuff. In this regard, all three crossovers are very close. The Escape wins out with legroom, the Toyota with shoulder room. Headroom is split between the Toyota and Mitsubishi.