MIT'S "BELTWAY BATTERY" -- A BREAKTHROUGH THAT MAKES QUICK CHARGING PLUG-IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES POSSIBLE?

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers Byoungwoo Kang and Gerbrand Ceder have apparently developed a new lithium-ion battery which can be recharged in minutes instead of hours.

The researchers . . . have already made a small prototype cell that charges fully in 10 to 20 seconds, compared with six minutes for cells made in the standard way.

Whether this is "cold fusion," or a neat party trick, or the "real deal" remains to be seen. Of course, if the technology can be economically scaled-up to automotive-sized applications (and suitable high-amperage chargers developed . . . and a boat load of new generating capacity added to the World's electrical grids . . . .), perhaps this will be a milestone in the electrification of light automobiles.

On the other hand, in the present economic climate, it could be a development that languishes like Ethanol Boosting Systems' direct ethanol injection. This is unlikely given that lithium-ion batteries are so popular in personal devices (unlike direct injection of ethanol and more automobile-specific efficiency technologies).

Hopefully this technology will be developed and controlled by American interests (unlike so many American "breakthroughs" that were sold overseas for development)

BMW: THE ULTIMATE HEAT COLLECTION MACHINE?

[Get more Truth With Speedzzter here]

The governmental hysteria over "climate change" is prompting some interesting technological responses.

BMW has announced it intends to fit its "Ultimate Driving Machines (R)" with "A thermo-electric heat-collector originally designed to power space satellites."

BMW's head of development, Klaus Draeger, told Autocar magazine that "the predicted five per cent saving in the thermoelectric generator is bigger than the savings of three per cent achieved by the two current key Efficient Dynamics technologies - stop-start and brake energy regeneration."

The anticipated cost and durability of this space-aged electrical technology was not announced.

But clues as to how such a device probably works are here and here

Truth With Speedzzter wonders how many Reddy Kilowatts could be recovered from a TURBOCHARGED KAASE BOSS 9-EQUIPPED BIG BLOCK . . . .

Certainly waste heat is a fertile area for increasing the power density of light vehicles. Turbocharging, turbocompounding (linking the drivetrain directly or indirectly to exhausted waste heat through a blow-down turbine) and turbo-generators (generators driven by hot exhaust gasses) are all likely to play a role in more advanced attempts to avoid returning to the no-power, no-fun 1970s again.

Hot rodders, racers and tuners, of course, will use the "trickle down" of these technologies to extract more power for high-performance use once electric assist motors become common in sporting vehicles (or the junkyard).

BRIAN WOLFE RATIONALIZES HARD TIMES AT FORD RACING

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Perhaps we shouldn't throw rocks at Ford Motor Company's factory racing efforts. After all, we could someday be repeating the disasterous mistake of November 1970, when Lee Iacocca, Red Poling, and Henry Ford II and their anti-Knudsen hatchetmen killed off virtually the entire "Total Performance" motorsports program.

Still, to see a solid, hardworking Ford "lifer" such as Ford Racing Boss Brian Wolfe have to dance around justifying Ford's cutbacks in motorsports is hardly entertaining.

Wolfe's budget has been slashed by nearly FORTY PERCENT in recent months.

Wolfe, attempting to justify giving over control of the NASCAR Nationwide and Camping World Truck series to Toyota, said:

In NASCAR, it made us focus on Cup and Cup exclusively," Wolfe said. "In the truck series and the Nationwide series, we backed away from a lot of our, if not all of our financial backing, although we're still offering technical assistance to insure the cars perform as well as they can on the track, and a contingency program where we reward some people for that."

* * * *

"It wasn't like it was unforeseen and we had to tear up our plan and start over," Wolfe said. "That's why we were putting our focus in NASCAR on the Cup Series and (why) we're staying in the NHRA, primarily focused on the Funny Cars and the sportsman racers who work with us so well and do so much for us."


"I couldn't be happier with the performance of our teams this year," Wolfe said. "We don't have as many teams (as other manufacturers), but I've learned long ago it's the quality of the teams you have and the qualify of the guys you've got working for you that make a big difference.

Of course, perhaps the greatest year for Ford Racing in the modern era was 1992. Nearly two-thirds of the Winston Cup field were Ford Thunderbirds. And not boring, common-template NASCAR-designed "funny cars," but Thunderbirds that actually looked like production Thunderbirds.

Three Ford teams battled down to the last laps of the season for the Winston Cup Championship, which was won in dramatic fashion by "Underbird" Alan Kulwicki.

During 1992, Jack Roush's Fords were the midst of their incredible decade of dominance in the 24 Hours of Daytona.

Ford also had factory presence in Formula One (Michael Schumacher took his first F1 victory in a Ford Cosworth-powered car), World Rally, Indy Cars (the XB Cosworth won six races in its initial season) and various forms of sports car racing.

Now, while NASCAR and big-time international motorsports "dust and glory" is less frequent these days (excluding WRC, of course), Brian Wolfe's crew are making do in spectacular fashion with vibrant production Mustang-based Grand Am, Miller Cup and NHRA Cobra Jet programs, and a strong (but too small) Ford Racing Performance Parts operation.

Hopefully, Mr. Wolfe will continue to have success in making the case to Ford's bean counters and "appliance motorist" greens in the Glass House that motorsports is essential to Ford's very survival as a manufacturer.

And maybe someday, Ford will see fit to revisit the incredible "Total Performance" era (or at least the 1992 echo of it).

