1962 Ford Falcon V8 302 Motor Fully Restored Muscle Car No Reserve on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Xcar celebrates 100-year anniversary with Model T tribute

Never mind the fact that XCar hasn't been making videos for the last 100 years, the British duo have gone all silent-moving-pictures in order to make their centenary case for the Ford Model T, a car that was already seven years old in 1915. It's not a review, but a mostly sepia-tinged look at the car that started the mass-market adventure by taking that biblical advice to be fruitful and multiply and populate the Earth abundantly. Since it looks like Xcar is celebrating some kind of milestone, we've also included another video below of the first Xcar review we could find, covering the BMW M1, from the much more recent past - circa 2012.

Mopar Hellephant is sold out, but here are 4 other awesome crate V8s to try

Despite a relatively enormous $30,000 price tag, Mopar's 1,000-horsepower supercharged Hellephant crate engine sold out in just 48 hours. Some enthusiasts may have missed out on the crazy engine due to lack of funds, or they just assumed there would still be some Hellephants down the line. But worry not, swap-happy gearheads. There are plenty of V8s in the world to pick from, and we highlighted four favorites. They're not as powerful, but they're all cheaper, and still have a lot to offer. Mopar 6.2L Hellcrate Odds are a lot of prospective Hellephant buyers were Mopar fans to begin with, so we'll start the list with the next-most-potent offering: the Hellcrate. This is the same supercharged 6.2-liter V8 found under the hood of the Dodge Charger and Challenger Hellcats and the Grand Cherokee Trackhawk. It makes 707 horsepower and 650 pound-feet of torque like those cars, too. It's also about $10,000 cheaper than the Hellephant engine at $20,020, and that leftover money can be used to finish the project or for aftermarket upgrades to get it closer to the Hellephant's output. GM LS9 6.2L The Hellcrate isn't the only factory supercharged crate engine on the market. From General Motors comes the supercharged 6.2-liter LS9 V8. This is the engine that was used in the C6 Corvette ZR1. At 638 horsepower and 604 pound-feet of torque, it doesn't make as much power or torque as the Hellcrate. But it does boast a dry sump oil system. So instead of pumping oil out of a pan at the bottom, the engine uses an oil tank mounted remotely that pumps oil into the engine. This means the engine is shorter overall, and can be mounted lower for a better center of gravity. It also means that there's almost no risk of running the engine dry in hard cornering, as could happen with a normal oil sump where the oil can slosh to the side without the oil pump. Basically, it offers some major benefits if you want supercharged V8 power for a road course car. It's also a tad cheaper than the Hellcrate at $18,149. But get one while you can, because GM is only selling what's left from when it was building the C6 ZR1. Ford Aluminator 5.2XS Our pick from the Blue Oval lacks a supercharger, but it's still pretty sweet.

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.