2013 Ford Focus St Hatchback 4-door 2.0l; Black, Recaro's. Certified!!! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Amelia Island 2013: 50 years of the Ferrari-slaying Ford GT40

Originally developed with the sole purpose of being a Ferrari rival to compete at the 24 Hours of Le Mans, the Ford GT40 became a prominent racing machine in the 1960s in both Europe and the US. Not wanting to leave such an important car out of the fun, the 2013 Amelia Island Concours d'Elegance also took time out from its other celebrations to recognize the 50-year anniversary of the GT40.
Over its short lifespan, the GT40 was offered in a handful of configurations, but the classic short-tailed (Mk I and Mk II) bodystyles were well represented... especially in Gulf livery. James Glickenhaus (of Ferrari P4/5 fame) had his bright yellow Mk IV in the field, and there were several others in this bodystyle, including one that has seen plenty of time on the track judging by its chipped-up nose.
As a fitting statement for the car's lengthy racing history, GT40 Chassis Number 1075 won this year's Concours de Sport award. This car took home the checkered flag at Le Mans in 1968 and 1969, and racked up a total of six wins in just 11 races.

2015 Ford Mustang to offer solid-rear axle, sort of

One of the biggest knocks against the last Ford Mustang was its solid-rear axle. Not one to actively court criticism, Ford dutifully swapped out the old-fashioned rear end for something a bit more modern in the redesigned 2015 Mustang, adding an independent rear suspension across the board.
While an IRS Mustang is great news for those that value handling and ride comfort, there's one big group that it's bad news for - drag racers. See, a solid-rear axle is a big deal for drag racers, because not only is it more durable and cheaper, but it's better for the hard launches that can make or break a race.
To satiate this vocal demographic, Ford will sell a body-in-white version of the Stang, complete with a nine-inch rear axle, that will debut at the 2014 Performance Racing Industry show. The news came from gas2.org, which cited an unnamed employee of Ford Racing at this year's PRI show.

NHTSA upgrades Ford floor mat unintended acceleration probe

According to a Bloomberg report, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has upgraded an investigation into complaints of unintended acceleration lodged against Ford vehicles. The investigation began in June of 2010 when just three complaints had been received and it only concerned the Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan, but this was at a time when the phrase "unintended acceleration" made grown men go pale. With 49 additional complaints received since then, the investigation has been reclassified as an engineering analysis - the last phase before a recall - and it has been expanded to include the Lincoln MKZ, making for a total of "around 480,000" units affected between the three sedans from the 2008 to 2010 model years.
The ostensible cause is that floor mats are trapping the accelerator pedal, but according to a Ford statement at the time, the entrapment is due to owners placing the optional all-weather floor mats, or aftermarket floor mats, on top of the car's standard floor mats. NHTSA has backed up that assessment, pinning the blame on "unsecured or double stacked floor mats."
On the face of it, it would appear that NHTSA has upgraded the status not because of Ford's error, but owner error, and Ford has stated publicly that it is "disappointed" in NHTSA's move. On top of NHTSA still being skittish after that other unintended acceleration debacle, it could be seen to be taking its time investigating all of the variables: it's reported that Ford changed its accelerator pedal design in 2010, a "heel blocker" in the floorpan has been considered a potential culprit in how the floor mats could be trapping the pedal, some drivers have said the floor mats weren't anywhere near the pedal, and according to a report in the LA Times, in "a letter sent by Ford to NHTSA in August 2010, the automaker said it found three injuries and one fatality that 'may have resulted from the alleged defect.'"