FORD MOTOR COMPANY (tm) TO LOSE $3 BILLION IN 2006?

www.fordboldmoves.com has linked to a Bloomburg story reporting that some analysts believe Ford Motor Company (tm) will lose as much as THREE BILLION DOLLARS in 2006. See http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a9j0FqY.dQJ0

"Ford Motor Co., buffeted by declining sales, shrinking margins on its most profitable vehicles and a dire need to conserve cash, may lose $3 billion in North America this year, people familiar with the company's internal projections said. "

The latest speculation comes on the heels of FoMoCo's halving of dividends and slashing board member payments, and on huge lengthening of the basic warranties for Lincoln and Mercury vehicles to address market perceptions of lower quality (however FoMoCo hasn't taken the "Bold Move" of matching or beating the Korean carmakers on warranty terms).

Still, FoMoCo may post a small annual profit (excluding one-time accounting charges), according to the analysts interviewed for the Bloomburg article, mainly on the back of earnings from Ford Motor Credit.

FoMoCo has achieved a modest percentage gain in cars (although not near the sort of results other small car builders are gaining). But unless you're satisfied with mini-shares of the market, the Five Hundred is a bust.

Ford continues to neglect the Panther platform (where's the restyling (the Japanese do it every four years like clockwork)? where are the 3V, 4V and supercharged V8s? Where's the crash-proofed fuel tank? Where are the true sports sedan models (not just buckets & a console in an ordinary sedan model)? Where is the next Town Car?

Where are the image-leading hybrids (even if they do have to offer ZERO percent financing to get rid of them)? ).

And now with the discontinued Taurus, the flailing Freestyle, the tired, previous generation Focus, the early retirement of the underdeveloped Lincoln LS, the refusal to import the Aussie Falcon, the horrible IIHS numbers on the Mexican-built, Mazda-based Fusion and the gutting of SVT, it looks like Ford has forgotten how to build a segment-leading sedan for the U.S. market.

CASE STUDY: NICHE MARKET NEGLECT IN THE CORRAL

Moreover, FoMoCo seems to be neglecting its best niche market--the Mustang. Notwithstanding the dealer-gouging hoopla for the soon-to-be-released, hyper-expensive Shelby GT500, Ford seems to be coasting on the built-up inertia of the 2005 restyle.

Given that the aftermarket has Eaton superchargers for less than $1000, bulletproof modular shortblocks for under $5000 (without any of the economies of scale of mass production) and 4V cylinder heads that aren't that much more expensive than good 2Vs and 3Vs, FORD HAS NO REAL EXCUSE FOR FORCING US TO SETTLE FOR A WEAK, FUEL-INEFFICIENT 300 h.p. with fragile hypereutectic pistons, crappy cracked-cap rods and cast cranks. TEAM MUSTANG--give us the GOOD STUFF at prices ordinary Mustangers can afford . . . or be prepared to lose mass sales to DCX when the Hemi Challenger is on-line.

And why is it that Ford doesn't build an affordable, RWD "tuner" car that kids can insure (any kid trying to get coverage on a Mustang GT will need two jobs -- if they survive the insurance agents laughter). A "tunable" V6 (forged internals, DOHC, dual pipes, low compression) would glide under the insurance radar and become a tuner-car star.

And why is it that even the weak-sister Mustang GT mill is saddled with a couple thousand dollars worth of trim and luxury options? Whatever happened to the stripper with a big bullet under the hood? I guess it's more fun to make hot rodders pay $5000 extra for two more cylinders and another exhaust pipe.

"JUST GOOD ENOUGH" VS. "SEGMENT-LEADING"

FoMoCo seems to be focused on "just good enough" instead of benchmarking and trouncing the best in a particular segment. Such mediocrity is a prescription for more marketshare losses and lower stock prices.

Philosophically, most people want it all (value, performance, reliability, fuel economy, low maintenance costs, smoothness, tractability, quality, striking looks, decent ride quality, plenty of helpful gadgets) at the cheapest possible price (that's basic microeconomics). The people I know who buy 156 m.p.h. German luxury sedans or cheaper Japanese knockoffs want the image, prestige and panache of them. The AMG and M cars are rarely driven anywhere near their performance potential (just like most people who buy $200 athletic shoes don't play ANY sport in them).

A major constant in the 100+ year evolution of the automobile is that reliable, operationally transparent higher performance always sells when it's priced within the same range as more ordinary competition. If it's too expensive or causes maintenance, economy or reliability hassles, then it only sells to the fanatics and early adopters.

Revolutions and huge market shifts occur when breakthroughs reach the popular consciousness and require no special sacrifices.

For example. Kettering high compression V8s revolutionized the market and made flathead technology completely obsolete within 10 years (less than five years in premium segments). Why? Because they offered more bang (and efficiency) for almost the same buck. In 1946, nobody expected 0-60 in less than 18 seconds. By 1964, even the cheapest full-size V8 could run 0-60 in 10 seconds, and the legendary times had fallen to around 5-7 seconds. Furthermore, even as expectations and technical capability increased, the consumers' actual use of the technology didn't (e.g. occasions of full throttle acceleration were undoubtedly more common in a V12 Continental than they were in a 430-powered Mark III/IV/V of the late '50s).

Of course, as higher technology (fuel injection, multivalve engines, variable cam timing, overhead cams, forced induction etc.) began to outstrip the hidebound Detroit "barge" luxury motif, Detroit fell further and further behind.

