Ford F-super Duty Custom (efi) Truck With Boom & Bucket Mounted On It on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2020 Ford Police Interceptor Utility dominates Michigan State Police testing

The Michigan State Police has released its preliminary findings from testing the 2019 crop of police vehicles, and the results are a bit surprising. The consistent top performer of the bunch was the 2020 Ford Police Interceptor Utility, better known to civilians as the Ford Explorer. Specifically, the top performer was the model with the new turbocharged 3.0-liter V6. The Michigan State Police conducts acceleration, top speed, braking and lap time tests of all the available police vehicles. The 3.0-liter Police Interceptor Utility was the fastest to 60 mph at 5.77 seconds, had the highest top speed of 150 mph, and the best average lap time of 1:36.47. The lap time was particularly impressive as it was just over half a second faster than the next quickest car, the all-wheel-drive V8 Charger. View 13 Photos Still, the 2019 Dodge Charger gave the Explorer a serious run for its money. The all-wheel-drive V8 Charger was only 0.1 seconds behind the Explorer to 60 mph with a time of 5.87 seconds, and the rear-drive version was third quickest at 6.15 seconds. Both V8 Chargers were only 1 mph off of the Explorer's top speed, and the V6 example was third fastest at 141 mph. We already mentioned the all-wheel-drive V8 Charger was half a second off the Explorer's lap time, and the rear-drive variant was just over 1 second behind, giving it the third fastest average time. Dodge also took home braking bragging rights. The V6 Charger won out with a distance of 126.9 feet, followed by the rear-drive V8 Charger with 128 feet, and the V6 Durango Pursuit stopping at 128.8 feet. Now of course where there are winners, there are also losers. The slowest accelerating police car was the Ford Police Responder Hybrid Sedan, better known as the Fusion Hybrid, with a time of 9.24 seconds. At 8.59 seconds was the V6 Dodge Durango, and the V8 Chevy Tahoe with four-wheel-drive was third slowest at 7.98 seconds. Lowest top speed was 106 mph with the Ford F-150 Police Responder with the 3.5-liter turbocharged V6, followed by the V6 and V8 Durangos with 117- and 118-mph top speeds respectively. In braking, the Chevy Tahoes performed the worst with the rear-drive version stopping at 145.7 feet and the four-wheel-drive version stopping at 142.5 feet. The F-150 followed with 141.9 feet. When it came to lap times, the Fusion Hybrid lapped the slowest with a time of 1:46.31. The V6 Durango was about a second faster with a time of 1:45.45.

Ford adding second supplier for F-150 frames

Metalsa, the company that builds steel frames for the aluminum-bodied Ford F-150, is still having trouble providing enough frames to supply the two factories that build the pickup. The snafu is preventing Ford from selling as many of the country's best-selling truck as it could, and eating into profits - even though the bottom line is still breaking company records. According to The Wall Street Journal, Ford has picked Michigan company Tower International as a second frame supplier and expects to have inventory up to a proper level at the beginning of Q4 of this year. Neither Ford nor Tower would confirm the development - Automotive News got comments from a source and pieced together bits of info from Tower's financial statements and local press reports. Tower currently builds body structures for several vehicles, including the F-series, and the Bellevue, Ohio factory that will build F-150 frames previously manufactured frames for the Ranger and Econoline. According to a story in the local Sandusky Register, Tower will add one production line at the end of next month to begin shipping frames in October, and another line in April 2016. Something like 138 full-time workers and 364 robots are expected to carry out the work. Tower's most recent financial statement said that capital investment will be necessary to get everything set up, but the contract will be worth $140 million in yearly revenue.

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).