Ford Mustang Mach 1 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:

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.