MULALLY’S WAY: A BLUEPRINT FOR OBAMA’S AUTO CZARS?

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

The recent BusinessWeek PR puff piece profile on Ford Motor Company Boss Alan Mulally ought to be informative to the inexperienced know-nothings President Obama selected for his Car Czar “Central Committee.”

Of course, General Motors and Chrysler might not hang on long enough to suffer – or in the longest of long-shots, benefit – from the collective wisdom of a group of political/environmental hacks (some of which do not even own cars, and none of which have ever built or tried to sell one).

But miracles may happen.

One or both of the “Beg 2" might make it into summertime without being totally bankrupted by the confluence of: (a) the traitorous Japanese invasion, (b) the insatiable greed of the United Auto Workers union,(c) the corrosive, anti-Detroit drum beat of the automotive press, (d) the virtual collapse of the American financial system, (e) the crush of Federal regulations that have bled the life out of the American automakers for nearly four decades (and which cede huge cost advantages to places like India, China, South Korea, and even Japan in some instances), (f) America’s “U.S.A. Last” trade polices; and (g) the twenty trillion dollar spending binge at the heart of Obamanomics.

If they hang on, Obama’s “Car Czars” “Central Committee" could actually influence the direction of the U.S. auto industry. And they could do worse in taking a few cues from Alan Mulally.

Mulally is an attractive example because he cannot be tagged with the claim that he’s one of the Detroit insiders that Senator Richard Shelby and the “let’em die/let the Japanese win” crowd claims caused the entire problem (ignoring Washington D.C.’s expensive interference in the free markets). He’s an “outsider,” just like the clueless rookies on the “Central Committee.”

Of course Mulally rolled into Dearborn as a seasoned manufacturing executive, and not some idealistic think-tank/academic/bean counter who knows more about “Earth Day” than the day-to-day operations of a Fortune 5 automaker. But Mulally was not a consumer of American automobiles or even an automobile enthusiast.

So how has he kept FoMoCo out of the hands of the bankruptcy court or the Obama “Car Czar” “Central Committee?”

1. He listened.

By the time Mulally took Ford's helm, he had met with every senior staffer and asked a trunkful of questions. "Alan said there was a lot he didn't know, but that he was a quick study," says [William Clay Ford, Jr.]. But once he settled in, Mulally began providing the answers, meeting with employees in groups ranging from 25 to several hundred. No speeches. Just off-the-cuff remarks followed by 45 minutes or so of Q&A.

2. He required realistic transparency.

The old Ford way rewarded the creation of fiefdoms, top-down decision making, rejection of outsiders, delayed responsiveness, me-first careerism over teamwork, frequent reassignments among leaders, and “CYA” hiding of problems.

Mulally has instead encouraged a constant data stream, reduced leadership shuffling, quick responses, collaboration, and transparency. In other words, Mulally is attempting to apply the same lean, realistic management methods used by successful motorsports teams for decades.

3. He appreciated the immediate problems and took decisive action.

Within three months of his arrival, Mulally sold Wall Street on a $23 billion recapitalization, one that Ford had been working on but about which investors had been lukewarm before Mulally's arrival. That has meant the difference between death and just being sick. Because he had no loyalty to Ford's luxury brands, Mulally overrode internal opposition and sold Jaguar, Land Rover, and Aston Martin before buyers became scarce.

He also recognized the obvious – that the Volvo-based, orthopaedic-shoe D3 cars were duds and reached back to what made the original Taurus a success (notwithstanding its boring, non-sporting specifications, the handicap of low-performance front wheel drive, and the lack of optional V8 power). While renaming, repowering, and ladling some chrome and a Fusion grill on the Taurus, nee Five Hundred couldn’t make steak out of Hamburger Helper (tm), Mulally has focused FoMoCo’s interior and exterior design efforts toward a more internationally competitive, high value language. The next Taurus, due out in the summer of 2009, bears the fruits of this handiwork. The improvements to the 2010 Mustang (excluding the major let-down in the engine room) are also evidence of this strategy.

