CLICK, CLACK AND THE 500-HORSEPOWER FORD MUSTANG

"Upwards of 200 horsepower is practically expected today. And there are cars with 300 h.p., 400 h.p. and more. In my humble opinion, that’s crazy. There’s not a car on the road that truly needs more than 200 h.p. Most cars would be fine with a lot less."

– Tom Magliozzi, co-host of NPR’s "Car Talk."

"We’ve gone horsepower crazy." Ray Magliozzi, co-host of NPR’s "Car Talk."

These opinions appeared in a syndicated newspaper column this week in major newspapers across the U.S.A. The Magliozzis, better known as "Click and Clack–the Tappet Brothers" hold themselves out to be "expert" automobilists to millions of unsuspecting "non-car" people in print, radio and on the internet. (See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=2100834 . See also http://www.cartalk.com/)

"Click and Clack" are a couple of aging MIT graduates from the 1960s hippie generation who parlayed their "Good News Garage" and Tom Magliozzi’s flare for marketing into a long-time auto repair and comedy gig on Boston public radio. Almost ten years ago, they became nationally-known through syndication.

Only in America can virtually anyone become an "expert."

Yet the Tappet Brothers are representative of that "automobiles-as-appliances" mentality which grips much of the elitist Coastal intellectual subculture in the U.S. (and all the little satellite pockets of it spread near colleges nationwide). The average "Car Talk" listener probably takes every syllable of the automotive articles in Consumer Reports (R) as the sine qua non on motoring. Similarly, Click and Clack seldom, if ever, recommend one of the Detroit 3's vehicles to any of their customers. They often wail on the profligate wastefulness of trucks and SUVs (of course there aren’t too many opportunities to haul hay, go rock crawling or tow a race car around Beantown).

But, as the lead quotes indicate, they save their sharpest criticism for anything that smacks of high-performance.

One only wonders what sarcastic vitriol they’d produce at the thought of Ford Motor Company’s 500-horsepower 2007 Shelby GT500. Or what one full-throttle blast in a GT500 would do to Click and Clack’s undoubtedly atrophied neck muscles–which are more tuned to putting around in "sensible" sub-200 h.p. economy cars while avoiding falling chunks of Boston's "Big Dig" fiasco (if their personal lifestyles match their rhetoric, that is)

Automotive News Executive Editor Edward M. Lapham (www.autonews.com) wrote this week that:

"Who in these United States would honestly prefer a wimpy car that can't get out of its own way, no matter how great the mileage is?"

Click and Clack seem to be the obvious answers to Edward Lapham’s rhetorical question.

Lapham continued: " Face it. Horsepower is like sex. Once you've experienced it, you want more. And you can't imagine doing without it."

Of course, this probably goes a long way in explaining the Magliozzi Brothers.

But let’s evaluate their argument.

Click and Clack’s opinions are rooted in the "appliance-motoring" community’s paternalistic worry over fuel economy. Their thesis is that the "horsepower craze" has deprived everyone of all the dreamy fuel-sippers the Earth-children hallucinated about when they buried a brand-new Detroit car on the first Earth Day back in 1970 (in between "rolls" in their psychedelic VW microbuses). Thus they probably represent the thinking of many "intellectuals" and other, lesser know-it-alls who believe they understand better than you do about what sorts of vehicles should be available to the general public.

(Think of this as the same sort of argument you got from the captain of the chess club in back in high school, who proudly scooted around in a wheezing VW Beetle or Fiat 124 or Geo Metro or bone-stock Honda Civic, while all the "irresponsible" kids hung out in V8 Mustangs, Camaros, GTOs and other "bitchin’" "hot rods, "muscle cars" or "tuner whips")

Click and Clack are correct that since the 1980s, increased weight in our cars and trucks has required escalation of horsepower outputs just to keep pace. Some of the weight increase is due to increased structural stiffness and the proliferation of active safety technologies (airbags, ABS, stability control, etc.), which actually improves safety over the willowy flyweight automobiles common in the 1980s. But Click and Clack correctly observe that much of the weight increase is driven by market demand for more luxury and convenience features.

