MARKETSHARE SLIDE WORSENS FOR FORD MOTOR COMPANY (R)

It just gets worse and worse . . . .

According to a report in Automotive News "Ford's domestic brands have lost 1.1 percentage points for the year to date." www.autonews.com

"Market share for [FoMoCo's] domestic brands was 16.8 percent at the end of August, down from 17.9 percent for the year-earlier period.

Ford sales analyst George Pipas told Automotive News "When the consumer is moving away from the segment where we have a 35 percent share and is moving toward small cars, where we have a 7 percent share, that's not very conducive to slowing the rate of decline or stabilizing or increasing market share."

Part of the problem, of course, if FoMoCo's poor selection of small cars.

Other than the "Mexican Mazda" CD3 sedan (Fusion/Milan/Zephyr/MKZ) and minor restyling of the previous generation Focus, FoMoCo doesn't offer much to match up with huge variety of small cars competing for economy-minded customers.

Ford insiders maintain that the CD3 is a modest hit. But FoMoCo's standards for a "hit" are so low these days that just not losing business is probably a "hit" in Dearborn.

FoMoCo is pinning signficant short-term hopes on the new "Edge" crossover and the underpowered 3.5 Duratec to reverse its fortunes. Yet FoMoCo apparently will continue to ignore several niches, such as cheap, yet entertaining youth market cars (Scion), factory "pocket rockets" (Civic SI, Cobalt SS, Caliber SRT-4, Volkswagen GTI), homologation-type high performance all wheel drive specials (Mitsubishi EVO, Subaru WRX), subcompacts (Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, Mini Cooper) and alternative body styles (convertibles, coupes, "box" trucks).

FoMoCo partner Mazda is, however, having some success with its quirky Mazda 3 and Mazdaspeed 3. Neither the success nor the advanced turbocharged powertrain are available in the more prosaic domestic Ford models.

FoMoCo also offers no fuel-efficient sports cars, other than the Mazda Miata.

You'd think with FoMoCo's problems in small sedans, that it would have a slate of luxurious, street-burning "gas guzzlers" at the other end.

Nope. FoMoCo's shelves are bare there, too.

While Chrysler offers perhaps the finest luxury-sports sedan available in America for less than $50,000 (Chrysler 300 C SRT-8) along with a fairly decent range of lesser models (Dodge Magnum R/T, Magnum SRT-8, Charger R/T, Charger R/T Daytona, Charger SRT-8 and Chrysler 300 C), FoMoCo offers not ONE MODEL in the power-to-weight range or performance envelope of these cars.

But that's just because FoMoCo is concentrating on fuel economy, right?

Not really.

While FoMoCo's sedans do best the most extreme examples cited above (e.g. the SRT-8s) FoMoCo's newest FWD-based sedans aren't exactly class leading at the pumps. The EPA rates FoMoCo's 4 cylinder Fusion at 24 mpg city and 32 mpg highway and the Fusion 6 at 21 mpg city and 29 mpg highway. Similarly Five Hundred is rated at 21 mpg city and 29 mpg highway. Decent numbers to be sure, but they only roughly match Camry (23 mpg city/33 mpg highway (Camry four/Automatic) and 21 mpg city/29 mpg highway (Camry six/automatic), are only slightly better than the economy versions of Chrysler's large RWD sedans (21 mpg city/28 mpg highway (Chrysler 300 2.7), 19 mpg city/27 mpg highway (Chrysler 300 3.5), 17 mpg city/25 mpg highway (340 h.p. Dodge Charger R/T) and lag behind GM (21 mpg city/31 mpg highway (Impala 3.5) and 18 mpg city/28 mpg highway (303 h.p. Impala 5.3 V8).

Of course FoMoCo offers nothing to match hot (in terms of sales), headline-grabbing economy sedans, such as the Toyota Camry hybrid, the Honda Civic Hybrid or the Honda Accord hybrid.

FoMoCo has a line-up of "competent" sedans, but nothing that really causes potential sedan buyers to lie awake at nights. And until FoMoCo can figure out how to break away from the pack of competent "transporation appliances," its results will continue to trend lower and lower.

CONSUMER REPORTS RIPS ON ETHANOL

America's favorite group of know-it-all nannies--Consumer Reports- weighs in on the ethanol debate in a cover story this month.

As could be easily predicted, the magazine takes a dim view of E85, undoubtedly recognizing that its potential as a high performance fuel conflicts with the liberal dream of forcing everyone into tiny econoboxes, mass transit and vanpools.

Of course anti-CR conspiracy theorists will note that E85 isn't much of a priority for the Japanese car makers, whose products CR typically fawns all over (CR is probably the single greatest sales gimmick of the Japanese car builders, notwithstanding serious methodological concerns over CR's survey process. See http://www.allpar.com/cr.html; http://www.truedelta.com/pieces/newdots.php )

The crux of CR's argument is that although E85 produces fewer oxides of nitrogen, it lowers fuel efficiency by 27 percent (based on CR's testing of Chevrolet Tahoe) and thus won't save drivers money, even if they can find it outside the Corn Belt.

They also look askew at government incentives aimed at boosting production of flexi-fueled vehicles:

"[T]he government credits FFVs that burn E85 with about two-thirds more fuel economy than they actually get using gasoline, even though the vast majority may never run on E85. This allows automakers to build more large, gas-guzzling vehicles than they otherwise could under Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules. As a result, these credits have increased annual U.S. gasoline consumption by about 1 percent, or 1.2 billion gallons, according to a 2005 study by the Union for Concerned Scientists." http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=71591

CR, of course, stays away from the real attraction of E85 for enthusiasts--high octane and the ability to absorbe more excess combustion heat than straight gasoline--two advantages that can be put to significantly higher and better use in properly-tuned forced induction engines.

CR apparently just can't understand why anyone would want to do such a thing . . . .