1997 Ford Ranger Xlt Extended Cab Pickup 2-door 4.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Creations n' Chrome Top Notch Mustang is a one-of-a-kind fox

Is there a cooler car from the 1980s and early 90s to mod than a Fox-body Ford Mustang? No, there isn't. If you disagree with us, we suggest you have a look at this 1990 Mustang Coupe, which just might change your mind. Although considering just how extensively modified this car - the Top Notch Mustang from Creations n' Chrome - is, we wonder just how much Ford is left in this old pony.
It rides on a custom race tube chassis that weighs a scant 700 pounds, while carbon-fiber bits and bobs help lower the overall curb weight to a mere 2,400 pounds. When paired with supercharged, 5.0-liter, Aluminator V8 from Ford Racing, the results are, doubtlessly, exciting. 855 horsepower at the rear wheels and 667 pound-feet of torque are available from that force-fed V8 should be just plenty for this car's intended purpose of running in standing-mile competitions.
The Top Notch Mustang is more extreme than just weight savings and a big engine, though. That 5.0-liter is essentially in what's known as a front-mid layout - where the engine is actually behind the front axle. In this case, the 5.0-liter V8 is 17 inches further back than a factory Fox-body, for better weight distribution. As a result, the cabin has been completely overhauled. An SLA front suspension, wheels from HRE, Wilwood brakes and Sparco interior items round out the extensive list of mods.

10 most memorable cars and SUVs of 2019

It's no surprise that a car reviewer will drive a large number of cars over the course of a year. Indeed, when the clock strikes midnight on Dec 31, I will have driven 75 new cars, trucks and SUV this year (and one old Peugeot) over the course of weekly evaluation loans and first drive events. That sure seems like a lot. Some definitely got more attention than others, and some came and went without leaving much of an impression – I completely forgot I drove a Kia Forte. Yet in the spirit of this day, I thought I'd pick the 10 that I would love to see under the Christmas tree tomorrow morning. You know, just in case you were looking to get me something. I'll also throw in a couple disappointments that were memorable for the wrong reasons. They'd get sent back to the store on Boxing Day. Lexus LC 500 Pictured below and resplendent in its Flare Yellow metallic paint, the car that would reach highest on my list is the divine Lexus LC 500. As a devout lover of GT cars, the LC ticks all the boxes. Muscular and characterful engine? V8, check. Beautifully made and memorable interior? It's gorgeous, to hell with Remote Touch. Check. Comfortable and reasonably practical? Superb seats and, uh, yeah. Makes me want to stand there and stare at it? You bet. Though I long figured my heart would say LC but my head "Porsche 911," after this go-around, that's no longer the case. LC, pretty please. 2020-lexus-lc500-f34-2 View 19 Photos Polestar 1 I actually feel lucky that I got to drive the Polestar 1. Only 150 will be produced each year, and it's a far more special thing than it would initially appear. And that's despite initially appearing to be a beautiful, classic two-door GT car with a roof so rakish it's only possible because it's made of carbon fiber. That itÂ’s a massively powerful plug-in hybrid with more all-electric range than any other PHEV is a thick dollop of whipped cream on a slice of Toscakaka. You know, Swedish dessert, Swedish car. Fine, I'll stick to Ikea references.  Polestar1_Launch_SanFrancisco-0014 View 44 Photos Volvo V60 Cross Country Speaking of Sweden, did I drive this car off the road there? Sure did! And despite this, the V60 Cross Country scratches that certain wagon itch and looks sensational to boot. I wish it were available with the T8 plug-in hybrid powertrain, but it's best not to get greedy at Christmas.

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time. The changes will not only affect the window sticker, but also the effect that the C-Max Hybrid (and the five other Ford vehicles that had their fuel economy figures lowered last week) have on Ford's compliance with greenhouse gas and CAFE rules for model year 2013 and 2014. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? There are two technical answers to that question, which we've got below, as well as some context for how Ford's mistakes will play out in the bigger world of green vehicles. Let's start with Ford's second error, which is easy to do since we documented it in detail last year (the first, needing to do a software update, was also covered). The basic gist is that Ford used the general label rule (completely legally) to test the Fusion Hybrid and use those numbers to figure out how efficient the C-Max Hybrid is. That turned out to be a mistake, since the two vehicles are different enough that their numbers were not comparable, despite having the same engine, transmission and test weight, as the rules require. You can read more details here. Ford's Said Deep admitted that the TRLHP issue is completely separate from the general label error from last year. Now let's move on to last week's announcement. What's interesting is that the new recalculation of the MPG numbers – downward, of course – was caused by a completely separate issue, something called the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP). Ford's Said Deep admitted to AutoblogGreen that the TRLHP issue had nothing to do with the general label error from last year.