Weight, of course, is a much greater enemy to fuel economy than horsepower. Not only is weight a larger influence on economy than engine output, it’s also ever-present. Horsepower potential, on the other hand, uses little extra fuel unless the "foot feed" is mostly or fully depressed (which is only about 3-4% of the time for most motorists). This ought to be obvious to anyone who has carefully studied the specifications of a 28-m.p.g. Chevrolet Corvette.

But in the modern context, is 200 horsepower the magic number, above which lies wretched excess? Could most cars safely get by with even less?

And why even 200? The aerodynamic efficiency of most cars and trucks is such that the "road load" is only about 15-30 h.p. in a steady-state cruise at highway speeds. In gridlocked, stop-and-go traffic, a five-horsepower riding lawn tractor could keep up.

And Henry Ford’s Model T only needed about 22 horsepower to put "America on wheels." Before the high-compression Kettering-style OHV V8 took over in the 1950s, American cars commonly had only 60-150 horsepower, while often weighing as much as two tons.

Could it be that even Click and Clack are also "crazy" about horsepower, albeit at a much more modest level? Or is the problem more complex than their simple sloganeering suggests.

Assume an average curb weight of 3300 pounds for a "sensible" sedan with enough interior volume for four American adults to comfortably travel more than an hour. If equipped with a 200 horsepower engine, the power-to-weight ratio is about 16.5 pounds for every horsepower. Such a car ought to be able to run a standing-start quarter mile in the low-fifteen second range at around 90-93 m.p.h. Zero-to-sixty will probably be in the 8-10 second range, depending on a number of factors.

Respectable, but nothing that will cause one to lie awake at nights.

But add in four 200-pound adults, a couple hundred pounds of luggage and 90 or so pounds of fuel and the power-to-weight ratio plummets to 22 pounds per horsepower. Quarter mile times may drop to as low as the seventeen second range, with the car struggling to reach the 80 m.p.h. mark in a reasonable distance.

Obviously, the loaded 200 h.p. car will be driveable, as such underpowered cars were in the 1970s. But the margin for acceleration in an emergency situation will precariously small. And many highway on-ramps and cloverleafs will have far too short of an acceleration area for this car to safely merge at the prevailing speed. This could force our loaded 200 h.p. car’s driver to take unnecessary risks, such as stopping at the end of the on-ramp or forcing his way into the flow of traffic at less than prevailing speeds.

That's hardly "fine," as Tom Magliozzi implies.

Add in another thousand pounds of weight (as would be common with a number of current models) and the problem just gets worse.

To live under a "200 h.p. or less" cap, automobile engineers would either have to sacrifice performance or dramatically cut weight. Both options have potential adverse consequences for safety, durability and consumer choice.

In the hands of a properly-trained driver, a high-performance car is safer than an underpowered schlub of an appliance. That’s because more power creates more options to escape from potentially-dangerous situations. A driver of an underpowered car can only swerve, nail the brakes, and hope for the best. If someone running a stop sign is about to t-bone you while you’re in the middle of an intersection, hitting the brakes may not be your best option. The "Blessed Mother of Acceleration" gives you another meaningful choice, as millions have already discovered.

Ask an experienced motorcyclist if a reserve of power is a safety factor or not, and listen to their responses. Of course the average modern motorcycle has a much "higher" (numerically-lower) power-to-weight ratio than any but the most exotic sports cars.

Moreover, a higher power-to-weight ratio gives a car more flexibility. Instead of having to "work" to keep up with traffic or to "make time" on a challenging drive, a more powerful car can allow a driver to arrive more refreshed and less fatigued. Over the course of a long motor trip, this may substantially increase the margin of safety.

