1966 Ford Mustang on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford Mustang Mach-E fails Sweden's moose test

The infamous moose test has claimed another casualty. This time it's the Ford Mustang Mach-E AWD Long Range, which was tested in an electric four-way alongside the Tesla Model Y, Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Skoda Enyaq iV (an electric utility vehicle closely related to the Volkswagen ID.4 that is sold in the United States). According to the Swedish testers at Teknikens Varld, Ford's electric car not only failed to hit the speed necessary for a passing grade, it didn't perform well at slower speeds, either. To pass the outlet's moose test, a car has to complete a rapid left-right-straight S-shaped pattern marked by cones at a speed of at least 72 km/h (44.7 miles per hour). The test is designed to mimic the type of avoidance maneuver a driver would have to take in order to avoid hitting something that wandered into the road, which in Sweden may be a moose but could just as easily be a deer or some other member of the animal kingdom elsewhere in the world, or possibly a child or car backing into the motorway. Not only is the maneuver very aggressive, it's also performed with weights belted into each seat and more weight added to the cargo area to hit the vehicle's maximum allowable carrying capacity. The Mustang Mach-E only managed to complete the moose test at 68 km/h (42.3 mph), well below the passing-grade threshold. Even at much lower speeds, Teknikens Varld says the Mach-E (which boasts the highest carrying capacity and was therefore loaded with more weight than the rest of the vehicles tested in this quartet) is "too soft in the chassis" and suffers from "too slow steering." Proving that it is indeed possible to pass the test, the Hyundai and Skoda completed the maneuver at the 44.7-mph figure required for a passing grade and the Tesla did it at 46.6 mph, albeit with less weight in the cargo area. It's not clear whether other versions of the Mustang Mach-E would pass the test. It's also unknown if Ford will make any changes to its chassis tuning or electronic stability control software, as some other automakers have done after a poor performance from Teknikens Varld, to improve its performance in the moose test. Related video:

2015 Ford Transit Connect Wagon

The last time I tested a Ford Transit Connect, I needed to drive a group of friends to Boyne, MI, for a long weekend of skiing, snowboarding, and shenanigans. At roughly three hours, the trip is just long enough that my friends asked for something comfortable. A Range Rover would've been ideal. Perhaps a Mercedes-Benz GL or Cadillac Escalade. But no, I chose Transit Connect, to put Ford's small van formula to the test. The tiny van was near the end of its lifecycle in 2012, having debuted in Europe in 2003. Its age was reflected in its loud, underpowered, inefficient engine; noisy, harsh ride; and uncomfortable seats. It was so uncomfortable that we had to stop every hour just to stretch our legs. I didn't have such elaborate plans when this 2015 Transit Connect Wagon arrived in my driveway. But after a week behind the wheel, I can tell that road tripping in this van would be a far, far better experience. The most obvious change for the second-generation model is the styling. It's much better looking than the old TC, looking like the high-roofed spawn of a Focus and Escape. There are a few anomalies, though. First, note the word "Wagon" – that implies passenger van, while the cargo/work-minded Transit Connect is called "Van." Next, this Titanium model is only available on the longer-wheelbase, three-row Wagon. With the LWB configuration, the only tailgate option is a single-piece, lift-up hatch. If you want barn-style doors, get cozy with the short-wheelbase, two-row Transit Connect XLT. Regardless of body style, the Transit Connect Wagon's best styling feature is its enormous greenhouse that guarantees excellent visibility from any angle. The interior adopts a dash layout similar to the Focus. The heated leather seats – standard on the Titanium – are nice enough, but better still is that the chairs are actually comfortable now. The plastics on the dash and doors are still hard and scratchy, but fit and finish is solid. And with major contact points and switchgear that have been pilfered from other Ford products, including the steering wheel, the occasional bad bits in the cabin are easy enough to ignore. With room for three folks in the second row and two more in the back, the Transit Connect Wagon fills a role that is more utilitarian and spartan, but not much less versatile than traditional minivans. The middle row seats feature stadium-style raised seating, and both rows can slide forward and back or fold.

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.