A significant factor in this was that market conditions in Europe caused many of their vehicles to develop to higher standards while Americans just kept working on the basic formulas and expectations established in 1948-1950. The emissions and CAFE crackdowns in the 1970s interrupted the natural development of market expectations and played into the efficiency strengths of the imports. However, as pressures eased, electronics, multivalve technology (hardly a new development) and reliable forced induction began to accelerate consumer expectations beyond the old cubes & carbs era.

Now, an ordinary Honda Accord V6 has as much performance as many "high performance" and "exotic" cars of twenty years earlier. The milestone vehicles in the sedan segments now outperform most legendary sports cars. Even a prosaic Honda minivan can whip many, if not most old sports cars (with the AC blasting and a DVD playing to entertain the kids).

TRANSPARENT PERFORMANCE AS A COMPONENT OF THE "NEW QUALITY"

Thus, to stand out takes even higher levels of refinement, fuel efficiency and objective performance. A 4.0 0-60 is probably the low limit under today's technology for transparent, no hassle, relatively cheap performance in a sedan. Furthermore, premium market expectations probably set the performance bogie in a 6-4 second range. Current fuel price concerns also require that fuel economy not be neglected in the pursuit of luxury, power and performance.

Carlos Ghosn told CNBC yesterday (13 Jul 06) that "Now, the [definition of quality] is going through a shift away from 'things gone wrong,' which is what people are now fixing. You've got to get more things you like. Do you like the materials, the colors, the fit, the sound? You've got to take the good cars apart. In the past, [the quality question] was: ‘Is the car reliable? Is the car durable?' Now, we're shifting…to the question: Did I get the right colors, features, material, sound, into the car?"

To get image conscious customers to look again, FoMoCo has to dramatically beat its competition. That doesn't mean victories which are apparent only to bookish technophiles, magazine editors or auto engineers. Cadillac has partially done this in its on-going quest to shed its poor image.

But FoMoCo should be benchmarking and beating the best on objective performance numbers (including fuel efficiency) at price points that drastically undercutting their European and Japanese "mainstream" competition. I've never taken anyone for a ride in a high performance car who said "I wouldn't want one of these even if I could afford it."

However, if a vehicle is too hard to live with or costs significantly more than other functional choices in the market, it will become a more narrow niche-oriented product.

HISTORY PROVES ADDING MORE PERFORMANCE IS CHEAP

Finally, as the 1960s U.S. muscle car era proved, it really doesn't cost that much more to add performance. In fact, it's probably cheaper now than it was 40 years ago. Fuel economy is manageable with the right balance of technologies and insurance costs can be managed through driver aids and decontented "economy" models (it's always better to engineer the platform & powertrains for the premium versions then to decontent/detune them to hit economy niches than trying to reinvent a lo-po heap into a superstar).

If FoMoCo were to market a 14.3 second quarter mile @100+ mph, 156 mph cruise capable, 8.5+g capable sedan with decent fuel economy, no maintenance hassles, good warranty, functional styling, and good quality (fit/finish/materials) and sell it at the same price as the competition is pushing 15.7 @ 90, 120 mph peak sedans of more or less equal quality, style and economy, it will gain marketshare.

Similar benchmarkeing approaches would work in other market segments. Just "good enough" isn't "good enough" anymore.

TRIBAL MONEY AND LAND DRIVE MG TO OKLAHOMA

The Oklahoman newspaper reports that part of the reason Nanjing Automotive Group chose to locate its new US MG automobile assembly plant in Oklahoma was the availability of land and investment from affiliates of the Chickasaw Indian tribe.

In other words, "follow the money."

The Chickasaws, like many other Indian tribes in Oklahoma and elsewhere, are reaping huge profits from relatively new tribal casino operations. According to The Oklahoman report, the tribe wants to plow some of these profits into creation of a manufacturing and distribution hub at Ardmore Airpark, similar to Ross Perot's Alliance Airport project in the DFW area.

Tribal entities formed a group to buy the land and invest gambling profits in the MG project. Follow the money.

Under federal law, land owned by tribal entities is part of "Indian Country" and that may provide certain advantages to business operations conducted there. Current federal law and policy recognizes "tribal sovereignty," giving tribes the ability to skirt some state laws and regulations. The extent to which this may have played into Nanjing's calculations in unknown.

Idled plants in Oklahoma City, such as the shuttered GM plant and the huge former Western Electric / Lucent plant, or even MG's historic Longbridge, UK, plant are simply not as attractive as a greenfield site in "Indian country."

The Oklahoma plant also gives Nanjing a foothold in the US AND in the influential "tribal" lobby to obtain some shielding from future protectionist legislation, as well as permitting Nanjing to claim it creates "American" jobs in order to blunt criticism. It also provides a competitive hedge should the situation at Longbridge deteriorate (undoubtedly some in "labour" are less than excited at the prospect of a vastly reduced MG presence in the U.K.)

The rebirth of MG may be more of a "gamble" than was first apparent.

BMW BLASTS THE "RENAULT ALLIANCE"

According to Reuters and Automotive News, "BMW CEO Helmut Panke warned that mergers and alliances such as a possible General Motors-Renault-Nissan link only provide short-term benefits at best." Panke, who heads the largest and most profitable luxury vehicle company argues that "In the integration process, the brand's profile gets lost."

Panke, of course, touts BMW's independence as the key to its success. And obivously, Panke has no interest in BMW becoming the target of a larger suitor.

However, history . . . even BMW's own . . . doesn't always bear out Panke's dire prediction.

