2015 Ford F350 Duty 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:

More evidence GT500-replacement will be named GT350

During the recent unveiling of the 2015 Ford Mustang, we saw the car in both V6 and GT form, but we'll have to wait a little bit longer to see the successor to the Shelby GT500. In the meantime, though, it looks like SVTPerformance.com has confirmed reports that this high-performance model will bring the Shelby GT350 name back to Ford.
According to the forum post, a user found the Shelby GT350 name on a Ford promo website listing its 2015 lineup. The Shelby GT350 name was first used on a Mustang back in 1965, and most recently it has been a model created for customers as a post-title purchase by Shelby American. As for that car, Shelby confirmed earlier in the year that its GT350 would be phased out at the end of this month.
The million-dollar question for Mustang and Shelby enthusiasts is when we'll see next factory Shelby GT350. Last we heard it was planned for a debut at the New York Auto Show. We've included our previous spy shots of this hi-po, sixth-gen Mustang, and we've also captured it on spy video showing off its exhaust note.

EPA says fuel economy test for hybrids is accurate

The EPA says it stands behind its fuel economy test for hybrid vehicles following controversy about the testing process after Ford C-Max Hybrid customers and automotive journalists alike struggled to achieve 47 miles per gallon, the advertised mpg number, Automotive News reports. Ford responded to the issue almost two weeks ago by claiming that a 1970s-era EPA general label rule was responsible for the inaccurate mileage numbers, rerating the C-Max Hybrid's mpg numbers and offering customers rebates. Ford later said it didn't overstate the C-Max Hybrid's fuel economy and that it was surprised by the low numbers.
Ford technically didn't do anything wrong because it was following the general label rule, but agency regulator Christopher Grundler says the automaker was exploiting a loophole when it came up with the hybrid C-Max numbers, and that the testing process remains accurate. The general label rule allows vehicles that use the same engine and transmission and are in the same weight class to share fuel economy numbers, but it doesn't take into account other factors such as aerodynamic efficiency, which affects hybrids more drastically than non-hybrid vehicles. Ford originally used the Fusion Hybrid economy figures for the C-Max Hybrid and claimed the engineers didn't realize that its aerodynamic efficiency would affect fuel economy as much as it did.