79 Ford Stepside on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Chris Harris pits Fiesta ST against Mercedes G63 AMG in 0-60 battle... sort of

Vehicle performance tests are serious business, with reputations made or broken by things like braking distance, top speed, and lateral g-forces. King of the metrics, though, is the 0-60 run, which for unknown reasons has become the benchmark for what truly makes a car a performance machine.
Now, Chris Harris from Drive has turned the whole idea behind the sprint to 60 on its ear. Taking a new Ford Fiesta ST, Harris asks a simple question: would the ST be quicker to 60 on its own, or on a trailer being towed by a Mercedes-Benz G63 AMG?
It's a fair question, really. The Fiesta Harris tested hit 60 in 7.2 seconds on a slightly uphill section of runway. It should be noted that Harris quotes his ST at 182 horsepower, which is about 15 ponies less than what we're getting in the US, so these numbers might not hold up all that well against an American model. The G63 AMG, meanwhile, is a 536-horsepower monster, powered by a twin-turbo V8 that, able to propel the big SUV to 60 mph in just 5.2 seconds without towing a Fiesta.

Cosworth double-feature is XCar's a drool-worthy look back

While American fans of Ford performance cars in the '80s and early '90s were loving the 5.0 Mustang, Taurus SHO and, for those who wanted to be a little different, the Merkur XR4Ti, British fans of the Blue Oval were getting their own unique take on speed. The Sierra RS Cosworth (which was similar but not identical to the aforementioned Merkur) and later Escort RS Cosworth were the stuff of dreams with huge wings, hood vents and big power for their time and class. XCar Films aims to find out whether it is little more than nostalgia that makes these classics famous or it really is their legitimate performance. Thanks to its Formula One and racing success, Cosworth was already a well-established performance name in the UK by the time it began selling tuned engines to Ford for the Sierra and Escort. The Sierra RS Cosworth hit the scene in 1986 with a turbocharged, 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine with 204 horsepower and rear-wheel drive. Its huge wing at the back signaled it immediately as something special, and it proved to be a performance powerhouse on and off the track. When it was retired, Ford replaced it with the Escort RS Cosworth that used an upgraded version of the same engine with 217 hp, all-wheel drive and an even bigger rear wing to net yet more racing victories. XCar really gets into the spirit of the time, opening the video with the lo-fi grain of '80s and '90s TV, but to find out whether the Cossies stand up to modern scrutiny, you have to watch the video below. Stay tuned until the end to enjoy them at their best with some vintage motorsports footage. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

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.