1957 Ford Ranchero Custom 5.8l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Entertainment Weekly gets a peek into the 'Ford vs. Ferrari' film

The 20th Century Fox film "Ford v Ferrari" is scheduled to open Nov. 15. The movie tells a story enthusiasts can't get tired of, and that Ford has turned into two profitable automotive revivals: the double-cross that led to the no-expense-spared revenge that spawned the Ford GT40 and four successive victories at Le Mans. Entertainment Weekly spoke to the primary actors in the piece and got shots from the set. Matt Damon plays Carroll Shelby, the man Ford recruited to run the GT40 program after the race car performed poorly in its first year of international racing in 1964. Christian Bale plays Ken Miles, an English version of Shelby who could build and drive winning cars. Miles was so good that when racing one of his "Miles Specials," a Cooper-Porsche he improved and drove for California Porsche dealer Johnny von Neumann, he beat the factory Porsches so often that the Stuttgart automaker took Miles' car away. The movie focuses on the first year of the GT40's winning run, in 1966 after the car had become the GT40 MkII. Bale calls the story a "David vs. Goliath vs. Goliath" battle, because Shelby and Miles had to fight Ford as well as Ferrari. "It's these two friends figuring out how do you deal with these a–holes in suits who know nothing about racing," he said. And even though the cars won the fight on track, the two men didn't always win the fights with their paymasters. The three-way finish Ford staged at the end of the race cheated Miles of victory. Miles had been laps ahead of the second-place GT40 driven by Bruce McLaren at the time, but slowed down to let the car catch up. After the three-abreast finish, race organizers said McLaren's car started the race behind Miles, and by finishing with Miles had covered 60 feet more than Miles during the race. They declared McLaren and Chris Amon the winners. The story of how they got to that point — which director James Mangold called "Butch and Sundance in the world of racing" — promises more twists and turns than the Le Mans circuit, and some open flame; video on YouTube shows Damon-as-Shelby being set on fire in one scene. We admit to a bit of concern when Mangold says, "This is much more of a relationship movie and less a historical document." Yet it sounds like he's done his best to get the racing right, so all won't be lost no matter what. Head over to EW to check out the full story and more photos.

A cool boost to turbocharger performance

Since the advent of the forced-induction engine, we have been looking for ways to get every drop of performance we can. There are many approaches to getting additional power using better intercooling, water injection, or even adding nitrous oxide. One take on a short instant burst of power is being researched by Mahle and involves providing supercooled air to an engine, which allows it to burn a leaner fuel mixture and produce more power. The supercooling idea is not new and was examined by Ford in 1993 on the Mustang Mach III concept car, then brought up again in 2003 with the SVT F-150 Lightning concept. Ford called its system the SuperCooler; it was designed to work with any turbocharged or supercharged engine equipped with a water-to-air intercooler. The system on the Lightning concept used a small tank of antifreeze that was hooked up to the truck air conditioning compressor. The air conditioning compressor cooled the antifreeze down to about 30 degrees. The other side of the tank was hooked up to the air-to-water intercooler, which usually had a temperature over 100 degrees. Once the antifreeze was circulated from the tank into the intercooler, it would lower the intercooler temperature and provide for a cooler, denser air charge into the engine; the result was around 50 extra horsepower for a burst of about 30 seconds to a minute, depending on the size of the tank. The system for the Lightning was to be offered as a $750 option and would have been targeted towards drag racers and the like, as it could be used for a run down the drag strip and then re-cooled by the time the truck was back in line. The system was fairly non-intrusive – it only weighed about 25 pounds and did not require a new compressor or intercooler. But as with many concepts, it was ultimately scrapped. The technology was always stuck in the back of my mind, but with larger and more powerful engines being produced it could not find its place. With the advent of new fuel economy standards, we have seen small-displacement turbocharged engines pop up and they seem like the perfect candidate for this type of technology. Ford's EcoBoost 1.0-liter three-cylinder turbocharged engine, as used in the Fiesta and Focus, is one such candidate for this technology. It would add a negligent amount of weight but could provide a boost of 10 to 20 horsepower when needed, like merging onto the highway or catching up to traffic.

Full-size trucks are the best and worst vehicles in America

You don’t need me to tell you that Americans love pickup trucks. And the bigger the truck, the more likely it seems to be seen as an object of desire. Monthly and yearly sales charts are something of a broken record; track one is the Ford F-Series, followed by the Chevy Silverado, RamÂ’s line of haulers, and somewhere not far down the line, the GMC Sierra. The big Japanese players fall in place a bit further below — not that thereÂ’s anything wrong with a hundred thousand Toyota Tundra sales — and one-size-smaller trucks like the Toyota Tacoma, Ford Ranger and Chevy Colorado have proven awfully popular, too. Along with their sales numbers, the average cost of new trucks has similarly been on the rise. Now, I donÂ’t pretend to have the right to tell people what they should or shouldnÂ’t buy with their own money. But I just canÂ’t wrap my head around why a growing number of Americans are choosing to spend huge sums of money on super luxurious pickup trucks. Let me first say I do understand the appeal. People like nice things, after all. I know I do. I myself am willing to spend way more than the average American on all sorts of discretionary things, from wine and liquor to cameras and lenses. IÂ’ve even spent my own money on vehicles that I donÂ’t need but want anyway. A certain vintage VW camper van certainly qualifies. I also currently own a big, inefficient SUV with a 454-cubic-inch big block V8. So if your answer to the question IÂ’m posing here is that youÂ’re willing to pay the better part of a hundred grand on a chromed-out and leather-lined pickup simply because you want to, then by all means — not that you need my permission — go buy one. The part I donÂ’t understand is this: Why wouldn't you, as a rational person, rather split your garage in half? On one side would sit a nice car that is quiet, rides and handles equally well and gets above average fuel mileage. Maybe it has a few hundred gasoline-fueled horsepower, or heck, maybe itÂ’s electric. On the other side (or even outside) is parked a decent pickup truck. One that can tow 10,000 pounds, haul something near a ton in the bed, and has all the goodies most Americans want in their cars, like cruise control, power windows and locks, keyless entry, and a decent infotainment screen.