For example, BMW's failed rescue of Rover Group left it with the MINI franchise. Although MINI now uses various Bavarian bits and pieces under the skin, few would suggest that its "brand profile" is "lost" or that MINI would be better off on its own.

And Speedzzter would be remiss not to point out that the "biggest and most luxurious BMW" is the Goodwood-built, quintessentially British Rolls-Royce.

See http://www.bmwworld.com/models/new/rr.htm

Would Panke argue that Rolls "lost" its brand profile as it was being passed around between Vickers and Volkswagen AG? (although perhaps the current "harsh" styling could be blamed on the Germans . . . .)

Moreover, the most dominant days of GM were when its various divisions were in "alliance and partnership" on certain behind-the-scenes functions, but had a modest amount of autonomy on features creating real market distinctions (albeit in Alfred Sloan's hierarchy of nameplates). GM's decline accelerated when the segment overlaps and the sharing became too obvious to its customers.

The Kerkorian - Tracinda proposal for the new "Renault Alliance" between GM, Nissan and Renault isn't inherently the path toward Roger Smith-style badge-engineered blandness. Instead, it recognizes that some of the value added to vehicles which isn't essential in establishing brand identity can be shared without losing "brand profile."

GHOSN SAYS "RENAULT ALLIANCE" REQUIRES A FINANCIAL STAKE IN GM

Recognizing the obvious, Carlos Ghosn told Le Monde that a buying a stake in GM is the only way the proposed "Renault Alliance" makes sense. He further said "We have to overcome the optimism of some and the skepticism of others in order to evaluate objectively the potential of an alliance."

Objective evaluation of the "deal" -- now that's a mature way of looking at it. Hardly the mark of someone who allegedly is just "Mr. Ego" or looking for a quick escape hatch, now is it?

2007 FORD FUSION "SPORT APPEARANCE" PACKAGE?

www.fordboldmoves.com has linked on 12 Jul 07 to a Detroit News report by Anita Lienert entitled "Ford unveils more muscle package for new Fusion."

See http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060712/AUTO03/607120314

Based on the '07 4-cylinder Fusion SE, the "under $500" option "will add a black chrome grille, color-keyed fog lamps, 17-inch wheels and red seat inserts, along with red top-stitching on the seats."

And FoMoCo reportedly will also tack on a uselessly fake trunklid "spoiler" for another 3 yards.

"MUSCLE?" "Bold move?" "Value?" What a joke.

This empty exercise isn't really any more "sporty" than the cartoonish Mustang II Cobra II tape-stripe and spoiler job from back in the mid-70s.

The new sport Fusion will still be substantially down on power to most of its Asian rivals.

Not exactly the "SVT Fusion" enthusiasts were hoping for.

EDWARD LAPHAM LAMPOONS "OKIE" MG PLAN

Calling Nanjing Automotive Group's bold plan to assemble MG TF sports cars in Ardmore, Oklahoma "at first . . . absurd," Automotive News Executive Editor Edward Lapham ripped the 12 Jul 06 announcement in his daily commentary.

Among Lapham's jabs . . .

"Maybe "Sooner" or "Okie" has some important meaning in Mandarin."

"Don't forget that Oklahoma is near Nebraska." [Uh, Gee Ed . . . ever heard of that huge slab of endless prairie between Oklahoma and Nebraska called . . . KANSAS?]

"I have this haunting image of the aid proposal landing on some big shot's desk at the Capitol in Oklahoma City … with the M and the G transposed."

Lapham hopes the "desperate for a car plant" "Okies" wrote a better deal than did the hapless foreign governments who were taken to the cleaners by Malcolm Bricklin and the late John Delorean with other failed sports car assembly schemes.

Cute, albeit stereotypical, jokes from a consumate "old Detroit" insider.

Still the real proof-of-concept test will be when the "bash-it-'til-it-fits" [according to Lapham] Oklahoma-built MGs start rolling into the market in 2008.

SPECULATION ON THE WAGONER SURVIVAL STRATEGY

www.autoextremist.com 's Peter M. DeLorenzo takes a second shot at the "Renault Alliance" proposed by billionaire minority shareholder Kirk Kerkorian and his Tricinda Corporation. See, http://www.autoextremist.com/page2.shtml#Rant.

The rhetoric this week is substantially less dramatic, but it's still consistent with the parochial "old Detroit" line opposing the alliance-partnership between GM, Nissan and Renault.

DeLorenzo's speculation boils down to a guess that Rick Wagoner and his friendly board members will try to keep Carlos Ghosn out of the Ren Cen executive suite while placating Kerkorian and his industry-expert Jerry York with linkages that smell a lot like an "alliance-partnership."

DeLorenzo speculates GM's board might go for "limited arrangements" such as a "joint-venture on an engine manufacturing facility . . . [a]n agreement to build a parts facility [begging the question as to what spinning off Delphi was all about if GM was going stay in the parts business] . . . [a] joint purchasing agreement on steel and other manufacturing essentials . . . . [a]nd even investigating shared platforms down the road."

Hmmm? Maybe Kerkorian and York DO have a point about the potential for "synergies" from the "Renault Alliance?"

A better, albeit more risky defensive suggestion, however, comes from Automotive News International Editor Charles Child. Child suggests that Rick Wagoner make the bold move of copying one thing Ghosn did when he took on Nissan:

"Ghosn stood tall at Nissan by spelling out specific sales and financial goals after he took command of the troubled Japanese automaker in 1999. Under his first three-year program, called the Nissan Revival Plan, he said he would cut debt in half, return to the black and achieve operating profits equal to 4.5 percent of sales. Moreover, he announced the goals publicly. If he fell short, he promised to resign. In a word, he was accountable."

