Fox Body Ford Mustang Smokes Two Hellcats, Mk4 Supra, and S550 in Blistering Drag Run

⚡️ Read the full article on Motorious
A decades-old Fox Body Ford Mustang stunned crowds at Bradenton Motorsports Park last weekend by outrunning a fleet of modern muscle cars, including two Dodge Charger Hellcats, a Toyota Supra Mk4, and a newer S550 Mustang GT, during a string of quarter-mile drag races.
Captured by the ImportRace YouTube channel, the event was part of the Street Car Takeover series, a national tour that gathers high-performance street and strip cars for head-to-head competition. But it was the vintage Fox Body coupe — clad in crimson and gray — that stole the spotlight.
Despite its age, the Mustang rocketed through the quarter mile with consistent times in the low 8-second range, signaling extensive performance upgrades beneath its sleeper appearance.
The first challenger, a wide-tired Charger Hellcat, was left in the dust. The Mustang clocked 8.76 seconds at 128 mph, while the Hellcat lagged behind at 9.36 seconds at 150 mph. Next came a S550 Mustang GT, which put up a solid fight but still finished behind: 8.4 seconds at 160 mph to the newer pony's 9.53 at 142 mph.
As night fell, a second, blacked-out Hellcat sedan nearly caught the Fox Body but lost by fractions of a second. The times: 8.31 seconds at 166 mph to 8.3 seconds at 158 mph — a photo finish.
The final duel was a scene straight out of a Fast and Furious reboot — the Mustang lined up against a white Toyota Supra Mk4 with neon underglow. Fans were on edge for the finale, and though results weren't immediately posted, spectators agreed: the old Mustang was the undeniable star of the strip.
While the modern S650 Mustang struggles on the sales charts, this vintage Ford proved that with the right build, old-school muscle still has the power to dominate — and turn heads doing it.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

3 hours ago

• Yahoo

Exclusive-UAW investment blunder cost the union an estimated $80 million, documents show

