2007 - Ford Mustang on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Radical RXC is a Mustang-hearted racecar for the road

Radical has been building fantastic open-cockpit racers and roadcars for years, for the track day enthusiast who wants a vehicle that looks like it could show up for a start at the 24 Hours of Le Mans. The company's latest creation is the RXC, and while this coupe looks like a prototype racer, it's road legal in the UK and in some parts of the US. When testing a car this, um, radical, the first thought is likely to get it to the track for some big slides and wide open acceleration, but XCar Films takes the opposite approach in its latest video to learn how this racer fares on public roads. The version tested here is the standard RXC with the 3.7-liter V6 out of the Ford Mustang tuned to 350 horsepower with a seven-speed sequential gearbox; but Radical also offers the same engine with 380-hp, a 454-hp Ford EcoBoost 3.5-liter twin-turbo V6, or even a 500-hp V8. Even in the most basic guise, it's a handful to control in the wet, if this video is any indication. The cliche of a road-legal racecar is bandied around a lot in the motoring world, but it truly applies to the RXC. The only problem with seeing the RXC exclusively on the road is that it can never really open up and show its full potential. This racer is indeed chomping at the bit to rocket off into the horizon, but all those pesky road safety laws hold it back. Still, the video is a chance to get a better impression about this thoroughbred sports car. Scroll down to check it out. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

Ford, Renault, VW shareholder oppose French aid for PSA/Peugeot-Citro"en

Pots and kettles, glass houses and stones - that's a little of what we appear to have going on in the European car market. New reports say that that three European automakers have registered their opposition to a loan deal that PSA/Peugeot-Citroën is working on with the French government. Peugeot's finance arm, Banque PSA Finance, is struggling with its debts and has been downgraded by Moody's to its lowest investment-grade classification, one step above junk. This makes it more expensive for a potential buyer to finance a car through Peugeot. The last thing Peugeot needs is more difficulty selling cars in the tough European market, and the situation will only worsen if the bank's credit worthiness takes another hit.
A deal being worked on would have the French government offer €7 billion ($9B U.S.) in bonds to guarantee the bank's loans, which would give the institution some breathing room to manage its debts and lower its interest rates. Outside of that, a group of banks would provide other, non-guaranteed loans to the bank to further help its position. In exchange for state help, though, the government wants seats on Peugeot's board for worker representatives and a government liaison, along with factory and worker guarantees. The Peugeot family would maintain control of the company.
So what we have is government assistance being provided to a car company's finance arm, akin to the way General Motors' GMAC (now Ally Financial) and Chrysler Financial got help in their time of need. What we also have is Ford and Renault, and Germany's State of Lower Saxony, the second-largest shareholder in Volkswagen, voicing their concern about the proposal, because they say it could create an unfair competitive advantage for Peugeot. Everyone in Europe's down market is fighting for every sale, and if Peugeot gets help to keep its auto loan costs down, it figures to help buyers choose Peugeot or Citroën.

After Years Of Delays, Rear Visibility Requirements Move Closer To Reality

Regulations that would require automakers to improve rear-view visibility on all new cars and light trucks are nearing completion after six years of delays. The U.S. Department of Transportation sent its proposed rear-visibility rules to the Obama administration for review on Christmas Day. The White House Office of Management and Budget now must finalize the regulations. The rule are intended to minimize the risk of pedestrian deaths from vehicles in reverse, a type of accident that disproportionately affects children. Already in 2014, two children have died from cars backing over them, driven in each case by the children's father. Specifics of the Transportation Department's proposal are not available during the review, but the rules are expected to compel automakers to install rear-view cameras as mandatory equipment on all new vehicles. That's what safety advocates have wanted all along. Thought they were pleased the proposed ruling had finally been issued, there was some worry Friday the final rules would omit the rear-view camera mandate. "We're encouraged, but we're also a little concerned about speculation the rear-view camera may not be in there," said Janette Fennell, the president and founder of Kids and Cars, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting children in and around vehicles. "I'm wondering where that might be coming from." On Thursday, The Automotive News had reported the possibility the new standards could offer an alternative to rear-view cameras, such as redesigned mirrors, that improved visibility. The Office of Management and Budget typically completes its reviews of new rules in 90 days, although that can be extended. OMB officials said Friday they do not comment on pending rules. The intent of the rules is to enhance rear visibility for drivers and prevent pedestrian deaths. Approximately 200 pedestrians are backed over in the United States each year, according to estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Accidents Mostly Affect Children Roughly half the victims are children younger than age five. A government analysis concluded approximately half the victims -– 95 to 112 -– could be saved with new regulations. Yet the rules have arrived at a glacial pace. President George W. Bush signed legislation that had been passed with bipartisan Congressional support in 2008. But automakers have fought the idea of adding rear-view cameras, saying it is too expensive.