2009 Ford Focus Se on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Ford Transit

As a segment, fullsize vans are stealth-fighter invisible on most consumers' radar. Visit a dealership for any of the four brands that offer them and you'll be lucky to find even one on display. These are commercial vehicles primarily, even more so than pickup trucks. Vans are the shuttles for plumbers, caterers, carpenters, concrete layers, masons, electricians, florists and flooring, and a huge part of this country's productivity is accomplished using them. At the moment, Ford is the 800-pound gorilla in that room - fully 41 percent of commercial vehicles wear a Blue Oval. So when Ford announced three years ago it would be ditching its commercial bread-and-butter E-Series, it meant the Transit that would be replacing the Econoline had huge, 53-year-old shoes to fill.
We were still a bit nostalgic about Econoline vans going away until going directly from the Transit first drive in Kansas City to an E-350 airport shuttle. Climb up through the Econoline's tiny double doors and bang your head on the opening, crouch all the way to your seat then enjoy a loud, rattle-prone, creaky, harsh ride on beam-hard seats while struggling to see out the low windows. This is an experience nearly every traveler has had. By comparison, the Transits we'd just spent two days with were every bit of the four decades better they needed to be. It cannot be understated just how much better the Transit is in every single way. The load floor is barely more than knee high. There's a huge side door, and hitting your head on a door opening is nearly impossible. Stand up all the way if you're under six-foot, six-inches - no more half-hunching down the aisle. There are windows actually designed to be looked out of. The ride is buttery smooth, no booming vibration from un-restrained metal panels and no squeaks. Conversations can be held at normal levels rather than yelling over the roar of an ancient V8. The seats are comfortable. The AC is cold. There are cupholders.
Enough anecdote-laying, what's in a Transit? We're talking about a very fullsized unibody van that's enjoyed a 49-year history in Ye Olde Europe. This latest iteration is part of the "One Ford" initiative, so it was designed as a global offering from the get-go, eschewing the body-on-frame construction the E-Series has used since 1975. Instead, the Transit integrates a rigid ladder frame into an overall frame construction made of high-strength cold-rolled and boron steel. The suspension is a simple but well-tuned Macpherson strut array up front with a rear solid axle and leaf springs.

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).

2020 Honda CR-V Hybrid vs other hybrid crossovers | How they compare on paper

The long-anticipated 2020 Honda CR-V Hybrid was announced yesterday, and although we don't have every spec available (including the all-important official fuel economy figures), Honda provided enough that we can piece together a comparison of powertrain specs and dimensions. The same can be said of the 2020 Ford Escape Hybrid, which we just drove for the first time.  Together, they represent a significant increase in the number of compact crossover hybrids, as the current total is one: the 2019 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid. The old Nissan Rogue Hybrid has been discontinued, leaving the subcompact Kia Niro Hybrid as the only other vehicle in the ballpark. As you'll see below, its size and performance are much different than the others, but its fuel economy and price are superior.  Performance The RAV4 Hybrid is the performance champ of the group, but both it and the new CR-V Hybrid are actually more powerful than their respective gas-only siblings. Although the added weight of its battery pack negates much of that horsepower advantage, the RAV4 Hybrid's subsequent acceleration is indeed a smidge quicker than the gas-only version. It will be interesting to see if that's the case with the CR-V. By contrast, the Ford Escape offers a 250-horsepower 2.0-liter turbo engine, meaning the hybrid variation is most definitely not the Escape's highest-performance offering. Nevertheless, the Hybrid does produce more power than the base 181-horsepower 1.5-liter three-cylinder. The Niro, meanwhile, brings up the rear in terms of performance, but Kia estimates a perfectly acceptable 0-60 time of 8.6 seconds. The others are likely in the mid-7-second range. Fuel economy This is ultimately an open question since we don't have official figures for the CR-V and Escape. Based on Honda's estimate of the CR-V Hybrid being 50% more efficient in the city than the gas-only version, our calculators say it should get 43 mpg in the city. Then, based on information provided on the Escape Hybrid first drive and some more calculation, our best guestimate for it is 40 mpg. Either way, given how mpg is calculated, any potential differences between them in terms of actual fuel burned should be negligible.  On the other hand, most Kia Niros sold get 51 mpg in the city and 49 mpg combined. According to the EPA, that translates to an annual average fuel cost of $750. The RAV4 Hybrid, by contrast, is $900.  FWD vs AWD Note that the CR-V and RAV4 come standard with all-wheel drive.