By Kalea Hall and Nora Eckert DETROIT (Reuters) -The United Auto Workers' leadership is mired in turmoil over allegations of an investment blunder that officials say cost the union about $80 million in potential gains from its financial portfolio, according to seven UAW officials and employees and union documents reviewed by Reuters. The investment funds were liquidated to pay striking workers in 2023 but weren't reinvested in accordance with the union's investment policy for more than a year, according to the documents and the UAW officials and staffers who spoke on condition of anonymity. The details of the investment dispute at the union, including the estimate of foregone gains, have not previously been reported. The loss is an estimate of what the union would have earned had the money been invested in the stock market and other assets in accordance with the union's policy during that time. The UAW represents nearly 400,000 members, including 150,000 workers at the Detroit Three automakers: General Motors, Ford, and Jeep-maker Stellantis. UAW investment policy calls for keeping about 30% of its money in stocks, 53% fixed income and 17% alternative investments, according to three union sources and the documents. The board voted to liquidate about $340 million in stock investments in August 2023 to pay strike costs, according to a union document reviewed by Reuters. The wording of the vote stipulated that the money be reinvested according to union policy after the strike ended and the labor contracts were ratified, though it didn't specify how quickly. But almost none of its portfolio was invested in stocks during the year after the strike began in September 2023, according to the records reviewed by Reuters. The news agency was unable to establish why the stock investment wasn't made. The issue of why the union did not reinvest the funds for more than a year is now being investigated by the federal monitor which was appointed as part of a 2020 settlement between the UAW and the U.S. Department of Justice to resolve a union corruption scandal, according to a statement from a majority of UAW board members. UAW President Shawn Fain and Secretary-Treasurer Margaret Mock did not respond to requests for comment on the failure to invest union dues. Mock's attorney, Michael Nicholson, declined to comment on why the union's money wasn't promptly reinvested in stocks or Mock's role, but told Reuters that responsibility for UAW's investments is shared by the union president, secretary-treasurer and its three vice presidents, citing a 1996 UAW resolution. 'We welcome the monitor's review regarding investments, because we believe that any accusations against Margaret Mock are unfounded,' he added. The financial setback is the latest challenge for the UAW. The union had been resurgent after the late-2023 strike, the union's first against all three major Detroit automakers at the same time, which culminated in record contract gains from GM, Ford and Stellantis. The union also successfully organized a Volkswagen factory in Tennessee in April 2024 after decades of failed union drives in the southern United States. Since then, though, the UAW's organizing momentum has stalled, including a failed unionization vote at an Alabama Mercedes-Benz plant in May 2024. LOST GAINS The tensions over union investments emerged late last year as some board members started questioning why the union's return on its portfolio seemed paltry relative to broader stock-market gains, according to union documents and five people familiar with the matter. In August 2023, the UAW board voted to sell all of the equities in its strike fund, leaving the remainder invested in a mix of cash, bonds and alternative investments, according to the documents and people familiar with the matter. The following month, UAW workers walked out of the carmakers' factories for about six weeks and were paid $500 a week from the union's strike fund. Any money remaining after the contracts with the car companies were ratified in November was to be reinvested per the union's investment policy. But rather than reinvesting in stocks, the funds were placed in a mix of cash, fixed-income and alternative assets through September 2024 when the portfolio contained 5% in equities, the documents show. In late 2024, Fain asked in one meeting why the union was getting lower returns on its portfolio than he could in a cash bank account, according to four people present at the gathering. In February 2025, union staff conducted an analysis that showed the union might have earned $80 million more if its portfolio had been invested according to union policy, according to a document viewed by Reuters. The document did not detail their methodology, but union sources said it was based on a comparison of the union portfolio's actual results to what the returns would have been under its policy, which includes a 30% allocation in a fund that tracks the Russell 3000 index, the UAW's preferred equity investment, according to people familiar with the matter. That fund grew 33% from late November 2023, after the contracts were ratified, through January 2025, shortly after UAW officials raised their concerns. The union worked with the financial firm Segal Marco Advisors to manage its strike trust of about $1 billion, the people and documents said. Reuters couldn't establish how the firm advised the union to manage the liquidated funds. The firm didn't respond to requests for comment. TROUBLED HISTORY Apart from the dispute over the UAW's investment decisions, broader tensions between Fain and Mock burst into public view Tuesday with the release of a report by the union's federal monitor that found Fain improperly stripped Mock of some of her duties in February 2024 because she wouldn't authorize expenditures related to strike preparation and organizing drives. The UAW declined to comment on either the report or the investment concerns, citing a federal monitor's rule prohibiting UAW public comments on active probes. The report did not address the failure to reinvest the funds after the strike. After its release, 11 of the UAW's 14 board members – including Fain – issued a statement saying Mock had failed to produce a budget or list of union members. The statement added: 'She is under investigation by the monitor for a significant compliance failure regarding our union's investments.' The federal monitor's office has told UAW board members that it now is investigating the post-strike failure to reinvest union funds, according to four of the people and union documents. The federal monitor declined to comment on whether it was investigating the union's investment management and Reuters could not independently confirm it. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

