BOYCOTT PROMPTS TEXAS-AREA FOMOCO DEALER PROTEST

Ford Motor Company boycott organizers have posted a copy of a letter from the Texas Ford Dealers Advertising Fund, Inc. that was allegedly sent to William Clay Ford, Jr. on June 23, 2006. The letter, in essence, begs FoMoCo to stop actively promoting the radical homosexual rights agenda through its adverstising dollars. See http://www.afa.net/fordtexasletter.asp

FoMoCo consistently maintains that the boycott has no effect on sales. Apparently its Texas dealers disagree.

Regardless of how one comes out on the ultimate issues, Ford's flip-flops, inability to arrive at a nuanced solution, and its decision to, in effect, "hang out" long-time Texas Ford dealer Jerry Reynolds--who last fall arranged a boycott-stopping compromise agreement with the 19-or-so conservative organizations supporting it--has been a public relations fiasco.

INTERNET MEOWING OVER JAGUAR

Ford Motor Company's cryptic suggestions that Jaguar and its underperforming British mate Land Rover may be on the block has prompted a wave of commentary.

Old Detroiter Peter M. DeLorenzo hammers FoMoCo at www.autoextremist.com in Issue 359, released August 9, 2006. DeLorenzo's take follows the conventional wisdom on Ford's mismanagement of the Coventry brand (Just as Speedzzter opined before, Jaguar blew it by: (a) failing to capitalize on its heritage (or "Brand DNA" in Fordspeak, and (b) cheapening the marque through the ill-fated expansion into the "dreaded" near luxury class using the Mondeo/Contour platform). However, DeLorenzo's pointed, if not vicious prose on this ought to be experienced first-hand.

DeLorenzo's crew also rips the upcoming Lincoln MKS on (a/k/a the Lincoln MistaKeS) on similar grounds as simply the wrong vehicle, by the wrong brand, at the wrong time.

"Not-so-good news is that the Lincoln MKS concept will become a production car for the 2008 model year. The uninspired near-luxury car, which manages to incorporate every current design cliche out there in its flanks, will continue to send Lincoln into the depths of mediocrity. They just don't get it in Dearborn when it comes to Lincoln - and they'll never get it, apparently."

See kids, Speedzzter isn't alone in finding Lincoln's rush to the muddled near-luxury middle with FWD-based Volvo and Mazda hand-me-downs is little more than cynically trading on the brand's former glory.

But it's Automotive News columnist Edward Lapham that may have penned the seminal analysis of FoMoCo's flirtation with dumping its "British Patients."

Lapham, suggesting that China's "keen eye for Western bargains, such as old English brands" may make Jaguar and/or Land Rover attractive targets, tied this thought together with the cost-cutting "give-up" mentality beseiging FoMoCo at the moment:

" Mark Fields telegraphed the company's plan yesterday when he re-pledged that he'd even sell the furniture to raise money for product development. So you have to figure that by the time the Ikea and the Norwegian wood are on eBay, Land Rover and Jag will be long gone."

www.autonews.com

Well said!

BRAND CHANNELING, DNA, AND RWD.

John Larson, general manager of Pontiac-Buick-GMC at General Motors, touts the success of GM's three brand "channeling" strategy in Automotive News (see http://www.autonews.com) .

Channeling permits GM to trim redundant models and provides Pontiac-Buick-GMC dealers a broad product mix.

In other words, the three brands are permitted to become more focused on their essential "DNA."

Previously, Bob Lutz, GM's vice chairman of global product development, outlined the targeted strategy: luxury sedans for Buick, sporty and performance cars for Pontiac, and Trucks for GMC.

Each segment tracks with the historical image for the various brands. Buick was long known as GM's "Doctor's car," just a slot below Cadillac. From the days of FoMoCo alumnus Semon "Bunkie" Knudsen, Pontiac has aggressively persued a performance image. And ever since its Grabowski and General Motors Truck origins, GMC has been about serious trucks.

Of more interest to enthusiasts, "Larson confirmed that Pontiac will offer mostly rear-wheel-drive performance cars, but he said he would not rule out an SUV-like product" or "a Chevrolet Camaro-type product for Pontiac possibly to replace the GTO."