Accountability? What a novel concept . . . .

If time permits, Kerkorian could use these sorts of defensive moves against the Wagoner regime. Agreeing to obvious "limited arrangements" (suitably stabilized by substantial cross-investments, of course) and forcing Wagoner's bunch to "put up or shut up" by specifying hard targets for GM's turnaround, might be enough to put the "Renault Allliance" on an upward trajectory and grease the skids on Wagoner's bunch if they cannot produce competitive results.

If Kerkorian facilitates Wagoner being "hoist on his own petar[d]," and has used the time to secure additional tie-ups between GM and Ghosn's companies, then Tricinda will be in a stronger postion to demand Wagoner's successor be Ghosn.

However, Edward Lapham thinks Kerkorian doesn't have much time before he has to "cash out" for life (see yesterday's entry).

And DeLorenzo doubts Ghosn has time to wait either. He argues that recent Nissan weakness is, at least in part, due to Ghosn's "disruptive" corporate move to Nashville and the chaos of new product introductions. The assertion is that Ghosn has to move on now to avoid losing his "golden boy" reputation.

[DeLorenzo's thesis is somewhat odd, considering that virtually every automaker (including GM) is trying to cut employees (although not as elegantly as Ghosn's slick move from California) and that such RIFs inherently create disruptions.]

DeLorenzo's take on Ghosn is kind of a simplistic and "misunderestimated" way to look at someone who "bet the farm" on being able to hit specific targets with a near-morbund automaker in only three years.

But DeLorenzo's correct on one thing . . . It will get interesting.

MG's BOLD MOVE TO OKLAHOMA

China's Nanjing Automotive Group, according to numerous industry sources, will announce on 12 Jul 06 that it plans to base its global headquarters for sales, marketing and distribution outside Asia in Oklahoma City and will construct a plant in Ardmore, Oklahoma, to assemble a redesigned TF Coupe.

Nanjing Automotive obviously wants a crack at the lucrative US market . . . and just about no place is more "American" than a "Red state" in the vast US heartland like Oklahoma. (In fact, missionary Allen Wright coined the word "OKLAHOMA" out of two Choctaw words -- "ukla" meaning "man" and "humá" meaning "red." In print, Oklahoma first appeared in a 1866 Choctaw treaty.)

Although GM recently turned its back on Oklahoma, shuttering its SUV assembly facility in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma is an excellent location for Nanjing's U.S. operations.

Like most sunbelt states that attract "transplant" assembly facilities, Oklahoma is a "Right-to-Work" state. The UAW will have a more difficult time worming their disruptive and expensive ways into an Oklahoma plant than one located in the Midwest or coastal regions with stronger traditions of unionization.

Oklahoma is a low-cost state for operations. The huge real estate price escalations which have occurred in many major urbanized sections of the country have mostly bypassed Oklahoma. Oklahoma has abundant land, labor and other natural resources attractive to manufacturing.

Ardmore, Oklahoma, is a particularly attractive location for a manufacturing facility. Only about 100 miles north of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, Ardmore is already home to Michelin and other manufacturers. It has excellent truck and rail access. Yet Ardmore retains the friendly middle-American "Red state" small-town feel.

Ardmore is even fairly close proximity to some "sports car" friendly "test" roads, such as the U.S. 77 pass through the Arbuckle Mountains and the Talamina scenic drive . . . . Oklahoma also has more unmolested miles of the iconic "Route 66" than any other state.

Oklahoma also has an excellent system of vocational-technology education centers that an OEM can tap for skilled labor and advanced training programs.

Oklahoma City, as well, is an excellent location for a OEM sales, marketing and distribution center. Oklahoma City's central location, low overhead, abundant commercial space, close proximity to two signficant universities of national stature, as well as a host of smaller academic institutions, and high quality of life all combine to make Oklahoma City an attractive business center. Moreover, Oklahoma City's close proximity to the SCCA's new HQ may have a special importance to MG as it may seek to reestablish itself as a grassroots sports car in the US.

If they can build BMW's in Spartanburg, South Carolina, they CAN build MGs in Oklahoma. If Carlos Ghosn can base Nissan's US HQ in Nashville with success, undoubtedly Nanjing will be able to effectively base its non-Chinese HQ in the "Sooner State."

BOLD MOVE, NANJING!

KERKORIAN "SCRAMBLING" TO "BEAT THE . . . REAPER?"

Normally reliable Edward Lapham, Executive Editor of Automotive News, has apparently joined the "circle-the-wagon[er]s" reflexive jihad against Kirk Kerkoian's proposed "Renault Alliance" and partnership between GM, Renault and Nissan.

In a 10 Jul 06 editorial entitled "Kerkorian Hears the Clock Ticking," Lapham observes that Kerkorian's 9.9% stake in GM has sunk approximately $50 million Dollars and suggests that:

"Kerkorian doesn't have the patience to be a passive investor. He's an 89-year-old gambler who made a bad bet and is scrambling to win as many blue chips as possible before the Grim Reaper cashes him out."