AN IACOCCAISM THAT FORD WOULD RATHER FORGET

[Get the latest Truth With Speedzzter here]

March 13, 1980 – A day of glorious infamy in the history of Ford Motor Company.

March 13, 1980, Ford Motor Co. Chairman Henry Ford II announced he was stepping down, the same day a jury in Winamac, Ind., found his company innocent of reckless homicide in the fiery deaths of three young women in a Ford Pinto.

It was the first known criminal trial of a corporation under a products liability theory.

The “glory” is that Ford was not convicted.

The infamy was the excessive bean counting in the Glass House under the watch of Lee Iacocca that was the proximate cause of the fiasco.

As the court found in GRIMSHAW v. FORD MOTOR CO. (1981) 119 Cal App 3d 757:

In 1968, Ford began designing a new subcompact automobile which ultimately became the Pinto. Mr. Iacocca, then a Ford vice president, conceived the project and was its moving force. Ford's objective was to build a car at or below 2,000 pounds to sell for no more than $2,000.

Ordinarily marketing surveys and preliminary engineering studies precede the styling of a new automobile line. Pinto, however, was a rush project, so that styling preceded engineering and dictated engineering design to a greater degree than usual. Among the engineering decisions dictated by styling was the placement of the fuel tank. It was then the preferred practice in Europe and Japan to locate the gas tank over the rear axle in subcompacts because a small vehicle has less "crush space" between the rear axle and the bumper than larger cars. The Pinto's styling, however, required the tank to be placed behind the rear axle leaving only 9 or 10 inches of "crush space"--far less than in any other American automobile or Ford overseas subcompact. In addition, the Pinto was designed so that its bumper was little more than a chrome strip, less substantial than the bumper of any other American car produced then or later. The Pinto's rear structure also lacked reinforcing members known as "hat sections" (two longitudinal side members) and horizontal cross-members running between them such as were found in cars of larger unitized construction and in all automobiles produced by Ford's overseas operations. The absence of the reinforcing members rendered the Pinto less crush resistant than other vehicles. Finally, the differential housing selected for the Pinto had an exposed flange and a line of exposed bolt heads. These protrusions were sufficient to puncture a gas tank driven forward against the differential upon rear impact.

Design changes that would have enhanced the integrity of the fuel tank system at relatively little cost per car included the following: Longitudinal side members and cross members at $2.40 and $1.80, respectively; a single shock absorbant "flak suit" to protect the tank at $4; a tank within a tank and placement of the tank over the axle at $5.08 to $5.79; a nylon bladder within the tank at $5.25 to $8; placement of the tank over the axle surrounded with a protective barrier at a cost of $9.95 per car; substitution of a rear axle with a smooth differential housing at a cost of $2.10; imposition of a protective shield between the differential housing and the tank at $2.35; improvement and reenforcement of the bumper at $2.60; addition of eight inches of crush space a cost of $6.40. Equipping the car with a reinforced rear structure, smooth axle, improved bumper and additional crush space at a total cost of $15.30 would have made the fuel tank safe in a 34 to 38-mile-per-hour rear-end collision by a vehicle the size of the Ford Galaxie. If, in addition to the foregoing, a bladder or tank within a tank were used or if the tank were protected with a shield, it would have been safe in a 40 to 45-mile-per-hour rear impact. If the tank had been located over the rear axle, it would have been safe in a rear impact at 50 miles per hour or more.

Management's Decision to Go Forward With Knowledge of Defects:

The idea for the Pinto, as has been noted, was conceived by Mr. Iacocca, then executive vice president of Ford. The feasibility study was conducted under the supervision of Mr. Robert Alexander, vice president of car engineering. Ford's Product Planning Committee, whose members included Mr. Iacocca, Mr. Robert Alexander, and Mr. Harold MacDonald, Ford's group vice president of car engineering, approved the Pinto's concept and made the decision to go forward with the project. During the course of the project, regular product review meetings were held which were chaired by Mr. MacDonald and attended by Mr. Alexander. As the project approached actual production, the engineers responsible for the components of the project "signed off" to their immediate supervisors who in turn "signed off" to their superiors and so on up the chain of command until the entire project was approved for public release by Vice Presidents Alexander and MacDonald and ultimately by Mr. Iacocca. The Pinto crash tests results had been forwarded up the chain of command to the ultimate decision-makers and were known to the Ford officials who decided to go forward with production.

Harley Copp, a former Ford engineer and executive in charge of the crash testing program, testified that the highest level of Ford's management made the decision to go forward with the production of the Pinto, knowing that the gas tank was vulnerable to puncture and rupture at low rear impact speeds creating a significant risk of death or injury from fire and knowing that "fixes" were feasible at nominal cost. He testified that management's decision was based on the cost savings which would inure from omitting or delaying the "fixes."

Mr. Copp's testimony concerning management's awareness of the crash tests results and the vulnerability of the Pinto fuel system was corroborated by other evidence. At an April 1971 product review meeting chaired by Mr. MacDonald, those present received and discussed a report (exhibit 125) prepared by Ford engineers pertaining to the financial impact of a proposed federal standard on fuel system integrity and the cost savings which would accrue from deferring even minimal "fixes." . . . The report refers to crash tests of the integrity of the fuel system of Ford vehicles and design changes needed to meet anticipated federal standards. Also in evidence was a September 23, 1970, report (exhibit 124) by Ford's "Chassis Design Office" concerning a program "to establish a corporate [Ford] position and reply to the government" on the proposed federal fuel system integrity standard which included zero fuel spillage at 20 miles per hour fixed barrier crash by January 1, 1972, and 30 miles per hour by January 1, 1973. The report states in part: "The 20 and 30 mph rear fixed barrier crashes will probably require repackaging the fuel tanks in a protected area such as above the rear axle. This is based on moving barrier crash tests of a Chevelle and a Ford at 30 mph and other Ford products at 20 mph. [¶] Currently there are no plans for forward models to repackage the fuel tanks. Tests must be conducted to prove that repackaged tanks will live without significantly strengthening rear structure for added protection." The report also notes that the Pinto was the "[smallest] car line with most difficulty in achieving compliance."It is reasonable to infer that the report was prepared for and known to Ford officials in policy-making positions.

