1918 Ford T-bucket Roadster Top-of The Line Build! New 350 Chevy A Must See!!! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Does the new 2015 Ford Mustang have a burnout control system?

Whether it's lane departure warning, blind-spot monitoring or automatic emergency braking, most of the electronic systems we see emerging on new vehicles focus on safety. But there are some there just for enthusiasts. We're talking about systems like automatic throttle blipping for perfect downshifts, or launch control to get that textbook acceleration from a standstill. But the latest system could prove just the opposite of the latter.
Although it has given us most of the details, Ford is still keeping certain elements of its new Mustang secret. But emerging reports may have the skinny on one system which Ford is trying is darnedest to keep under its hat for the time being. That, according to unnamed sources cited by Motor Authority, is burnout control.
The system is reportedly designed to help novices execute the perfect smokey burnout - sort of like launch control, but specifically the opposite. The system could, according to elaborative speculation, lock the front brakes while spooling up the engine to optimal revolutions before dumping (or indicating the driver to do dump) the clutch. A cloud of tire smoke and a long pair of skid marks would then ensue.

Big electric trucks won't save the planet, says the NYT

When The New York Times decides that an issue is an issue, be prepared to read about it at length. Rarely will a week passes these days when the esteemed news organization doesn’t examine the realities, myths and alleged benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles, and even The Atlantic joins in sometimes. That revolution, marked by changes in manufacturing, consumer habits and social “consciousness,” may in fact be upon us. Or it may not. Nonetheless, the newspaper appears committed to presenting to the public these pros and cons. In this recently published article titled, “Just How Good for the Planet Is That Big Electric Pickup Truck?”—wow, thatÂ’s a mouthful — the Times focuses on the “bigness” of the current and pending crop of EVs, and how that impacts or will impact the environment and road safety. This is not what news organizations these days are fond of calling “breaking news.” In October, we pointed to an essay in The Atlantic that covered pretty much the same ground, and focused on the Hummer as one particular villain, In the paper and online on Feb. 18, the Times' Elana Shao observes how “swapping a gas pickup truck for a similar electric one can produce significant emissions savings.” She goes on: “Take the Ford F-150 pickup truck compared with the electric F-150 Lightning. The electric versions are responsible for up to 50 percent less greenhouse gas emissions per mile.” But she right away flips the argument, noting the heavier electric pickup trucks “often require bigger batteries and more electricity to charge, so they end up being responsible for more emissions than other smaller EVs. Taking into consideration the life cycle emissions per mile, they end up just as polluting as some smaller gas-burning cars.” Certainly, itÂ’s been drummed into our heads that electric cars donÂ’t run on air and water but on electricity that costs money, and that the public will be dealing with “the shift toward electric SUVs, pickup trucks and crossover vehicles, with some analysts estimating that SUVs, pickup trucks and vans could make up 78 percent of vehicle sales by 2025." No-brainer alert: Big vehicles cost more to charge. And then thereÂ’s the safety question, which was cogently addressed in the Atlantic story. Here Shao reiterates data documenting the increased risks of injuries and deaths caused by larger, heavier vehicles.

Weekly Recap: Marchionne's Manifesto again calls for industry consolidation

Sergio Marchionne isn't taking no for an answer. Despite public rebuffs from General Motors and Ford, the leader of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles continues to push for consolidation within the auto industry. His latest assertion came Wednesday when he said a combination of FCA with another automaker could net savings of $5 billion or more annually. No, this isn't about selling his company, he claimed, it's about cutting costs. Put simply, the auto industry wastes money, Marchionne said during FCA's earnings conference call. Companies invest billions to develop basic components that all cars use, but many consumers don't care how they work or recognize the differences. "About half of this is really relevant in terms of positioning the car in the marketplace," he said. "The other half, in our view, is stuff which is neither visible to the consumer nor is it relevant to the consumer." In 2014, top automakers spent more than $100 million on product development, FCA estimated. Marchionne said consolidation could save up to $1 billion on powertrains alone, noting that almost every automaker offers four- and six-cylinder engines. Not everyone has to make their own, he contended. "The consumer could not give a flying leap whose engines we are using because they are irrelevant to the buying decision." That's pretty provocative for enthusiasts, but less so for average consumers. Still, there are major differences in power and efficiency ratings, even among similar engines. Skeptics could argue consolidation would also weaken competition and reduce choices for car buyers. Marchionne stressed his presentation, curiously entitled Confessions of a Capital Junkie, wouldn't require closing factories or dealerships. It's not his final "big deal" as CEO, intent to sell FCA, or a way to elevate his company up the automotive food chain. He claims he wants to fundamentally change the industry and its habit for burning cash. "The horrible part about this, and the thing that I find most offensive, is that the capital consumption rate is duplicative," he said. "It doesn't deliver real value to the consumer and it is in its purest form, economic waste." Other News & Notes Ford Profits dip in first quarter Ford profits fell $65 million to $924 million in the first quarter, hampered by slight dips in revenue and sales.