A higher-power-to-weight ratio also makes a car more forgiving to drive. Low-powered cars require maximum attention to conservation of momentum in order to avoid unforseen bottlenecks and dangerously "getting hung out" in traffic. This is even more of a factor in manual transmission cars, which depend on the driver selecting the correct gear at the correct time. Sadly, not everyone pays full attention, and even the best drivers make mistakes. A more powerful car provides a reserve for a skilled driver to "drive out" of tense situations with minimal risks.

In summary, the choice as to whether one needs 200 or even 500 horsepower shouldn’t be made by bureaucrats, paternalistic environmentalists or even self-appointed know-it-alls babbling on public radio. It ought to be a market choice left up to consumers.

SELLING THE "BLACK BOX" AT FORD MOTOR COMPANY (R)

"I couldn't find a speed limit I liked in America."

Perhaps you’ve seen that commercial.

(Or maybe that’s what the Pac 10 replay official was watching when he was blowing two pivotal calls in last Saturday’s football game between the University of Oregon and the University of Oklahoma)

In that spot, one of the few and deep-pocketed -- a scruffy owner of a $60,000+ (including all additional dealer "greed" mark-ups) 2007 Ford Shelby GT500 -- boxed up his 500-horsepower steed and parked it on a container ship, seeking a quick blast down a German Autobahn.

(Not that the virtually unavailable GT500 really needs any advertising to sell, but then that commercial is about as close as 99.9% of Ford’s long-suffering performance customers will be getting to a new 500-horse Shelby in the "FORDseeable" future. But if you need more, see -- www.svt.ford.com. Just don’t fixate on how Mr. Scruffy is going to get his expensive GT500 off that six-inch-tall shipping pallet . . . . Now back to our story)

Or maybe you saw the one where the loyal son presents his dad with a restored Ford F-1 pickup, just like the one pictured in a faded photograph on the wall of the family homestead.

Or the spot in which an impulsive Ford Fusion owner pays for some dry cleaning of a stranger as a "pickup" gimmick. (Think the opening scene to "Fatal Attraction 2007" and you’ll get the idea of where this one’s likely to go . . . .)

Or perhaps you’ve heard the firestorm created by the spot chronicling a "liberated" soccer mom wheeling a Ford Freestyle and dumping her latch-key ex at the curb of his pitiful bachelor pad after a weekend of "quality" family time with the kids. (Who says Ford isn't pro-family . . . "in all its [disfunctional] forms?")

These commercials are part of Ford Motor Company’s "Bold Moves" ad campaign. George Rogers, CEO of the Detroit office of JWT (FoMoCo's ad agency for about 60 years), explained the theory behind it to the Automotive News this week. According to JWT, "A mass-market TV spot isn't the best place to educate potential buyers about 500-hp V-8s or towing capacity."

Really?

Instead, the "Bold Moves" campaign relegates the pesky automobile to a mere supporting role -- A prop in these bantam dramas. In fact, there’s almost nothing unique to any Ford model in these spots. After all, some potential stalker who goes around buying dry cleaning for strangers could just as easily be driving a Honda or Toyota as she could be whipping Ford’s Mexican-built, Mazda-engineered Fusion, couldn’t she?

Rogers also explained that all those technical details about brake rotor sizes, torque curves, curb weights and the number of cup holders can be better consigned to the back of an internet site for the wonks who will go to the trouble of seeking out such "inside trivia."

Don’t hold your breath waiting for a "Bold Moves" ad featuring some "car guy" geek bragging about how his Five Hundred has more rear seat room than a Toyota Camry.

"Don't think . . . Just light'em up, Kids," as another "Bold Moves" Mustang GT spot demonstrates.

In theory, why burden the buyers with such details about the features, functions and benefits of the product -- or even cerebral FACTUAL COMPARISONS between Fords and competing products -- when one can tell generic stories about how "cool" imaginary Ford owners are? Thus, the product is just a "black box," sold by the affective "boldness" of the make-believe customers FoMoCo places with it.

Rogers reportedly cribbed this philosophy from the Volkswagen of America "Drivers Wanted" campaign he directed at Arnold Worldwide.