The fact that two of the crash tests were run at the request of the Ford chassis and vehicle engineering department for the specific purpose of demonstrating the advisability of moving the fuel tank over the axle as a possible "fix" further corroborated Mr. Copp's testimony that management knew the results of the crash tests. Mr. Kennedy, who succeeded Mr. Copp as the engineer in charge of Ford's crash testing program, admitted that the test results had been forwarded up the chain of command to his superiors.

Finally, Mr. Copp testified to conversations in late 1968 or early 1969 with the chief assistant research engineer in charge of cost-weight evaluation of the Pinto, and to a later conversation with the chief chassis engineer who was then in charge of crash testing the early prototype. In these conversations, both men expressed concern about the integrity of the Pinto's fuel system and complained about management's unwillingness to deviate from the design if the change would cost money.

Lee Iacocca marshaled a broken system which produced an unreasonably dangerous car for no good reason other than to save $20.00 per unit.

Of course, the Pinto was also a disaster in that it abjectly failed to meet the challenge of the Japanese invasion head-on. Whereas Toyota countered the Pinto with a plethora of specialized small car models, such as the Corolla, Corona, Crown, Mark II, and Celica, in a wide variety of useable body styles, Iacocca’s Pinto misread the market and failed to match the Japanese car-for-car. Thus, Iacocca’s model line-up was ill-prepared for the “first” energy crisis which followed the 1973 Yon Kippur War and the Arab/OPEC oil embargo.

These horrible lapses in judgment cost FoMoCo millions upon millions in lost sales. An entire generation's perceptions of the Ford brand were formed by the failures of the Pinto.

These awful mistakes should never be forgotten by any of Ford’s engineers, designers, and managers. Obviously, to stay in business, FoMoCo has to make a profit. But the safety and well-being of the public (and the long-term well-being of the Company) must never be sacrificed again for a per-unit profit of less than the cost of a decent meal.

Iacocca is often celebrated as the “Father of the Mustang” and “Savior of Chrysler.” And he was clever at realizing how to deceptively leverage off-the-shelf parts and existing platforms to cheaply create profitable niche market “sizzle.”

But for every 1964 Mustang, 1967 Cougar, 1968 Continental Mark III, minivan and Viper in Iacocca’s product portfolio, there are legions of horrific aesthetic and engineering abortions, such as the Grenada, the Mustang II, 1975 Cougar, the LTD II, the 1980 Fox-platform Thunderbird, the Chrysler Fifth Avenue/FWD New Yorker, Chrysler Laser/FWD Dodge Daytona, the Maserati TC, Dodge Dynasty, and the FWD Imperial.

But his most horrible, tragic, and catastrophic decisions of all culminated in the Pinto.

LEAVE IT TO PORSCHE TO REINVENT THE GAS/ELECTRIC HYBRID

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Perhaps not a full-blown "reinvention," but Porsche's still-in-development clutched two-mode hybrid system points the way for future high-performance gas/electric hybrid vehicles.

Of course, Truth With Speedzzter won't truly be interested until a Porsche-style hybrid system is offered with a DOHC displacement-on-demand, variable valve-timed "twincharged" EcoBoost (r)V8 in a RWD Mustang (hopefully with a proper manual transmission** and driver-controlled overrides) . . . .

**There's no technical reason why a second clutch cannot be added downstream of the electric assist motor (On further review, perhaps just an electric field cut is all that's necessary). And there's no reason why drivers cannot shift for themselves in the EV mode (as some drivers of EV conversions already do).

2010 ROUSH MUSTANGS: ENOUGH BANG FOR THE BUCK?

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Make no mistake about it: Truth With Speedzzter loves Jack Roush.

Roush is even more important to Ford Motor Company today than Holman-Moody AND Carroll Shelby were combined to Ford during the legendary "Total Performance" era. Roush is the single most important "outsider" to Ford's motorsports efforts since 1981. Without Roush, the awesome Ford GT (which will likely be the high water mark for Ford for the foreseeable future) might not have happened.

Truth With Speedzzter can even forgive Roush's contracting on projects with Ford's competitors because he's got to keep the doors open and the heart of his company bleeds Ford blue.

And we like the idea of Roush building street cars with a harder, purer edge than the "Melvins," cheapskates, and the tree-huggers in the Glass House could ever allow to escape as regular production models.

At least Roush's street beasts still have a warranty . . . unlike some other Ford-based tuner cars ((cough) ahem . . . SAH . .(Cough) . LEEEN . . . (cough) (cough)).

But are they good values?

Roush will debut his 2010 line-up of tuner Mustangs later this month

However, with all the talk of "427" and Roush-specific badging and body appearance packages and "Roushchargers," Truth With Speedzzter still wonders whether Roush cars really provide a decent bang-for-the-buck.

Roush cars appeal to a "do-it-for-me" muscle car buyer who wants something other than an ordinary tuner car. Thus part of the cost mark-up is for the panache of owning a "Roush."

