SVT LIVES . . . SORT OF

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Ford Racing's weekly e-mail blast contains a link to a video of a camouflaged "SVT F-150" cavorting at speed off-road in the desert.

Sure, a high-performance OEM pre-runner truck is an idea that's probably long past due. Most certainly, this was an idea birthed in an earlier time, when trucks were an easier sale to a less fuel-economy-conscious market.

Many commentators are undoubtedly disappointed that Ford isn't totally focused on a sport compact or something that's more fuel efficient, such as a high performance hybrid-electric V8 Mustang. Others are likely unhappy that Ford's "SVT /F-150" isn't a rebirth of the storied Lightning street truck. And some "appliance motorists" will see a large niche truck as an unnecessary diversion from the expected rebirth of Ford as a producer of gas-sipping FWD mini-compacts.

While such carping is valid, it misses a larger point.

From the video, it's hard to tell whether or not the "SVT F-150" is going to be a true high performance vehicle in any venue but off-road. However, its positive that the SVT brand may be attached to some future product that's apparently not just a '70s-style sticker & stripe poser.

Long live SVT!

VIGOROUS DEBATE ON THE 2010 MUSTANG GT

[GET THE LATEST "TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER" HERE]

Over on the Car Craft Magazine forums, the assumed deficiencies in the 2010 Mustang are producing a prodigious debate. One poster -- Turbo Ted -- speaks passionately for scores of Mustang fans who are worried about the 2010 Pony's competitiveness:

"Vehicle type--------Wt.. . . H.P.. . .Lbs per H.P.
2010 Mustang GT....3800. . . 315 . . . 12.06
2010 Camaro SS.....4100. . . 400 . . . 10.25
Challenger R/T.....4100. . . 372 . . . 11.02
Challenger SRT-8...4200. . . 425 . . . 9.88
Shelby GT500**.....3900. . . 500 . . . 7.8

**(Not available to regular guys who have to punch a timeclock for a living. And who knows if they'll even keep making it after 2009.)

Does anyone else see a problem with this picture?

Even if the 2010 Mustang is 300 lbs. lighter than the Challenger and Camaro, it's going to get KILLED on the street.

With nearly a decade to plan for the return of the Pony Car wars, it would seem that Ford's been asleep.

Hyper-partisans, such as "Camaro Craft's" own Jeff "LSx" Smith are going to have a field day pushing the Camaro and dogging the Modular.

It didn't have to be that way.

Certainly, given the state of the Detroit 3, who knows if any of these pony cars (or the companies that build them) will be around in five years (Barring a miracle or a merger, GM will run out of cash in 2009; Chrysler will be sold and niche market stuff like Challenger will probably get axed; 35 m.p.g. CAFE is going to kill V8s for anything except ultra-expensive luxury and sports models).

Thus, it's just plain stupid that Ford expects its long-suffering loyalists to go up against a pair of twelve-gauge sawed-off shot guns with a cap gun.

They're blowing the last opportunity to build a legendary supercar for the masses (one that will likely have to tide all of us "Joe Lunchbox" V8 lovers over for a decade or more).

A wise man once said, "if you claim to build a better mousetrap, you'd better catch a few mice."

The emerging problem with the 2010 Mustang GT is "no mice" . . . . Do we really want to spend thousands more on a V8 that's going to be matched up with the other guy's secretary-special V6 in the minds of those at the Drive-in on Cruise night?

Do we really want to give up all of the technical leadership to the Japanese? (If you want a DOHC 4V V8 with variable valve timing and other modern feature, it doesn't look like you're going to be getting one from Detroit . . . .)

I can't tell you how MAD I AM at Ford BLOWING IT!

Finally, it might be almost OK if the wimpy 2010 Mustang GT had the basic building blocks for aftermarket performance, such as forged pistons, H.D. forged rods and a forged crank. Then on "day two," Mustangers could feed some serious boost to their new Steeds to keep up with the "day two" Camaros.

BUT NO!

Ford, in all of its MYOPIC WISDOM will probably see fit to keep on plugging in worthless, glass-jawed hyperecutectic cast slugs, spindly cracked-cap rods and willowy cast cranks, limiting stock-block boost to a paltry 5-8 psi. That will force anyone wanting to build a competitive Mustang to spend thousands of dollars on a "built" short block.

That's not what made the 5.0 Mustang a legend. And that's not what's going to drive the Challenger and Camaro back to extinction.

Doing the job half-way and letting the stupid bean-counters run the show is part of what got Ford in the mess its in now.

Well said!

GM-CHRYSLER . . . A "JUNKYARD ROMANCE?"

[GET the latest "TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER" here]

Following the conventional wisdom of "Autoextremist" and others, Jerry Flint pans the prospects and wisdom of a GM-Chrysler merger.

