Automotive News & Reviews, Cars & Prices, Test Drives, Crashes

2010 Toyota Prius vs. 2010 Honda Insight: The Commute

Posted on 27. Oct, 2009 by admin.

Last week, we ran our latest Mileage Challenge featuring four ultra-fuel-efficient cars, and before that we rounded up six fuel-sippers to see which one was the best daily driver. But none of these reports put a brutal, real-life morning and evening commute to the test.

That’s exactly what I did in the new 2010 Honda Insight and 2010 Toyota Prius, the two most affordable hybrids on the road. We hear a lot of car shoppers say they buy hybrids to help save on their gas costs and cut down on emissions during their commute. But how did the two do in terms of fuel efficiency, comfort and entertainment for my often 90-minute morning commute and 45-minute afternoon commute? Let’s find out.

One thing our Mileage Challenge couldn’t take into account was morning cold starts and bumper-to-bumper traffic. Luckily, I could. One fresh morning I hopped into the Prius and headed to work via the infamous Kennedy Expressway. Here are the stats:

• 23.2 miles in a little over an hour
• Average speed: 20 mph
• Average mileage: 60.6 mpg

Before you shake your head in disbelief at the mileage figure, it was a nice 60-degree day so I didn’t use air conditioning — just vents (both cars went through the same treatment in this regard). I also used the electric-only EV mode for approximately 2.4 miles during the bumper-to-bumper portion of the drive, which was well under 20 mph. That really ratcheted up the mileage, but I think any Prius owner would use the EV mode in such a way since it is just a simple button push. It also gives you something to do while you’re sitting in traffic listening to traffic reports.

The Prius was a pleasant commute car with a nice sounding stereo that lacked an USB iPod interface, relatively comfortable seats and a sedate ride. Besides hitting that EV button, driving the Prius seemed like piloting any other car. At least in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

The afternoon commute went like this:

• 23.9 miles in about 45 minutes
• Average speed: 19 mph
• Average mileage: 55.0 mpg

Dring my afternoon commute, I didn’t use the EV mode and traffic was much lighter. I don’t know why my average speed was lower than the morning commute since the afternoon commute is much more open (less construction) and I routinely got up to 60 mph, which never happens in the morning drive. That easily knocked down my mileage by a few mpgs.

The huge difference between the two commutes wasn’t the dip in mileage; it was how the Prius changed in demeanor. At high speeds, road and wind noise is much more audible. This remains my biggest knock on the Prius overall.

How did the Honda handle the same route?

Its first morning went like this:

• 23.6 miles in about 70 minutes
• No average speed display
• Average mileage: 43.1 mpg

I hauled a two-drawer legal-sized filing cabinet in the Insight’s cargo area with the rear seats down, which weighed things down quite a bit. While a lot of my Cars.com colleagues think the Insight has a rough ride, I found that in bumper-to-bumper traffic there’s nothing really detracting from the ride, which is much like my experience in the Prius. What bugged me most in the Insight was how far you had to reach to fiddle with the stereo system. I liked that the model we tested had an USB iPod port, though.

However, the seats were nowhere near as comfortable as the Prius’ were. Our Insight was an EX model with a few minor upgrades that raised its price close to the Prius’ starting price, $21,300 and $22,000 respectively.

The ride home again was more wide open:

• 23.5 miles in about 40 minutes
• Average mileage: 45.3 mpg

This is where you can see the difference between the two cars’ hybrid systems. The Prius does better in slower bumper-to-bumper traffic, and the Insight’s mileage improves in higher-speed settings. Like the Prius, wind noise was really bad in the Insight at high speeds. Winds were also whipping something fierce — about 30 mph — during this afternoon commute, but the thin glass on both cars was a real detriment.

What does this exercise mean to you, the potential hybrid buyer? If you have a commute with light traffic, the Insight will return better mileage than its EPA ratings of 40/43 mpg city/highway. Whether you deal with heavy or light traffic in your commute, the Prius has good mileage while providing a better atmosphere for the driver. 

Continue Reading

2010 Nissan Nismo 370Z Video

Posted on 27. Oct, 2009 by admin.