All Speedzzter can say is that it's about time.

Of course GM won't have the discipline to channel all medium-priced RWD performance to Pontiac (e.g. Corvette, Camaro), but the channeling strategy makes more sense than the duplicative efforts encouraged as Alfred Sloan's brand hierarchy broke down in the 1960s.

Contrast this clarity to the reigning confusion in FoMoCo's Glass House.

FoMoCo only has three domestic nameplates in two divisions (Ford, Lincoln-Mercury), but it doesn't have much of a plan either to mesh them with the foreign divisions (Mazda, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston-Martin).

Given the declining prestige of Lincoln and the irrelevance of Mercury (J.D. Power reliability rating anomalies notwithstanding), FoMoCo could stand to gamble with better segmentation and increased three-brand channeling.

Each brand needs unique product.

Mercury is particularly well situated to take lower-volume risks.

A "Bold Move" would be to make Mercury the turbo-diesel and hybrid brand at FoMoCo.

Or to tap into the brand's "deluxe Ford" DNA, Mercury could take on the role of SVT to produce "in-house" tuner versions of Ford products and, perhaps, other sporty RWD products.

Or Lincoln could return to its traditional "up-market" true luxury place and the brand diluting near-luxury vehicles could be exclusively Mercury territory.

Any of the foregoing strategies would be better than making Mercury merely a collection of badge-engineered Mazdas, Volvos and Fords at a $500 higher price point.

As things stand now, Mercury will get squeezed out as Lincoln heads downward and the Ford brand creeps upward.

FIELDS'S DAY WITH THE PRESS

Ford Motor Company's "President of the Americas," Mark Fields gave a taste of his scheduled Traverse City speech to reporters at dinner yesterday, according to the Automotive News.

Expectedly, Fields spent plenty of time on the decline in truck sales and the corresponding widening of FoMoCo's losses in the second quarter of 2006. He also danced around questions on a "someday" sub-Focus minicar for "the Americas."

Fields believes that $3/gallon fuel forces FoMoCo to accelerate "The Way Forward" plan.

However, Fields's comments underscore the obvious fact that FoMoCo had no contingency plan for sustained high fuel prices.

Because F-Series trucks reportedly contribute an average gross profit of $8,000 per unit sold, fixing the truck sales problem is central to any realistic "Way Forward."

Toyota's hideously-styled 2007 Tundra and GM's new designs are also poised to make some waves for FoMoCo truck plans.

Of course the 2007 SuperDuty will feature two new trim levels . . . Lariat Outlaw and Lariat . . . who cares?

It should be obvious to the Glass House rats that the central race is to meaningfully boost fuel economy without compromising power or utility.

In the short term, the answer is spelled t-u-r-b-o d-i-e-s-e-l. It simply makes no sense that truck buyers have to buy a 6,900 lb+ truck to get a diesel and/or a manual transmission.

Longer term solutions involve the basics-- improved aerodynamics, reduction of unnecessary weight, closer ratio splits in the transmissions (and probably a gear-splitter auxilliary transmission, similar to the popular aftermarket overdrives), starter-alternator based mild hybrids, cylinder deactiviation, variable valve timing and improved combustion efficiency (e.g. HCCI or forced induction).

On the other front, how long will FoMoCo "evaluate" alternative before they bring the European Ka here to battle with Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, BMW's Mini and other products from FLEXIBLE companies which actually PLANNED for expensive fuel?

FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S "K CAR"

Back when Ex-FoMoCo executive Lee Iacocca was busy trying to repay Federally-guaranteed loans incurred by the "Old" Chrysler Corporation, he bet the company on seemingly endless variations of a forgettable FWD platform known as the "K Car."

Twenty years later, FoMoCo seems destined to repeat Iacocca's strategy.

Automotive News is reporting that "Dave Szczupak, group vice president of manufacturing for the Americas, talked about [four] new products during an address to analysts at the JP Morgan/Harbour automotive conference in Dearborn, Mich." Reportedly, "two of the new products would be sedans, and two would be for 'future unique segments.'"

