1923 Ford T-bucket Roadster, 350 V8 Crate 400hp, Hydromatic Turbo 3-speed on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Shelby GT500 laps N"urburgring in under 7:40?

A couple of weeks ago we brought you footage and official times of the new Chevy Camaro Z/28 lapping the Nürburgring. With a 7:37.47 lap time, the Z/28 emerged as the fastest muscle car ever to lap the circuit. But what was missing from that picture was how fast the king of all Mustangs, the Shelby GT500, could manage to lap the Nordschleife.
Ford never released any information or footage of the GT500 on the Nürburgring that we were aware of - that is, until the guys at SVTPerformance.com put in a request for Mustang videos. Among the clips they received was never-seen, in-car footage of the Shelby GT500 lapping the circuit. And boy did it hustle.
Although not quite official, the video seems to show the GT500 lapped the venerated German track in a touch under 7:40. That would make it a tick or two faster than the Camaro ZL1 - but what of the Z/28? By Chevy's quoted time, the Z/28 is still faster than the GT500, but SVTPerformance suggests GM may have fudged the numbers a bit and scrubbed half a second or so off their lap time.

Project Ugly Horse: Part VI

Solid axle? What solid axle?
I was fully prepared to embark on a seven-day journey down a rabbit hole of broken bolts, internet hearsay and consternation.
This should not have gone this easily. Having a long and checkered history of simple projects punctuated by much wailing and gnashing of knuckles, I was fully prepared to embark on a seven-day journey down a rabbit hole of broken bolts, internet hearsay and consternation when I finally decided to lay hands on the '89 Mustang with the goal of relieving the car of its stock rear axle. Instead, it took less than a full morning's worth of work to carve the old 7.5-inch solid axle from its moorings and mock up something, well, different.

Ward's calls out Ford's EcoBoost engines for their crummy fuel economy

With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case. Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list. In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.