1959 Ford Fairlane Galaxie Skyliner Rare Custom Hotrod Classic Project on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford Recalls Nearly 435,000 Vehicles

Ford is recalling nearly 435,000 cars and SUVs to fix rusting frame parts or faulty seats. The biggest of the two recalls covers nearly 386,000 Ford Escapes from the 2001 through 2004 model years. Ford says the subframes can rust, allowing a control arm to separate and hamper steering control. Ford is aware of one crash but no injuries linked to the problem. The SUVs were originally sold or registered in 20 states and Washington, D.C., where salt is used to clear snow and ice from roads. Six Canadian provinces also are included. Dealers will install a reinforcement brace to fix the problem. The Escapes covered by the recall were built from Oct. 22, 1999 through Dec. 19, 2003 at the Kansas City Assembly plant, and from May 1, 2003 through Jan. 23, 2004 at the Ohio Assembly plant, Ford said in a statement issued Monday. They were originally sold or registered in Connecticut, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Delaware, Maine, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, Indiana, Michigan, New York, West Virginia and Washington, D.C. Also covered are Escapes sold or registered in Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland & Labrador. The second recall covers 49,000 Ford Fusion, Lincoln MKZ, Ford Escape and C-MAX vehicles from 2013 and 2014. Dealers will replace seat back frames that weren't welded properly. No crashes or injuries have been reported from the problem, Ford said. Recalls Ford

2020 Ford Explorer ST vs 2019 Dodge Durango SRT: How they compare on paper

For a few years now, the Dodge Durango SRT has been the sole three-row performance crossover from a non-luxury brand. That all changes now that the 2020 Ford Explorer ST is coming to market. Now we have two family crossovers with rear-drive-based platforms vying for buyers that demand practicality and power. As such, there's no better time to dig into their specs to see how they compare. We'll check out each crossover's horsepower, torque, space, capability and prices. The full specs are listed below, followed by some analysis afterward. We also compared the regular 2020 Explorer models to other crossovers in this segment, if if that's not enough, you can check out our car comparison tool. Performance The Explorer and Durango go about making power in very different ways. The Explorer goes the force-fed route with two turbos feeding a 3.0-liter V6, while the Durango's enormous 6.4-liter V8 produces power with air flow au natural. Of the two, the Durango has the greater output of 475 ponies and 470 pound-feet of torque, feeding the flames of everyone that lives by the phrase "There's no replacement for displacement." The Explorer is no slouch at 400 horsepower and 415 pound-feet of torque, though. Performance isn't purely based on power, though. Other factors play a role, such as weight, and in that regard, the Explorer is way ahead. At 4,701 pounds, it weighs a massive 809 pounds less than the portly Durango. This also means that both crossovers are very close in weight-to-power ratio, with the Explorer only slightly worse at 11.75 pounds per horsepower and the Durango at 11.6. Less weight will also play a roll in handling, and the Explorer is likely to feel sprightlier without so much mass to shift back and forth. Semi-related to handling are tire sizes. The Durango features 295-mm wide tires on 20-inch wheels. The Explorer has 255-mm wide tires on 20-inch wheels, but 21-inch wheels with 275-mm tires are available. So the Durango is working with more contact patch, but as we mentioned, it's carrying a lot more weight. 2020 Ford Explorer ST View 20 Photos Interior Space and Practicality Although the Durango SRT is the largest on the outside in every dimension, it loses out to Explorer repeatedly inside. The Ford has more headroom, leg room and shoulder room in nearly every row except the third-row where headroom comes up a bit short.

Aluminum lightweighting does, in fact, save fuel

When the best-selling US truck sheds the equivalent weight of three football fullbacks by shifting to aluminum, folks start paying attention. Oak Ridge National Laboratory took a closer look at whether the reduced fuel consumption from a lighter aluminum body makes up for the fact that producing aluminum is far more energy intensive than steel. And the results of the study are pretty encouraging. In a nutshell, the energy needed to produce a vehicle's raw materials accounts for about 10 percent of a typical vehicle's carbon footprint during its total lifecycle, and that number is up from six percent because of advancements in fuel economy (fuel use is down to about 68 percent of total emissions from about 75 percent). Still, even with that higher material-extraction share, the fuel-efficiency gains from aluminum compared to steel will offset the additional vehicle-extraction energy in just 12,000 miles of driving, according to the study. That means that, from an environmental standpoint, aluminum vehicles are playing with the house's money after just one year on the road. Aluminum-sheet construction got topical real quickly earlier this year when Ford said the 2015 F-150 pickup truck would go to a 93-percent aluminum body construction. In addition to aluminum being less corrosive than steel, that change caused the F-150 to shed 700 pounds from its curb weight. And it looks like the Explorer and Expedition SUVs may go on an aluminum diet next. Take a look at SAE International's synopsis of the Oak Ridge Lab's study below. Life Cycle Energy and Environmental Assessment of Aluminum-Intensive Vehicle Design Advanced lightweight materials are increasingly being incorporated into new vehicle designs by automakers to enhance performance and assist in complying with increasing requirements of corporate average fuel economy standards. To assess the primary energy and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) implications of vehicle designs utilizing these materials, this study examines the potential life cycle impacts of two lightweight material alternative vehicle designs, i.e., steel and aluminum of a typical passenger vehicle operated today in North America. LCA for three common alternative lightweight vehicle designs are evaluated: current production ("Baseline"), an advanced high strength steel and aluminum design ("LWSV"), and an aluminum-intensive design (AIV).