All of the "new" products will be based on the Volvo-sourced Five Hundred platform. In other words, Five Hundred is analogous to Ford's K-Car.

Nothing like "fixing" a mistake by compounding it.

Five Hundred and its V8-less FWD/AWD siblings Mercury Montego and Ford Freestyle have done little to stem the exodus of FoMoCo customers.

Immediate hopes are pinned on the promised 3.5 Duratec and a Fusion-style grille for Five Hundred. However, these changes don't really address Five Hundred's real problems (bland styling, excessive frontal area, FWD driving dynamics, elevated center-of-gravity, transversly-mounted engine, insufficient room for 90-degree Modular V8s (which, incidentally have compromised bore centers specifically for FWD installations and a history of use in similarly-sized FWD models) .

The sedans are expected to be Lincolns-- the D385 2008 Five Hundred clone to be marketed as "MKS" [as in MistaKeS] and another larger "maybe" code named E386.

Both D385 and E386 mark Lincoln's continuing decline from the ranks of luxury producers.

The "unique segments" are likely "people movers" -- which is FoMoCo futurespeak for minivans (although perhaps without sliding rear doors).

FoMoCo's record in the minivan segment has been notably poor and is continuing to slide as DCX and the Japanese dominate the market.

At least Iacocca figured out the minivan version of the K-Car . . . .

GET READY FOR "MICRO-NICHES"

"Micro-Niches?"

Automotive News is reporting that Chris Theodore, Vice Chairman of ASC, Inc., said today at the annual Traverse City, Michigan, "Management Briefing Seminars" that "automakers must learn how to make such small-volume products profitable -- or at least sustainable. . . . It's going to take a different approach to manufacturing."

"A micro-niche is a model that sells only a few thousand units a year -- but which automakers keep alive for a halo effect on their brand."

Doubters of the "halo" theory and efficiency-oriented bean-counter types hate niches and "micro-niches" because they play havoc with economies of scale, work rules, and smooth-running mass production lines.

But, "customization" is a general trend in consumer products and Theodore noted its increasing effect on the U.S. auto industry. The number of models "selling fewerthan 10,000 units a year" has doubled, "from 54 in 1999 to 117 in 2005." Even mass market models sell in smaller volumes today. Theodore said "the average nameplate sold only about 48,000 units."

The future clearly belongs to the lean and flexible.

Skeptics will note that Theodore's company, however, has a dog in this fight to promote and then to outsource "micro-niche" vehicles.

However, one can hardly dispute that "micro-niches" have the potential to increase sales at the margins, albeit with greater costs and required effort.

FoMoCo has historically used outsiders to build "micro-niche" specials. In the 1960s, Shelby-American, A.O. Smith and Kar Kraft all built "specials" for FoMoCo. Reportedly, the 2007 Shelby GT will be a joint production between FoMoCo and Shelby's Las Vegas factory.

The real challenges for "micro-niche" vehicles include (a) identifying and quantifying the target market; (b) providing a suitable OEM platform;(c) engineering, sourcing and certifying the value-added components; (d) arriving at an effective division of work between the OEM and the "micro-niche" contractor; and (e) properly marketing and promoting the end product so as to maximize sales and the effect of the "halo" on lesser mass production products.

The 2007 Shelby GT will be little more than a "tape-stripe special" with minor styling tweaks and FRPP "packs" on the suspension and the stock-block, hypereutectic-piston 3v engine.

The critical parameters of "micro-niche" vehicles will be controlled by the OEMs. OEMs dictate the basic layout of the vehicles (e.g. RWD v. FWD), the computer codes, transmission and drive axle torque ratings and engine internals. If the drive to cut costs and weight compromises the basics, no amount of "micro-niching" will produce fun and interesting high performance products. As the old cliche goes, "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."

But "micro-niches" really only work it they can take advantage of mass production platforms and "common" support systems (HVAC, electrical, safety, etc.)

Excluding the Mustang, F-Series and some BOF SUVs, FoMoCo's current line-up isn't very receptive to strong "micro-niche" products. Nor has FoMoCo shown enough aggression in pursuing them.

