Roush Mustang Convertible 427r 1 Of 1 Build - T.v. Car on 2040-cars

Auto blog

MotorWeek finds nice things to say about the 1993 Ford Probe

This latest in MotorWeek's series of Retro Reviews continues its recent trend of remembering the massive glut of sports coupes that hit the market in the '90s. While vehicles like the Mitsubishi 3000GT, Mazda RX-7, and Ford Mustang all enjoy solid reputations down to this day, the 1993 Ford Probe, well... doesn't. As you'll soon see, though, the show's opinion suggests the coupe's second generation isn't really all that bad. Turns out they just weren't particularly sporty. Ford and Mazda developed the Probe together, and the Japanese company supplied both the base 115-horsepower 2.0-liter four-cylinder and the 164-hp 2.5-liter V6 in the GT trim. The original's pseudo-angular look gave way to a much smoother shape for the second generation. Of course, pop-up headlights remained, which were a design hallmark for many of this era's sports coupes. After driving it, MotorWeek proclaims the Probe is "a winner" and considers the handling a "delight." That's not a big surprise, considering that in those days, a car had to be really bad not to get a decent review from Television's Original Automotive Magazine. However, the show hints at some of the reasons the coupe isn't so well remembered today. Even the GT reportedly suffers from soft springs and lots of understeer, which sounds like exactly the opposite anyone hoping to drive the coupe enthusiastically would want. To sum it all up, we're sure you're just as happy as we are that Ford went back on its initial plan to shelve the Mustang in favor of the front-drive Probe. Related Video:

For thousands of US auto workers, the downturn is already here

LORDSTOWN, Ohio - Wall Street is fretting that the auto industry is heading for a downturn, but for thousands of workers at General Motors factories in the United States, the hard times are already here. Matt Streb, 36, was one of 1,200 workers laid off on Jan. 20 - inauguration day for President Donald Trump - when GM canceled the third shift at its Lordstown small-car factory here. Sales of the Chevrolet Cruze sedan, the only vehicle the plant makes, have nosedived as consumers switch to SUVs and pickup trucks. Streb is looking for another job, but employers are wary because they assume he will quit whenever GM calls him back. "I get it," said Streb, who has a degree in communications, "but it's frustrating." Layoffs at Lordstown and other auto plants point to a broader challenge for the economy in Midwestern manufacturing states and for the Trump administration. "This is about economics, not what Trump says. Even if Trump went out and bought 10,000 Cruzes a month, he wouldn't get the third shift back here." The auto industry's boom from 2010 through last year was a major driver for manufacturing job creation. The fading of that boom threatens prospects for US industrial output and job creation that were central to Trump's victory in Ohio and other manufacturing states. "This is about economics, not what Trump says," said Robert Morales, president of United Auto Workers (UAW) union Local 1714, which represents workers at GM's stamping plant at Lordstown. "Even if Trump went out and bought 10,000 Cruzes a month, he wouldn't get the third shift back here." Last week the Federal Reserve said factory output fell 0.4 percent in May, the second decline in three months, due partly to a 2 percent drop in motor vehicles and parts production. Mark Muro, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, has compiled data from government sources that show the auto industry punching higher than its weight in job creation in recent years - accounting for between 60 percent and 80 percent of all US manufacturing jobs added in 2015 and 2016. In the first quarter of this year, the auto industry accounted for less than 2 percent of the 45,000 manufacturing jobs created. "There's no argument with the idea that auto has been pulling the manufacturing sled up the mountain for the last three or four years," Muro said.

The 24 Hour War: Adam Carolla's new documentary brings the Ford-Ferrari battle back to life

Long before the GoPro or even videotape, races were filmed by guys standing next to the track with 16-millimeter cameras. The images kind of shook, they didn't always hold focus, and over the years all the color has faded out of the film. It all conspires to make the endurance racing battle between Ferrari and Ford in the 1960s seem like ancient history. What Adam Carolla and Nate Adams' new documentary The 24 Hour War does best is make that inter-corporate battle feel as if it happened yesterday. Yeah, if you're an obsessive you've likely seen most of the shaky-cam race footage used here before. But what you haven't seen are the interviews that frame the war and explain the egos and engineering behind the legends. It's not a perfect movie, but it's the sort of movie only fanatics could make. And it's easier to appreciate if you're a fanatic too. The first 25-or-so minutes of the documentary are taken up with histories of both Ford and Ferrari and an overview of how ridiculously deadly motorsports were in the Sixties and earlier. It's all interesting (if familiar) stuff, that could have been handled in about a third the time with some brutal editing. Still, the two protagonists in the story are well drawn: the racing-crazed Enzo Ferrari, who only builds road cars to stay solvent; and Henry Ford II, who after being thrown into the deep end of the Ford Motor Company management in 1943 at the age of 25, wasn't going to be humiliated after Ferrari pulled out of a deal to sell him the sports car maker. With one notable exception, the filmmakers were successful in rounding up practically everyone involved who is still alive for an interview. That includes Dan Gurney, Mario Andretti, Pete Brock, Bob Bondurant, Piero Ferrari, Mauro Forghieri, Carlo Tazzioli, and even Ralph Nader. There are good archival insights from the late Carroll Shelby. But where's A.J. Foyt? After all, he co-drove the stupendous Ford GT40 Mark IV with Dan Gurney to victory at Le Mans in 1967. The interviews make the movie worthwhile, but it cries out for more technical depth about the cars themselves. Yes, the GT40 was complex and engineered practically like a production car, but there's no mention of how the Lola Mk VI and Eric Broadley kicked off the development. There's only a superficial explanation of what made the American-built Mark IV such a leap forward.