MAGNA’S “ONE-PERCENT” SOLUTION

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

Alan Mulally apparently doesn’t want his electric car predictions to be compared to "Whiz Kid" Arjay Miller’s boast.

But then, why go to the trouble of engineering an Electr-o-Matic Ford as a low-performance, low margin halo/trophy car that will appeal to about one-percent of Ford’s small car customers?

And why lose the valuable P.R. and government bargaining rights that attempting a Willie Wiredhand whip will yield to the Glass House Gang?

So Mulally & Co. have turned to an old FoMoCo play: outsource it.

Magna International, a supplier which has been chomping at the bit to engineer and build whole cars for someone, has been tapped to create a total electric Focus for sale in 2011. Ford's deal for the ElectraMagna technology is reportely non-exclusive.

According to CNN Money, Magna pitched an electric car to FoMoCo’s bosses and engineers back in August.

"We took a look at that execution and said, 'Hey, together we can really make this a proposition,’" said Nancy Gioia, Ford's Director of Sustainable Mobility

The Focus will not burn gasoline and will go about 100 miles on a charge. Before hitting the road again, drivers will have to wait to recharge.

In other words, it’s not really a practical car for anyone but urbanized, tree-hugging “true believers” and those desiring to make a political/religious statement about climate change.

However, it’s the perfect thing to say to the know-nothings in Washington D.C. that Ford is doing “something.”

And if it’s a flop, the damage will be controlled.

Ford has wisely outsourced in the past. Historically, Budd Company built millions of bodies for Ford. The Dodge Brothers got their start and their stake in the car business through machnining Model T engines. Eaton's Roots-style supercharger was primarily a Ford-funded development that has been shared across the industry. Carroll Shelby might have been just another dusty trivia answer in the Jeopardy(R) category of "racing drivers of the 1950s" had Ford not outsourced a huge portion of its "Total Performance" activities to him in the 1960s. The legendary Jack Roush has often benefitted from FoMoCo outsourcing. And International has been Ford’s light truck diesel supplier since 1983.

So, if Ford and Reddy Kilowatt have to enter a joint venture sans any of that “evil” internal combustion, Magna may prove to be the perfect “one-percent” solution.

(Now if Magna wanted to do something really useful, they'd tool up an rugged pancake electric motor that would fit in between a V8/V6 Mustang's clutch or torque converter and its transmission)

MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS -- MOST DEPENDABLE LARGE CAR IN AMERICA

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter” here]

Sure there are plenty of Panther haters out there: Technophiles who have never driven a recent Panther platform vehicle and who reflexively think that a large, body-on-frame RWD car with a beam rear axle and its genesis in the late 1970s is unworthy of continued refinement and production.

They, of course, are wrong.

And the latest J.D. Power quality survey proves it.

Mercury Grand Marquis is the most dependable large car sold in the U.S.

Panther owners didn't need a survey to tell them this.

Too bad Ford's unconscionable neglect of this worthy platform is letting the Panthers rot and die before their time.

THE MYTH OF THE “CHEAP CAR”

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter” here]

Here we go again.

Someone in a poverty-wage second or third world country builds a stripped-down, underpowered, barely legal, tin-box, probable death-trap of a “car,” markets it for a used car price, and the automotive press starts spinning out all of the “lessons” Detroit could learn from it.

BusinessWeek has such a story on the Tata Nano.

They say Detroit could learn about engineering-up from a price point (rather than de-contenting), engaging suppliers earlier in the design process, and creating a “less capital-intensive, less integrated, more flexible model.”

They pay people to write stuff like that?

Engineering up from a price point tends to produce dangerous messes like the Ford Pinto.

Price is merely one component of developing a product.

Most certainly, product planners have to identify underserved markets and viable price points. And successful designers and engineers never lose sight of technological meta-trends of miniaturization, simplification, benchmarking, and mainstreaming as they strive to hit the chosen segment or niche with the best bang-for-the-buck. And it’s important to tune into the target niche with relentless focus.

All of the cool features, breakthrough styling, technological innovation, and aftermarket parts support in the world is virtually useless if nobody can afford that big payment book.

On the other hand, cutting performance, functionality, durability, modifiability, serviceability, parts interchangeability and the “a-ha” factor out to hit a cheap price point is a proven loser strategy.

Team Japan was initially successful in the U.S. market through balancing these factors, not just targeting a low price point. For example, instead of building the cheapest, smallest engine they could get by with, Toyota marketed its 1970s Corolla with a higher-performing hemi-head engine. The Toyota SR-5 Corolla also featured “boy racer” styling and performance upgrades, such as “riveted” fender flares, low-profile performance tires, and a five-speed transmission. Mazda’s early 1970s cars were equipped with up-market “a-ha” features unavailable in domestic competitors, such as a power retractable radio antenna. For a couple of decades, Honda has mostly focused on high power density four-valve DOHC engines (even as Ford was still trying to sell obsolete 2-valve SOHCs and Falcon 6-derived 2.3 liter HSCs)

Of course, the genius of the Ford Model T was that it blended performance, functionality, durability, modifiability, serviceability, and parts interchangeability at a price America’s farmers and ranchers could afford. And it lost marketshare when the technology, performance and “a-ha” factor of cars built by Ford-trained competitors made the T look and feel out-of-date.

