2004 Ford Thunderbird Convertible 3.9l V8, 70-k Miles! Chrome Rims! In N.c. on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2020 Kia Telluride comparison: Specs and pricing versus other 3-row crossovers

The 2020 Kia Telluride is a three-row family crossover that slots into the top spot in Kia's SUV lineup. It does not replace the three-row Sorento — rather, this bigger, more luxurious model is intended for those who need even more space. And that they'll certainly get, because as you'll see below, the Telluride is one of the biggest crossovers on the market. In this comparison of engine specs, dimensions, pricing and photos, we'll take a look at the 2020 Telluride versus the Honda Pilot, Subaru Ascent, Toyota Highlander, the all-new 2020 Ford Explorer, and the Telluride's mechanically related cousin, the equally new 2020 Hyundai Palisade. Of course, those just represent one corner of an iceberg that also includes the Mazda CX-9, Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia and Dodge Durango. Passenger space Like most other entries in the three-row segment, the Telluride offers seven- or eight-passenger capacity. The difference is determined by whether you get second-row captain's chairs. Judging by the Telluride's 55.3 inches of third-row shoulder room, it looks like it won't be quite as spacious with three kids across back there as it would be in the Pilot or Ascent. Two inches can make a big difference in this regard. Third-row legroom is very competitive, however, and if it's indeed just as spacious back there as the Pilot and Ascent, two full-sized adults should be able to fit quite comfortably. Its third-row headroom is also quite good, one of the areas in which the Telluride surpasses its otherwise comparably sized Palisade cousin. If you're wondering about second-row space, there's really nothing outstanding to glean from these specs. As expected for this segment, it's huge, with abundant leg- and headroom. There should be no problem fitting child seats. Cargo space The Telluride would seem to have class-leading space behind its raised third-row seat. If we were to guess, this is the result of its rather boxy tailgate and roofline design. This should also help explain why it has more maximum space than all but the Explorer. Space with the third row lowered is middle of the pack, but when you're talking about vehicles this size, the differences in cubic feet behind the second-row ultimately don't matter much. 2020 Kia Telluride View 46 Photos Performance and Fuel Economy The Kia Telluride has the same powertrain as the Hyundai Palisade, although their tuning and consequent driving experience may differ even if their specs are seemingly the same.

Question of the Day: Most degraded car name?

When Ford came up with a not-so-sporty version of the Pinto and slapped Mustang badges on it in 1974, that was a low point for the Mustang name. When Chrysler applied the venerable Town & Country name on perfectly functional but unglamorous minivans, it saddened many of us. But perhaps the biggest demotion for a once-proud model came when, in 1988, General Motors imported a misery-enhancing Daewoo from Korea and called it the Pontiac LeMans. The original Pontiac LeMans was a great-looking midsize car with fairly advanced (for the time) suspension design and engine options including potent V8s and a screaming overhead-cam straight-six. The Daewoo-based Pontiac LeMans was a cramped, shoddy hooptie that served only to ruin the LeMans name forever, while stealing sales from the Suzuki-based Chevrolet Sprint. Sure, using the once-respected Monterey name on the Mercurized Ford Freestar was bad, but Mercury didn't have long to live at that point. I say the downward spiral of the LeMans name was the most agonizing in automotive history. What do you think? Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Auto News Ford Mercury Pontiac Automotive History Classics questions ford pinto names

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time. The changes will not only affect the window sticker, but also the effect that the C-Max Hybrid (and the five other Ford vehicles that had their fuel economy figures lowered last week) have on Ford's compliance with greenhouse gas and CAFE rules for model year 2013 and 2014. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? There are two technical answers to that question, which we've got below, as well as some context for how Ford's mistakes will play out in the bigger world of green vehicles. Let's start with Ford's second error, which is easy to do since we documented it in detail last year (the first, needing to do a software update, was also covered). The basic gist is that Ford used the general label rule (completely legally) to test the Fusion Hybrid and use those numbers to figure out how efficient the C-Max Hybrid is. That turned out to be a mistake, since the two vehicles are different enough that their numbers were not comparable, despite having the same engine, transmission and test weight, as the rules require. You can read more details here. Ford's Said Deep admitted that the TRLHP issue is completely separate from the general label error from last year. Now let's move on to last week's announcement. What's interesting is that the new recalculation of the MPG numbers – downward, of course – was caused by a completely separate issue, something called the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP). Ford's Said Deep admitted to AutoblogGreen that the TRLHP issue had nothing to do with the general label error from last year.