4. He didn’t kill off motorsports or high-performance to save money.

Certainly “Truth With Speedzzter” has long been a critic of the Mustang’s mismanagement.

But for the near-death of Chrysler and GM and the cratering of the broader market, Mustang would be in a more uncompetitive position because of Ford’s under-the-hood penny pinching, Shelby price gouging, and virtual abandonment of the blue-collar high performance niche.

Nor has Ford hasn’t optimally managed its SVT brand.

And “Truth With Speedzzter” remains skeptical of Ford’s long-term commitment to serving its performance and racing customers.

However, new products such as the amazing SVT Raptor, the upcoming Boss 6.2 SOHC and Coyote DOHC V8s, improvements in the Ford Racing Performance Parts crate engine program, Ford’s investment in EcoBoost technology, Ford’s recognition of the value of Australia’s indigenous FPV line, and Ford’s continued commitment to motorsports (albeit at too low of a level to replicate the domination of the “Total Performance” era), all indicate that Mulally at least has some minimal appreciation for the essence of Ford.

Ford was founded on motorsports.

Ford’s 1908 Model T, segment-busting 1930s V8s, original Thunderbirds, 1960s Mustangs, and 1980s Mustang 5.0s all revolutionized their market niches through providing more “bang for the buck,” more driving excitement (relative to their competition), and attractive platforms for decades of individualization, hot rodding, and grassroots motorsports.

Ford’s involvement in professional motorsports over the past half century has benefitted virtually every form of racing, has trickled down to the products Ford has offered to consumers, and has kept the Ford brand vital as an international force, even after blowing the huge lead of the Model T era.

Mulally apparently understands that Ford’s most loyal customers are those who identify with Ford’s high-performance and motorsports traditions.

Given the precariousness of the auto market and Ford’s shrinking cash reserves, it may be premature to celebrate Mulally and his team as the ones who pulled FoMoCo out of the fire once again. Ford may still have to ask for the Feds to pony up some loan money to survive the crisis the Government mostly created. Ford still has lots of problems to solve and is still mismanaging much of its heritage and potential. And Ford must still fight into the regulatory, energy policy, and trade policy headwinds that are buffeting nearly every OEM.

But even so, Obama’s hapless and unqualified“Car Czars” would be well-served to put aside their political ideologies and wishful thinking to follow Alan Mulally’s thoughtful and realistic lead.

600,000 HYBRID CARS THAT NOBODY WANTS

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

SANTA BARBARA (MarketWatch) -- AutoNation CEO Mike Jackson has a problem: There are way too many Toyota Prius hybrids sitting on his car lots across America. They stretch "as far as the eye can see," Jackson remarked at The Wall Street's Journal ECO: nomics conference. He estimated he had some 600,000 hybrid cars "that no one wants."

And that's before the hugely expensive battery packs go bad . . . .

So much for the leftist canard that the Detroit 3 are in trouble because they've not built enough hybrids and other mini-cars that America wants.

MULALLY: THERE’S AN ELECTRO-FORD IN YOUR FUTURE

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

“In 10 years, 12 years, you are going to see a major portion of our portfolio move to electric vehicles," Alan Mulally said at the recent Wall Street Journal ECO:nomics conference in Santa Barbara, California.

How should we react to that prediction?

Some PowerStroke® diesel owners who have thrown down $250.00 at their local Ford store for a pair of Motorcraft® batteries every four or five years are probably not tingling with excitement over Alan Mulally’s pandering to the greeniacs and global warming true believers and the prospect of future battery replacements costing ten times as much.

Perhaps some fans of Ford’s storied V8, Mustang, and “Total Performance” heritage may be wondering if the next Thunderbolt or Lightning will be some government-specification FWD electric golf cart instead of legendary pavement-ripping muscle.

A few futurists are imagining spaceship-like Electro-Matic Fords dominating the nearly-silent drag racing at the “Plasma Boy Nationals” in 2025.

And some probably wonder how they’re ever going to afford another new vehicle when government regulations have added $5,000.00 to $15,000.00 to the cost to pay for all of this electrification.

