2007 Ford E-350 12-passenger Van 5.4l V8 Cruise Ctl 58k Texas Direct Auto on 2040-cars

Auto blog

EPA says fuel economy test for hybrids is accurate

The EPA says it stands behind its fuel economy test for hybrid vehicles following controversy about the testing process after Ford C-Max Hybrid customers and automotive journalists alike struggled to achieve 47 miles per gallon, the advertised mpg number, Automotive News reports. Ford responded to the issue almost two weeks ago by claiming that a 1970s-era EPA general label rule was responsible for the inaccurate mileage numbers, rerating the C-Max Hybrid's mpg numbers and offering customers rebates. Ford later said it didn't overstate the C-Max Hybrid's fuel economy and that it was surprised by the low numbers.
Ford technically didn't do anything wrong because it was following the general label rule, but agency regulator Christopher Grundler says the automaker was exploiting a loophole when it came up with the hybrid C-Max numbers, and that the testing process remains accurate. The general label rule allows vehicles that use the same engine and transmission and are in the same weight class to share fuel economy numbers, but it doesn't take into account other factors such as aerodynamic efficiency, which affects hybrids more drastically than non-hybrid vehicles. Ford originally used the Fusion Hybrid economy figures for the C-Max Hybrid and claimed the engineers didn't realize that its aerodynamic efficiency would affect fuel economy as much as it did.

Want a V8 on the cheap? Buy a work truck

In case you didn't notice, V8 cars have gotten pretty expensive. If you want a modern muscle car like the Dodge Challenger R/T, Ford Mustang GT, or Chevy Camaro SS, you'll need between $34,000 and $38,000 for a stripped out example of one. The cheapest of those is the Challenger, and the priciest is the Camaro. These are also the cheapest V8 cars the companies offer. But if you absolutely have to have a V8 for less, there is an option, work trucks. As it turns out, all of the Big Three offer their most basic work trucks with V8s. And because they're so basic, they're pretty affordable, especially when sticking with the standard two-wheel drive. A Ram 1500 Tradesman with a V8 can be had for as little as $29,840, which is a little more than $4,000 less than a Challenger R/T. For a bit more at $30,275, you can have a Chevy Silverado W/T, almost $8,000 less than a Camaro SS. The most expensive is the V8 Ford F-150 starts at a starting price of $30,670, which is a bit over $5,000 less than the Mustang. Of course you'll be in an ultra bare bones vehicle with few comforts, and the price will go up if you add stuff, but we're bargain hunting here, and sacrifices are sometimes necessary. Besides, what you lose in comfort, you gain in loads of cargo space and towing (try to look at the bright side). Also, as a side note, all three trucks are available with optional electronic locking rear differentials. At the discounted price of these trucks, you still get a heaping helping of power. The most potent of the trio is the Ram 1500 Tradesman with 395 horsepower and 410 pound-feet of torque generated by a 5.7-liter V8. Compared with the Challenger R/T, the Ram is up by 20 horsepower and they're tied for torque. The value proposition is even more stark between the two vehicles when looking at the price per horsepower. Each pony in the Ram costs $75.54, while the Challenger charges you $90.91. The Challenger is also more expensive per horsepower than its close competitors. The F-150's 5.0-liter V8 is just barely behind the Ram with 395 horsepower and 400 pound-feet of torque. That's still more power than the Challenger, and it matches the torque of the 2017 Mustang GT. On the down side, it still would be down 20 horsepower on that same 2017 Mustang, and it's behind by 60 horsepower and 20 pound-feet on the new 2018 Mustang GT. The F-150 also just edges out the Mustang in the dollar per horsepower measure.

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.