2009 Ford F250 Crew Cab Long Box Diesel 6.4 4x4 Rebuilder on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2016 Chevy Malibu Hybrid, now with 48 mpg city

The 2016 Chevrolet Malibu is already one of the stars of the 2015 New York Auto Show thanks to a huge improvement in styling, lighter weight and new suite of tech. Now, Chevy is shifting the focus to the available hybrid model and detailing some more of its impressive figures. The 2016 Malibu Hybrid's powertrain consists of a 1.8-liter four-cylinder and a two-motor hybrid system with a 1.5-kilowatt hour lithium ion battery. Chevy's engineers are aiming for EPA fuel economy ratings of 48 miles per gallon city, 45 mpg highway and 47 mpg combined. The setup puts out a total of 182 horsepower, and it can accelerate the sedan to 60 miles per hour in a claimed 7.8 seconds. Also, speeds of up to 55 miles per hour can even be reached under fully electric power. Some of this efficient tech is shared with the latest Volt, including the regenerative braking. For reference, the 2015 Ford Fusion Hybrid carries an EPA rating of 44 mpg city, 41 mpg highway and 42 mpg combined, and its hybrid system puts out a total of 188 hp. There is a wait ahead for buyers looking to park the 2016 Malibu Hybrid in their garage, though. While the standard model should be on sale before the end of the year, the hybrid doesn't arrive in showrooms until the spring of 2016. Malibu Hybrid Estimated to Reach 48 MPG in City Driving New sedan projected to offer segment unsurpassed 47 MPG combined 2015-04-01 NEW YORK –The 2016 Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid, which uses technology from the Chevrolet Volt, will offer a General Motors-estimated 48 mpg city, 45 mpg highway – and 47 mpg combined, unsurpassed in the segment, GM President Dan Ammann announced today. Ammann made the announcement at an International Motoring Press Association breakfast before the 2016 Malibu was to be unveiled at the New York International Auto Show. "Fuel efficiency is important to our customers, especially in the midsize segment and with an estimated 48 mpg city rating, the Malibu Hybrid delivers," Ammann said. An all-new direct-injection 1.8L 4-cylinder engine mated to a two-motor drive unit slightly modified from the 2016 Chevrolet Volt drive unit powers the Malibu Hybrid. The drive unit provides additional power to assist the engine during acceleration, for 182 horsepower (136 kW) of total system power. An 80-cell, 1.5 kWh lithium-ion battery pack provides electric power to the Hybrid system. The advanced lithium-ion based chemistry can power the Malibu hybrid at up to 55 miles per hour on electricity alone.

Junkyard Gem: 1971 Mercury Comet 2-Door Sedan

When Ford introduced the original Maverick for the 1970 model year, Dearborn tradition required that a Mercury-badged version be created. That car ended up being the Comet, built from the 1971 through 1977 model years. Here's one of those first-year Comets in rough but recognizable condition, found in a Denver self-service yard not long ago. The Comet name had spent the 1960s affixed to the flanks of Mercurized Ford Falcons (1960-1965) and Fairlanes (1966-1969). Since the Maverick was the successor of the Falcon — sales of which went into an irrecoverable downward spiral once its sportier Mustang first cousin hit the streets — it made sense to move the Comet name over to the Mercury version. Nearly every American Mercury model ever sold was a U.S.-market Ford model with a different name and some gingerbread slapped on. Notable exceptions to this tradition include the 1999-2002 Mercury Cougar (mechanically based on the Contour but with a unique body) and the 1991-1994 Mercury Capri (an Australian-built mashup of Mazda components borrowed from the Ford Laser). The Comet was by far the cheapest Mercury model available in 1971, though it was considered more prestigious than its Maverick counterpart. The price tag on the '71 Comet two-door sedan started at $2,217 (about $16,505 in 2022 dollars), while the '71 Maverick two-door sedan cost $2,175 ($16,193 today). Meanwhile, AMC would sell you a new Hornet two-door sedan for one dollar less than a Maverick, Chevrolet had the Nova coupe for a dollar more than the Maverick, and Plymouth offered the Valiant Duster for $2,313 ($17,220 now). Toyota had a Maverick competitor as well that year, with the Corona at $2,150 for the sedan and $2,310 for the coupe. Having driven every one of the aforementioned models, I'd take the Duster if I went back in time and had to choose one (as a 1969 Corona owner, I'm not a fan of the 1971 facelift, though the Corona's build quality beats the Duster's). The build sticker on this car tells us that it was built at the Kansas City Assembly Plant (where Transits and F-150s are made today) and sold through the Los Angeles district sales office (there was a DSO in Denver, so it's a near-certainty that this car didn't start out in Colorado). The paint started out as Bright Blue Metallic (it's neither bright nor metallic 51 years down the road) and the interior was done up in Medium Blue Cloth & Vinyl.

Report: GM struggling to market turbo technology

In the automotive realm, marketing can sometimes prove just as important as the actual product. Take, for instance, Ford's well regarded EcoBoost technology, which couples turbocharging with direct injection to produce more horsepower and reduce fuel consumption. Would it surprise you to hear that General Motors has had similar technology on the market for over three years?
It's true. GM's first turbocharged, direct injected powerplants hit the market for the 2007 model. The 2.0-liter Ecotec mills put down an impressive 260 horsepower and a matching 260 pound-feet of torque, and they were lauded by the press in the engine bays of the Pontiac Solstice, Saturn Sky, Chevrolet Cobalt SS and Chevrolet HHR SS. But few people outside a core group of enthusiasts actually remember this fact.
Says Uwe Grebe, executive director of GM's global advanced engineering, "We didn't have a badge and say, 'This is the most important thing we will put on all our brochures.'" Ford, however, did just that, and it's EcoBoost engines are right at the tips of all our tongues when we discuss today's most advanced powerplants. So, how does The General fix its mistake?