FoMoCo engineers and product planners should keep the foundational requirements of micro-niching" in mind as they plan future products.

An essential element for FoMoCo is to certify several engine packages that are "power adder ready." Under the current environment, supercharged, turbocharged, "dual-charged" and perhaps even nitrous oxide injected engines with cylinder deactivation and variable valve timing will become the preferred ways to combine daily-driven efficiency with occassional blasts of fun.

Notwithstanding the relatively inefficient, Eaton-blown GT500, FoMoCo is way behind here.

Micro-niches are here to stay. But will FoMoCo lead?

DR. Z STRIKES BACK

Old Detroiters, such as retired ad-man Peter DeLorenzo at www.autoextremist.com have repeatedly ripped DCX's light-hearted "Dr. Z" campaign.

DeLorenzo's "bare knuckled" bunch argues "the now universally-panned ad campaign featuring DaimlerChrysler CEO Dieter Zetsche . . . turned the much-respected Zetsche into a clown. . . The bad thing about having $225 million to spend on an ad campaign is that if it sucks, the damage can linger for years. And we expect that it will take years, not months, but years to resurrect Dieter Zetsche's reputation after this unmitigated disaster."

Who would expect "Dr. Z" to take such moss-backed pontificating lying down (even if lying supine on a "creeper" with a Chrysler 300 "five link" on his chest). [See "Dismantle" at www.askdrz.com]

So it's no surprise that Laura Clark Geist at Automotive News is reporting on "Dr. Z's traffic jams:" "The Chrysler group says traffic to its Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep brand Web sites is up 10 percent since the "Ask Dr. Z" campaign . . . launched July 1. At the same time, the number of visitors to the Web sites who seek more information about Chrysler group vehicles has risen by 30 percent.

www.askdrz.com claims it has answered over 3,990,000 questions from over 630,000 visitors to the the website since July 1.

One speculates that's a far sight more questions than Peter DeLorenzo or other guardians of Detroit gravitas have ever answered.

www.askdrz.com seems to generate significantly more public interaction with the company than www.fordboldmoves.com. The "Bold Moves" website uses delayed and highly-moderated comments instead of product-driven questions.

The different approaches are a microcosm of the differences between William Clay Ford Jr. and Dr. Dieter Zetsche, and between their respective companies.

Zetsche and Chrysler are mavericks. They both address problem areas with dramatic action. Zetsche and DCX take "big, bold swings of the bat:" Caliber, "Hemi," SRT, the new Sebring, the return to NASCAR . . . Zetsche goes for the long ball in underserved, traditionally American niches. Zetsche seems to know who he is and is comfortable in his own skin. And DCX's Chrysler Division may be fourth or fifth among the "Big 6" in the U.S. market, but they have been to the abyss a time or two yet still have a swagger unmatched in the industry.

The Fords--the Chairman and his company-- seem aloof, unfocused and somewhat timid by comparison. While certainly FoMoCo has thrown the occasional "bone" to enthusiasts (Ford GT, the retro Mustang, Mustang GT . . . and now the weak-sister Shelby GT), Ford's "other" decisions are often marked by flip-flops, group-think, indecision and mediocrity.

For example, take FoMoCo's current sedan line-up: Unless you're satisfied with mini-shares of the market, the tepid, underpowered, Modular V8-incompatible Five Hundred is a bust!

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

Where are the Japanese-fighting hybrid-electric "halo" sedans? (even if they do have to offer ZERO percent financing to get rid of them)

And now with the discontinued Taurus, the flailing Freestyle, a day-old version of the Focus, the starvation and slaughter of the underdeveloped Lincoln LS, the refusal to import the Aussie Falcon, the horrible IIHS numbers on the Fusion, the slow death watch on Lincoln Town Car and the flip-flopping de-emphasis of SVT, Ford's conservatism, cost cutting, directionlessness and risk aversion (in the wake of the twin flops of 1996 Taurus "Fishmobile" and its diminutive sister, the U.S version of the Mondeo (Contour)), have apparently caused FoMoCo to forget how to build a segment-leading sedan for the U.S. market.

