1967 Ford Fairlane 390gt S Code 4 Speed Gt Convertible Project Car Rare Big Bloc on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Nuclear-powered concept cars from the Atomic Age

In the 1950s and early 60s, the dawn of nuclear power was supposed to lead to a limitless consumer culture, a world of flying cars and autonomous kitchens all powered by clean energy. In Europe, it offered the then-limping continent a cheap, inexhaustible supply of power after years of rationing and infrastructure damage brought on by two World Wars.
The development of nuclear-powered submarines and ships during the 1940s and 50s led car designers to begin conceptualizing atomic vehicles. Fueled by a consistent reaction, these cars would theoretically produce no harmful byproducts and rarely need to refuel. Combining these vehicles with the new interstate system presented amazing potential for American mobility.
But the fantasy soon faded. There were just too many problems with the realities of nuclear power. For starters, the powerplant would be too small to attain a reaction unless the car contained weapons-grade atomic materials. Doing so would mean every fender-bender could result in a minor nuclear holocaust. Additionally, many of the designers assumed a lightweight shielding material or even forcefields would eventually be invented (they still haven't) to protect passengers from harmful radiation. Analyses of the atomic car concept at the time determined that a 50-ton lead barrier would be necessary to prevent exposure.

Chevy says not to look at the 2019 Silverado's fuel economy rating

The 2019 Chevy Silverado is hitting dealerships soon, and one of the most notable changes for the new full-size pickup is the addition of a 2.7-liter turbocharged inline-four. The engine replaces the naturally-aspirated 4.3-liter V6 in volume consumer models like the Silverado LT and promises more power, less weight and — most importantly — better fuel economy. The thing is, the gains in efficiency haven't been as dramatic as some might have hoped, especially when stacked up against competitors from Ford and Ram. As Automotive News reports, GM's response is a little murky. First, let's talk numbers. We're pulling all figures from FuelEconomy.gov, the official U.S. government source for fuel ratings. Fuel economy numbers on trucks vary greatly based on a number of factors. Bed and cab configuration play a part, but so does a four-wheel-drive system. You also have to factor in tires, transmissions, rear-axle gearing, hybrid systems and cylinder deactivation. Things like that can make the difference between best- and worst-in-class. The EPA's website doesn't give enough information a lot of the time, so there's really no easy way to compare apples-to-apples. First, take a look at the ratings for the 2019 Silverado. A 2.7-liter model with two-wheel drive is rated 20 city, 23 highway and 21 combined. That's both better and worse than a two-wheel drive 2018 Silverado with the 4.3-liter V6 (18 city, 24 highway and 20 combined). The updated 2019 Silverado with a 4.3-liter V6 has yet to be rated. With less weight and a smaller engine, many hoped Chevy would make bigger gains. It's unusual to see any decrease in a fuel economy metric these days. GM says that it's not done tuning the new 2.7-liter engine, so fuel economy could theoretically increase. Expanding further, a V8-powered 2019 Silverado (17 city, 24 highway and 19 combined) actually gets better highway fuel economy than a turbocharged four-cylinder powered truck in certain configurations, even if the latter has a better overall average. But that's only with two-wheel drive, the 8-speed transmission and cylinder deactivation. A Silverado with the 5.3-liter V8 and a 6-speed automatic is rated at 15 city, 22 highway and 17 combined. The biggest issue with the Silverado 2.7-liter doesn't come from within GM itself but from Ford and Ram. GM cites the Ford F-150 with the 3.3-liter V6 and the Ram 1500 with the 3.6-liter V6 as the closest competitors to its new 2.7-liter inline-four.

NHTSA closes Ford F-150 EcoBoost acceleration probe

Typically when we report on the findings of an investigation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, it's because the government body has discovered a safety issue and prescribed a recall. In this case, however, NHTSA has closed an investigation into a reported performance deficit without ever getting to the recall stage.
The issue revolves around the Ford F-150 - specifically those equipped with the 3.5-liter EcoBoost engine - of which some 360,000 were built in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 model years. After receiving an initial 95 complaints, NHTSA opened an investigation last May - almost a year ago - into the reported issue of reduced engine power under hard acceleration. The agency has since received a total of 525 such complaints, and Ford itself reported receiving over 4,000.
Together, NHTSA and Ford determined that the problem resulted from cylinders misfiring, an issue itself stemming from water getting into the charge air cooler (CAC) mated to the turbochargers. In particularly humid or rainy conditions, water was found to get into the CAC, causing some of the cylinders to misfire, which in turn triggered the ECU to disable those cylinders in order to protect the catalytic converter from damage.