Starting at almost $40,000, the 2010 Nissan Nismo 370Z keeps your attention because it is the ultimate Z, says Cars.com reviewer Mike Hanley. Despite a few shortcomings, Hanley had his hands full with the Nismo — a performance-oriented sports car with power to spare. Watch this video for his full take.

2010|Nissan|370Z

Continue Reading

Part 1 – What’s the Diff? Ford F-150 SVT Raptor vs. Dodge Ram Power Wagon

Posted on 27. Oct, 2009 by admin.

Words by John Stewart, Photos by John Stewart, Mike Levine, Ian Merritt

Our comparison of the 2010 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor and 2010 Dodge Ram Power Wagon is so large that we've split it up into four parts to make it easier to find the information and material you want to read first.

Part 1: Introduction, Suspension, Engine, Transmission
Part 2: Traction, Tires, Underbody
Part 3: Agility, Capability, Price, Summary
Part 4: Detailed Specifications

—

OK, we know what you’re going to say: “This is not an apples-to-apples comparison.” For these two 4×4 pickups, wheelbases, cabs, beds and running gear are not directly comparable.

One’s a crew cab, the other is an extended cab. One is based on a half-ton, personal-use platform; the other is a 1-ton commercial-use platform. One is made to go fast; the other to go slow. These two pickups are different animals, right from the start. Anyone can see that, Einstein, so put down your pen and save your e-mails. We’re comparing them anyway, because there are also quite a few intriguing similarities:

• Both trucks are off-road ready from the factory.
• Both supply off-road equipment that would be hard to duplicate in the aftermarket without great cost.
• Both represent the “ultimate setup” in the eyes of their manufacturers.
• Both are remarkably free of compromises that trade off desirable qualities for the sake of off-road performance.
• Both are still everyday drivers, with comfort, convenience and safety features consistent with the best new pickups, not to mention factory warranties.

And yet, the trucks are very different. If they were shoes, the Raptor would be high-tech running shoes. The Power Wagon would be waterproof hiking boots. Here’s how we came to that conclusion:

Suspension: IFS vs. Straight Axle
Both trucks have specialized suspension packages, designed to allow the suspension to travel freely and still enhance control. These two trucks address the issue with different technology. Both have leaf-spring/live axle suspensions in the rear end. It’s at the front where they differ.

The Raptor’s front suspension is race-bred double-wishbone IFS with triple-bypass Fox Racing Shocks. IFS suspensions track well in corners but have a limited range of travel. SVT engineers have equipped the Raptor with unique, long A-arms. These are strong, expensive pieces — the lower A-arm is aluminum; the upper is forged steel. They move the wheel and tire combination outward, providing a wide stance and longer travel arc. Ford says the front end will cycle 11.2 inches in the front, and 12.1 inches in the rear, which is a lot for any pickup. It’s quality travel, in the sense that the damping is exceptional. The Fox Shox are specially matched, position-sensitive internal bypass shocks, so they change their rate of damping depending on travel. As long as the tires are more or less in the center of their arc of travel, the shocks allow the wheel to move relatively freely, damping small inputs for a smooth ride. When the tire is forced toward the extreme limits of travel, the shocks become significantly stiffer, so the suspension doesn’t bottom out and larger impacts are heavily damped. As a result, damping is always appropriate for what the truck is doing. The wider stance improves stability and the IFS allows superior cornering control. It’s the kind of suspension that lets the Raptor run full-tilt down a dusty powerline road in control and, then, when it hits a surprise washed-out section, launches and lands soft and straight with hardly any rebound. You’ll have your heart in your mouth, but chances are it happens with no damage done.

The Power Wagon’s straight front axle/coil spring front suspension is strong, simple, and moves well side-to-side. Getting airborne is not what it was built to do, and what it gives up in high-speed cornering precision, it gets back in travel. The front axle has five locating links, a version of the Quadra-Link suspension. If that sounds familiar, it’s because that’s what Jeep uses. The Power Wagon’s front is akin to a hugely oversized version of a Jeep Cherokee XJ, but with 8-lug, 1-ton AAM Tru-Lock axles. It gets Bilstein gas shocks, located inside the coil springs, where they are protected from lateral loads regardless of suspension movement. Bilstein makes an expensive, high-quality gas shock that, like the Fox units, are practically impossible to bottom. They may not have the adjustability of the Fox triple-bypass units, but they are nicely matched to the job.

