F450 Crew Diesel 4x4 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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 will put solid axles under the Bronco as the off-roading gods intended

We've been wondering what sort of creature the Bronco would be since we first heard of the thing last October, when a union chairman spilled the beans on the SUV and the Ranger pickup. Ford confirmed a 2020 arrival date for the Bronco at the 2017 Detroit Auto Show, but at that point pretty much all we were sure of was that the Ranger and Bronco would be returning. The open question would be how hungry Ford was to spoil the Jeep Wrangler's solo party as a compact(ish) off-roader with dual solid axles, since the easiest thing would be to carry over the suspension design of the presumably related international Ford Ranger and its Everest SUV version: independent front suspension with either a leaf- (Ranger) or coil-suspended (Everest) solid rear axle. Enter Dana, the long-time supplier of Jeep stick axles, to confirm that the 2020 Bronco is getting a pair of them. That means solid axles front and rear, just like under a Wrangler. So reports Automotive News, citing an investor presentation from Dana. All signs so far, such as the report that the Bronco would be engineered by the same team in Australia that created the Ranger pickup, indicated that the Bronco would share a platform with the Ranger and thus be body-on-frame. The solid axle confirmation essentially confirms that theory. Some off-road-capable vehicles have paired solid axles with unibody frames, like the Jeep Cherokee (XJ generation) and Grand Cherokee (ZJ and WJ generations), but they are outliers. Generally, if you've got solid axles at both ends, they're going in a vehicle with a ladder frame. It also lends credence to the notion that our Bronco won't simply be an imported Everest, which might be too understated to stand out from lesser crossovers anyways. This is good news if you have Blue Oval in your blood and pine for a modern SUV that'll show up the Jeep guys on the trail. Less directly, it could mean a wholesale assault on the formula that makes Jeeps successful in the first place: the massive aftermarket of off-roading equipment and dress-up bits that appeal to Jeep buyers almost as much as a Trail Rated badge. At a minimum, Bronco enthusiasts can breathe easy that the reborn SUV won't merely be a light-duty crossover with styling "inspired" by true off-roaders. There's still a lot left to learn about the Bronco. Keep up to date with our running summary of everything we know about the returning off-roader.

Is it time for American carmakers to give up on dual-clutch transmissions? [w/poll]

Last week, in the midst of Detroit's first days seeking relief in Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code, Automotive News contributor Larry P. Vellequette penned an editorial suggesting that American car companies raise the white flag on dual clutch transmissions and give up on trying to persuade Americans to buy cars fitted with them. Why? Because, Vellequette says, like CVT transmissions, they "just don't sound right or feel right to American drivers." (Note: In the article, it's not clear if Vellequette is arguing against wet-clutch and dry-clutch DCTs or just dry-clutch DCTs, which is what Ford and Chrysler use.) The article goes on to state that Ford and Chrysler have experimented with DCTs and that both consumers and the automotive press haven't exactly given them glowing reviews, despite their quicker shifts and increased fuel efficiency potential compared to torque-converter automatic transmissions.
Autoblog staffers who weighed in on the relevance of DCTs in American cars generally disagreed with the blanket nature of Vellequette's statement that they don't sound or feel right, but admit that their lack of refinement compared to traditional automatics can be an issue for consumers. That's particularly true in workaday cars like the Ford Focus and Dodge Dart, both of which have come in for criticism in reviews and owner surveys. From where we sit, the higher-performance orientation of such transmissions doesn't always meld as well with the marching orders of everyday commuters (particularly if drivers haven't been educated as to the transmission's benefits and tradeoffs), and in models not fitted with paddle shifters, it's particularly hard for drivers to use a DCT to its best advantage.
Finally, we also note that DCT tuning is very much an evolving science. For instance, Autoblog editors who objected to dual-clutch tuning in the Dart have more recently found the technology agreeable in the Fiat 500L. Practice makes perfect - or at least more acceptable.