Lapham discounts money as a motivation for Kerkorian, though, suggesting that the proposed "Renault Alliance" is all about ego

(and we all thought that Carlos Ghosn was "Mr. Ego" in this little drama . . . Lapham may have misread the Detroit insider talking points on that point . . . or maybe it was the Auto Extremist Peter DeLorenzo who got it wrong, infra (see also www.autoextremist.com))

Lapham's win/win solution for "beating the . . . reaper" is for Kirk to pony up another billion or so for new product investment and technology at GM.

"Imagine what GM could do with another billion dollars. That could fund two new vehicle programs."

Of course, not if GM spends it as poorly as Ford Motor Company (tm) often has (see Jaguar; $6 billion Mondeo/Contour "world car" . . . .)

FORD-RENAULT-NISSAN?

Christine Tierney opines in the 11 Jul 06 edition of the Detroit News:

"How about Ford-Renault-Nissan?"
"Chemistry with Ghosn, complementary lineup could make more sense than alliance with GM."

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060711/AUTO02/607110378/1148/AUTO01

Tierney's piece is based on comments from auto analyst Robert Hinchliffe of UBS Securities.

Tierney points out Renault's earlier interest in the Volvo car division and Ford's better track record with international link-ups (Jaguar excluded). The story also repeats the rumors that Carlos Ghosn was unsuccessfully tapped by William Clay Ford, Jr. for a top slot in the Glass House.

Tierney points out the large, obvious sticking point to any "alliance" with FoMoCo--the huge, controlling block of shares held by Ford family members.

Still, in any consolidated market, FoMoCo will need a stronger Japanese partner than Mazda. And Ford's depressed share prices make grabbing a minority interest in the company--which is probably necessary to insure success of any alliance--very attractive.

A Ford-Renault-Nissan alliance would assume the number one spot in world vehicle production, albeit somewhat smaller than Kirk Kerkorian's proposed link-up between GM, Renault and Nissan.

While other "dream" mergers probably are more exciting to FoMoCo fans (i.e. imagine Ford aligning with Honda, Navistar (International trucks) and the newly resurgent Fiat (including Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, Maserati . . . or Ford aligning with Honda, Porsche, Audi, BMW or Volkswagen)), if Renault and Nissan don't get to spend their billions to get seats at the Ren Cen, FoMoCo may court them, if only to jack up dismal share prices from the speculation . . . .

"ASK DR. Z" VERSUS "FORD BOLD MOVES"

DCX's Chrysler arm was arguably caught even more flat-footed by the 2006 U.S. fuel price shock than Ford Motor Company (tm). Like Ford, Chrysler depends on truck and SUV sales for profits. But Chrysler sells fewer Ram (tm) trucks and has an even greater bloated inventory problem. Although Chrysler has the hot-selling new Caliber small crossover, its line-up is somewhat weaker than Ford's in the small, fuel efficient vehicle classes.

And Chrysler is leading off the now-annual summer "fire sale" pricing frenzy with the return of "Employee Pricing" PLUS zero-percent financing PLUS a thirty day return program. But at least there's no pesky little boycotts . . . yet (cf. www.boycottford.com)

Given all the grim news, no one would blame DCX if its advertising took the safe, sober tones of recent FoMoCo ads starring William Clay Ford, Jr. ("'Lil Billy"). Or the self-examining "change or die" intensity of www.fordboldmoves.com. Or even the abbreviated dramas of the "Ford Bold Moves" television commercials (aimed at suggesting Ford OWNERS engage in "bold moves" such as restoring an old F-series pickup for Dad, removing a downed tree for an ex-girlfriend, teaching your son to smoke the tires on a Mustang GT, or impulsively paying for a cute stranger's dry cleaning . . . .)

DCX has taken a different road.

DCX's "Ask Dr. Z" campaign is a light-hearted hoot starring DCX chief Dr. Dieter Zetsche. "Ask Dr. Z" is aimed at selling the features, functions and benefits of "American and German engineering and design," as seen in various Chrysler (tm), Dodge (tm) and Jeep (tm) vehicles.

The contrasts couldn't be greater.

While FoMoCo's 'Lil Billy infrequently appears (he's yet to show on www.fordboldmoves.com) and is hardly the center of Ford's diverse ad campaign, "Dr Z" himself is the solo front man for DCX. (assisted by a computer-generated avatar of "Dr. Z" at www.askdrz.com and and a guest cameo by one of the "that thang gotta Hemi?" stoner dudes in the "Du-Ram-Go" spot)

While FoMoCo's ads seldom employ anything approaching humor, the first five "Dr. Z" spots ("Ask Dr. Z", "Du-Ram-Go," "Dismantle," "Field Trip" and "Trophy") each counterbalance the seemingly serious Teutonic, fact heavy content with at least one comic stinger.

Moreover, while Ford's "Bold Moves" and safety campaigns seem to focus more on selling Ford as a viable company for the future, or as a good corporate citizen, or the general idea of driving a Ford as "Bold," "Ask Dr. Z" concentrates its fire on the tangible features of DCX's CURRENT vehicles.

While "Ask Dr. Z" is not as sarcastic or as edgy as recent VW GTI advertising, it takes assumptions and cliches in automobile advertising and playfully stretches them.

In the initial spot, "Ask Dr. Z," Dr. Z calmly recites various facts as he performs top-speed runs, and powerslides, tackes a "field trial" obstacle course hazard, and even while driving a (simulated) frontal crash test. Of course, Dr. Z's interviewer is suitably terrified.

In "Du-Ram-Go," Dr. Z touts the design advantages of Dodge trucks as involving "more than hemis," but is scolded by the director of the spot (the "Hemi stoner dude") that he forgot to mention the fuel-efficient "Hemi with . . . MDS.