What is the reality?

Are Willie Wiredhand (tm) and Reddy Kilowatt (tm) really the go-to guys for the Ford Motor Company? Or is Mulally just shoveling another load of politically-correct, all-organic biomass?

1. Mulally’s comments demonstrate the obvious – that to meet the draconian Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards now on the books and expected from the mean green OBAMAites (regardless of whether California gets its CAA waiver from the E.P.A.), some electrification is inevitable.

2. Mulally’s prognostications mirror the hopes and dreams of the real boss: William Clay Ford, Jr. Bill Ford has always been “dual minded” with respect to Ford’s products. On the one hand, he apparently appreciates “throaty” Mustangs and profit-making trucks and SUVs. On the other, he apparently pines for adulation by the Sierra Clubbers and luddites who believe that we’re burning “the Planet” to a crisp with the “evil” internal combustion engine and personal automotive liberty. Thus, Mulally is Bill’s “boy” and he’s got to advance the Ford family line when appropriate.

3. Mulally’s opinions reflect an engineer’s sensibilities. For a vast majority of automotive uses, partial or full electrification would be efficient. Regenerative braking, start-stop shut-downs, and electric traction motor-assisted acceleration are elegant and intriguing engineering problems. The space-aged prospect of hydrogen fuel cells is enough to keep a creative engineer awake at nights.

4. Other than the expense, extra weight, complexity, and potential safety hazards, partial electrification of performance cars isn’t such a bad thing. It would allow them to survive in a hostile regulatory world.

A proper turbocharged V8 with a full-spread of torque-broadening technologies would be further enhanced by a torquey electric “booster” motor. Such a V8 could do most of the things a wimpy Prius could, and even run on four cylinders at steady-state cruise, but deliver enough off-boost fuel economy to placate the reasonable regulators and pragmatic greens (the hard core performance haters will never be satisfied as long as anyone is still having fun with “hot” cars).

Many of the parasitic systems on performance cars are begging to be electrified, which would permit more power-to-the-wheels. If and when Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS) make a splash in Formula One racing, many technophiles and Walter Mittys will want similar systems for their sports cars and club racers -- just like they wanted turbos in the 1980s.

5. Electrification could save a thin remnant of traditional performance. If more pedestrian uses of light vehicles can be electrified, then their contributions to the CAFE average is increased. This could offset the production of a few more serious high-performance cars.

Certainly, this will eventually decrease the supplies of traditional junkyard-sourced hot rodding parts (much as the earlier switch to low-performance FWD and multi-valve fours and sixes already has) and will dramatically increase the acquisition costs of a surviving traditional muscle or sports car due to fewer mass production synergies. But the most likely alternative is worse – forcing everyone into soulless Fiat 500-sized microcars (or worse) and greatly limiting supplies of light trucks and sporting machines.

6.For all of the good wishes, hopes, dreams, and imagination of the legion of electric car advocates, electric cars are still a poor second to vehicles powered by internal combustion engines. In the vast heartland, a car with a 100-250 mile range between lengthy recharges is impractical. Huge breakthroughs must be accomplished before electric cars have the range and power density of a traditional gasoline/E-85/Diesel-powered vehicle. AND FULL HYBRIDS AND "TOTAL ELECTRICS" STILL AREN'T PROFITABLE TO BUILD IN MASS QUANTITIES. So Mulally’s comments ought to be taken in light of these practical realities. The internal combustion engine will be available in Ford showrooms in some form for the foreseeable future.

7. Mulally IS telling the appliance motorist greens what they want to hear. In these troubled times, Ford has to acknowledge the mostly erroneous popular narrative that the Detroit 3 alone caused the mess they’re in. And the way out of the mess is to “build cars that people want.”

If you’re a “true believer” in the Greenhouse Gas religion, then the “cars that people want” are really the cars greens think people ought to have, notwithstanding the reluctance of the masses to venerate egg-shaped electric hybrids, Smart® toll-booth cars, and the horrendously expensive and impractical GM EV-1.