Even most appliance motorists are value-price sensitive, rather than just price sensitive. Relevance, simplicity, differentiation, believability, credibility and defensiability are all intangible brand attributes which are mostly price insensitive.

Building a vehicle of off-shelf components or with heavy supplier involvement is hardly unknown to Detroit. As the white collar staffs decline, reliance on suppliers and component standardization will undoubtedly increase. (And now that some of them are going to be getting a $5 billion bailout from the Treasury, maybe some of them will still be around . . . .)

Certainly a “less capital-intensive, less integrated, more flexible model” is a hard goal in this hyper-regulated, unionized era. Unitized body construction also reduces model flexibility and increases costs.

It was easier back in the days of Henry Ford, when designs, production techniques, and labor supplies were easier to change rapidly. However, plants such as AutoAlliance’s Flat Rock, Michigan facility demonstrate that Detroit has made progress in lean production systems, quality control, and flexible assembly.

Truth With Speedzzter suspects the real harsh lessons of the Tata Nano are yet to come. But there’s little new to learn from it at present.

ARE MASS MARKET “TOTAL ELECTRIC” CARS ALWAYS VAPORWARE?

[Get the latest Truth With Speedzzter here]

At the Wall Street Jounrnal’s March 2009 ECO:nomics conference, Ford Motor Company boss Alan Mulally proclaimed "In 10 years, 12 years, you are going to see a major portion of our portfolio move to electric vehicles."


Some automotive journalists are skeptical of this claim. Veteran auto journalist Jerry Flint, for one.

In an insightful piece at Forbes.com entitled “The Myth Of The Electric Car” Jerry Flint recounts earlier top-level prognostications about the Electr-o-matic Fords in your future.

In 1966, FoMoCo. “Whiz Kid” Arjay Miller announced “Ford would be fully producing an electric car in five to 10 years.”

When Flint cornered a FoMoCo executive on Miller’s claim years later, the Glass Houser replied "Jerry, you've misunderstood. That's a running target. It's always five to 10 years away."

Flint opines that “There still are three obvious problems with the dream of an electric car. Range. Recharging time. Battery cost.”

Flint is also skeptical about the cost and life-span of quick-charging batteries with sufficient amperage for an electric car.

As anyone knows who has ever seen engineering students hack together a Formula SAE-based “Formula Hybrid” racer or one of the “FutureTrucks” for the old Department of Energy-sponsored competition, there are no shortage of schemes for electrification.

The real problems are: (a) getting down the price point to mass market viability; and (b) making the technology daily-driver safe, transparent, and practical.

Currently, production of electrified vehicles is more about making an aspirational statement than generating a profit. The bean counters say that virtually none of the electrified vehicles on the market are profitable.

Obviously, dramatic increases in energy costs could affect operational viability. But as we’ve seen in recent years, such price spikes kill the economy and the overall demand for new vehicles.

Still some hybridization is inevitable as Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards are jacked up to 35 m.p.g. or beyond and if we’re to avoid a fleet of sluggish 1-1.5 liter "huggable, smiley" microcars. And hybridization is perhaps the only way to preserve traditional high-performance and sports cars in a world gone mad over the anthropogenic “climate change religion.”

So Flint is partially right.

He’s right that pure, interstate-cruising “Reddy Kilowatt” electromobiles are still impractical as mass market products . . . and despite all of the Teslas and Chang'an Ben Bens and GM EV-1s and the speculations of Neil Young, the five-to-ten year moving target will likely remain.

Certainly a small niche of “true believers” will be willing to put up with the “range, recharging time, and battery cost” of silent, undiluted “Willie Wiredhand” motoring.
But 99% of us won’t.

Barring some technological breakthrough or a further financial collapse, “mild” electrical assist of internal combustion powerplants – avoiding the limits of “range, recharging time, and battery cost” – is certainly something that will necessarily follow Mulally’s timetable.

Most certainly, if electric Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS) are perfected in motorsports, such systems will likely trickle down to street vehicles. Hopefully, Ford Racing will be searching out opportunities for motorsports development of such systems and will influence sanctioning bodies to legalize KERS and "electric nitrous."

The open question is can Ford make enough money building doing that? Or is profitability another one of those five-to-ten year moving targets?

