1995 Ford F150 5.0l 4x4 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Ford Focus

Sitting down at the pre-drive briefing with Ford engineers ahead of sampling the refreshed 2015 Focus, water bottles clinked as we wet our whistles before Q&A. While pouring a glass, we noticed something stamped on the bottle label: "1L." One liter. We were palming the exact displacement of the EcoBoost engine our group was about to drive. This was undoubtedly coincidence (such bottles litter every conference and dinner table in Europe) but it served to drive home just how small the total swept volume of Ford's wunderkind powerplant really is. It's tiny.
Of course, this isn't our first run-in with the little triple - we've sampled its turbocharged charms before in Ford's smaller Fiesta. At that time, we found it had plenty of poke for the subcompact, but the larger C-segment Focus carries around another 450 pounds or so and pushes a wider profile through the air. Would the three-cylinder have the stuffing to make the most of the Focus' athletic chassis, or would it be a letdown? Would it be the same as it was when we tested it in a Euro-spec Focus a couple of years ago? There was nothing left for it but to head out on the bucolic roads surrounding Versailles the day after the Paris Motor Show and find out for ourselves.

2020 Honda CR-V Hybrid vs other hybrid crossovers | How they compare on paper

The long-anticipated 2020 Honda CR-V Hybrid was announced yesterday, and although we don't have every spec available (including the all-important official fuel economy figures), Honda provided enough that we can piece together a comparison of powertrain specs and dimensions. The same can be said of the 2020 Ford Escape Hybrid, which we just drove for the first time.  Together, they represent a significant increase in the number of compact crossover hybrids, as the current total is one: the 2019 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid. The old Nissan Rogue Hybrid has been discontinued, leaving the subcompact Kia Niro Hybrid as the only other vehicle in the ballpark. As you'll see below, its size and performance are much different than the others, but its fuel economy and price are superior.  Performance The RAV4 Hybrid is the performance champ of the group, but both it and the new CR-V Hybrid are actually more powerful than their respective gas-only siblings. Although the added weight of its battery pack negates much of that horsepower advantage, the RAV4 Hybrid's subsequent acceleration is indeed a smidge quicker than the gas-only version. It will be interesting to see if that's the case with the CR-V. By contrast, the Ford Escape offers a 250-horsepower 2.0-liter turbo engine, meaning the hybrid variation is most definitely not the Escape's highest-performance offering. Nevertheless, the Hybrid does produce more power than the base 181-horsepower 1.5-liter three-cylinder. The Niro, meanwhile, brings up the rear in terms of performance, but Kia estimates a perfectly acceptable 0-60 time of 8.6 seconds. The others are likely in the mid-7-second range. Fuel economy This is ultimately an open question since we don't have official figures for the CR-V and Escape. Based on Honda's estimate of the CR-V Hybrid being 50% more efficient in the city than the gas-only version, our calculators say it should get 43 mpg in the city. Then, based on information provided on the Escape Hybrid first drive and some more calculation, our best guestimate for it is 40 mpg. Either way, given how mpg is calculated, any potential differences between them in terms of actual fuel burned should be negligible.  On the other hand, most Kia Niros sold get 51 mpg in the city and 49 mpg combined. According to the EPA, that translates to an annual average fuel cost of $750. The RAV4 Hybrid, by contrast, is $900.  FWD vs AWD Note that the CR-V and RAV4 come standard with all-wheel drive.

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.