Then, because it has a straight front axle, Dodge was able to equip the Power Wagon with a trump card—a front axle disconnect. This allows for at least 32 inches of travel (and “sometimes greater” we’re told), allowing for a front wheel to extend downward almost the distance of an entire tire. On the opposite side, the tire stuffs up into the wheelwell until half has disappeared. It’s a traction enhancer that only works in the slowest, most difficult terrain, but makes a huge difference in those circumstances.

We’re told the Power Wagon can ramp better than 680 on a 30-degree RTI test before a tire lifts. The end result is that the Power Wagon suspension will routinely enable slow-but-steady speeds across the worst, nastiest, rockiest washed-out trails with fallen trees and stumps and long drops into holes. When you’re done, wash it and head out to dinner.

The Bottom Line:
In our back-to-back driving, both trucks seemed to ride and handle well –and about the same — in ordinary street driving. Both trucks have suspension gear you can’t get anywhere else. The Raptor’s go-fast engineering is impressive, certainly the best we’ve seen in a pickup. Yet, when it comes to truly punishing, real-world situations, the Power Wagon has no equal. We’d like to call it a tie, but it’s hard not to respect the innovations Ford has made with their SVT A-arms, tie rods and beefed up half shafts, not to mention triple bypass shocks. They’ve taken an IFS front end and really made it work.

Edge: Raptor

Engine: OHV vs. OHC
In off-road environments, it’s probably true that power is less important than suspension quality. However, a truck is a truck, and it demands torque.

In the Dodge, we see a classic pushrod-actuated, overhead valve V-8 truck engine making more torque than horsepower. Peak torque, at 400 lbs.-ft., is available at 4.000 rpm, and peak horsepower (383) arrives at 5,600, just before the 5,800 rpm redline, all on regular unleaded. The engine has a deep skirted, cast iron block with cross-bolted main bearing caps, aluminum alloy heads, and hemispherical combustion chambers. We found the engine more than sufficient, revving well and cruising quietly.

Ford’s powerplant is the 5.4 liter, three-valve V-8. It’s an overhead cam engine, with three valves for better breathing. It makes 310 hp at 5,000 rpm, and 365 lbs.-ft. of torque early, at 3,500 rpm. It’s E85-capable, and interestingly enough, makes more power on E85, up to 390 lbs.-ft. of torque. It, too, felt plenty strong enough.

The Bottom Line:
Neither truck is underpowered by any means. Still, in a full-size truck, more is always better, and the HEMI delivers more horsepower and torque. Ford is developing a 6.2L V-8 for the raptor that will become available in mid-2010. At least until then, Dodge has the better engine.

Edge: Power Wagon

Transmission: 5-speed vs. 6-speed
Dodge’s 545 RFE 5-speed has been specifically recalibrated for the Power Wagon, with a shift schedule that takes into account the very low 4.56:1 axle gears, among other things. The 545RFE acts like a six-speed with two second gear ratios, upshifting using the lower 1.67:1 ratio, for faster acceleration. The transmission kicks down cleanly, makes smooth full-throttle shifts and allows for smooth highway cruising.

The Raptor’s 6R80E six-speed also has a tall overdrive gear, and downshifts readily at the touch of the throttle. Its principle advantage is a 4.17:1 first gear ratio, much lower than Dodge’s, which means faster off-the-line acceleration and more grunt in low range. That big a 1st gear could make for jumpy throttle in low range, but Ford has recalibrated the throttle map in 4-low, so the pedal can be better modulated even with the very low gearing.

SVT has also created a special transmission operating calibration, called Off-Road Mode, that’s entirely unique to the Raptor and works in two or four-wheel drive. Off-Road Mode, activated with the push of a button, changes the engine’s throttle map, leaving the butterfly valve full open when pushing the accelerator pedal down through its entire arc. That’s intended to give it linear throttle response, like a race truck, instead of high power at the beginning and tapered at the end, like a street truck. Off-Road Mode also changes the transmission’s shift points to hold its gear and not upshift after letting off the throttle at high speeds. It also locks out the sixth gear overdrive at the top of the transmission to keep the rpm high.

