Wheelchair Van, 2009 Ford E350, 5.4l Engines on 2040-cars

Auto blog

An in-depth look at the Ford GT with Xcar

Ford made big waves when it unveiled the new GT at the Detroit Auto Show this past January. But as far as details go, it's been rather quiet. Though Dearborn has revealed what engine will sit between those buttresses, it hasn't told us exactly how many horses or torques it will produce, or precisely how fast we should expect it to propel the new all-American supercar. Fortunately, the automaker let the crew at Xcar into the studio to give us a quick, four-minute rundown of all the information that is out there at the moment, along with all the most intriguing angles of the vehicle's design. The historically savvy among us will already know that the new 2016 Ford GT traces its roots back to the GT40 that conquered Le Mans half a century ago, and through the previous Ford GT that debuted a decade ago. Both of those featured V8 engines (supercharged in the latter case) while their modern successor goes with a twin-turbo V6. But as Xcar points out, six cylinders aren't without their precedence in the history of the GT-series Ford supercar: the GT70 rally car of 1970 originally packed a 2.6-liter V6. That engine was later replaced by a 1.6-liter inline-four, which puts another crack in the theory of the eight's hegemony over the history of the series – as does, we'll point out, the Bugatti-like quad-turbo V12 that featured in the GT90 concept of 1995 that sadly never made production. The point is that divergence from V8 tradition shouldn't dissuade anyone from getting excited over the arrival of the new GT, and we're looking forward to seeing what she can do – on and off the track. Related Video:

Martin Smith retires, Joel Piaskowski in as Ford Europe design chief

The mind behind the look of much of the modern Ford global range is retiring. Martin Smith, Head of Ford Design in Europe, will give up his position on July 1 and will leave the company altogether at the end of the year. He will be replaced by current Strategic Concepts Group leader Joel Piaskowski (pictured above).
Smith has led Ford of Europe design for the past 10 years, and he was partially responsible for the brand's Kinetic Design language with a large grille and swept-back headlights found on the Focus, Fiesta and C-Max, as well as several other vehicles abroad. After stepping down on July 1 until his retirement at the end of 2014, Smith will work on a project to decide the future direction of the company's look with Moray Callum, its vice president of design.
Piaskowski already has some impressive credentials in terms of automotive design as well. He joined Ford in 2010 as director of exterior design and led the teams responsible for the 2015 Ford Mustang and next-generation F-150. He was also previously design director at Ford Asia Pacific. Before working at the Blue Oval, Piaskowski held positions at Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai and General Motors. Scroll down to read the complete announcement of this changing of the guard.

American automakers fall in latest Fortune 500 rankings

Not that it means anything beyond bragging rights, but if you're fixated on the positions of domestic automakers on the annual Fortune 500 list, both General Motors and Ford are still on it but they've slipped a couple of notches. The list ranks American companies and they're ordered solely by revenue. GM, fifth last year, came in seventh, while Ford fell from ninth to tenth even though both companies saw small gains in annual revenue.
GM's $152.3 billion in revenue was less than a third of that of the first company on the list: Wal-Mart, which regained the title from Exxon Mobil. Berkshire Hathaway and Apple are the firms that moved GM down. Ford, displaced by energy company Valero, had $134.3 billion in revenue.
On a side note, profitability isn't a factor, but both GM and Ford were down in this year's list compared to last year's: GM declined from $9.2 billion to $6.2 billion, Ford fell from $20.2 billion to $5.6 billion. If profits were included, Exxon Mobil would probably still be king: although the energy company made almost $20 billion less in revenue than Wal-Mart's $469.2 billion, it posted $44.9 billion in profit compared to Wal-Mart's $17 billion.