Yet in the eyes of some, Roush's late entry into the tuner field puts his products a rung or two below more established tuners like Shelby and Steve Saleen (not to be confused with Steve's old company). Such an assessment is probably not fair because of Roush's decades of competition success (which far outshadow Shelby in the minds of some) and obvious in-house engineering prowess. Still, public perceptions aren't always fair.

Roush is a bit like the Rodney Dangerfield of the Mustang tuner scene: Not enough respect.

The problem with the value question is the box Roush is forced to work inside.

It's a box dictated by the parsimony of Ford Motor Company. Apparently Roush has to deconstruct production Mustang GTs to build its appearance and peformance packages. This reassembly process is inherently inefficient and costly. Thus, what seems like modest performance and appearance upgrades cost thousands over a production model. It eliminates much of the advantages of mass production and assembly line technology.

Because of the weak hypereutectic pistons, cast cranks, and spindly cracked-cap rods in the production Mustang GT engines, Roush has to pull and rebuild them with proper forged internals for reliable high-boost use. Just like when Mustang enthusiasts do this at home, this is an expensive proposition.

But given the huge cubic inch advantage of production Chrysler and GM muscle cars, Modular-powered Fords simply aren't competitive without high boost.

If Ford would just optionally equip the production V8s properly with forced-induction-ready forced parts (or even factory-installed forced induction), some of this unnecessary expense would be eliminated.

Moreover, Roush (as is most Mustang enthusiasts) is forced to work without DOHC four-valve heads. Given the small bore size of the Modular V8, this is a major disadvantage.

Four valve DOHC heads are one of the major advantages of the Modular V8, yet Ford has never properly taken advantage of this design feature, either in production form or in the aftermarket.

Roush has also been reluctant to push the envelope on efficient high-performance technologies, such as turbocharging, variable geometry intake manifolds, ram-tuning combined with supercharging, and variable valve timing. Again, this is mostly caused by Ford's failure to make these features optionally available on production Mustang V8s.

On the other hand, Mustang tuners such as Roush have had virtually no non-Ford-based domestic competition for many years. Only just recently have "pony cars" from Chrysler and GM been available for tuning and their impact on the Mustang tuner market is not known.

And some of Roush's lower-performance packages sell in that huge chasm between the pedestrian Mustang GT and the dealer-gouge-o-rama known as the Shelby GT500.

Clearly, if Roush-style modifications were added on the Flat Rock production line, the net unit cost of the vehicles should be lower.

But would that translate into a lower MSRP?

It hasn't with the Shelby GT500. Therefore, there's little hope that the savings would be passed onto the customers.

Everyone in the supply chain of performance cars is charging a premium for high-performance. There are seldom any rebates or employee pricing or "special deals" as with ordinary "appliance" sleds.

Why does everybody gouge high-performance customers?

They do this because they know that no one NEEDS a high-performance car, but many desperately WANT them. Some high-performance Mustang buyers have dreamed about a "hot pony" for literally decades.

Thus, new high-performance vehicles seldom become commodities. There's simply little meaningful competition for "tuner-type" muscle cars. Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards artificially restrict supplies and work as a profit/price-support program for performance models. And why go to the risk and effort to sell ten cars to net $10,000 when you can sell one at $10,000 net?

This endemic price gouging is causing many potential customers to wholly miss what's left of the Second Supercar Era.

Sure, that's unfair to Ford's loyal and long-suffering "Total Performance" fans, but that's how it is. Roush is merely caught up in that bad but prevailing system.

If Roush cars are judged against objective performance measures, there are assuredly cheaper ways to go as quick and fast. Most involve getting ones hands dirty and making compromises in driveability and reliability, jettisoning warranty coverage, or buying a non-Ford product.

Apparently for some Roush customers, the tradeoffs aren't worth the cost savings.

Truth With Speedzzter wishes Roush the best in its tuner car efforts. However, Truth With Speedzzter wonders whether Roush's Mustangs provide enough "bang-for-the-buck."

SHELBY'S "UNIQUE-LESS" SOLUTION TO THE "ELEANOR" PROBLEM

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

The cratering of Shelby licensee Unique Performance was clearly a black eye for the celebrated Shelby "brand."

Several commentators, including "Truth With Speedzzter" wondered what Shelby would do to help the scores of consumers who wanted and partially paid for a "continuation" 1960s Shelby Mustang, but were left holding an expensive empty bag when Unique folded.

Now we know the answer.

PRESS RELEASE:

Carroll Shelby Licensing Grants License to Complete Shelby Cars for Unique Motorcars Former Customers

LOS ANGELES, Mar 10, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Carroll Shelby Licensing Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Carroll Shelby International Inc. (Pink Sheets: CSBI), has entered into license agreements with Kustom Classics of Fort Worth and Riley Performance Motorcars of Valley View, Texas, to allow completion of the continuation Shelby GT500SE and GT350SR cars contracted for by the former customers of Unique Performance and Unique Motorcars. Each completed car will receive an official Shelby continuation serial number and inclusion into the Shelby Worldwide Registry. Unique Performance/Motorcars filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in Texas Federal court in 2007.

Though the completion of these cars will be at the owner's expense, Carroll Shelby Licensing will extend this license royalty free, in an attempt to ease the financial pain of Unique Performance's failure to deliver their customer's cars as contracted. In spite of Unique Performance's failure to deliver their customer's cars as contracted, customers who want to complete their Shelby vehicle through one of the two North Texas shops can contact either shop for details.

