1979 Ford Mustang on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2016 Ford Focus RS mule spotted on US soil

Okay Ford, this is what we like to see. One of our intrepid spy photographers has captured a vehicle that we weren't even sure would see the light of day - the next Focus RS. While this is pretty clearly a mule based on the current Focus ST, as our spy points out, there are a number of giveaways about this hot hatch's true nature.
Indication number one that all is not right with this Focus is the heavily camo'd front fascia, which has been completely reconfigured for duty on the RS. It boasts significantly larger grilles that are meant to accommodate what is likely the 2.3-liter, turbocharged four-cylinder that's destined for the 2015 Ford Mustang. Considering that, then, we can expect around 300 horsepower and 300 pound-feet of torque from the hottest of Foci, although it's entirely possible that the production model could climb even higher, to around 330 hp.
The front fascia tweaks are complemented in the back by a modified rear bumper, which fails at hiding a pair of exhaust tips quite unlike the standard Focus ST's center-exit exhaust. Other obvious changes include the wheel/tire/brake package on this particular car. Larger 19-inch wheels are shod in super-sticky Michelin Pilot Super Sport tires in 235/35/19 while the brakes feature what we think are four-piston calipers, possibly from Brembo, up front.

Junkyard Gem: 1973 Mercury Marquis Brougham 4-Door Pillared Hardtop

Ford's Mercury Division debuted the Marquis in the 1967 model year, as a sporty coupe based on a stretched Ford LTD chassis. When the LTD got an update for 1969, so did the Marquis, and production of that generation of the top-of-the-line Mercury continued through 1978 (the Grand Marquis hit streets the following year). The 1969-1978 Marquis was a big, imposing land yacht, and the Brougham version came absolutely loaded with affordable luxury. Today's Junkyard Gem is a Marquis Brougham from the first year of the Malaise Era, found in a Phoenix self-service car graveyard recently. This car appears to have spent decades sitting outdoors in one of the harshest climates in the country, and so it's in rough shape. The vinyl top received the full thermonuclear treatment and is mostly obliterated by now. The interior got thoroughly cooked as well. Still, its original opulence shines through if you use some imagination. What hurts is that this car was packed with most of the good options, including the mighty 460-cubic-inch (7.5-liter) V8 engine with four-barrel carburetor. The price for the 460 was just $76 in this car, or around $548 in today's money. The base engine was a 429 (7.0-liter). Power numbers were way down for 1973 when compared to a couple of years earlier, partly as the result of tightening emissions standards but mostly due to the switch from gross to net power ratings that began midway during 1971 and was completed by the end of 1972. This engine was rated at 202 horsepower and 330 pound-feet. The only transmission available was a three-speed automatic. We can assume that the original buyer of this car and its single-digit fuel economy had a rough time when the OPEC oil embargo hit in the fall of 1973. Believe it or not, air conditioning was not standard equipment on the '73 Marquis Brougham (you had to move up to a Lincoln for that). This one even has the automatic temperature control feature, adding a total of $508 to the cost of this car (about $3,661 in 2023 dollars). That AM/FM/8-track radio—or, in fact, any radio—was an extra-cost option as well, with a price tag of $363 ($2,616 after inflation). The MSRP for the 1973 Marquis Brougham sedan (known as a "pillared hardtop" thanks to the frameless window glass) was $5,072, which comes to $36,555 in today's dollars. Obviously, its out-the-door cost would have been much higher with all the options.

Buy Ford and GM stock and make 5%

Want to make a five-percent return when 10-year treasuries are paying around two percent? Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) have solid balance sheets, strong cash flow, solid earnings, and growing markets. By all accounts, they are smart investments. But the market is down on these stocks. Why? Some of the stupid excuses include: They are cyclical companies The Detroit 3 have lost 3.5 million in sales since 2000 The world economy is shaky GM recently filed for bankruptcy Their markets have peaked They haven't changed their ways Let's take these criticisms one by one: They Are Cyclical Companies Yes, they are cyclical. Every company is cyclical. Every industry is cyclical. Some more than others, but not every company is immune from swings in the market. Banks used to be 'non-cyclical' leader, not anymore. Airline stocks are just as cyclical as auto stocks, yet they are trading at multiples greater than the auto industry. Why? And what accounts for the irrational stock price for Tesla (TSLA)? At least Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) make money and have positive cash flows. In fact, both companies have a net positive cash position. They have more cash on hand than liabilities. Auto sales in the United States hit a record 17.5 million vehicles in 2015. During the Great Recession, Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) cut their break even points to 10 million vehicles per year. Anything above an annual U.S. volume of 10 million vehicles is profit. And what a profit they make. Sales of Ford's F-150 continues to be the best-selling vehicle in the United States for over 30 years. Detroit 3 Have Lost 3.5 million in Sales Since 2000 Automotive News reports General Motors (GM), Ford (F) and Chrysler (FCA) have lost a combined 3.5 million vehicles sales since 2000. So how can they be making more money? Two big reasons – Fleet Sales and the UAW. Fleet Sales The Detroit 3 used to own car rental companies to keep their factories running. Ford owned Hertz (HTZ), General Motors owned all of National Car Rental and 29 percent of Avis, and Chrysler, the forerunner to Fiat Chrysler (FCA), used to own Thrifty Car Rental and Dollar Rent-A-Car. The Detroit 3 owned these rental companies to have a place to sell their bad product and keep their factories running. These were low margin sales, and in many cases, were money losers for the Detroit 3. They no longer own auto rental companies.