The greens and the liberal freedom-hating bureaucrats are terrified of true free-market solutions because they know that a fairly large plurality, if not a majority, are not “true believers” and would snap up old school Detroit vehicles in huge numbers – if they were still built in reasonable numbers and at real market prices (Note that the prices for large vehicles have been artificially increased by the twin engines of regulatory compliance and supply constraints dictated by CAFE regulations. These factors have also artificially reduced the diversity of available models, designs and equipment).

It should also be noted that even a lot of bureaucrats inside of the Detroit 3 are scarred of the free market. If the fleet mix were truly market-based, it could affect profit margins on some of Detroit’s largest and most powerful vehicles. For example, there’s simply no technological reason why adding a couple of cylinders and some beef to the drive-line should cause the customer to pay a $10,000.00+ “penalty” over a mass-market six. And a supercharger or turbo which costs significantly less than $1,000.00 when purchased in bulk shouldn’t command a $5,000.00+ premium on the showroom floor if supplies and demand were not artificially limited. Yet some of these Detroit 3 bureaucrats who favor increased margins on fewer units see CAFE as a magic bullet to artificially decrease demand and increase opportunities for price gouging. Why would you want the hassle and risk to build 1,000 units to make a million in net profit if you could make the same amount of profit on 100 units?

Remember, the Detroit 3's management is packed with deadweight, appliance motorists who will never understand high performance vehicles, and boring bean counters who would be just as happy “costing out” any consumer product as they are working for an automaker. They do not hope to build legendary vehicles or help millions of automobile enthusiasts live their dreams. They build "widgets."

8. Mulally has to play the hand he’s been dealt. Even if he were an optimal combination of Zora Arkus-Duntov, Carroll Shelby, “Maximum” Bob Lutz, Enzo Ferrari, Ferdinand Porsche, Vince Piggens, and John Coletti, Mulally is still stuck with a company bleeding sales, virtually no youth market penetration, dwindling cash reserves, and a Katrina-sized hurricane of emission/fuel economy regulations bearing down upon him. So Mulally’s paean to the magic future virtues of electromagnetism is merely a recognition that the wide-open frontiers that faced Henry Ford, Henry Ford II, and even the hapless Lee Iacocca are not so open at the moment. If he’s to be credible, he’s got to talk a game that consistent with the funless, dower, depressed times in which his potential consumers and shareholders live.

Conclusion: Is there an Electro-Ford in your future?

Probably.

Does it mean the end of Ford’s “Total Performance,” Affordable-V8s-for-the-masses persona?

Hopefully not.

Does it mean the future is going to be a lot more complicated and expensive?

Most certainly.

IS OBAMA AGAINST THE CALIFORNIA FUEL ECONOMY WAIVER?

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Reuters reports that Obama and the automakers are now aligned against the Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act waiver for California and the other liberal states who crib off of CARB's jack-booted, anti-free market emission rules.

Of course this is a flip-flop from Obama's "states should be free to increase standards" campaign rhetoric.

Yet environmentalists need not worry. The standards that will emerge from the Obama bureaucracy will be draconian enough to kill off or neuter those "scary" muscle cars, V8s, SUVs, and the other "bad" vehicles that greens believe that Americans should not be allowed to own. The wimpy, VW-Bug-driving, "chess club" nerds who hated the "dangerous and irresponsible" hot rodders and "gearheads" in the 1960s are still going to win in the end.

It would seem that Obama doesn't want to share duties as "the party pooper" with RINO Gov. Schwartzenegger or anyone below the federal level.

Of course, if "Truth With Speedzzter" were to testify at the high-stakes waiver hearing to be held on Thursday, March 5, We'd say CAFE is a huge failure that distorts and destroys the free market, drives up the prices on millions of vehicles Americans want and need, and absolutely guts automotive freedom. Making it worse by allowing CAFE standards to be Balkanized upward is "change" in the wrong direction.

Is the sudden attraction to "one standard" a manifestation of Obama's emerging global ambitions?