We also had a chance to roll both trucks down a steep hill in low range, first gear. We found that the Ford’s transmission held back the Raptor noticeably better than the Power Wagon’s, allowing for a slower, more controlled rate of speed. Both trucks have electronic downhill descent control, but just using the transmission alone, the Raptor’s 6R80E feels best.

The Bottom Line:
A six-speed has definite advantages, especially when it comes with a lower 1st gear. We can’t compare mileage ratings, because the Dodge hasn’t been rated, but we suspect the six-speed would save some gas on the highway, too.

Edge: Raptor

—

Part 1: Introduction, Suspension, Engine, Transmission
Part 2: Traction, Tires, Underbody
Part 3: Agility, Capability, Price, Summary
Part 4: Detailed Specifications

Continue Reading

Part 2 – What’s the Diff? Ford F-150 SVT Raptor vs. Dodge Ram Power Wagon

Posted on 27. Oct, 2009 by admin.

Part 1: Introduction, Suspension, Engine, Transmission
Part 2: Traction, Tires, Underbody
Part 3: Agility, Capability, Price, Summary
Part 4: Detailed Specifications

—

Traction: Gearing and Lockers
Traction has to do with two things: Gearing and lockers, and tires, which we’ll address in a moment. Both our trucks have four-wheel drive systems that click in and out readily, with good low range gearing.

Dodge’s 2.72:1 low range ratio, combined with 4.56 gears in the axles, give it a decent crawl capability, and with the 545RFE transmission, a crawl ratio of 37.2:1, that's just a little taller than a Jeep Wrangler Sahara.

The Raptor has a 2.64 low range ratio and 4.10 gears in the axles, but with that 4.17:1 first gear in the transmission, the crawl ratio is even better: 45.14:1. The taller tires take away some of that advantage, but it’s clear that as good as the Power Wagon’s gearing is, the Raptor’s is a little better.

When it comes to lockers, the shoe is on the other foot. Ford’s electronic locking rear axle is a tremendous traction adder that works in two-wheel drive at high speeds, like a Baja PreRunner, as well as in 4-High (up to 25 mph) and 4-Low (up to 66 mph). Raptor is the only factory off-roader with this feature.

The Raptor also features Ford's first application of hill descent control. It uses the truck’s antilock braking system to automatically modulate the brakes to slow travel down steep slopes so the driver can focus on steering and it helps make up for the Raptor's 45.14:1 crawl ratio.

But the Power Wagon has two e-lockers lockers, front and rear, plus it has a mechanical, helical-type limited slip in the rear axle adding traction even when the axles are not locked up.

The Bottom Line:
In the end, which is better depends on what you are trying to do. When you’re going slow, there is nothing like a selectable front locker to help claw your way out of some very tough situations. It’s a difference maker. Sometimes you might only need it to move ahead a foot … but that’s enough.

On the other hand, at speed on a dirt road a rear locker acts like a spool, making sure both tires are always driving. With momentum on your side, that’s all you need, and a front locker ties up your steering.

Be that as it may, we have to think that two lockers (plus a limited slip) are better than one when you're out in the wilderness tackling tough trails. Meanwhile, gearing is plenty low enough in both cases. The Raptor may have a better crawl ratio, but that does not make it a crawler, even with hill descent control.

Edge: Power Wagon

Tires: Tall and Taller
Both trucks offer bigger, better tires, and both are equipped with full-size spares.
The Raptor runs 315/70R17 BFGoodrich All Terrain TA/KO tires, another specialized piece of the high-performance formula, engineered to match the capabilities of the truck. Nominally 35 inches in height, we tape-measured the 315s at 33.5 inches at standard pressure. Compared to regular BFGs, the tires are made with a softer tread compound for better grip, and a tougher sidewall to reduce the risk of damage from off-road debris. With the special rubber compounding, the tire will almost certainly brake better, especially in the rain.

The Power Wagon also has the tallest tire available in a Ram Heavy Duty pickup, a 285/70R17 in an All-Terrain tread. Also made by BF Goodrich specifically for the Power Wagon, they are “D” rated to maintain weight-bearing capacities consistent with the frame and chassis. Nominally 33 inches, these tires are actually just a tad over 32 inches tall at standard pressures.