In "Dismantle," Dr. Z leaves the a Chrysler 300's rear suspension sitting in its owner's front yard. In "Field Trip," Dr. Z touts the Jeep Liberty's clean diesel technology, flanked by dripping, muddy Jeeps he quips are the "cleanest ever."

In "Trophy" Dr. Z attends a soccer match to push minivans, "finds" a J.D. Power trophy in a "Stow and Go" seat bin and even "heads" an errant soccer ball.

The risk Zetsche takes in the "Ask Dr. Z" campaign is similar to the one taken by the late Dave Thomas in the long running, successful Wendy's Old-Fashioned Hamburgers campaign. DCX is betting that "Dr Z" is likeable and entertaining enough to grab attention. Although Dr. Z isn't as "down home" or seemingly "middle American" as Thomas (and frankly is somewhat hard to understand when he rushes his lines at times), he is not as obnoxious as old Chrysler pitchman Lee Iacocca. And Dr. Z seems infinitely more at ease with himself than "Lil Billy" in the Ford safety spots.

Given America's perception that imported cars are better than domestics, its Eurocentric roots and that it is a nation of immigrants, the "Ask Dr. Z" campaign and www.askdrz.com seem well-positioned to create positive awareness for DCX products.

If only the Ford Bold Moves campaign and www.fordboldmoves.com showed a little of the same good humor . . . .

Now if someone would just pay for SPEEDZZTER'S dry cleaning . . . .

RICH CEPPOS ON THE LOGIC OF TRUCKS

Speedzzter typed comments, infra, on the image problems of FoMoCo's minivans without the benefit of reading Rich Ceppos's recent column at Autoweek.com. See, If Logic Only Prevailed, http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060710/FREE/60629018/1025/FREE

Ceppos, under winnowing fire from Autoweek's legion of light-truck-hating automobile purists, counterattacked, arguing:

"If only logic prevailed, most of us would be making do with cars the size of Focuses equipped with tiny diesel or hybrid powertrains, and renting trailers from U-Haul when we needed to move our stuff—and liking it. . . ."

Of course a lot of folks in the Red States, and even in much of the Blue States, would need to keep U-Haul on a daily retainer if that were the case. But then Ceppos extends his argument with an even more grandiose conclusion:

" But would there be a Beethoven’s Fifth? A Mount Rushmore? (Talk about a nutty idea.) How about an Empire State Building? Or a character named King Kong that climbed it in a movie? Oops. Probably wouldn’t be any movies. Or ice cream bars. Or MySpace. Or Lotuses. No Lotuses?"

One could certainly argue that each of the "illogical" art forms Ceppos cites are quite logical in their proper contexts. Just as are trucks and SUVs.

Ceppos, however, hits the bulls-eye when he observes:

"Trucks and SUVs speak in secret code to a big slice of the population. 'Hey, I’m no soccer mom,' they call out. Or 'Middle age doesn’t mean you’re dead!' Or 'I’m a big, bad bling thing.'"

This is hardly an earthshattering conclusion.

Harley Earl understood it back in the days when he established the "Art & Colour" department at GM, promising a bit of style and Hollywood glamour in a utilitarian product Henry Ford had tried to reduce to a commodity.

Edsel Ford understood it when he infused Ford's mass market cars with as much advanced Lincoln style as his domineering father would permit.

Semon "Bunkie" Knudsen understood it when he opined the central theme for the turnaround of Pontiac in the mid-1950s: "You can't sell a old-man's car to an young man, but you can sell a young man's car to an old man . . . ."

Lee Iacocca even understood it when he championed the "sporty Falcon," which we know as the 1964 1/2 Mustang and when he helped concoct other parts-bin gimmicks, such as the neo-classic Lincoln Mark III, the boxy Grenada, the Pep-Boys-look-conversion of the Grenada into the discount, Seville-fighting Lincoln Versalles, or the vast majority of the K-car variations that sustained Chrysler in the 1980s.

And when FoMoCo bean-counter Red Poling and others selected development of UN46, a 50% derivative of the Bronco II now known as Explorer, over a proposed mid-engine sports car advocated by SVO, it was not a rejection of the "secret code" principle followed by Earl, Edsel, Iacocca and many others before. It was merely an adaptation of it to the new reality of the regulated automobile and the regulatory inability to competitively produce exciting and functional large cars in a "minivan" world.

A central thrust of the "Bold Moves" campaign, even as illustrated by impractical dream cars, is that FoMoCo must create products that are more than just transportation appliances. Milestone vehicles in the American ideom generally declare in "secret code" something special about their owners.

Moreover, even those who don't care a whit about anything other than a Ceppos-logical transportation appliance now seem to require such esoteric features as stylish aluminum wheels (when simple aerodynamic plastic wheel covers would do), loads of electrical gadgets, and peppy sub-10 second zero-to-sixty times.

Some of the transportation appliance lovers want even more, though . . . . www.fordboldmoves.com reader Josh Stout requested:

"Go out and build a car that we don’t have to think about. Build a car that works with us and not against us. Build a car that never needs maintenance. Build a car with incredible gas mileage. . . . Make windshield washer blades that don’t streak or wear out. Make chip proof windshields. Install 2 gallons of washer fluid so I never run out. . . . We don’t want to think about our cars. Toyota gets it. Why don't you?" http://www.fordboldmoves.com/Article.aspx?episode=2&id=98039e56-4f6a-4f24-b07f-31600b8a3e6a

Who knew Toyota had "chip-proof windshields", lifetime wiper blades and two Gallons of washer fluid . . . .