"Carroll Shelby Licensing struck this agreement on behalf of customers who contracted and paid Unique Performance for continuation Shelby cars but did not receive them," said Carroll Shelby Licensing president John Luft. "Many of them asked us for permission to complete the build of their Shelby. We found two qualified and experienced shops that can finish the cars to Shelby specifications. This offer is being made royalty free from Carroll Shelby Licensing to help Unique's customers who truly want a Shelby to fulfill that dream."

The two shops will build vehicles to Shelby specs for customers that paid Unique Performance for Shelby continuation cars; no new vehicles can be built and sold under this agreement. The shops can locate a donor vehicle or convert a customer owned one. A build of materials and inspection by Shelby Automobiles and Carroll Shelby Licensing representatives is part of the program, but customers must assume the cost to build the cars. Individuals who paid Unique Performance a deposit for a Shelby car can contact either shop for details and requirements. Kustom Classics can be reached at (817) 492-4441 ( www.kustomclassics.com) and Riley Performance Motorcars is at (214) 587-5323 and www.rileyrpm.com.

About Carroll Shelby Licensing

Automotive manufacturer and entrepreneur Carroll Shelby is one of the most famous and successful high performance visionaries in the world. In 1998, he founded Carroll Shelby Licensing Inc., which is the exclusive holder of trademarks and vehicle design rights for some of the most famous muscle cars and high-performance vehicles. CSL also holds trademark rights for Shelby-branded apparel, accessories and collectibles. For more information about the company or licensing opportunities, call (310) 914-1843 or visit www.shelbylicensing.com.

At least its more than a cold shoulder. But it appears that Shelby Licensing will not outlay any cash to help Unique-ly jilted Eleanor depositors recover any of the money they've already spent.

Hopefully Carroll Shelby and his agents will be actively supervising this latest "continuation" plan.

NOT EXACTLY IMMEDIATE "PARITY" WITH THE JAPANESE INVADERS

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

"Over the next couple of years with the buyouts and with the ability to leverage some of the other tools that are now in this agreement, we think we can get there within the next couple of years on parity with the transplants." - Joe Hinrichs, Ford global head of manufacturing."

Lots of weasel room in that quote.

COOL IDEA FOR AN UNLIMITED BUDGET MUSTANG SUPERCAR

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Car Craft magazine Editor Douglas Glad asked readers a while back what they'd build if they had an unlimited budget. Among the responses was this jewel from 460-BBF-In-CC.

The budget for this fantasy build seems higher than anything John Coletti had for a show/go car back in SVT's glory days (remember the audcious "Boss 429"-powered SN95 and the dual-fuel supercharged SN95).

Still, it would be a supercar like none other.

If I had a REALLY unlimited budget, I'd start by engineering a set of bolt-on DOHC 4-Valve aluminum heads for the 460 Ford, with capability for direct injection and Ethanol Boosting System's direct auxillary ethanol injection system . . . .

However, using parts that generally exist, I'd build (probably with the help of Chip Foose, or Troy Trepanier, or Pure Vision or some other pro builder that has industry connections) a "triple-charged" hybrid electric, modular displacement, all-wheel-drive big block Ford-powered 1969 Mustang as follows:

1. HYBRID ELECTRIC MANUAL TRANSMISSION: I'd raid the GM parts bin/insurance wrecking yard for the transmission, high-voltage batteries and electric control gear from a Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid. I'd then machine the twin electric motor section of the transmission to interface with a beefed T-56 manual (or possibly a strengthened TKO-600 with a Gear Vendors overdrive added on). The Tahoe hybrid controller would be hacked to allow for manual operation of the electric motors. Ahead of the elecric motor pack I'd use a multiplate clutch and a "decoupler" box (allows electric-only operation if desired).

2. VARIABLE DISPLACEMENT: I'd grab a set of either Chrysler or GM "displacement-on-demand" hydraulic roller lifters and send them off to Rhodes Lifters for machining with their patented variable duration grooves and to fit in an Eliminator Products aftermarket 460 Ford block. The DOD oil feed solenoids would be triggered by a manual controller.

3. VARIABLE GEOMETRY INTAKE MANIFOLD: I'd engineer and have built by one of the sheet metal manifold companies a "variable geometry" EFI intake manifold that would allow a low r.p.m. intake runner length (to the valve) of 26" with butterfly valves in the runners to shorten the effective ram pipe lengths to 19" and 13" as the r.p.m. increased.

3. DUAL FUEL INJECTION: I'd buy a top-of-the-line Motec EFI/Ignition system and a datalogging system and at least 16 injectors (so that the vehicle could run off-boost on pump gas and immediately switch on-boost to alcohol(E100) or E85). I'd run two fuel cells (one 16 gallon and one 8 gallon) with two sets of lines, filters and pumps.

4. LONG BLOCK: Bored and stroked 460 Ford with aforementioned aftermarket block, fitted with oil squirters for the pistons, billet main caps, billet crank, billet rods, forged reverse deflector pistons featuring anti-scuff and thermal barrier coatings, Total Seal gapless top and second rings, hydraulic roller cam in the 230-degree (at .050 lift) range, ported Jon Kaase P-51 aluminum heads [The NEW KAASE BOSS NINE HEADS WOULD SEEM A BETTER CHOICE FOR AN ULTIMATE MUSTANG], roller rockers (no shaft rockers for me, even with an "unlimited" budget) ARP main and head studs, fabricated reverse-flow cooling system, true-roller timing chain or gear drive (no belt cam drive, even with "unlimited" budget); cam phaser added to the timing set; chain-driven dry sump oiling system (no belts to break).