But hawking something other than the product is not a new idea. Ever since the days of Cadillac’s famous "Penalty of Leadership" ad ( http://www.ciadvertising.org/studies/student/99_spring/interactive/manzano/mac/penalty.html) and Ned Jordan’s breezy "Somewhere West of Laramie" prose on the otherwise forgotten Jordan Playboy, copywriters have sometimes designed campaigns to sell intangibles about the marque or model instead of "sweating the details."

Here’s how such campaigns sounded eighty years ago . . . .

"SOMEWHERE west of Laramie there's a bronco-busting girl who knows what I’m talking about.
She can tell what a sassy pony, that’s a cross between greased lighting and the place where it hits, can do with eleven hundred pounds of steel and action when he's going high, wide and handsome.
The truth is-the Playboy was built for her.
Built for the lass whose, face is brown with the sun when the day is done of revel and romp and race.
She loves the cross of the wild and the tame.
There's a savor of links about that car-of laughter and lilt and light-a hint of old loves-and saddle and quirt. It’’s a brawny thing - yet a graceful thing for the sweep o' the Avenue.
Step into the Playboy when the hour grows dull with things gone dead and stale.
Then start for the land of real living with the spirit of the lass who rides, lean and rangy, into the red horizon of a Wyoming twilight."

(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Jordan)

Now THERE’S A "LASS" WHO DOESN’T NEED TO BUY ANYONE’S DRY CLEANING!

EPISODE 12: WILLIAM CLAY FORD, JR. AND ANNE STEVENS TALK ABOUT "WINNING ON SUNDAY"

Speedzzter has been hard on Chairman and CEO Emeritus William Clay Ford, Jr. and his minimal on-camera contributions to www.fordboldmoves.com

But in Episode 12, Bill Ford gets a large share of "face time."

Episode 12 is a strong argument for Ford Racing. Bill himself proclaims at a Ford racing rally that racing is the essence of Ford.

Of course, this is the same Bill Ford who assured everyone that he wasn't looking to replace himself as CEO. Right, Alan Mulally?

Episode 12 also recounts the oft-told story of Henry Ford and Spider Huff’s 1901 Grosse Pointe Match race with Alexander Winton (whom the Mustang marketing manager oddly suggests was the "John Force" of his day . . . who knew that John Force was a automobile manufacturer). Ford's success in the match race lead to the investments needed to start FoMoCo. (One gaffe in Episode 12 is footage of a steeply banked board track shown during the retelling of the "Sweepstakes" vignette. Henry's famous 1901 match race took place on a flat, unpaved horse track)

Episode 12 also features passionate quotes from some of Ford Racing’s NASCAR fans about technological transfers, Ford ownership, and how at least one of them wouldn’t even go to the track if Ford didn’t field entries (that guy must not have watched many races during the 1970s).

Team Ford Racing’s Number One fan, Bill Ford’s cousin, and FoMoCo Board member Edsel B. Ford II even argues for the conventional wisdom of "Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday!"

Of course, Episode 12 steers clear of how Edsel’s dad killed the World-beating "Total Performance" and "Muscle Parts" programs in November 1970, directly contributing to FoMoCo's malaise in the 1970s and Chevrolet’s unchallenged ascendancy in the "stock" and grassroots forms of American automobile racing (a fact Chevrolet won’t let us forget in trumpeting how many NASCAR manufacturers championships they won over the past three decades– even though it was by default during the first half of that span)

A guest column sidebar by NASCAR-phobic Autoextremist Peter M. DeLorenzo rips into the whole "sell on Monday" idea by pointing out how the retro-tech, funny-car NASCAR "Fusions" have virtually nothing in common with the slow, boring Fusions ordinary civilians can buy.

Of course, DeLorenzo seems to miss the whole point.