But for most buyers, a vehicle must fit some attractive persona (that the buyers may not even be able to vocalize) AND be practical, economical, reliable, exciting, idiot-proof . . . .

MONTOYA TO NASCAR?

He said he wanted to return to "racing . . . ." Hmm? Perhaps he'll rethink that after watching a fiasco like Chicago . . . .

TOYOTA MISSES DEADLINE ON COROLLA REDESIGN

. . . the excuse . . . too much engineering load and market pressure to be less "bland" . . . it's not easy being so huge.

(maybe they're working on that two-gallon wiper fluid feature)

RENAULT ALLIANCE: MIXED MESSAGES FROM DETROIT

Automotive News has two separate takes on the Kirk Kerkorian proposal for a GM/Renault/Nissan alliance/partnership. Editorially, AN honcho Keith Crain writes:

"Don't dismiss the idea of a 'global motors' quite so fast. . . . DaimlerChrysler tried and couldn't make it work, so it retreated. With a stronger Japanese player, it might have been a better idea. Maybe GM needs the help of some international companies that are doing quite well with a global strategy. . . . This is a game that forces you to look two decades out. . . . [I]t is in the best interest of everyone for GM's board to study it and study it hard."

Although Crain is often superficial and wrong about industry issues (i.e. his drumbeating for increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards), Crain's approach to the "Renault Alliance" seems measured and reasonable.

The more expected parochial take on the proposed alliance comes though an news "analysis," concluding that benefits may be uncertain and distant. The analysis admits that GM's stronger truck lines, emerging dual-mode hybrid technology and excess plant capacity might dovetail with Nissan's advantage in cars.

The big question mark seems to be whether any supplier and labor cost savings can be extracted. The analysis concludes that component sharing is "no slam dunk. To derive the full benefit of joint purchasing, the partners must use the same vehicle platforms. That could take years, given the complexities of coordinating product plans."

And intrigue in the executive suites garners a fair share of speculation. "Low key" Rick Wagoner and thinly-stretched Carlos Ghosn are set as competitiors in a zero-sum, winner-takes-all scenario for leadership of the three partners. While this isn't the only possible structure, it is perhaps the most appealing issue to that large class of business watchers who can't tell a fuel injector from an oxygen sensor . . . .

Most certainly, the viability of the "Renault Alliance" won't be decided in a few general paragraphs of a newspaper or blog. The wonks at GM, Renault and Nissan have a lot of hard work ahead.

JUST SAY NO TO "FAIRLANE?"

Some of FoMoCo's greedy, yet long-suffering dealers have called for the product planners in the "Glass House" to dump the "Fairlane" name for the MY 2008 "it's-not-a-minivan" replacement for Ford's poor-selling Freestar and Mercury Monterey people movers.

Automotive News reports that some dealers object that "Fairlane" is not a "strong name" and insiders say that it "almost for sure" won't badge the new Ford hauler.

Fordophiles, of course, remember the glory days for the "Fairlane" nameplate. "Fairlane" entered the Ford lexicon as Henry Ford's grand Dearborn estate. After the deaths of Henry and Clara Ford, Henry Ford II and the Whiz Kids badged some of FoMoCo's top full-size sedans as "Fairlane." After nameplate inflation had bumped "Fairlane" down a few notches, it reappeared on the 1962 mid-sized "super-Falcon" sedans. More muscular and sporty versions appeared: Fairlane GT/GTA and Fairlane 500. Fairlane fell victim again to new FoMoCo managment and "nameplate inflation" when it was subplanted by the Italian "Torino" sobriquet.

Fairlane has virtually disappeared from the US market for over 30 years, except as a Dearborn-area shopping mall built on part of the old Fairlane estate.

Those who remember the glorious Fairlanes of the past, such as Mario Andretti's 1967 Daytona 500-winning Holman-Moody hardtop, the 1957 Fairlane Skyliner, the 1961 Fairlane Starliner or the 1964 Fairlane Thunderbolt, are thankful that Ford's knuckle-headed dealers can't remember how "tough" Fairlanes used to be.

Fairlane is simply too good of a badge for a boring people-mover.

As to whether the new "crossover" whatchamacallit will be a success, it probably can't do much worse than FoMoCo's current crop of soccer-mom wagons. Automotive News reports that: "Sales of Ford Motor's minivans have been dismal, with 8,166 Montereys and 77,585 Freestars sold in the United States in 2005. During the first six months of 2006, Monterey sales plunged 40.4 percent, and Freestar sales dropped 20.9 percent."

Ford historians will likely credit the modern "garagable van" idea to Hal Sperlich, although certainly many recognize that the VW Microbus and the early 1960s forward-control Corvair "Corvan" and Ford Falcon Econoline vans demonstrated essential elements of the concept. Sperlich promoted the idea at FoMoCo in the early 1970s, only to be rebuffed by Henry Ford II. Sperlich and Lee Iacocca reteamed over at Chrysler and chearlead the modern minivan to market in 1984. However, some Chrysler purists reject Sperlich as the genesis for the modern mininvan. See http://www.allpar.com/model/m/history.html

Ford never caught up to DCX in minivans. Moreover, the market shift to RWD/4WD/AWD SUVs steamrolled the popularity of minivans, benefiting FoMoCo, notwithstanding its small sliver of the shrinking minivan market. Although obviously practical and reasonably space efficient, minivans lack panache and image. Additionally, stagnation in minivan technology and design has further limited them to commodity motoring status.