FOMOCO'S EQUITY-FOR-DEBT PROPOSAL

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Ford Motor Company's advertising once said "Ford Has a Better Idea."

Ford's latest "better idea" has involved turning debt into equity. In other words, talking the folks FoMoCo owes money to (i.e. the UAW VEBA, bondholders) into turning that pesky debt into an ownership stake.

All of the Detroit 3 want to convert some of their creditors into stockholders.

But the "Going Thing" about FoMoCo's equity-for-debt proposals is that Ford is the lone "Maverick" among the "Beg 3" because it doesn't want to sign up for taxpayer/deficit/printing-press-funded loans at the First National Bank of OBAMAnomics.

The details of Ford's latest debt swap proposal are truly staggering -- printing up 500 million new shares of "F" and paying out up $2.2 billion cash from Ford Motor Credit to lure holders of up to $10.4billion of bonds and secured-term debt

The 500.0 million new shares is more than a fifth of the current outstanding total of 2.4 billion, while the $2.2 billion is about 10.0% of the $22.0 billion cash Ford held at the end of last year and amounts to roughly 91 cents per outstanding share.

Note that at current share prices, you'd have to swap over 25,000 shares of "F" to pry a single Shelby GT500 out of the greedy hands of a Ford dealer. If the new shares of stock were GT500s instead, it would be equivalent to nearly 11,000 of them (assuming they're valued at the M.S.R.P.)

(By the way, Ford COULD profitably sell 11,000 more GT500s at the right price (which is not the ridiculous $17,000+ mark-up (exclusive of dealer gouging) over the piddly, prosaic 315-horsepower Mustang GT) if the anti-free-market Corporate Average Fuel Economy monkey were taken off its back . . . but that's another issue for another day)

Those who decry the "Detroit Bailout" as evil incarnate and want the not-so-free market to kill off the weak automakers so that Team Japan will be able to rule the World auto markets unfettered when the current "automotive depression" abates, should applaud Ford's wholly private-sector attempts to cut debt and improve its balance sheet the old-fashioned way. (Remember, Billy C. Durant actually built General Motors with stock instead of cash. But then it didn't really work out so well for him)

To Ford's long-suffering shareholders, the Glass House Gang's recent proclivity to divide the shrinking equity pie in ever-smaller slices probably smells like stock dilution.

On the other hand, does FoMoCo really have much choice?

The alternatives are worse.

In one ditch lies handing virtual control over to Obama's "Car Czar" "Central Committee" of automotive know-nothings. It's bad enough that Ford will be forced to run the regulatory gauntlet of a World gone mad over the Climate Change Religion and endure at least four years of unrepentent Naderites, green idealists, trial lawyer patsies, and "appliance motorist" bureaucrats controlling the regulatory structures and the courts that set the parameters of the [un]free market for new light vehicles. But letting Obama's unqualified and inexperienced band of automotive-freedom-hating "comrades" actually have direct veto power over Ford's product and investment decisions would be far worse.

The other ditch would be bankruptcy (which is generally really bad for stockholders and non-secured creditors as well as consumer perceptions of a brand's longevity).

The long term effects of these latest "bold moves" on the market value of "F" bear watching. "Truth With Speedzzter" doesn't give investment advice of any kind -- ever -- so you are all on your own to determine whether this scheme makes Ford's stock more or less attractive to own.

Debtholders, "is there a [share] of Ford in your future?"

AUTOEXTREMIST DELORENZO HAMMERS "ATTACK DOG" RAHM AND THE OBAMA "CAR CZAR" CENTRAL COMMITTEE

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Autoextremist Peter M. DeLorenzo proves once again why "The Autoextemist" on-line magazine/blog is a must read in these troubled times.

With GM teetering on the brink and on the national dole, the company is now under intense scrutiny and will have to justify every single move it is contemplating to Washington. That means that not only does every vehicle GM brings to market from here on out have to be a home run in the real world, each will also have to measure up to the unqualified notions and misguided whims of a committee of people who have no business commenting on the auto business or influencing product decisions.

