1992 Ford Superduty * Brand New Weight Bearing Rear Axle on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford Mustang challenges Lamborghini in amazing drift battle

Engines scream and tires billow with smoke as Vaughn Gittin Jr. and Daigo Saito stage a drift battle through an abandoned Japanese resort that looks like a Russian village in this stunning clip. The high-performance ballet of these amazing machines sliding around makes this one of the best videos of the year. To fight this duel, Gittin straps into his 550-horsepower Ford Mustang, and Saito meets the pony car's challenge with a drift-prepped Lamborghini Murcielago. The drivers hit a curving road and show expert car control as the men slide these very different vehicles just inches from each other. Eventually, night descends, and they add some fire to the scene to give the stunts a more apocalyptic look. The production values for this short clip are phenomenal, and the editing makes the viewer feel right in the middle of the action. If you want to get behind the scenes of this impressive display of drifting, Speedhunters did a great job capturing the event in photos. Related Video:

How privacy fears are driving automakers in the age of the connected car [w/poll]

A recent GAO report concluded car companies don't adequately disclose how and why they share location data. As cars collect and store more and more data about the whereabouts of their drivers, automakers are responding to critics who say they should be more transparent about how those details are used. Ford is hiring a global privacy policy attorney to craft the company's customer privacy policies in the era of connected and autonomous cars. "In this emerging space, there is an important need to address customer privacy policies," reads a job description posted on the "people and careers" portion of the company's website. "As part of our compliance and ethics organization at Ford, this person will have an immediate and direct impact in shaping existing and future policy and corporate thinking in this area." Ford is creating the new position, based at its Dearborn headquarters, at a time technology advances are outpacing privacy protections. Earlier this year, a report from the federal government concluded car companies don't adequately disclose to motorists how and why they share location data. That report, from the Government Accountability Office, found many car companies did not describe how they shared location data, did not allow consumers to request their data be deleted and that there was a "wide variation" in how car companies retained vehicle-specific or identifiable location data. It noted there is increased risk of location data being used in ways "consumers did not intend." Ford was one of 10 companies the GAO surveyed while compiling its report. Customers are opting to share that data largely by using features like maps and turn-by-turn direction that are run by a vehicle's telematics unit. Depending on the company, it can be unclear how that data is collected, retained or shared. At the time the GAO report was issued, AAA, the nation's largest motoring club, urged carmakers to be more transparent in how they handle data and to offer stronger security protections. Shaping Autonomous Car Regulations At Ford, the new hire could change how the company handles that data. According to the job description, the successful applicant will, "demonstrate visionary thinking around privacy strategy – imagine how consumer and employee expectations around privacy may evolve and how business should adapt, develop approaches that maximize the benefit of data sharing for consumers and business, etc." (Emphasis from Ford).

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.