Lynx Motors Unveils Plans for Limited-Edition Ford GT-Based Hypercar
Read the full story on Modern Car Collector
A high-performance street-legal hypercar inspired by the first-generation Ford GT is in the works, with Lynx Motors revealing plans for a limited run of just 28 units and an eye-watering $1.7 million price tag.
Lynx Motors, known for modernizing automotive icons, has not yet named the vehicle, but the company confirmed that it will be powered by a twin-turbocharged V8 producing at least 1,200 horsepower. Speculation suggests that an even more powerful version—potentially featuring an engine developed by renowned American tuner Roush Performance—could push output beyond 1,500 horsepower.
Production of the hypercar is set to take place at the Graham Rahal Performance facility in Zionsville, Indiana. Lynx Motors aims to blend the spirit of the original Ford GT with cutting-edge performance enhancements, creating one of the most extreme road-going versions of the legendary model.
The original Ford GT, launched in 2005, was a modern tribute to the legendary GT40, which famously dethroned Ferrari at Le Mans in the 1960s. Just 4,000 examples of the first-generation GT were produced before Ford discontinued the model after two years. A second-generation Ford GT, introduced in 2016, adopted a smaller twin-turbo V6 but pushed performance to new heights, with only 1,350 units built.
If the Lynx Motors project reaches production, it will mark a significant evolution of the Ford GT legacy, transforming the revered supercar into a hypercar with extreme horsepower and exclusivity to match. Enthusiasts and collectors alike will be watching closely as more details emerge about this ambitious reimagining of an American performance icon.
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump considers extending TikTok deadline. Is third time a charm?
Will the third time be the charm for TikTok's future? With another extension deadline in two weeks, the social media platform's future lies in the hands of President Donald Trump. In January, TikTok went dark for 12 hours in the United States when China-based ByteDance failed to divest the app's U.S. assets, as required by law. Since coming into office on Jan. 20, Trump issued two executive orders to extend the ban's deadline, hoping to acquire the short-form video app used by 170 million Americans. But so far, a deal has yet to be struck. The next deadline is June 19. A plan had been in the works that would spin off TikTok's American operation into a new firm owned and operated by U.S. investors, but was put on hold, according to Reuters, after China would not approve it following Trump's announcements of steep tariffs on its goods. During an NBC News interview in May, Trump said he would extend the deadline a third time if a deal isn't made by the June 19 deadline. 'I'd like to see it done,' Trump said during the interview. The president added that he has a 'little sweet spot' in his heart for TikTok, which he claims helped him win votes during the 2024 presidential election. 'It'll be protected. It'll be very strongly protected. But if it needs an extension, I would be willing to give it an extension.' The White House declined to comment about a potential TikTok sale. It is unclear. If ByteDance does not divest TikTok by Thursday, June 19, the platform could be banned in the United States again. However, Trump has said that if the sale isn't finalized in time, he will extend the deadline again. This, too, is unclear. Under federal legislation that put the TikTok ban in place, the president can implement a 90-day extension on the deadline to sell. But Trump didn't take this route in January or April. Instead, he signed executive orders delaying the ban by 75 days. If Trump wishes to sign another executive order ahead of the June 19 deadline, he can. While it's within Trump's discretion to sign executive orders to delay the ban, there may be a time when Congress sees it fit to pass a law ordering a firm deadline, John Acevedo, Emory University School of Law professor, told Spectrum News in April. But just because the executive orders are within Trump's authority doesn't mean everyone is happy with his decisions. 'The deadline for Trump to follow the law passed 135 days ago. It is shocking that a bipartisan-backed law, signed by the former president and upheld by the Supreme Court, is being treated like a mere suggestion by the White House,' said Stephen Kent, Consumer Choice Center media director, in a news release. Former President Joe Biden signed federal legislation in 2024 that gave ByteDance until Jan. 19, 2025 to divest TikTok or face a ban in the U.S. Some politicians see TikTok as a national security threat, expressing concern that ByteDance may be sharing U.S. user data with the Chinese government. ByteDance has denied these claims, which remain unsubstantiated. However, ByteDance did not divest in time. In January, TikTok went dark for a little more than 12 hours in the U.S. after the app was effectively banned. U.S. internet hosting services made TikTok unavailable to access, and app stores removed the app for download. During the short-lived shutdown, Trump promised internet hosting services and app stores that they could restore TikTok and not face legal penalties. Under the federal legislation, companies could be fined $5,000 per user they help access TikTok. For companies like Google and Apple, this could mean a $5,000 fine for each user who downloads or updates TikTok. Internet hosting services like Oracle didn't waste time rebooting the app, but it wasn't until Feb. 13 that TikTok became available again in the Apple App Store and Google Play Store. Greta Cross is a national trending reporter at USA TODAY. Story idea? Email her at gcross@ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump to decide Tiktok's fate no later than June 19