Ford and Mr. Ford both seem satisfied with singles, not home runs. Both seem content to talk "boldly" and act "slowly."

Bill Ford's "fish out of water" appearance at the 2001 Ford Racing Centennial (personally witnessed by Speedzzter) best illustrates how he just doesn't seem like a real "car guy."

In the wake of the Jac "the Knife" Nasser fiasco, Bill showed up with a phalanx of beefy body guards, wearing an absolutely fabulous, custom-tailored business suit--while his cousin Edsel B. Ford II and everyone else of importance was dressed in casual sportswear appropriate to the outdoor nature of the event.

Bill looked aloof, ill-at-ease, and perhaps even a little miffed that nobody seemed to pay any attention to him (the commercials staring Mr. Ford began shortly thereafter--coincidence?) Bill didn't even look very stoked when he was directly IN THE PRESENCE of the COLLECTED LEGENDS OF "TOTAL PERFORMANCE!" Bill, of course, did not assert himself before the public in a leadership role at the Racing Centennial. He just quietly and briefly "showed the flag" at this once-in-a-lifetime event and then moved on.

If Bill Ford is one of us--a car guy. . . if he's so committed-- then let him show it in his actions and public appearances!

For example, let him show up in his GT at just one National FFW or Shelby or SVT meet! (Bill's "personal" GT has been relegated to auto show duty, instead--sans Bill, of course) . Speedzzter sees Barry Meguire all over TV and at virtually every major auto event in the country--Pebble Beach, the Ford Centennials, the 40th Anniversary Mustang Celebration . . . Although Barry isn't running a Fortune 5 corporation, at least the public has some comfort that he understands "passion about cars" and cares about the his customers who share that passion.

The public doesn't sense the same kind of passion from the cloistered, aloof Bill Ford. Dr. Zetsche at least shows up at appropriate times to reenforce DCXs commitment to Chrysler's take-no-prisoners agenda. But even when FoMoCo sponsors the whole NASCAR CHAMPIONSHIP WEEKEND, all we ever see is Edsel II or other paid surrogates on behalf of Mr. Ford. When SVT was virtually killed, it's some no-name who fielded the few questions allowed about it. When FoMoCo spends millions on "Bold Moves" and www.fordboldmoves.com, Bill is AWOL (apparently preferring the security of appearing in a few, unrelated and boring "safety" commercials).

Sure, Speedzzter is tough on Bill. But it's because automobile enthusiasts fundamentally don't trust him. We know that November 1970 can occur again anytime Bill feels the heat from his Sierra Club buddies or the Feds is getting too intense. Bill's regime keeps FoMoCo's best stuff out of America. Bill's regime tends to cancel or cut back all sorts of programs of vital interest to the FoMoCo faithful.

Of course, enthusiasts are tickled FoMoCo built the GT. They're stoked over the GT500 and the new Mustang (hypereutectic pistons and weak rods/crank notwithstanding). Speedzzter even loves FRPP (despite the failure to offer "power adder ready" crate engines). But these occasional victories are attributable to committed, embedded mavericks like John Colletti, Jay O'Connell and Hau Thai-Tang, along with the institutional memory and pride of FoMoCo. At least, Bill did not stand in the way.

But the sum total of his actions give enthusiasts no confidence that he truly understands the performance market or loves great, milestone cars like, say GM's Bob Lutz, or even "Dr. Z."

Speedzzter suspects Bill would be as happy if he were CEO of WalMart or ExxonMobil or Haliburton as he is at Ford . . . maybe even happier.

Speedzzter doesn't sense Bill identifies in any way with the kids saving up for their first Mustang, greybeards reliving the 1960s muscle car era on Woodward Avenue, or grassroots racers scraping together extra money for enough parts and tires to get to the track and provide more free publicity for Ford.

In short, Dr. Z seems to "get it." But does Bill Ford?

SHELBY GT: A DULL KNIFE IN A GUNFIGHT?

Automotive News reported 07 Aug 06 that "sources" revealed Ford Motor Company (tm) advised dealers last week in Las Vegas that the retail version of the 325-h.p. Shelby GT-H will arrive for 2007 and is named "Shelby GT."