5. FORCED INDUCTION: A "twincharging system" similar to what I described in the "We're not rich but we're not Stupid" thread (Turbos into air-air intercooler into Roots or bypass into air-water aftercooler), with these modifications: Heavy-duty 4-into-2 (bifurcated) exhaust headers with four Turbonetics racegate wastegates (one for each exhaust channel), dual sequential ball-bearing, divided entry-turbine turbochargers (four turbos -- two per cylinder bank), Lancia Delta-style stainless steel flap valve at the exducer of both secondary turbines to prevent exhaust flow at low RPM and an electric secondary throttle to prevent flow out of both secondary compressors at low RPM.

6. JOHN COLETTI "SUPERCOOLER" SYSTEM: The second stage aftercooler/intercooler would be augmented with an the AC-cooled "supercooler" designed and patented by John Coletti when he was chief at Ford SVT.

7. REAR AXLE: Dana 60 with an Auburn ECTED (limited slip with an electric locker), NASCAR-style full-floating axles (would consider a quick change rear if strong enough and the ECTED could be made to fit).

8. FRONT AXLE: adapt in an AWD Chrysler 300 differential and beefed half-shafts (obviously, the torque split would have to be limited).

9. CENTER DIFFERENTIAL/TRANSFER CASE: Single speed, non-locking viscous differential modified to transfer no more than 150-200 lbs/ft of torque to the front axle (Source and modifications to be determined).

10. CHASSIS: Art Morrison pro-touring with Air Ride Systems air springs and weight jackers, Koni adjustable shocks (I would add a solenoid controlled external bypass to the front shocks so that they could be switched on-the-fly to loose-rebound "drag" shocks), huge swaybars with a remote off-road-style disconnect of the front bar (for drag racing).

11. TIRES AND WHEELS: NO DUBS! NO PRO STREET! 17" diameter "Mini-lite"-style or billet Magnum 500s (8" wide front, 10" wide rear) with Goodyear F1s on front and drag radials on the rear (Of course it still wouldn't hook up, even with AWD!).

12. BRAKES: Baer/Brembo four-wheel discs with modified ABS adapted from factory Ford Mustang parts, line-loc, dual Tilton master cylinders with balance bar.

13. BODY: Boss 302 rear scoop delete, Black Boss 302 stripes with "Boss 555" call-outs, Thunderbolt hood bubble (the greatest FoMoCo hoodscoop of all time) on a blacked-out hood, revised Boss 302 front spoiler with a small splitter, "Off-road-only" High/Low-beam H4s bulb assemblies in the high-beam headlamp sockets, HID conversion in the low-beam head-lamp sockets, discrete but period-correct fog lamps below the bumper, fiber optic lamp monitors from a 1980s Cadillac, rear spoiler, hood tach nacelle fitted with fuel pressure gauges (one for each fuel system), legal window tint on rear and side windows, NASCAR-style rear window straps and windshield retaining tabs, hood pins with lanyards on hood and trunk (trunk pins are weather-sealed), Shelby Cobra-style mirrors modified to add heat, electric adjusters and auto-dimming glass, two recessed flip-top Cobra-style fuel caps (one for each fuel system), 1970 Mustang tail lamp panel and taillights, blacked out and with tasteful, period-style "honeycomb" accent, tail lamp segments converted to Cougar-style sequential operation with high-intensity LED bulbs.

14. SAFETY: Full cage with triangulated swing-out side bars that can be pinned either to the doors (street) or the cage (track) and removable main hoop cross-bar on the passenger-side for rear seat access (driver's side cross-bar is fixed and tied into the main hoop diagonal bar), all safety equipment required for bracket racing, HRM Drag Week (tm), CC's new Street Car contest, open road events, HRM Top Speed Challenge at Maxton Mile, ECTA events, integrated fire suppression system, Five-panel WINK rear view mirror refitted with electric auto-dimming glass.

15. INTERIOR: Leather and wool in the style of the original interior, but with fully power-adjustable RECARO front seats (driver's seat can be removed for certified racing seat), Taurus-style lighted sun visors modified to work with the cage and the Wink mirror, Engine-turned auxiliary gauge/control panel with carbon-fiber accents (panel can be turned to face "riding mechanic/tuner" in the front passenger seat, dome light with map lights, courtesy lighting, center console with drink holders, rear seat with fold-down center arm rest, stereo, tilt and telescoping steering column with modern "stalk" controls for accessories and a vintage-style Shelby Mustang steering wheel.

16. MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT: A/C (pirated off the hybrid Tahoe?), electric power steering, power windows, power door locks, custom security system (schematics known only to me), electric vacuum pump (if Tilton master cylinders can be interfaced with a brake booster), cruise control, Valentine One, interval wipers, automatic headlamp system, automatic emergency brake release with an override system to facilitate "bootleg" e-brake turns.

17. EXHAUST: Expansion megaphones after each turbo lead to manual dump caps and split into four three-inch pipes; four catalytic converters; two after-cat pipes run to the sides, through minimal "race" mufflers to NASCAR-style side outlets, but flow through the side pipes is regulated by "cut-out" valves; the other two pipes run through turbo mufflers and exit through polished MEGS at the rear.

It'd probably be cheaper to just buy a Bugatti Veyron . . . .

Something like that will be fun to contemplate as we putt around in our 2020 Obama Car Czar Central Committee-approved, 60 m.p.g. toll-booth microcars . . . .