While NASCAR racing probably does build corporate morale and may, in fact, yield some process and technological benefits for FoMoCo engineering, NASCAR participation is about indirectly selling "the black box." The race cars are merely flashy, noisy, expensive, crash-prone "black box" props to the HUMAN drama. And it’s the inherent excitement and "coolness" factors of the humans participating that FoMoCo seems to believe will rub off on the Blue Oval’s products.

In The Right Stuff, Tom Wolfe broadly reviews our popular fixation with the idea of "single combat." From the days when the biblical lad David took slew the giant, to when Col. Chuck Yeager slew the demon that lived on the other side of Mach 1, and up to the present day, naratives which put individuals in deadly "single combat" against some hoard or superior force of nature tend to grab the human psyche. And although auto racing is a team sport, it's the "single combat" of the lone driver, battling "coolly" against both the hoard of other drivers and the ever-present risk of death, that becomes the Bold drama holding the attention of millions.

By sponsoring the conquering "hero" and providing him or her some of the tools necessary for victory (even if those tools are substantially different than what it sells all those street-bound Walter Mittys out in the Heartland), FoMoCo can bask in the reflected glory of conquest.

Moreover, FoMoCo wants to take advantage of the "brand loyalty" which racing fosters.

Seen in that light, Racing is not unlike the "lifestyle" dramas in Ford’s "Bold Moves" spots.

And similarly, it doesn't really make a whole lot of difference that the unobtainable 500-horse GT500 on that container ship dock isn't really very much like the ordinary "secretary's car" V6 Mustangs actually and affordably on sale down at your local Ford dealer.

Or so the theory goes.

Episode 12 also features one of the last "Ford" appearances of Anne Stevens, FoMoCo COO for the Americas. Stevens proclaims that FoMoCo will never abandon racing participation. But then the next day, Stevens abandoned FoMoCo for retirement, effective October 1. In a candid interview with the Detroit Free Press, Stevens opined "The company has too many layers, the company is too bureaucratic, and it takes too long to get things done."

It would seem that motor racing–which inherently requires lean, nimble, empowered organizational responses–hasn’t taught FoMoCo all that it could have.

But let’s all hope FoMoCo’s commitment to motorsports lasts longer than Stevens’s commitment to FoMoCo.

600 FORD MOTOR COMPANY (R) DEALERSHIPS TARGETED WITH "CHICKEN FEED"

The retail face of Ford Motor Company's paltry 14-15% market share target is slashing the number of retail outlets by 600, according to the Automotive News. www.autonews.com

FoMoCo's current "voluntary" consolidation plan apparently is a repackaged version of the "18 metropolitan market" reduction scheme first uncovered by the Automotive News on August 18, 2006. See http://speedzzter.blogspot.com/2006/08/ford-motor-company-pruning-of-dealers.html

This go-round will feature a $100,000-300,000 payment to the unwelcome surplus dealers. Or only about double of some of the reported worker buy-out payments.

That's "chump change." Or as one unnamed dealer put it in the Automotive News story, "It's chicken feed . . . Ford doesn't appear serious."

Given the huge investments required of FoMoCo's domestic brand dealers (even less than successful ones) in the large urban markets where FoMoCo believes it's overrepresented and the low-ball price offers expected from the "chosen" surviving dealers for the exclusive sales rights of the targeted dealers, a $300,000 make-up payment seems naive, if not insulting.

FoMoCo hatchet man Cisco Codina had the unenviable task of selling this leaden plan last Friday in a conference call to dealers. And he also had to assuage dealer fears about the FoMoCo corporate retrenchment: "you can expect a very high level of service -- we will be available to you."

The best reaction, however, to Codina's counterintuitive spin reportedly came from another unnamed FoMoCo dealer in the Automotive News report -- "There's a lot of fear behind the cubicles."

Indeed.

But there ought to be a lot MORE fear on main street in the targeted markets.

