1965 Ford Mustang Great Driver, Solid Southern Vehicle!!! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford Mustang Mach-E fails Sweden's moose test

The infamous moose test has claimed another casualty. This time it's the Ford Mustang Mach-E AWD Long Range, which was tested in an electric four-way alongside the Tesla Model Y, Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Skoda Enyaq iV (an electric utility vehicle closely related to the Volkswagen ID.4 that is sold in the United States). According to the Swedish testers at Teknikens Varld, Ford's electric car not only failed to hit the speed necessary for a passing grade, it didn't perform well at slower speeds, either. To pass the outlet's moose test, a car has to complete a rapid left-right-straight S-shaped pattern marked by cones at a speed of at least 72 km/h (44.7 miles per hour). The test is designed to mimic the type of avoidance maneuver a driver would have to take in order to avoid hitting something that wandered into the road, which in Sweden may be a moose but could just as easily be a deer or some other member of the animal kingdom elsewhere in the world, or possibly a child or car backing into the motorway. Not only is the maneuver very aggressive, it's also performed with weights belted into each seat and more weight added to the cargo area to hit the vehicle's maximum allowable carrying capacity. The Mustang Mach-E only managed to complete the moose test at 68 km/h (42.3 mph), well below the passing-grade threshold. Even at much lower speeds, Teknikens Varld says the Mach-E (which boasts the highest carrying capacity and was therefore loaded with more weight than the rest of the vehicles tested in this quartet) is "too soft in the chassis" and suffers from "too slow steering." Proving that it is indeed possible to pass the test, the Hyundai and Skoda completed the maneuver at the 44.7-mph figure required for a passing grade and the Tesla did it at 46.6 mph, albeit with less weight in the cargo area. It's not clear whether other versions of the Mustang Mach-E would pass the test. It's also unknown if Ford will make any changes to its chassis tuning or electronic stability control software, as some other automakers have done after a poor performance from Teknikens Varld, to improve its performance in the moose test. Related video:

Camaro chief: 'rock-star' 4-cylinder set for Mustang fight

It was inevitable, the 2016 Chevy Camaro had to have a four-cylinder engine. The archrival Ford Mustang packs a spunky 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-banger, and everyone from BMW to Subaru uses four-cylinders to great effect to power their sports cars. Now it's Chevy's turn. Again. The Camaro ran the infamous Iron Duke four-cylinder with 88 to 92 horsepower in the 1980s. It was a fuel-economy play at a time when performance was not a priority. After the 1970s muscle-car era, output even for the V8s didn't top 200 hp again until the mid-'80s. Thankfully for enthusiasts, things have changed dramatically in the last 30 years. The gen six Camaro will offer a 2.0-liter inline four-cylinder with 275 horsepower. It's the standard engine, slotting below the 335-hp V6 and the 455-hp V8. But don't mistake the new I4 for an Iron Duke encore. Camaro chief engineer Al Oppenheiser called it a "rock star" and said cars equipped with it feel lighter than V6 models. The four-cylinder (295 pound-feet at 3,000-4,500 rpm) also summons more torque in quicker fashion than the V6 (284 lb-ft at 5,300 rpm). Chevy expects the Camaro to hit 60 miles per hour in "well under six seconds," according to press materials. The Mustang EcoBoost (310 hp, 320 lb-ft) clocks times in the low to mid five-second range. "We're not doing it just so we have one," Oppenheiser said. "We're not doing it because like in gen three you're forced to do it because of fuel economy. We're doing it because it belongs in the car. It has a distinct character." Speaking with Autoblog recently at the Detroit Grand Prix racecourse on Belle Isle, Oppenheiser said he expects the I4 to attract a younger crowd to the Camaro and will put up stiff competition against the V6 for sales. "I've read blogs where younger folks won't buy a Camaro because it doesn't have a 2.0-liter turbo or a turbocharged four-cylinder," he said. "So we're going to excite them." While we talked a lot about four-cylinder engines, Oppenheiser also elaborated on the V6 (It's pretty damn good, too. We drove it.) and the new Alpha platform that the Camaro borrowed from Cadillac. Here's the rest of our edited conversation. Autoblog: Talk a little bit about the four-cylinder – the first turbo four-cylinder ever for Camaro. Do you have any idea what the take rate's going to be? Al Oppenheiser: I think it's going to surprise a lot of people. It's actually a fun car to drive. It's got a really good balance of turbo noise and exhaust note.

2015 Ford Transit Connect Wagon

The last time I tested a Ford Transit Connect, I needed to drive a group of friends to Boyne, MI, for a long weekend of skiing, snowboarding, and shenanigans. At roughly three hours, the trip is just long enough that my friends asked for something comfortable. A Range Rover would've been ideal. Perhaps a Mercedes-Benz GL or Cadillac Escalade. But no, I chose Transit Connect, to put Ford's small van formula to the test. The tiny van was near the end of its lifecycle in 2012, having debuted in Europe in 2003. Its age was reflected in its loud, underpowered, inefficient engine; noisy, harsh ride; and uncomfortable seats. It was so uncomfortable that we had to stop every hour just to stretch our legs. I didn't have such elaborate plans when this 2015 Transit Connect Wagon arrived in my driveway. But after a week behind the wheel, I can tell that road tripping in this van would be a far, far better experience. The most obvious change for the second-generation model is the styling. It's much better looking than the old TC, looking like the high-roofed spawn of a Focus and Escape. There are a few anomalies, though. First, note the word "Wagon" – that implies passenger van, while the cargo/work-minded Transit Connect is called "Van." Next, this Titanium model is only available on the longer-wheelbase, three-row Wagon. With the LWB configuration, the only tailgate option is a single-piece, lift-up hatch. If you want barn-style doors, get cozy with the short-wheelbase, two-row Transit Connect XLT. Regardless of body style, the Transit Connect Wagon's best styling feature is its enormous greenhouse that guarantees excellent visibility from any angle. The interior adopts a dash layout similar to the Focus. The heated leather seats – standard on the Titanium – are nice enough, but better still is that the chairs are actually comfortable now. The plastics on the dash and doors are still hard and scratchy, but fit and finish is solid. And with major contact points and switchgear that have been pilfered from other Ford products, including the steering wheel, the occasional bad bits in the cabin are easy enough to ignore. With room for three folks in the second row and two more in the back, the Transit Connect Wagon fills a role that is more utilitarian and spartan, but not much less versatile than traditional minivans. The middle row seats feature stadium-style raised seating, and both rows can slide forward and back or fold.