Miami Herald

3 hours ago

• Miami Herald

Hands-free face-off: BlueCruise vs. Super Cruise vs. Autopilot

'Hands-free' appeals to many drivers. Yet test data shows how each system handles the real world very differently. Here's what you need to know to choose wisely. How They Rank Ford's BlueCruise tops Consumer Reports' latest active driving assistance tests with 84 points; GM's Super Cruise follows at 75; Tesla's Autopilot lands at 61. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety assigns BlueCruise the strongest safeguard ratings, Super Cruise middling marks, and Autopilot a lower tier (IIHS, 2023). Meanwhile, NHTSA's EA22-002 report links several Autopilot overrides to incidents when drivers regained control under glare or faded lane lines. Testers describe a common highway stretch at dusk where lane markings blur. BlueCruise's eye-tracking camera warns early, then ends hands-free when maps lack recent updates. Super Cruise uses precise HD maps plus LIDAR-derived data to prompt a takeover smoothly as fading lines approach. Autopilot's vision-only stack hesitates under glare, requiring manual steering with less warning. Sensor and Software Breakdown ▪ BlueCruise relies on forward cameras plus infrared driver-monitoring. It restricts hands-free to designated 'Blue Zones' (Ford publishes region maps). Eye-tracking ensures the driver watches the road. ▪ Super Cruise combines high-definition LIDAR-scanned maps with radar and camera data. An infrared sensor checks head position; hands off feels secure until map data detects new construction or unclear markings. ▪ Autopilot (FSD Beta) uses a vision-only neural-net stack. It operates beyond geofenced highways but lacks the predictive map layer. Updates arrive over-the-air frequently, altering the cars behavior unpredictably. Transition tactics Each system alerts drivers differently: steering-wheel vibrations, audible chimes, dashboard prompts. BlueCruise's prompt can feel abrupt when exit ramps aren't in its database. Super Cruise often issues a gentle vibration before displaying 'Take Control' messages. Autopilot may allow slight steering inputs before disengaging, but reports note some drivers found the warning delay risky. Hands-free safety: Crash counts and fatalities compared GM's Super Cruise boasts over 160 million accident-free miles with no publicly documented fatal crashes under its engagement. Ford's BlueCruise has been implicated in approximately 32 reported crashes under NHTSA review, including two fatal collisions in Mustang Mach-E vehicles resulting in three deaths (NHTSA ODI, 2024). Tesla's Autopilot has been involved in 956 reported crashes reviewed by NHTSA and is linked to 51 reported fatalities to date (NHTSA EA22-002, 2024). Enthusiasts should note that reporting criteria vary, and ongoing probes may uncover further data, underscoring the importance of vigilance and understanding each system's limitations. Coverage and update cadence BlueCruise restricts hands-free to mapped stretches in the U.S., Canada, and select regions; Ford updates zone maps periodically. Super Cruise covers over 750,000 miles of roads in North America, with map updates via dealer visits or over-the-air in newer models. Autopilot's software changes often, but without map anchoring, performance can vary by region and conditions. Practical recommendations Match System to Drive Profile: If you log long interstate miles in mapped areas, Super Cruise offers predictability. For regional highway runs within Ford's Blue Zones, BlueCruise excels with strict gaze monitoring. If you enjoy frequent software tweaks and can stay vigilant for false positives, Autopilot may appeal-but treat it as a beta experiment. Test under Known Conditions: On a clear day, engage hands-free on a familiar highway. Note how each handles faded lines, curves, or light rain. Observe takeover warnings: Is the vibration firm? Is the chime clear? Does the prompt arrive early enough? Stay Alert at All Times: Hands-free does not mean eyes-free. Keep your gaze on the road even if systems allow relaxed hands. Note that NHTSA data demonstrate that incidents often occur within seconds of takeover. Check Map and Feature Coverage: Before relying on hands-free in a new region, verify if your route lies within BlueCruise or Super Cruise zones. Understand that Autopilot may operate but might misread unfamiliar markings. Plan for Updates and Maintenance: Factor in how frequently each system updates. Ford's BlueCruise zone updates may lag behind new roads. Super Cruise map refreshes often require dealer or connected-car service. Tesla's Autopilot updates automatically but can alter performance without warning. Essential metrics at a glance BlueCruise: CR score 84; top IIHS safeguards; strict eye-tracking; 32 crashes and 3 fatalities, limited to Blue Zones (Consumer Reports, 2025; IIHS, 2023). Super Cruise: CR score 75; broad HD-map network; LIDAR+radar support; smooth prompts; zero crashes and zero fatalities (160 million accident-free miles), map updates via OTA/dealer (Consumer Reports, 2025; GM, 2024). Autopilot: CR score 61; vision-only stack; wide availability; frequent software shifts; 956 crashes and 51 fatalities (Consumer Reports, 2025; NHTSA, 2022). Hands-free systems free your hands but not your responsibility. Choose BlueCruise for strict monitoring in mapped corridors. Opt for Super Cruise if you need broad coverage, map-driven predictability, and a perfect safety record. Treat Autopilot as NSFW; an evolving tool that demands constant vigilance. Test each under clear conditions, track updates, and always keep eyes forward. Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Forbes

