1993 Ford Ranger Xl on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Jaguar design boss admits X-Type was a mistake

History has a way of repeating itself, especially in the auto industry. When Jaguar was owned by Ford, the British brand attempted to field a competitor for the BMW 3 Series, called the X-Type. Based on the bones of a Ford Mondeo, it aped the styling of Jaguar's flagship model, the XJ, while borrowing liberally from the Ford parts bin. That was 2001.
Now, in 2013, Jaguar is planning a new 3 Series challenger based on the platform previewed by the C-X17 Concept, while Ford is attempting to take the latest Mondeo upmarket. The moves have both brands recognizing where, why, and how the X-Type failed. "It didn't look mature or powerful or anything. It was just a car," Jaguar's current head of advanced design, Julian Thomson, told PistonHeads. Basing the X-Type on a front-drive car while giving it styling that was meant for a rear-driver lead to proportions that "were plainly wrong," Thomson told PH. Ford's European head of quality, Gunnar Herrmann, added that the X-Type was "a fake Jaguar, because every piece I touch is Ford."
For what it's worth, the X-Type's successor in the segment will sport rear-drive, with plenty of input from Ian Callum. Thomson described the new model, which would challenge the 3 Series as having, "Big wheels right to the ends of the car, low bonnet, short overhangs, very low cabins." Sounds good to us.

2015 Fisker-Galpin Rocket Quick Spin [w/video]

There is no shortage of fast Mustangs these days. Roush and Saleen will tune your ordinary 'Stang into something really special. Ford itself offers hot coupes like the new Shelby GT350. Don't even get me started on the endless aftermarket catalogs full of bolt-on whats-its and performance upgrades. Standing out within the huge crowd of tuned Mustangs is hard to do. But you'll definitely notice this one. "I always wanted to do a Mustang," Henrik Fisker told me as we walked toward his latest creation, the Rocket, parked outside the Inn at Spanish Bay in Pebble Beach, CA. The man knows a thing or two about design, after all. He penned the BMW Z8, as well as the Aston Martin DB9 and V8 Vantage. But this Rocket is, well, ugly. The rear end isn't totally terrible, and those 21-inch wheels are sort of cool, but taken as a whole, it looks like it swallowed something it doesn't like the taste of. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder – or perhaps, the creator – so we'll let Mr. Fisker explain why the car looks the way it does. See the video below for his brief design walkaround. If you can get past the looks, there's a world of performance to unleash, thanks to the boys at Galpin Auto Sports – the same folks responsible for the GTR1 I drove last year. The Mustang's 5.0-liter V8 gets a 2.9-liter Whipple supercharger that improves output to 725 horsepower (the torque figure isn't available), and the car's suspension has been thoroughly reworked to help put all that grunt to the ground. It's very good, yet very familiar. Let me explain. Driving Notes Like the stock Mustang, it's really easy to drive. The car fires up with a growl, you move the shifter into first gear, and the action of engagement is as solid as it is in the normal 5.0-liter car. Both the clutch and throttle have a progressive action, so it's super easy to launch the Rocket (sorry). Once you get going, there's a ton of power to unleash. It doesn't smack you in the face right up front, though – the power delivery is smooth and linear. Easy to manage, too, thanks to that slick six-speed manual transmission. Credit Ford (and Getrag) for making a manual that's able to handle so much extra grunt. That said, the Rocket feels like your typical fast Mustang. It goes like hell in a straight line and there isn't a ton of steering feel. Galpin retuned the electronic power-assisted steering, but it's still too light considering the added power of the car.

2016: The year of the autonomous-car promise

About half of the news we covered this year related in some way to The Great Autonomous Future, or at least it seemed that way. If you listen to automakers, by 2020 everyone will be driving (riding?) around in self-driving cars. But what will they look like, how will we make the transition from driven to driverless, and how will laws and infrastructure adapt? We got very few answers to those questions, and instead were handed big promises, vague timelines, and a dose of misdirection by automakers. There has been a lot of talk, but we still don't know that much about these proposed vehicles, which are at least three years off. That's half a development cycle in this industry. We generally only start to get an idea of what a company will build about two years before it goes on sale. So instead of concrete information about autonomous cars, 2016 has brought us a lot of promises, many in the form of concept cars. They have popped up from just about every automaker accompanied by the CEO's pledge to deliver a Level 4 autonomous, all-electric model (usually a crossover) in a few years. It's very easy to say that a static design study sitting on a stage will be able to drive itself while projecting a movie on the windshield, but it's another thing entirely to make good on that promise. With a few exceptions, 2016 has been stuck in the promising stage. It's a strange thing, really; automakers are famous for responding with "we don't discuss future product" whenever we ask about models or variants known to be in the pipeline, yet when it comes to self-driving electric wondermobiles, companies have been falling all over themselves to let us know that theirs is coming soon, it'll be oh so great, and, hey, that makes them a mobility company now, not just an automaker. A lot of this is posturing and marketing, showing the public, shareholders, and the rest of the industry that "we're making one, too, we swear!" It has set off a domino effect – once a few companies make the guarantee, the rest feel forced to throw out a grandiose yet vague plan for an unknown future. And indeed there are usually scant details to go along with such announcements – an imprecise mileage estimate here, or a far-off, percentage-based goal there. Instead of useful discussion of future product, we get demonstrations of test mules, announcements of big R&D budgets and new test centers they'll fund, those futuristic concept cars, and, yeah, more promises.