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Former Chiefs employee sues team for racial discrimination, wrongful termination
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A former employee of the Kansas City Chiefs is suing the organization, claiming he was fired because he is Black. The lawsuit was filed by Ramzee Robinson in the Western District of Missouri on Sunday. Robinson served as the Chiefs' Director of Player Engagement until February. Second suspect charged in 2023 fentanyl death of mother, unborn baby Along with race discrimination, Robinson's lawsuit also makes claims of retaliation and tortious interference with business expectancy. The Chiefs referred FOX4 to a statement provided to Pro Football Talk on Wednesday. 'We can't comment because it's an active legal matter,' Brad Gee, Chiefs vice president of football communications, told Pro Football Talk via text message.'But to be clear, the Chiefs do not tolerate discrimination of any kind. We look forward to the facts of this case coming to light.' The lawsuit says Robinson worked for the Chiefs from 2016 to 2025, most recently serving as the team's Director of Player Engagement. Robinson's suit says he made an annual salary of $125,000, nearly $47,000 less (on average) than others in similar roles, before his termination. Robinson claims his requests for salary increases were denied by Chiefs President Mark Donovan because they had 'previously given him raises.' 'As compared to other NFL franchises and/or teams, [Robinson] was paid the lowest salary,' the lawsuit says, 'KC Chiefs paid African-American business employees less than their white counterparts.' Robinson cites an example of a Black woman who held a management position, making $50,000 per year. But when she asked the Chiefs for a raise and was denied, the lawsuit says she resigned and was replaced by a white woman, who the Chiefs paid $80,000 per year. Download WDAF+ for Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV The lawsuit says Robinson reported to Vice President of Administration Kristen Krug. He says Krug 'consistently advised [Robinson] to 'stay out of the way' or 'less is more.'' On February 15, 2025, the lawsuit says Krug called Robinson into her office, claiming that he had engaged in 'conduct detrimental to the league.' Krug accused Robinson of attacking his white female coworker and claimed to have seen the incident on security cameras, but refused to show Robinson the video. Following Robinson's firing, the woman he was accused of attacking took over his former role. The lawsuit also claims the Chiefs denied Robinson a job opportunity with another team, the Houston Texans, which would have also been more pay. Months before he was fired, the lawsuit says Robinson was pressured into renewing his contract with the Chiefs. But after he agreed to sign a contract renewal, the Houston Texans asked Chiefs management to interview Robinson. The suit claims the Chiefs refused, saying an interview would 'violate his contract'. Robinson claims he discovered this information after someone from the Texans organization called him personally and asked about it. Robinson is seeking monetary relief and a jury trial in the case. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
5 Arkansas-based companies in Forbes' latest ‘Global 2000' list
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. (KNWA/KFTA) — Five companies based in the Natural State were recently included in Forbes' newest 'Global 2000' list. To create the list, Forbes said it looked at companies' sales, profits, assets and market value. For Arkansas companies, Walmart was the highest-ranked at No. 18. The Bentonville-based company was the second-highest ranked American-based retailer behind Amazon (No. 5). Arkansas turns to Mississippi to help with federal highway operations Here's where the other Arkansas-based companies ranked: 565 — Tyson Foods 1389 — J.B. Hunt Transport Services 1423 — Murphy USA 1563 — Bank OZK The five Natural State-based companies were among the 621 based in the United States. Forbes noted the country with the second-most on the list was China with 321. Japan, India and the United Kingdom rounded out the top five. JPMorgan Chase topped the list for the third consecutive year with Berkshire Hathaway, China-based banker ICBC, Saudi Arabian Oil Company and Amazon in the top five. For the full list, visit Forbes' website. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Sign in to access your portfolio
