1966 2dr Ford Fairlane + Built Boss 351 Cleveland, C-6 Tranny & Stall Converter on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2021 BMW M3 and M4 vs all the high-powered sport sedans and coupes

Should you have a found a way to get past that schnoz, you've probably digested some of the basic specs for the all-new 2021 BMW M3 sedan and M4 coupe specs. They're plenty impressive. There's also, basically, two sets of them thanks to the regular and Competition versions that differ in engine output and transmission type.  But how do they compare to other ultra sport sedans and coupes? Well, we were wondering that too, so we fired up the Autoblog Comparison Spreadsheet Generator 5000 (aka me chained to my computer in a dark basement).  Sadly, there are surprisingly few competitors for the 2021 BMW M3. Rival sedans include the Mercedes-AMG C 63 and the Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio, along with the Audi RS 5 Sportback sedan/coupe/hatchback thing. There's no more Lexus IS F, the Cadillac CT4 Blackwing has yet to arrive and Jaguar doesn't offer a spicy XE R.  Happily, there are more coupe rivals for the 2021 BMW M4, including the two-door versions of the AMG and Audi as well as the Lexus RC F. I also included the Ford Shelby GT350 and Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE. On paper, they align incredibly well. On the street and on a track, I can personally attest that these Americans are fully capable of keeping up and/or bettering the fancy-pants luxury brands (and let's not forget there are even more powerful, hardcore versions available). If they don't align in terms of price or prestige, whatever. OK, let's get to the spreadsheet. Let's start with the coupes and note that I didn't bother listing the dimensions for the M4 Competition and C 63 S as they are identical to their "lesser" siblings.  I won't bother burning words explaining what you can see on the chart. Instead, I'll point out a few things that stood out to me. First, BMW M comes awfully close to matching the output of AMG's twin-turbo V8 despite having two fewer cylinders. Similarly, Audi manages to better the 0-60 time of the M4 Competition and tie the C 63 S despite being WAY down on power. It's not like it weighs less. Magic? Second, and speaking of 0-60 times, remember the importance that transmission and drivetrain make with them. It's not just horsepower and torque. An automatic will be quicker and easier to launch than a manual, while all-wheel drive provides more instantaneous and beneficial grip.

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

2015 Ford Transit

As a segment, fullsize vans are stealth-fighter invisible on most consumers' radar. Visit a dealership for any of the four brands that offer them and you'll be lucky to find even one on display. These are commercial vehicles primarily, even more so than pickup trucks. Vans are the shuttles for plumbers, caterers, carpenters, concrete layers, masons, electricians, florists and flooring, and a huge part of this country's productivity is accomplished using them. At the moment, Ford is the 800-pound gorilla in that room - fully 41 percent of commercial vehicles wear a Blue Oval. So when Ford announced three years ago it would be ditching its commercial bread-and-butter E-Series, it meant the Transit that would be replacing the Econoline had huge, 53-year-old shoes to fill.
We were still a bit nostalgic about Econoline vans going away until going directly from the Transit first drive in Kansas City to an E-350 airport shuttle. Climb up through the Econoline's tiny double doors and bang your head on the opening, crouch all the way to your seat then enjoy a loud, rattle-prone, creaky, harsh ride on beam-hard seats while struggling to see out the low windows. This is an experience nearly every traveler has had. By comparison, the Transits we'd just spent two days with were every bit of the four decades better they needed to be. It cannot be understated just how much better the Transit is in every single way. The load floor is barely more than knee high. There's a huge side door, and hitting your head on a door opening is nearly impossible. Stand up all the way if you're under six-foot, six-inches - no more half-hunching down the aisle. There are windows actually designed to be looked out of. The ride is buttery smooth, no booming vibration from un-restrained metal panels and no squeaks. Conversations can be held at normal levels rather than yelling over the roar of an ancient V8. The seats are comfortable. The AC is cold. There are cupholders.
Enough anecdote-laying, what's in a Transit? We're talking about a very fullsized unibody van that's enjoyed a 49-year history in Ye Olde Europe. This latest iteration is part of the "One Ford" initiative, so it was designed as a global offering from the get-go, eschewing the body-on-frame construction the E-Series has used since 1975. Instead, the Transit integrates a rigid ladder frame into an overall frame construction made of high-strength cold-rolled and boron steel. The suspension is a simple but well-tuned Macpherson strut array up front with a rear solid axle and leaf springs.