Flint seems to be doing the bidding of Carlos Ghosn. He opines that a "Renault Alliance" with Chrysler is a better idea than the apparent game of chicken going on between Cerberus (GMAC & Chrysler) and General Motors. But given Nissan & Renault's cutbacks, the future of such a pairing might be dim.

A GM-Chrysler merger probably isn't as horrible as Flint depicts it. But it would be a historic challenge to pull off without fumbling.

Too bad Cerberus Capital can't or won't "part out" the good parts of Chrysler. Buying Jeep, the Hemi, the minivan operations, Chrysler's half of the GM-Chrysler electric hybrid automatic, and the RWD car designs from Chrysler is probably cheaper than starting from scratch.

If someday all that's left in the American mass market is a bland assortment of FWDs from Korea, Japan and China (albeit some will probably be screwed together in low-wage Southern assembly plants--even if Obama and the Democrats kill the secret ballot in union elections), we will all regret the day when we -- as consumers, auto executives, politicians, investors, bankers, union leaders, and as a nation -- killed Detroit.

DOES FORD MOTOR COMPANY NEED GM & CHRYSLER TO MERGE?

[GET THE LATEST TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER HERE]

Joann Muller, writing for Forbes.com thinks so.

In an article entitled Why Ford Needs The GM-Chrysler Deal Done, Muller posits that FoMoCo needs the GM-Chrysler deal so that both General Motors and Ford can avoid a date with the bankruptcy court.

Muller also points out a few things that the hapless William Clay “Bill” Ford, Jr. and Alan Mulally did right.

In short, they mortgaged the company before the credit crisis, dumped some luxury brands, and did not follow GM by selling of their financing arm or plunging it into the home mortgage market.

Muller’s story prompted one reader (Iconoclast 421) to opine:

“Until Ford finds a way to turn a profit on a $13,000 40 mpg US-built car, it isnt [sic] worth even $2 a share.”

The idea that "F" (Ford) isn't worth a measly 200 cents a share unless it profitably builds a 40 m.p.g. car in the U.S. is simply insane.

While sales are down and Ford is losing billions as it “right-sizes” its business, FoMoCo still has strong nameplates in Mustang, F-Series, Fusion and Focus. It also continues to dominate the police, taxi and "black car" fleet markets with its anvil-tough "Panther" series vehicles (Police Interceptor/Crown Victoria, Town Car)

While FoMoCo missed some of the mistakes of GM during the housing bubble, they made plenty of other ones. Here’s a few of the big goof-ups:

--Ford had no contingency plan for high fuel prices (other than contracting in size and riding out the storm).

-- Ford missed the market on large sedans with its slow-selling D3 (Five Hundred/Taurus/Montego/Sable).

–Ford destroyed the Taurus franchise by failing to keep up with Camry/Accord and by consigning a poorly styled, poor performing, and generally uncompetitive model to daily rental car sales, which cheapened an already damaged nameplate.

--Ford failed to move soon enough on B-cars (Fiesta), turbocharging (EcoBoost), light-duty turbodiesels, an expanded lineup of hybrids (i.e. a Panther-series hybrid, an F-Series hybrid, a high-performance V8 Mustang hybrid, and a C-class sedan hybrid).

–Ford fiddled around too long on the wide-bore center Hurricane/Boss V8 and may have lost the opportunity to develop it properly into the LSX/Hemi/Tundra beater it could have been.

--Ford killed the iconic SVT brand (instead of expanding it) and missed out on the sport compact niche.

--Ford failed to redesign the Ranger and was not poised to take full advantage of the effect that higher fuel prices had on the light truck market.

--Ford failed to make the Thunderbird into a credible and profitable sports car and did not develop an affordable version of the mid-engine GT that could remain in production.

–Ford failed to properly leverage its Australian and European assets to expand product competitiveness in the U.S. (In other words, some of Ford’s most desirable vehicles aren’t sold “at home” in the U.S.A.)

–Ford failed to move fast enough on variable valve lift and timing, multivalve engines, variable geometry intake manifolds, twincharging, direct ethanol injection, six and seven-speed transmissions, Colletti “SuperCooler” charge-air cooling and other advanced technologies.

–Ford failed to develop and market a credible Scion/Honda fighter.

–Ford totally wasted any opportunity to reposition Mercury as a “value-added,” risk-taking, high-tech boutique division.

–Ford failed to develop sufficient platform flexibility to match the versatility of Toyota.

–Ford failed to develop fun, desirable and affordable models that would capture a larger share of Generations X and Y.

Now Ford may have to hope for the “Hail Mary” of a GM-Chrysler merger so it can survive long enough to do some of the things it should have done years ago.