No word on volume other than "a few thousand." (Read: not enough that you'll likely find one selling at MSRP)

Pricing also remains a secret.

Mark Fields is expected to comment more during his scheduled speech before an industry conference in Traverse City, Michigan, in a couple of days.

Speedzzter can hardly wait (yawn) . . . .

The Shelby GT is apparently another Bullitt-style exercise. It will add minimal performance to the portly Mustang GT, at a likely substantial price premium.

It probably won't significantly address the huge gulf between the 500 h.p. Shelby GT-500 and the barely adequate 300 h.p. Mustang GT. In other words, it will get its quartz clock cleaned by any number of "tuner" imports and old school V8, not to mention Ol' Shel's own 350-h.p. CS6 Mustangs.

It probably won't give Saleen, Steeda and Roush any sleepless nights. Or DCX or GM, for that matter.

It probably won't worry any 400-h.p. C6 Corvette or "390-h.p." "Terminator" SVT Cobra owners -- who will all blow past too quickly to probably even bother to notice all the extra "Le Mans" stripes, spoilers and badges on the "Shelby GT."

It probably won't provide Mustangers with a more reliable foundation for aftermarket power-adders, because it probably will feature the same weak cracked-cap rods, cast crank and glass-jawed hypereutectic pistons standard in the ordinary cost-cutter 3v 4.6. (Ford seems as clueless as Honda about how a significant number of customers actually use their cars)

It probably won't bring better breathing DOHC 4v heads or a Shaker hood, as did the last Mach 1.

It probably won't include vital efficiency technologies such as cylinder deactivation, six speed transmissions, direct injection, variable runner intake manifolding, turbocharging or V-TEC-style variable lift and duration.

It probably won't run a bit better on high-performance E-85 than it does on unleaded swill.

In other words, it's probably not going to be much for knowledgable Mustangers to become excited about.

But it WILL probably walk a 1983 Shelby Charger . . . .

THE "ENGLISH PATIENT" AND CUTTING DEAD WEIGHT

The return of "the English Patient?"

Back in the days when BMW owned the Rover Group, stakeholders and journalists often joked Rover was the "English Patient" because of its huge consumption of resources and poor condition. BWM eventually gave up on transfusing life into "the English Patient," and parted out Rover. Ford Motor Company (tm) picked up the storied Land Rover franchise as an addition to its other "premium" British holdings--Jaguar and Aston-Martin.

Jaguar, of course, was a former sibling of Land Rover as part of another failing automaking enterprise-- the hapless British Leyland conglomerate.

Now, Reuters and the Sunday Times (London) report that FoMoCo is considering the "Bold Moves" of dumping both Land Rover and Jaguar as part of the "Way Forward."

Jaguar has cost FoMoCo billions over the past decade and a half and is seen by most as a drag on the Premium Automotive Group's profits.

Land Rover has been a part of FoMoCo for a much shorter time, but it has produced mixed results. Erosion of the SUV segment and increased competition in the "premium SUV" niche are apparently triggering speculation that FoMoCo is going to bail out.

"The Sunday Times said Bill Ford had told staff in a memo last week that adviser Kenneth Leet would explore strategic options. It added, however, that its sources in Detroit pointed out that Leet's expertise was in mergers and acquisitions, making it more likely Ford would look to sell assets, including Jaguar."

Old Detroiters have long criticized FoMoCo's expensive obsession with Jaguar. Often, Jaguar is rhetorically flogged for almost everything that's gone wrong in Dearborn's luxury and near-luxury strategy. Some believe that Lincoln's failure to compete with Cadillac's resurgence, much less Lexus, is the direct result of "protecting Jaguar."

And while FoMoCo has dramatically improved Jaguar's quality, FoMoCo often has floundered in determining what to do with the Big Cat. Attempts to broaden the brand with an AWD Mondeo-based sedan failed. Competing in Formula One failed and brought down FoMoCo's long F1 tradition with it (a persuasive argument remains that Jaguar's natural competition habitat has always been sports car racing, not the F1 circus). Jaguar's retro-styled sports tourers haven't shown the claws to recapture the XKE mystique, much less take on Corvette, Viper, Porsche or even the Italians on the road or on the track.