4 hours ago

• Forbes

Test-Driving The 2025 Ford Ranger PHEV

Ford Ranger PHEV Ford Ranger PHEV: Iceland. As its 'Land of Fire and Ice' moniker suggests, the Nordic island is steeped in mystery and packed with geological wonder. Its lunar landscape would have you question whether you've accidentally booked a NASA moon trip instead of an Icelandair Boeing 737. It's out of this world. Whenever my family and I go back, we always try to do something completely different. Thus, I was buzzing when my recent trip involved traversing Iceland's remarkable plains, and the odd volcano, in a luxurious moon buggy known as the Ford Ranger PHEV. But before diving into the car and adventure, it's worth noting that Ford has no plans to introduce this to America. Ford Ranger PHEV in Iceland Ford Ranger PHEV Facts And Figures I've driven every Ranger, including the full-fat Raptor, something that secured its place in my dream garage since. Each variant is capable, and Ford has diversified the Ranger lineup to include performance guises (like the previously mentioned Raptor) and luxury family haulers (the Wildtrak and Platinum). And the cherry on the Bakewell tart is the latest plug-in hybrid version. Ford Ranger's were offered in 2.0-litre and 3.0-litre form until now. The PHEV's 2.3-litre petrol engine is mated to a 75kW (100 bhp) electric motor, a 11.8kWh battery pack that sits under the load bed and a 10-speed automatic gearbox. Ford Ranger PHEV in Iceland It produces a mighty 277 bhp and 514lb ft, numbers that don't fall far from the Raptor tree. However, don't expect it to move like the small dromaeosaurid dinosaur-named pick-up, as 0-to-62 mph takes 9.2 seconds—just 0.5 seconds faster than its diesel counterpart. Likewise, its 25.5-mile electric range is hardly inspiring, but the resulting 70-72g/km means lower benefit-in-kind (BIK) tax, an important factor as double-cab pick-ups are now classed as cars in the UK. Driving The Ford Ranger PHEV Our 200km route began at Reykjavik. Through its busy streets, the Ford Ranger PHEV emitted a gentle hum at low speeds and easily handled deep road ruts and drain covers with little fuss. When out of town, its 2.3-litre powerplant quickly kicked in while en route to 56 mph (90 kph). Again, it remained humble and arrived at that speed swiftly as the 10-speed 'box swapped cogs as smoothly as the lava that likely flowed beneath us. It'll also hustle along twisty tarmac at a respectable pace in Sport mode without making your passengers feel sick. A swift detour off the high-speed tarmac onto loose gravel caused a fair bit of shudder, forcing us to reduce our speed slightly. But this is a workhorse, not a Dakar Rally machine. Ford Ranger PHEV As we approached our first river crossing, we locked the diffs and selected Slippery from the array of drive modes; this car has an 800mm wade depth, but we still feared we'd be left bobbing around like a rubber duck in one of the 26 river crossings awaiting us. Thanks to the Terrain Management system and multiple four-wheel drive controls, however, the Ranger PHEV effortlessly swam like an amphibian. With each river crossing came further challenges, like sharper rocks, steeper declines and inclines, and not once did it break a sweat. Ford Ranger PHEV But the acid test was mighty. This was a trial that would surely force many SUVs and pick-ups to tinkle a puddle of oil in fear—a steep volcano climb. Engaging the Ford Ranger PHEV's low-range setting forced the previously smooth gearbox to show its clunkier traits. But with gentle throttle input, it effortlessly ascended without any wheel slip despite the loose volcanic terrain beneath it—the digital instrument cluster showing a 26-degree pitch. Descending was just as simple: Engage hill descent via the 12.0-inch touchscreen, and you're off—slowly. Yes, you could bark at its woeful electric range, and the £4k price hike versus the diesel, but the benefits out way the negatives, in my mighty impressive, but should you have it over a diesel? There's no denying the diesel will do the same steep ascent party trick. But the major benefits come from tax savings. You get that little bit of extra oomph, and peace of mind that you're doing your bit for the Polar bears. Ford Ranger PHEV Verdict The Ford Ranger PHEV will still tow 3.5 tonnes and carry a 1.0-tonne payload capacity. And like other commercial Ford products, it features the brand's nifty Pro Power system, which means three plug sockets—one in the cab, two in the load box— that can provide silent power for tools and, well, anything. Ford Ranger PHEV Yes, you could bark at its woeful electric range, and the £4k price hike versus the diesel (£32,150 excl. VAT), but the benefits out way the negatives, in my opinion. It's a can-do vehicle, regardless of whether you're taking the kids to school, towing a jet ski or traversing a mountain, and it could be the best Ford Ranger yet.