PARITY, PARODY AND THE DETROIT AUTOMAKERS

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Ford Motor Company claims that their new deal with the United Autoworkers Union creates "parity" with the predatory Japanese invader automakers, and a claimed $500 million in annual savings.

Of course it remains to be seen if mere "parity" is enough. Or will larger market events swamp Ford?

At least Ford has achieved something (without government intervention) that Chrysler and GM desperately need to.

As for the parody . . . Autoextremist Peter M. DeLorenzo hits out of the park again on the absurd parody that is Obama's Automotive Task Force (better known here as the Car Czar Central Committee):

Now that we have been blessed with a visit from President Obama’s auto task force, we can just feel the rush of Shiny Happy adrenalin running through our veins. Not. Unfortunately, there’s no amount of fact-finding and due diligence that’s going to get these people up to speed in order to save the domestic auto industry, no matter how well intended they claim to be.

AMEN, Peter!

And lest we forget about Tricinda's Jerry York (who managed to help relieve Kirk Kerkorian of some excess capital through ill-timed investments in Ford and GM), Seeking Alpha's Tyler Durden rips on him.

However, one Jerry York quote that Durden highlights does make some sense:

[I]t would be deplorably bad to have a company the size of GM go through a normal bankruptcy process at this time. With the unemployment rate being so high, the carnage in the financial markets, it's going to make the markets substantially worse.

Yet if Obama's hapless band of automotive know-nothings, the oft greed-soaked and myopic U.A.W., and a few other stakeholders don't figure a way out the situation with amazing speed, bankruptcy is just what might happen.

Tyler Durden's gig on Jerry York triggered a bizarre outpouring of Anti-GM "hate speech" as well as paeans to other GM dissidents as diverse as Ross Perot and John Z. Delorean.
Truth With Speedzzter responded as follows:

With the global auto market depressed as it is and even the unreasonably venerated Japanese invader/predatory exporter auto companies slashing costs and begging their home government for bailout funds, it would seem that nearly every automaker is building "vehicles that no one wants to buy."

Certainly, GM's soulless, "appliance motorist" bean counters crushed most of what was left of GM during the past thirty years. But the lion's share of the blame rests squarely upon federal policies which bled the Detroit 3 to near-death from unfunded mandates and favoritism toward the predatory Japanese invasion of the U.S. light vehicle market.

Perot, York, and DeLorean were all clueless as to how to truly fix GM. Perot's massive ego gave us two terms of Clinton. York is a wantabee who has lost a truck-load of money for his employer. DeLorean couldn't even build a sports car or manage a simple drug deal, much less run a Fortune 5 corporation.

(Okay, so perhaps that was a little harsh on the late John Z. Delorean. After all, he and Jim Wangers did cook up the subversive (albeit underengineered) 1964 Pontiac G.T.O. Of course, much like Lee Iacocca, Delorean went on make a number of poor decisions which would call his automotive genius into question.)


Finally, Bangshift.com's Brian Lohnes takes a worthwhile shot at a more "takin'-it-to-the-streets" level of automotive parody: the infamous "That Guy" -- the ubiquitous, big-talking, no-experience, imaginary hot rodder. He concludes "I’d rather have a discussion with a guy that has a totally riced out Civic that he loves and has poured his time into than someone who is obviously fabricating their entire story on the spot."

Sadly, Mr. Lohnes would be hard pressed to find anyone on Obama's Car Czar Central Committee with enough real-world automotive experience to carry on a substantive conversation. It's a collection of politically-correct, appliance-motoring, subway-riding, tree-worshiping "that guys."

On the other hand, Obama himself may be a political version of "that guy."

A sycophantic Howard Fineman writes:

Obama may be mistaking motion for progress, calling signals for a game plan. A busy, industrious overachiever, he likes to check off boxes on a long to-do list. A genial, amenable guy, he likes to appeal to every constituency, or at least not write off any. A beau ideal of Harvard Law, he can't wait to tackle extra-credit answers on the exam.

But there is only one question on this great test of American fate: can he lead us away from plunging into another Depression?

If Obama's too-green Car Czar Central Committee of dissemblers fails to figure out some way to stabilize the Beg 2's eroding situation, we will be even closer than we already are to the precipice of another depression.

And there's certainly no parody in that.

NO WARRANTY FOR OLD SALEEN?

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Autoblog is reporting that neither MJ Acquisitions nor Saleen, Inc. will honor warranty claims on Saleen vehicles built before the asset sale.

If true, this is a huge black-eye for the Saleen brand.

"Truth With Speedzzter" wonders about the go-forward value of the brand if the warranty issue is not immediately resolved. Who wants to buy an expensive tuner car from someone that's not committed to customer satisfaction and "making good" on their products?

Obviously, Saleen owners are not left without remedy. But remedies such as litigation and aftermarket extended warranties are not cheap or convenient.

EDITOR'S NOTE: After this post was published, Steve Saleen announced that SMS would step up to cover the warranty obligations on vintage Saleens.

WHAT OBAMA’S CAR CZAR CENTRAL COMMITTEE WANTS

[Get the latest Truth With Speedzzter here]

“Auto Task Force Road Trip Shows Long Road Ahead,” posted by CNBC’s Phil LeBeau is a prime example of the Seinfeld Rule of blogging – e.g. A post about nothing.

LeBeau’s feel good thesis is that the Obama Auto Task force (the way-in-over-their-heads appliance motorists, liberal car-hating activists, and mass transit riders known here as the “Car Czar Central Committee") haven’t produced diddly-squat yet because General Motors and Chrysler are really big problems.