Other than heritage and some DNA (neither of which FoMoCo has figured out how to fully exploit), what does Jaguar really bring to Ford's table?

Similarly, while Land Rover invented the "luxury SUV," it now seems like a bit player. While Land Rover products probably still are more capable off-road than its competition, Land Rover's exclusivity has suffered. Surging fuel prices and a perceived lag in technology and on-road performance do not help Ford reestablish Land Rover's segment leadership. Moreover, Ford's attempts to "broaden" the brand haven't borne the quantity of fruit expected in a cutthroat marketplace.

Of course, then there's the issue of British labor . . . .

Jaguar and Land Rover may now seem surplus in Ford's fight for survival. However, if Ford is selling controlling stakes in assets it neither understands nor fully uses, perhaps they will also spin off the Lincoln-Mercury division, too.

Losing weight now.

One of Colin Chapman's most quotable maxims is "add lightness."

Indeed, the power-to-weight ratio may be the single most telling benchmark in automotive engineering.

Of course, the weight side of the equation impacts more areas of driving dynamics than the power side. Chapman understood this. Chapman's Lotus cars repeatedly revolutionized competition standards, often because of Chapman's adherence to this simple idea.

Modern road car builders, however, are caught in the triple bind of increased cost pressures, increased crashworthiness, and increased gadgetry. These market pressures have forced auto engineers to increase weight and increase power merely to maintian (or modestly improve) the status quo.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that "the average 2006-model vehicle weighs a portly 4,142 pounds - nearly 500 pounds more than the average vehicle sold 10 years earlier."

Even boring appliance-grade vehicles, such as Toyota's Avalon and Volkswagen's Jetta have ballooned in the past decade (up 205 lbs. and 540 lbs., respectively, according to an Automotive News analysis.)

Sporting machines are not immune. BMW's 3 Series has porked up 540 lbs. since 1996. And Ford Motor Company's new Shelby GT500 mutes the effect of its 500 h.p. by lugging around over two tons of weight. GT500 would be even heavier if it had the independent rear suspension that so many armchair "experts" claim it should have.

Generally a 10% reduction in weight is worth about 7% better fuel efficiency, according to the American Plastics Counsel. More importantly, every 100 pounds of weight reduction will improve acceleration (for free) by about 1/10 of a second in a standing-start 1/4th mile. Cutting weight can have similar positive effects on braking and handling.

But cutting weight will require serious rethinking of how automobiles and light trucks are made. Triangulated tubular space frames, exotic carbon-fiber monocoques and outstanding power-to-weight engines are commonplace in racing, but rare and often cost-prohibitive in road cars. Heavy sheet-metal stampings and cast iron still rule the streets, even as aluminum makes some inroads.

Wrapped up in the new pressure to cut weight is the risk that smaller and lighter translates into less durable, less functional and less satisfying.

Substituting "quality" to obtain "lightness" simply isn't an option. Neither is abandoning affordability for lighness a practical solution.

Development of light, powerful "twin-charged" multi-valve GDI/flex-fuel engines and high-speed turbo diesels, lighter sound insulation, foam-core honeycomb sandwich aluminum structures, composite body parts and lighter accessories can help beat the battle of the bulge. Cutting back on the styling trends toward "dubs" and even "donks" (huge, heavy wheels of 20+ inches in diameter) in favor of sensible wheels and tires chosen for maximum roadholding would also be helpful.

But, according to Linday Chappell and Phillip Nussel of Automotive News, "the message from automakers is clear: Consumers won't have to give up size, comfort or horsepower."

The big questions are: (1) whether we can afford to "have it all," (2) whether automakers can figure out how to discipline themselves to bring "it" to us, and (3) whether the U.S. government will leave everyone alone long enough for a reasonable attempt at solving the weight problem through market forces and voluntary innovation to occur.

Or is an unwelcome reprise of the 1970s automotive "dark ages" just around the corner?