Ford's Fairlane concept vehicle rejects the standard minivan "sloping, rounded box" design for a more rugged, squared-off SUV-like shape. What remains to be seen is whether the "Bold Move" of a more heavy-set boxy design will overcome the minivan's pedstrian image. GM's newer long-nose minivans and the Honda and Scion "boxes" have already established this trend. Ford may be--again-- a tad late to the party . . . . (Make that a "late move" rather than a "bold move.")

Ford's recent lack of success with the "Freestyle" crossover doesn't suggest much chance of upending the market with a new one, regardless of what they call it. However, to be fair, the Fairlane concept appears more rugged, substantial and masculine than the conservative Freestyle.

MG--BUILT IN AMERICA?

The new Chinese owners of MG are making noises about a return to the world's largest automobile market . . . and even producing some models in America.

MG, short for "Morris Garages," was in a sense the SVT of its day. MG took off-the-shelf bits from Morris economy cars and blended them into interesting, fuel-sipping racing and sports cars. The glory days of MG included sparking the low-priced post-war sports car fad in the US. MGs were a counterpoint to the American muscle car in the 1960s and survived in the US until killed by obsolescence and excessive regulations during the 1980 market downturn.

Overseas, MG continued to build a variety of interesting models, such as the Mini-esque MG Metro and Metro Turbo, a mid-engined sports car, and even a line of Rover & Ford DOHC Modular-powered RWD performance sedans (once again, a Ford-powered RWD sports sedan that didn't make the American market). And even in the last days before liquidation, MG mounted a noteworthy effort at the 24 Heures Du Mans (Le Mans).

For the nostalgic, a return of the famed MG octagon to North America will trigger mixed emotions. Much like Chinese-built "Schwinn" bicycles, the new MGs will likely seem a shadow of their former selves. However, it is encouraging that yet another storied marque doesn't join the likes of Oldsmobile, Plymouth, American Motors, Willys, Rambler, Studebaker, DeSoto, Nash, Hudson, LaSalle, Graham, Auburn, Cord, Duesenberg etc. on the ashheap of forgotten brands.

Maybe some of the new Chinese MGs, if they ever arrive, will be "Powered by Ford . . . ."

POWERED BY FORD?

Speaking of Le Mans . . . has anyone seen any advertising from FoMoCo celebrating the victory of the "powered by Ford" Panoz in the 2007 GT class?

Ford powers a number of interesting models, such as some Morgans, mid-engine Noble sports cars and the aformentioned Panoz cars. Yet Ford apparently doesn't care to capitalize on the "halo effect" of powering some of the world's most interesting specialty vehicles. Meanwhile, GM Performance Parts promotes the daylights out of its obvious hegemony in grassroots American street rodding and circle track racing (ironically, two forms of motorsport that were initially popularized by Ford and "Powered by Ford" vehicles--albeit with virtually no help from the factory).

Too bad some of Ford's Ivy-league marketers can't spot an opportunity here.

Ford's Bold Moves campaign and www.fordboldmoves.com would be well served to acknowledge Panoz's success at Le Mans and the array of interesting specialty vehicles "Powered by Ford."

JEFF GORDON SLAMS FORD AGAIN

A great case can be made for declaring NASCAR's JEFF GORDON as Ford Enemy #1.

Ford Racing fans are fully aware how Gordon took Ford money early in his career and how Bill Davis Racing muffed locking up Gordon's contract with Ford, allowing Gordon to clandestinely jump ship to Rick Hendrick's Chevrolet team.

Gordon, of course, then became second only to Dale Earnhardt and Darrell Waltrip among the modern-era winners for the Bow-Tie brand in NASCAR. Gordon also trails only legends Richard Petty and Earnhardt in season championships in NASCAR's top division.

(Bill Davis went on to further infamy at DCX and will help carry Toyota's NASCAR banner in 2008. Thanks for nothing, Bill)

Gordon's latest affront to the Blue Oval is his "bump and run" on Roush Ford driver Matt Kenseth last Sunday at Chicago. However, Gordon's "bump" was more like an intentional drop-kick, causing Kenseth to spin and bringing out the caution.

Myopic NASCAR, elastic rule book firmly in hand, saw no evil and Gordon cruised to victory. NASCAR's "no call" was cheered by NBC's syophantic suits in the announce booth--"Professor" Buffet Benny Parsons and Pikes Peak hero Wally Dallenback, Jr. (both whom incidentally spent significant time racing in factory-backedFords before being snubbed by either Ford or a Ford contractor--not that such events have ANYTHING to do with Parsons and Dallenback's call of Sunday's Chicago brouhaha)

Kenseth ended his day deep in the pack, crashing with another "Brand X" car.

Defensively, Gordon claimed that the "bump" wasn't retaliation for an earlier accident between him and Kenseth this year at Bristol. He also asserted that Kenseth was "blocking" and that Gordon "had a run. . . ."

Right.

Some Chicagoland fans, undoubtedly including many from Kenseth's native Wisconsin and some from Ford's Chicago Assembly Plant, made their own objective judgments. Gordon was (again) shelled in a hail of debris from the stands.

Not much of a penalty.

A view of the tape shows Kenseth holding his line in the fateful turn, albeit probably constrained by lapped traffic.

Once again Gordon slams Ford and gets away with it.

Ford Enemy #1? You be the judge.