A side benefit of the Raptor’s taller tire is more ground clearance. We measured the Raptor’s clearance at the front skid plate at 11.25 inches; and the Power Wagon, at the front differential, at 8.75 inches. Tires are only part of the difference, but the difference is substantial, and tire size is a factor.

It should be pointed out that neither of these tires turned out to be what we would call great in mud. We saw almost 4 inches of rain during the time we were driving these pickups, and as a result, trails that had long been dry had turned to sticky, clay-based mud. Tires on both trucks quickly loaded up and became the weak link in terms of traction.

The Bottom Line:
The Raptor’s tires are biased toward performance. They may wear faster, and they will probably be more expensive to replace, but they are taller and seem to be perfectly matched to the truck. The Power Wagon’s axles could easily tolerate tires of the same size, but the Dodge engineering team chose to go with tires that preserve the PW’s towing/hauling capabilities. We’d like to see a tire that performs better in the mud, in a slightly taller size, to compliment the Power Wagon’s off-road design envelope, but something like that in an equivalent load range would be hard to find.

Edge: Raptor

Underbody Protection: Armor All
Both trucks have enhanced underbody protection. The Power Wagon has really beefy skid plates, heavier than the standard plates on 4×4 Ram 2500 trucks. They also have a slider rail running the length of the underbody, which is kind of like a ladder attached to the crossmembers. The slider rails rest on crossmembers made of high strength steel, we were told, so that “you can belly the truck on the slider rails, on a stump or something, and slide it right across.” The railing is made from round tube, so it doesn’t catch mud or hold water.

The Raptor, too, has extensive skid plates, including an especially large bash plate covering the front axle, plus corregated plates protecting the transfer case and gas tank. The Raptor doesn’t have anything like the Power Wagon’s slider rails, but it has better rocker panel protection with rugged cast aluminum side steps that run the length of the cabin. We’re not sure they’ll support the weight of the truck, but they might help preserve the rocker panels.

The Bottom Line:
Once again, we see protection consistent with the style of the truck. The Raptor has solid protection from high-speed impacts coming from the front, and the Power Wagon has protection from getting high centered on a rock or a stump. Still, the Power Wagon slider bars are the best we’ve seen on a stock pickup; we wish every 4×4 had something like it.

Edge: Power Wagon

—

Part 1: Introduction, Suspension, Engine, Transmission
Part 2: Traction, Tires, Underbody
Part 3: Agility, Capability, Price, Summary
Part 4: Detailed Specifications

Continue Reading

Part 3 – What’s the Diff? Ford F-150 SVT Raptor vs. Dodge Ram Power Wagon

Posted on 27. Oct, 2009 by admin.

Part 1: Introduction, Suspension, Engine, Transmission
Part 2: Traction, Tires, Underbody
Part 3: Agility, Capability, Price, Summary
Part 4: Detailed Specifications

—

Agility: Float like a Butterfly vs. Grinding In The Corners

It’s not really fair to compare trucks of different GVWRs and different wheelbases, but there are other factors at play here. Ford uses power rack-and-pinion steering on the Raptor, and it’s a lighter truck with a wider stance. It’s going to turn quicker and maneuver more easily.

The Power wagon is more of a crusher, with a turning circle almost three feet longer than the Raptor. The steering setup, hydraulic recirculating ball, is the kind of system that can force a tire to turn when it is wedged into a pile of boulders, even to the point of forcing the rocks to move. It’s not going to be so conducive to high-speed cornering and side-to-side transitioning on pavement. In short, the PowerWagon is not exactly what we’d call a tossable ride.

The Bottom Line:
The Dodge is a longer, heavier truck, with a very strong but less precise steering system. The Raptor is much lighter on its feet.

Edge: Raptor

Capability: 5-lug vs. 8-lug
The Power Wagon is a much bigger, heavier-duty truck. It’s based on 1-ton running gear and has a Class IV hitch with a standard integrated factory brake controller. Its axles have 10.5 inch ring gears, the wheelbase is 148.9 inches. It can tow 10,300 pounds and carry 1,940 pounds in the bed on D-rated tires. And it’s a Crew Cab, a commercial-use configuration that is better at working, with a 6.5-foot box. Plus there are upgraded electrics, including a 180-amp alternator, that come with the package.

