1968 Ford Ranchero Gt 5.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford GT dominates Le Mans qualifying, gets slapped with performance adjustment

Fifty years after Bruce McLaren and Chris Amon drove the Ford GT40 to victory at the 24 Hours of Le Mans, Ford is poised for a historic return to the Circuit de la Sarthe. The new Ford GT took the top two qualifying positions in the LMGTE Pro class, and four of the top five. Ferrari's 488 filled in the rest of the spots in the top seven, the first two from AF Corse. In other words, we're primed for a reboot of the classic Ford-Ferrari feud at this year's race. Or not, as the ACO, which organizes the 24 Hours of Le Mans, announced sweeping pre-race Balance of Performance (BOP) adjustments this morning that make this year's GT class anybody's race. In LMP1, last year's overall winner Porsche locked up the top two spots with the 919 Hybrid and will lead the entire field at race start. Toyota's two-car factory effort followed with qualifying times 1.004 and 2.170 seconds behind the pole lap. Audi rounds out the manufacturer-backed LMP1 class in fifth and sixth. Full qualifying results can be found here. The storyline for the GT cars is perfect - some say too perfect. Ford's class-leading times came after BOP adjustment to the Corvette Racing C7.R before qualifying. BOP is intended to level the playing field in the class by adjusting power, ballast, and fuel capacity. (Check out this explainer video for more, or even just if you love French accents.) But the process is riddled with unknowns and ripe for accusations of sandbagging. That is, if the Ford cars were intentionally slow in practice they could hope for BOP adjustment to improve their race chances. On the Corvette side, last year's GTE Pro winner went from the top of the field to the bottom, barely improving from practice to qualifying. If you think Le Mans is as rigged at the NBA Playoffs, well, it's not that simple. Because if Ford and Ferrari held back until qualifying - the eighth-place Porsche 911 RSR is three-and-a-half seconds off the class pole time - it was a pretty dumb strategy. This morning, the ACO tried to put things back in order by limiting the boost in the Ford GT's twin-turbo V6 and adding 11 pounds of ballast. Ferrari was also given extra weight but allowed more fuel capacity. The Corvette and Aston Martin teams were both given breaks on their air restrictors, which will allow their engines to make more power. Both Ford and Porsche also received extra fuel capacity.

Should reflective paint earn automakers EPA credits?

No matter where you look around the world, governments are cracking down on vehicle emissions and aiming for higher fuel economy standards. Generally, automakers are pushing back against the increased regulation, and in the US, General Motors, Ford, and FCA US are looking for new compromises. The Big Three want to the EPA to grant them retroactive emissions credits for using tech that they claim reduces CO2 but not on the government agency's on-road testing. Among these technologies are things like reflective paint and glass, LED lights, ventilated seats, stop/start, and more efficient air conditioning compressors. Starting with the 2014 model year, the automakers can receive credits for a few grams per mile reductions on models with some of these solutions, according to Automotive News. However, the companies are also petitioning the EPA to make the credits apply to earlier vehicles with them, as well. The emissions advantages for systems like stop/start and less polluting AC refrigerants seem fairly obvious. For reflective paint and glass, the belief is that keeping a vehicle interior cooler should mean a lower need for air conditioning and therefore a decrease in CO2. Margo Oge, the former boss of the EPA's Office of Transportation Air Quality, told Automotive News these credits are part of the plan. "That's the whole point of what we tried to establish," she said. "We wanted companies to invest in and develop these technologies." The EPA wants vehicle emissions at the corporate average equivalent of 54.4 miles per gallon fuel economy by 2025, and so far that seems achievable. It will translate to less than 40 mpg on the EPA sticker. In a report last summer, the industry was about 10 grams per mile of CO2 better than the rules required, and that was solely based on 2012 model year vehicles. In an update for 2013, the companies were up to 12 grams per mile beyond targets. News Source: Automotive News - sub. req.Image Credit: Mark Humphrey / AP Photo Government/Legal Green Ford GM Emissions Fuel Efficiency FCA fca us

Why Edmunds took a sledgehammer to its 2015 Ford F-150

The discussion around repair bills for the aluminum-bodied 2015 Ford F-150 pickup continued from the beginning of last year to the end, and haven't abated; as an aside, some Tesla Model S owners have been shocked at disquieting repair estimates for minor damage to their aluminum wunder-sedans. Edmunds decided to inject some fact into the fray: it bought a $52,000 long-term 2015 F-150 and clouted it with an eight-pound sledgehammer. Twice. The rear of the bedside took the impacts since it couldn't be replaced, it would have to be repaired. To the pickup's credit, the only reason associate editor Travis Langness hit it twice was that the first sledgehammer blow didn't do as much damage as Edmunds wanted. After the second, the visible damage included the two direct impacts, a few creases, and a cracked taillight, so they drove the pickup to Santa Monica Ford to get an estimate, complete with a fictitious story about how the damage occurred and the mercy plea that Langness was paying for the repair out-of-pocket. In Part 2 Langness hits on some of the details with getting the truck fixed, such as the massively expensive taillight and the list of tools Ford recommends dealers have to work on aluminum. But he was promised he'd have his truck back in seven days, and Santa Monica Ford got it back to him in seven days. In Part 3 we get the bill. It's not small, but it's quite a bit less than it could have been if the service manager had charged Edmunds the official labor rate for aluminum. We're not going to spoil it here, so check out the videos above and below for the beginning and the end, and head over to Edmunds for the complete story about how it all happened and some riffing on the repair numbers. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Related Video: