2007 Ford Explorer Sport Trac on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford Explorer, Jeep Grand Cherokee flunk IIHS passenger-side crash test

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has uncovered major safety-related problems while crash testing a number of popular midsize SUVs. Among those that scored an overall rating of "poor," the lowest possible score, are the Ford Explorer and Jeep Grand Cherokee. Both SUVs showed a high risk of injury to a front passenger during the IIHS' passenger-side small overlap front crash test. This test simulates what might happen if a car or SUV strikes an immovable object, like a telephone pole, at 40 mph and with roughly 25-percent of its front width. "Although some vehicles in this group offer very good protection, in other models, the airbags, safety belts and structure showed serious deficiencies," says IIHS chief research officer, David Zuby. "In those SUVs, a front-seat passenger would be at risk of injuries to the head, hip or leg in a right-side small overlap front crash." In the 2018 Ford Explorer, the front of the SUV showed the structure was "seriously compromised" during both driver- and passenger-side small overlap crash testing, according to the IIHS. The lower and upper door hinge pillar showed intrusion levels of 15 and 13 inches, while the door sill itself was pushed inward 6 inches toward the crash test dummy. The IIHS states these results indicate a high probability that a front occupant would suffer injuries to their right hip and lower left leg. The 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee didn't fare much better. Not only did the Jeep exhibit 10 inches of intrusion at the lower door hinge pillar, the front passenger crash test dummy's head hit the dashboard through the front airbag. Worse still, the side curtain airbag didn't deploy and the front passenger door opened. The IIHS says there is a strong chance this would result in right leg injuries, along with the possibility of a serious head injury. Even vehicles that earned an "acceptable" in the small overlap front crash test showed definite room for improvement. The 2018 Honda Pilot, for example, showed good structural performance during the crash itself. But the front passenger crash test dummy's head slid off the deployed airbag and hit the dashboard hard, indicating a head injury might result in a similar real-world crash scenario. Two other SUVs that scored "acceptable" ratings included the 2018 Nissan Pathfinder and 2018 Toyota Highlander. Scoring top marks of "good," the highest rating, in these IIHS crash tests were the 2018 Volkswagen Atlas, 2018 GMC Acadia, and 2019 Kia Sorento.

Diesel Power finds the ultimate modified oil-burner

For nine years, Diesel Power magazine has run the Diesel Power Challenge, this year's grindfest being "a week-long torture test that features seven events, nine trucks, 8,000 horsepower, and nearly 15,000 pound-feet of torque." The road to being crowned "the most powerful truck" starts with a dyno run, and then continues through the completion of a CDL-style obstacle course, an eighth-of-a-mile drag race while towing a 10,000-pound trailer, a quarter-mile drag race without a trailer, a fuel economy test in the mountains and finally a sled-pulling test through a 300-foot-long packed-mud pit.
What kind of trucks get into such a fight? Last year's winner, for instance - who upgraded his truck this year to prove he didn't "luck into the win" - drives a 2008 Ford F-250 Super Duty with a 6.4-liter Power Stroke V8 upgraded with a custom intake, Elite Diesel triple turbos and a two-stage nitrous system. Another competitor has a 2005 Dodge Ram 2500 powered by a 5.9-liter Cummins inline-six, upgraded with Garrett turbos, dual-stage nitrous, a seven-inch exhaust stack and twin fans built into the bed to cool the Sun Coast Omega transmission. The numbers on that truck: 1,255 horsepower, and 2,063 pound-feet of torque at the wheels. Naturally, as the image above might suggest, things don't always end well.
You'll find all five videos covering this years challenge below. A scene in the dyno video sums it all up perfectly: a competitor leaves his nitrous on too long and the crew is treated to some ominous poppings, he leans out the window, throws both hands up and shouts, "Amer'ca!"

Moon landing anniversary: How Detroit automakers won the space race

America's industrial might — automakers included — determined the outcome of the 20th centuryÂ’s biggest events. The “Arsenal of Democracy” won World War II, and then the Cold War. And our factories flew us to the moon. Apollo was a Cold War program. You can draw a direct line from Nazi V-2 rockets to ICBMs to the Saturn V. The space race was a proxy war — which beats a real war. It was a healthy outlet for technology and testosterone that would otherwise be used for darker purposes. (People protested, and still do, that money for space should go to problems here on Earth, but more likely the military-industrial complex would've just bought more bombs with it.) As long as we and the Soviet Union were launching rockets into space, we were not lobbing them at each other. JFKÂ’s challenge to “go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,” put American industry back on a war footing. We were galvanized to beat the Russians, to demonstrate technological dominance. (A lack of similar unifying purpose is why we havenÂ’t been to the moon since, or Mars.) NASA says more than 400,000 Americans, from scientists to seamstresses, toiled on the moon program, working for government or for 20,000 contractors. Antagonism was diverted into something inspirational. The Big Three automakers were some of the biggest companies in the moon program, which might surprise a lot of people today. Note to a new generation who marveled when SpaceX launched a Tesla Roadster out into the solar system: Sure, that was neat, but just know that Detroit beat Elon Musk to space by more than half a century. This high point in human history was brought to you by Ford ItÂ’s hard to imagine in this era of Sony-LG-Samsung, but Ford used to make TVs. And other consumer appliances. Or rather Philco, the radio, TV and transistor pioneer that Ford bought in 1961 — the year Gagarin and Alan Shepard flew in space. Ted Ryan, FordÂ’s archives and heritage brand manager, just wrote a Medium article on the central role Philco-Ford played in manned spaceflight. And nothingÂ’s more central than Mission Control in Houston, the famous console-filled room we all know from TV and movies. What we didn't know was, that was Ford. Ford built that. In 1953, Ryan notes, Philco invented a transistor that was key to the development of (what were then regarded as) high-speed computers, so naturally Philco became a contractor for NASA and the military.