As Speedzzter suggested when the first version of this plan was announced, "Consumers and enthusiasts ought to think of it as giving the surviving dealers a license to steal." http://speedzzter.blogspot.com/2006/08/ford-motor-company-pruning-of-dealers.html

Imagine how uncompetitive your local FoMoCo dealer will be if he is the "exclusive" or nearly "exclusive" source in a market for FoMoCo's occasional "hot" model, such as the Shelby GT500. Even at the current numbers of dealerships, there is precious little price competition among Ford dealers on "non-commodity" models. FoMoCo adds to this problem by restricting supplies of performance cars in order to "keep margins high."

FoMoCo's anti-competitive actions also do virtually nothing to improve customer service. Will the contraction plan require the survivors to increase the number of service technicians and service bays to make up for those lost by the closing stores? Will they severely restrict service department backlogs? Will the survivors carry additional parts inventory? Given the justification for reducing competition is to increase store profitability, such increases in service are unlikely.

Ford's anti-competitive actions also signal that Ford is basically giving up on recapturing market share anytime soon. Fewer outlets equals less "shelf space" in the community and a reduced presence in the eyes and minds of potential buyers. If Ford sales were to turn around, the reduced dealer corps might be heavily taxed to keep up. And such increased demand would invarably lead to more of the dreaded "added dealer markup" on popular models.

Ford's anti-competitive actions also benefit surviving dealers who "gild the lily" with useless, overpriced dealer-installed crap. Some dealers can't resist gimmicks like paint sealers, pinstripes, and upholstry sealers. Others seem to think they are extensions of FoMoCo design by caking on hideous bolt-ons, such as brass-plated trim, plated fender extensions and "Conestoga-styled" vinyl tops. Giving such greedy jerks wider exclusive territories materially harms consumer choice. It also means that when such jerks run off prospective "ups" with their heavy-handed techniques and boorish service, consumers and enthusiasts will be more likely to switch to other brands rather than seek out an inconvenient competitor.

Fewer dealers also means Ford will get less feedback on product. Volume mega-dealers may not be as focused on chasing new market niches as smaller dealers who are closer to their customers and hungry for growth. Fewer voices will also be easier for the Glass House Gang to ignore.

Fewer dealers also means that the jilted ones will take their stores, their staffs and their experience to other brands. Undoubtedly, the "losers" will then have a thirst for "beating" Ford and the "inside" knowledge to do the most damage. Although the harmful and anti-competitive trend toward consolidation of dealerships in the hands of a few huge dealer "groups" may have reduced this risk somewhat, most likely it will be the remaining "independent" dealers who bear the brunt of FoMoCo's forced consolidations.

FoMoCo's sales problem ought to be fixed by increasing consumer access to the models and optional equipment that are in demand and creating more "in demand" models, not by anti-competitive measures.

Given modern "just in time" computerized inventory technology, Ford customers ought to be able to order new cars equipped exactly as desired in an abbreviated time frame for a competitive price (just try to special order anything now and see how unhelpful dealers groomed on "if you can see it, sell it" can be).

Detailed dealer inventory ought to be easily searchable for free by consumers on the internet in a national database that can accomodate searches for specific options, and any dealer ought to be able to retail any new vehicle in any FoMoCo dealer's inventory merely by paying FoMoCo for it plus the floorplan costs and a small transaction fee to the holding dealer (and such costs should not be subject to negotiation among the dealers).

A European-style "factory delivery" program ought to be aggressively promoted as well--such a program can protect dealers by requiring the purchase transaction to be through an authorized dealership.

And while FoMoCo needs to enforce strong minimum standards for customer service, Ford ought to allow dealers competitive flexiblity for innovations, such as satellite lots, diversity in locations, untraditional distribution channels, smaller and more diverse facilities, and additional freedom in fixtures, signage and "brand image" materials. Part of the reason some FoMoCo dealers lose money is that they are being forced by "factory standards" into unnecessary investment in a bloated, expensive and obsolete business practice model. Fewer dealers will produce no benefits for FoMoCo's "ultimate" customers and will likely yield great harm to enthusiasts. Cutting outlets is a "Bold Move" destined to hurt, not help Ford's loyal customer base.