Meanwhile, the Raptor is based on the 133-inch wheelbase half-ton F-150 SuperCab, with a 5.5-foot box. As such, it’s more of a personal-use truck. That does not make it useless as a truck. The 6,950-pound GVWR Raptor is rated to tow up to 6,000 pounds on a class III hitch, and has Ford’s trailer sway control electronics to help out. It can carry 1,020 pounds in the bed. You can work with it, and you can tow with it, and the numbers are far from anemic — but it’s still a half-ton truck.

The Bottom Line:
In the end, the difference is between eight lugs and five (actually six) lugs, a Crew Cab and a Super Cab, a Class III hitch and a Class IV hitch, a 10.5-inch ring gear vs. a 9.75-inch ring gear, and so on. With the Power Wagon, Dodge has enhanced off-road capability without compromising the fundamental nature of the Ram 2500 as a heavy-duty truck. Dodge envisions the Power Wagon customer as a guy who uses the truck every day in his landscaping or construction business, and then, on weekends as a recreational tool. The Raptor owner might do the same, but not to an equal degree.

Edge: Power Wagon

Price: A Fistful of Dollars
Here we have a comparative jumble that goes deeper than apples vs. oranges. More like comparing peacocks to pianos, if you ask us. What’s more important, a Navigation system, or a winch? Here’s what we do know:

The Ford F-150 SVT Raptor starts at $38,020, plus a $975 destination charge. That includes the 5.4 V-8 and six-speed automatic. 4.10 axle ratios, dual outlet muffler, the SVT suspension, tow hooks, unique body work, auxiliary switch board and SVT rubber floor mats, among other things. Options such as the Luxury Package ($1950), Graphics Package ($1075), Navigation Package ($2430) bump the price from there. The 6.2 L V-8, will optional in early 2010, so to get 400 lbs.-ft of torque, you can tack on another $3,000. Our well-equipped test unit had both the luxury package and the navigation package, plus Molten Orange paint ($495), trailer brake controller ($230), rear view camera ($450) and Orange accented seats, for a total sticker of $46,020.

The Dodge Power Wagon pricing is based on the price for a Ram 2500 4×4 Crew Cab with SLT trim ($38,480) plus a $950 destination charge. SLT is one of the higher levels of trim in the Dodge line, including a wide variety of instrumentation, comfort, and convenience features. On top of that is the Power Wagon Group, which includes the trailer-tow package (Class IV hitch, wiring plus factory brake controller), 180-amp alternator, Tru-Lock front and rear axles with 4.56 gears; tow hooks, skid plates, 12,000 pound Warn winch, fog lamps, Uconnect Phone, the front sway bar disconnect and a 8,510-pound GVWR, plus styling and graphics touches. We’re told the Power Wagon Group will add “about $6,500” to the tab, bringing the “base price” for a Power Wagon to $45,930 with all the SLT amenities. Remaining options might include such niceties as a power sunroof, navigation system, rear back-up camera and leather-wrapped steering wheel. Specific options prices have not been released for 2010, but we imagine these items, taken together, might add another $6,000 to the sticker.

The Bottom Line:
Both trucks are well equipped at their “base price.” It will cost a little more to get into a Power Wagon at $45,930, but that will include items such as a winch and factory brake controller that are either optional or not available in the Raptor. It does not, however, include desirable equipment such as a navigation system, which could take the price higher than the Raptor with comparable options.

Prices for full-size pickups have been stunning for some time now, heading wildly north of $50k, but here we think both companies have done a good job of providing real value. Both trucks offer factory equipment that would run a whole lot more if you tried to add it on. Taking into account the fact that the Power Wagon is a bigger, heavier-duty truck with a bigger cab, we think pricing is fair in both cases.

Edge: Draw

Summary: Two Pretty Trucks. Pretty Freakin' Extreme!
There is always more to debate. We could talk about recovery, where the Power Wagon’s winch would give it the edge, and we could talk about styling, where the Raptor’s wide stance and functional vents add up to a uniquely imposing presence.