President Obama's Auto Team has been working long hours the last two weeks trying to figure out how to re-build an industry broken by a painful recession and problems that have festered for decades. . . It will take longer than two weeks for the mechanics in Washington to come up with a way to repair it.

Other than the obvious, reflexive gagging at the thought of any one of the Car Czar mopes being referred to as “mechanics,” the savvy reaction of any reader should be: how could anyone who has NO AUTOMOTIVE DESIGN, MANUFACTURING, MARKETING, REPAIR, OR EVEN SALES EXPERIENCE ever hope to even figure out the true causes of the problem, much less viable solutions in six months, much less two weeks!

LeBeau, of course, apparently doesn’t want to point out the absolute insanity of Obama’s “task force” approach.

It’s as if the infamous “O.J. jury” has been charged with determining the fate of one-tenth of the U.S. economy. And apparently these newly-minted “mechanics in Washington” are cramming through a listening tour that’s even less than the one Hillary Clinton took before her well-financed entry into carpet-bagging name-recognition/liberal identity politics.

So nearly anyone who can fog an auto-darkening mirror ought to have already realized that the “listening tour” is nothing more than window dressing for what the Car Czar Central Committee is already expected by their political handlers to do.

1. Engineer a “soft landing” for the U.A.W.

Obama simply cannot “throw” the U.A.W. under the union-built, union-driven “bus.” The union played too big a role in his electoral coalition. The Central Committee listening tour is thus about being able to dissemble on how new “green” “electo-matic micorcars” (which no one on the Central Committee has a clue about how to engineer, build, market, or sell profitably) are going to “save” oodles of Democrat-voting U.A.W. jobs.

In other words, look for the Central Committee to approve any expenditure that keeps union members in the short-term working on untested and unproven electrics and hybrids and to deny anything that would compete for resources or showroom space with “green” vehicles or reductions in union jobs.

Also expect the Central Committee to push retasking of the Beg 2 into more mass transit manufacturing at some point.

The bankruptcy alternative would be messier because if liquidation is to be avoided, so must the gold-plated U.A.W. contracts. The Car Czar Central Committee will do their best to avoid this outcome, unless the Beg 2 simply do not kowtow to the “change” agenda.

Regardless of whether one or both of the Beg 2 end up liquidated, much of the U.A.W.’s VEBA responsibility will be off-loaded onto the taxpayers under the guise of national health insurance and “pension reform.” The Car Czar Central Committee will sell this off-loading as “our responsibility.”

2. Provide cover for dramatically ratcheted-up national standards on fuel economy/Greenhouse gas emissions.

California Air Resource Board chairwoman Mary Nichols told an EPA hearing last week that the state would consider withdrawing its request for a waiver allowing it to regulate carbon dioxide. Before that happens though a national standard needs to be put in place.

Reading between the lines, the Obama Administration is virtually certain to link “saving Detroit” with even higher national (or perhaps even international) fuel economy standards. The Car Czar Central Committee is undoubtedly collecting sound-bites on the “necessity” of “one standard” as a means to increasing the Beg 2's competitiveness.

Lurking in the background will be other “sticks” to force consumers into their government-approved electric-wonder microcars, such as European-style fuel use taxes, punitive carbon taxes on “clunkers” (which will include anything from a million-dollar Duesenburg Phaeton to a barely-mobile Yugo), and a revival of government/utility-funded scrappage programs to dry up alternatives to government-mandated micromachines and mass transit.

The “carrots” will consist of wide open taps for research and development of new econo-boxes and mass transit systems, and more redistributive transfer payments to low-income voters to “enable” the transition to urbanized mass transit, higher operational costs for private vehicles, and expensive restrictions on automotive choice.

The current depression in auto sales plays into this because it will deprive the used car market of “fresh meat” for a period of time, drive up used car prices, and make the “winners” picked by the Central Committee more economically viable.

3. Criticize unacceptable manifestations of automotive freedom.

The Obama Car Czar Central Committee will use the cigarette litigation/gun control models to isolate and demonize “unacceptable” automotive choices.

The narrative will be that the Detroit 3:(a) lured consumers into planet-killing and “unsafe” trucks, SUVs and vans, (b) unreasonably marketed speed, horsepower, and rugged off-road adventure through advertising and motorsports involvement, (c) conspired to deprive the market of fuel-saving technologies, and (d) fought reasonable consumer protections and necessary safety/emission regulations at every turn.

They will demand a quid pro quo: Stop “irresponsible” marketing in exchange for a government lifeline.

4. Cover up Washington D.C.’s policy failures.

Nothing that the Obama Car Czar team will utter will come close to admitting the real truth behind the “problems that have festered for decades” – that federal meddling in the free market has mostly caused this mess.

Instead, they will attack the anecdotal short-sightedness of “Detroit” and laud the anecdotal brilliance of the Japanese (while ignoring that we let the Japanese auto industry incubate for decades without domestic competition and develop a government-subsidized, predatory business model. They also won’t admit that federal policies tied the hands of the Detroit 3 to compete on a level playing field and bled them to death through thousands of regulations, lawsuits, and unfunded mandates.)

They will lament the lack of regulation in some areas as “market failure” and will proclaim that only more government control will keep the Beg 2 from committing suicide in the market.

The Obama Car Czar Central Committee may not know a thing about the automobile business, but they’re undoubtedly well-schooled on what “the ONE” and his legion of mean green social engineers want for it.