A cadre of instant “experts” who have no accumulated experience or fundamental knowledge about the automotive industry is a recipe for disaster unto itself, but it’s compounded by people like White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (aka President Obama’s Attack Dog in Chief), who continues to spout-off on the weekend news shows about what will cure America’s auto industry, even though he doesn’t have the first clue as to what he’s talking about. . . .

Well said!

A "central committee" of politically-motivated Appliance Motorists and non-car-owning green activists are now dictating what the Detroit "Beg 3" builds.

This is as CNBC's Phil LeBeau points out that multiple car ownership is declining and the fleet age is increasing. February 2009 auto sales were the worst in over three decades.

This is a Politburo-sized bag of "not good" for automobile enthusiasts, collectors, restorers, grassroots racers, hot rodders, and tuners.

At least some, such as Peter M. DeLorenzo, have the courage to tell it as it is.

IS THE 2011 FORD “COYOTE” V8 A DOHC?

[Get the Latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

Since the first photos leaked in January 2009 of the 2011 Mustang “Coyote” V8, internet speculation has been rampant about whether the “new 5.0" is an OHV, an OHC or a DOHC.

The valve covers tell the tale.

The coil-on-plug ignition starts well aft of the front of the valve covers, indicating overhead cams. OHV engines have no technical need for the valve covers to extend so far ahead of the front spark plugs.

The plugs run down the center of the valve covers, indicating twin cams per bank -- unlike the early photos of the Boss/Hurricane SOHC V8 drag tested by Roush and available in the upcoming SVT Raptor high-performance off-road pickup.

The valve covers are similar (but not identical) to the pattern of the 3.5-liter “Cyclone” Duratec V6. This suggests that the Coyote has similar direct-acting mechanical bucket tappets instead of the rockers used on the Modular.

This photo also shows a couple of curious electrical connections at the front of the passenger-side bank, possibly related to the cam gear phasing or cam position sensors.

Thus, the “Coyote” engine in the internet “spy” photos appears to be a DOHC four-valves-per-cylinder engine, hopefully with wider bore centers than the DOHC 4V 4.6/5.4.

The only real defect in the Modular DOHC design is that the bore centers were set far too narrow in order to accommodate FWD applications that never really materialized (save the forgotten FWD Lincoln Continental).

A wide-bore-center DOHC 4V engine should produce greater power density than the comparatively low-tech 3G Chrysler Hemi and the GM LS. 80-85 horsepower-per-liter (naturally aspirated) should be easily achievable with a DOHC 4V V8.

In comparison, the ultimate “all motor” LS engine (the expensive 2V 7-liter Z06) yields a paltry 72 horsepower-per-liter in emission-legal trim. The stock SRT-8 Hemi even fails to break the 70 horsepower-per-liter barrier.

More power with less displacement promises the possibility of improved part-throttle efficiency because of reduced pumping losses, albeit at the cost of some low-end torque (which could be easily replaced -- and surpassed -- with on-demand forced induction).

Given Ford’s reluctance to build high-horsepower naturally-aspirated Modulars (the best unblown OEM Modulars were in the low 70 horsepower-per-liter range due to Ford’s reluctance to add variable cam timing and other torque-broadening technology), a 400-horsepower 5.0 “Coyote” would be a significant milestone in Ford's proud V8 tradition.

The “Coyote” code name is also historically interesting. When A.J. Foyt took over development of Ford’s 1960s DOHC Indy V8 (which was based upon the pushrod Fairlane/Challenger/Windsor V8) after Henry Ford II’s disastrous retreat from racing in November 1970, Foyt’s cars were “Coyotes.”

Thus, based on the “spy” photos now available, “Truth With Speedzzter” predicts that the 2011 "Coyote" V8 is a DOHC.

Now if Ford would just start work on a EcoBoost Coyote V8 . . .

MORE EVIDENCE THAT FORD IS KILLING PERFORMANCE (AGAIN)

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Call this one a rumor. But if it's true, it's bad.

