1999 Ford Ranger Xlt Extended Cab Pickup 2-door 4.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Detroit 3 to implement delayed unified towing standards for 2015

Car buyers have a responsibility to be well-informed consumers. That's not always a very simple task, but some guidelines are self-evident. If you live in a very snowy climate, you generally know a Ford Mustang or Chevrolet Camaro might not be as viable a vehicle choice as an all-wheel drive Explorer or Traverse, for example. If you want a fuel-efficient car, it's generally a good idea to know the difference between a diesel and a hybrid. But what if it's kind of tough to be an informed consumer? What if the information you need is more difficult to come by, or worse, based on different standards for each vehicle? Well, in that case, you might be a truck shopper. For years, customers of light-duty pickups have had to suffer through different ratings of towing capacities for each brand. For 2015 model year trucks, though, that will no longer be a problem. According to Automotive News, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler Group have announced that starting with next year's models, a common standard will be used to measure towing capacity. The Detroit Three will join Toyota, which adopted the Society of Automotive Engineers' so-called SAE J2807 standards way back in 2011. The standard was originally supposed to be in place for MY2013, but concerns that it would lower the overall stated capacity for trucks led Detroit automakers to pass. Ford originally passed, claiming it'd wait until its new F-150 was launched to adopt the new standards, leading GM and Ram to follow suit. Nissan, meanwhile, has said it will adopt the new standards as its vehicles are updated, meaning the company's next-generation Titan should adhere to the same tow ratings as its competitors. While the adoption of SAE J2807 will be helpful for light-duty customers, those interested in bigger trucks will still be left with differing standards. There is no sign of the new tow standards being adopted for the heavy-duty market.

Big electric trucks won't save the planet, says the NYT

When The New York Times decides that an issue is an issue, be prepared to read about it at length. Rarely will a week passes these days when the esteemed news organization doesn’t examine the realities, myths and alleged benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles, and even The Atlantic joins in sometimes. That revolution, marked by changes in manufacturing, consumer habits and social “consciousness,” may in fact be upon us. Or it may not. Nonetheless, the newspaper appears committed to presenting to the public these pros and cons. In this recently published article titled, “Just How Good for the Planet Is That Big Electric Pickup Truck?”—wow, thatÂ’s a mouthful — the Times focuses on the “bigness” of the current and pending crop of EVs, and how that impacts or will impact the environment and road safety. This is not what news organizations these days are fond of calling “breaking news.” In October, we pointed to an essay in The Atlantic that covered pretty much the same ground, and focused on the Hummer as one particular villain, In the paper and online on Feb. 18, the Times' Elana Shao observes how “swapping a gas pickup truck for a similar electric one can produce significant emissions savings.” She goes on: “Take the Ford F-150 pickup truck compared with the electric F-150 Lightning. The electric versions are responsible for up to 50 percent less greenhouse gas emissions per mile.” But she right away flips the argument, noting the heavier electric pickup trucks “often require bigger batteries and more electricity to charge, so they end up being responsible for more emissions than other smaller EVs. Taking into consideration the life cycle emissions per mile, they end up just as polluting as some smaller gas-burning cars.” Certainly, itÂ’s been drummed into our heads that electric cars donÂ’t run on air and water but on electricity that costs money, and that the public will be dealing with “the shift toward electric SUVs, pickup trucks and crossover vehicles, with some analysts estimating that SUVs, pickup trucks and vans could make up 78 percent of vehicle sales by 2025." No-brainer alert: Big vehicles cost more to charge. And then thereÂ’s the safety question, which was cogently addressed in the Atlantic story. Here Shao reiterates data documenting the increased risks of injuries and deaths caused by larger, heavier vehicles.

Stocks down as automakers, Boeing lead China's hit list in trade spat

Shares in U.S. exporters of everything from planes to tractors fell on Wednesday after China retaliated against the Trump administration's tariff plans by proposing duties on key U.S. imports including soybeans, beef and chemicals. U.S. automakers' products are prominent on China's list of tariff targets, yet shares of automakers ended higher on Wednesday as Wall Street stocks changed course in the afternoon when investors' trade fears subsided. Tesla shares closed 7.3 percent higher at $286.94, Ford shares gained 1.6 percent to close at $11.33, and GM shares were up 3 percent at $38.03. Aircraft maker Boeing closed down 1 percent, weighing the most on the Dow Jones Industrial Average as documents from China's Ministry of Commerce and the U.S. manufacturer showed the move would affect some older Boeing narrowbody models. It was not immediately clear how much the tariffs would impact its newer aircraft. Boeing said it was assessing the situation while analysts from JP Morgan said the proposals from China looked to have been calibrated carefully to avoid a major impact on the planemaker. Fellow Dow component 3M lost as much as 2.4 percent. And farming equipment maker Deere lost nearly $10 per share at its lowest. The company urged the two countries to work toward a resolution to "limit uncertainty for farmers and avoid meaningful disruptions to agricultural trade." The speed with which the trade spat between Washington and Beijing is ratcheting up — the Chinese government took less than 11 hours to respond with its own measures — led to a sharp selloff in global stock markets and commodities. China was hitting back against U.S. President Donald Trump's plans to impose tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese goods with similar tariffs on U.S. goods even as Trump said the country is "not in a trade war with China." "Everybody knew they were going to retaliate. The question was how strong of a retaliation. Today's move clearly shows that they mean business," said Adam Sarhan, chief executive of 50 Park Investments in New York. China levied 25 percent additional tariffs on U.S. goods, but unlike Washington's list that covers many obscure industrial items, Beijing's covers 106 key U.S. imports including soybeans, planes, cars, whiskey and chemicals. Trump denied that the tit-for-tat moves amounted to a trade war between the world's two economic superpowers.