Let’s keep in mind that the “ultimate setup” varies by region. Tire choices and build strategies depend entirely on the severity of the terrain, seasonal weather patterns, soil qualities, and other local conditions. What works in Oregon would likely be out of place in Arizona or Tennessee.

Thinking along those lines, we see the Raptor as best in the desert. It’s a superstar anywhere the roads are open and there is dust in the air. The Power Wagon, on the other hand, would be great on a ranch or a farm, in the mountains, and in the woods.
You could say that the Raptor is by far the better race truck, but that would depend on the course. In a race from Barstow to Vegas, we’ll take the Raptor, spot you 15 minutes and be on our second cold one when you show up. In a race held mostly in low range, on steep, rocky logging roads on a foggy, drizzly day in Oregon with a couple of fallen trees in the way, we’d put the mortgage money on the Power Wagon. With no winch, the Raptor might not even make it.

That said, to us it’s all the same. We’re looking at two impressive trucks, each excellently equipped for their given purpose. Neither one is junk; we want ‘em both. This represents new ground for pickups: Now consumers have not one, but two factory-engineered off-road pickups to choose from.

—

Part 1: Introduction, Suspension, Engine, Transmission
Part 2: Traction, Tires, Underbody
Part 3: Agility, Capability, Price, Summary
Part 4: Detailed Specifications

Continue Reading

Part 4 – What’s the Diff? Ford F-150 SVT Raptor vs. Dodge Ram Power Wagon

Posted on 27. Oct, 2009 by admin.

Part 1: Introduction, Suspension, Engine, Transmission
Part 2: Traction, Tires, Underbody
Part 3: Agility, Capability, Price, Summary
Part 4: Detailed Specifications

—

—

Part 1: Introduction, Suspension, Engine, Transmission
Part 2: Traction, Tires, Underbody
Part 3: Agility, Capability, Price, Summary
Part 4: Detailed Specifications

Continue Reading

Cars.com Reviews the 2010 GMC Terrain

Posted on 26. Oct, 2009 by admin.

The GMC Terrain shares its DNA with the Chevy Equinox, a vehicle our reviewers truly enjoyed. Can the Terrain improve on that formula? Cars.com reviewer Kelsey Mays compares the Terrain to its twin and explains how the Terrain might help GM make up some ground in the increasingly important crossover market. Also, if you’re in the market for a Terrain, you'll want to hear what Mays has to say about the four-cylinder engine versus the V-6.

2010 GMC Terrain Review

2010|GMC|Terrain

Continue Reading

Diesel Powered 1947 Hudson Pickup Redefines Mobility

Posted on 26. Oct, 2009 by admin.

Some say that a spaceship crashed in the desert outside Roswell, NM., in 1947, revealing the secrets of advanced alien technology that included amazing propulsion systems, mind control and velcro.

We'd like to put these far-out rumors to rest with a theory of our own: the UFO hunters were confused by a 1947 Hudson Pickup. Not just any old Hudson hauler, but the Hudson Land Speed Racer built by Randy Simmons, president of Robotic Integrated Technology, and driven by Michael-Ryan Pattison. Simmons is also Pattison's co-driver.

Diesel Power Magazine has the scoop on the truck and its team.

Pattison is a quadriplegic. He broke his neck diving into a lake and accident left him with little movement below his shoulders. Pattison plans to race the '47 Hudson pickup in Southern California Timing Association events by controlling the truck's throttle and steering with a specially designed mouthpiece.

For locomotion, there's a biodiesel-fed 7.3-liter Power Stroke V-8 under its hood with a giant High Tech Turbo nicknamed “Big Bad Wolf” that has an 88-mm compressor wheel and a DEI Cry02 system that sprays liquid CO2 on the outside of the intercooler. The electronics are controlled by Sniper tuning, and it's paired with an ATS 4R100 transmission with an ATS Five Star torque converter.

Inspiration comes from two organizations: “A Cure is Coming” and “The Michael-Ryan Pattison Foundation.” Their goal is to raise awareness for those with spinal-cord injuries.

[Source: Diesel Power Magazine]

Continue Reading