“The new Focus RS is pretty special, and not just because of its incredible performance, but because it’s likely to be the last car of this type you will see from Ford.”

He explained the economic downturn meant there was “absolutely no business case” for any new RS models at the moment and that this situation would probably never change.

This sad development, if true, reminds "Truth With Speedzzter" of FoMoCo's disasterous overreaction and myopic retrenchment from high performance and racing in 1970:

After nearly a decade of "Total Performance" success (mostly at the professional level), Henry Ford II became concerned by the safety-emissions regulatory storm brewing in Washington D.C. and his responsibility to Ford's shareholders. After some turbulent hearings by a Congressional committee, Henry reacted by slashing the racing program. When Henry fired Bunkie Knudsen (who had left GM after being bypassed for promotion), Ford lost its biggest racing fan. Lee Iacocca was then all too ready to purge "Knudsen" loyalists, many of which shared Knudsen's passion for motorsports and to strictly execute Henry's hasty retreat on factory racing and high performance.

Thus, in November 1970, Ford killed its racing and "Muscle Parts" programs. Ford's largest domestic competitor at the tracks -- Chrysler-- also severely cut back its sponsorships and then killed the Hemi. An era was over.

Ford seems poised to repeat all of the same mistakes again.

Let's all hope another wimpy "Mustang II" or FWD PROBE-Stang isn't on FoMoCo's tree-hugging docket (although that would be better than killing off the storied Pony Car tradition entirely).

Speaking of wimpy and green, FoMoCo is busting a gut to sell "THE ALL-NEW 41-MPG 2010 FORD FUSION HYBRID"

The 2010 Fusion Hybrid is the most fuel-efficient midsize sedan on the planet. And right now, you can take advantage of a $3,400 tax credit when you make the new 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid your own.

Now that'll really make up for a dwindling supply of real high performance vehicles . . . .

Tell'em Barack Obama sent you . . . .

Not that taxpayer subsidzed hybrid motoring in a Mexican Ford will be cheap. It will cost around $1,000 more than in a hybrid Camry ("$27,270 for a hybrid gas-electric version" versus $26,150 for the Tokyo version of Mr. Electric's snoozemobile).

But then Ford would like to sell SOMETHING . . . ANYTHING . . . .

Ford Motor Co's (NYSE:F - News) chief analyst, George Pipas, estimates that U.S. auto industry sales dropped in February to a range of about 9 million units. Retail sales, or vehicles sold at showrooms, likely declined about 40 percent in February.

This is reflecting in poor dealership profits, according to the Automotive News:

U.S. auto dealer profits slid to a nearly two-decade low in 2008 and could fall even more this year. According to the National Automobile Dealers Association, the average dealership made a net pretax profit last year of just 1.0 percent of sales, down from 1.5 percent in 2007.

Apparently even gouging baby boomers on GT500s can't take up the slack . . . .


NOW EVERYBODY . . . .

Gray skies are gonna clear up,
Put on a happy face;
Brush off the clouds and cheer up,
Put on a happy face.
Take off the gloomy mask of tragedy,
It's not your style;
You'll look so good that you'll be glad
Ya' decide to smile

That's apparently what the folks at MazdaSpeed have done. On steroids.THE NEW MAZDASPEED 3. . . a front end "happy face" only a clown could love?

Perhaps it's just "Truth With Speedzzter," but does the juxtiposition of the new front-end blackout panel, eye-shaped headlamps and nameplate on the new Mazdaspeed 3 look like some sort of clown on "meth" (that other, bad kind of "speed")?

Not good.

And the new Mazdaspeed 3 apparently is shipping with the same engine that gets slaughtered by GM's direct-injected turbo EcoTec. So perhaps the clown face is for display in the mirrors of the various tuner cars that outrun the 'Speed 3.

Or maybe it's a grimace.

Where are brilliant "muscle car" designers like the late Larry Shinoda when you need them? At least Shinoda knew how to apply contrasting "blackout" panels to a musclecar without creating a circus wagon effect.