ANOTHER REASON "TEAM MUSTANG" OUGHT TO FEAR THE 2010 CAMARO
(assuming GM hangs around long enough to build them, that is)

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

According to the Los Angeles Times "Up To Speed" automotive blog:

Chevy originally suggested the EPA-rated highway gas mileage for the base-model Camaro with the V-6 engine and manual transmission would be 27 miles per gallon, but final EPA testing placed the highway number at 29 mpg -- not bad for a 304-horsepower, 3.6-liter engine. City mileage is EPA rated at 17 mpg.

Ford's relatively low-tech Mustang six lags far behind at the pump. (16 m.p.g. city/24 m.p.g highway)

Of course there's simply no techological reason why Ford couldn't match or beat the V6 Camaro's fuel efficiency with a properly outfitted V8 engine in a RWD Mustang. A smaller, high-tech EcoBoost V8 (or better yet, a "twincharged" DOHC V8 outfitted with Ethanol Boosting Systems' direct ethanol injection) would provide a traditional symphony of V8 sounds on demand (Fabulous sounds no "buzzin' half-dozen" or rough, raucous "weed whacker" four could ever hope to duplicate) yet deliver spectacular part-throttle fuel economy.

A high-tech EcoBoost V8 in the 2.0-3.5 liter range could be a legendary high-performance engine which would preserve Ford's V8 tradition during the coming "Automotive dark ages" and would have measurably more panache than a relatively boring EcoBoost 4 or 6.

(Competition-savvy readers will note that the legendary Ford Cosworth DFV V8 was a 3.0liter engine and the later turbocharged Ford Cosworth XB/XD/XF V8s were 2.65 liter engines.)

Additionally, such an engine would be a lock for nearly permanent status on Ward's Ten Best Engines.

Given the current sales tanking of low-performance electric hybrid cars, perhaps it's time to shift the hybrid niche more into the "high-performance hybrids."

A 30+ m.p.g. variable-displacement V8 Mustang with 500+ "on boost" horsepower could generate more excitement (and sell for a higher premium) than a boat-load of "low-po" 41 m.p.g. Fusions (which are slated to be no more than a paltry 1% of sales).

Moreover, such a car would send an even stronger message to Ford's loyal owners regarding Ford's committment to balance its recent "Green faith" with its storied racing and performance heritage.

If Ford adapted the clutched integrated-assist motor system of Porsche and backed up the powerplants (IC and electric) with a manual transmission, a hybrid-electric V8 Mustang could be a huge kick to drive. And during that 95% of driving when high performance is not used, the hybrid electric V8 Mustang could make room under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy cap for some cheaper models (i.e. Coyote V8-powered Mustangs).

Ford should note that the electric hybrid Mustang driving experience would not have to be as automatic or antiseptic as a "mainstream" hybrid, because drivers of sporting cars enjoy more driver interactivity and are more engaged in the experience. Thus, some of the transitional seamlessness current hybrids provide is unnecessary in a high-performance hybrid.

(Note: For simular reasons, "Truth With Speedzzter" believes that if variable displacement technology would have been introduced in sports and musclecars, instead of in the ill-fated 1981 Cadillac V4/6/8, it would have been successful years ago in the marketplace.

Moreover, "Truth With Speedzzter" is disappointed that Chrysler and GM have failed to pair up such technology with manual transmissions or in their highest-performance models.

Finally, "Truth With Speedzzter" expects retrofits of variable displacement technology to become an aftermarket modification (JSC Engineering already claims to have built a 21 M.P.G. SRT-10 "Viper" Truck with a "mild" injector-shutdown cylinder deactivation "Fuel Saver" system.

The JSC "Fuel Saver" is a "mild" deactivation strategy because it does not reduce pumping losses in the deactivated cylinders. Aggessive OEM-style cylinder deactivation disables the intake and exhaust valves in addition to cutting the fuel on the deactivated cylinders))

Besides, to have any hope of volume production of any traditional muscle under the Obama CAFE caps (and to any market after Obama's "cap and trade" scheme drives up the cost of fuel), Ford will need to adapt such technologies to their V8s.

So why not get started now?

IS THE NEW CAMARO A THREAT TO FORD’S MUSTANG?

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

CNBC’s Phil LeBeau rains on Chevrolet’s publicity parade with a piece entitled "Can New Chevy Camaro Muscle Up Sales?"

How much can the Camaro muscle up sales? Not much. This is a niche vehicle coming at a time when consumer confidence is so low, little is driving enthusiasm for new cars. Here's how bad it is. When I told a friend of mine who is your typical "car guy" that I would be driving the new Camaro, his reaction was, "That's nice."

Clearly LeBeau doesn’t expect the new Camaro to live up to its 100,000+ units per year advance billing.

General Motors’ shaky future also does not help generate sales for the Camaro, beyond a hard-core group of “true believers.” Moreover, the new Camaro has a number of faults which should depress sales.

1. HEAVY CHEVY:

It’s too big and heavy for a pony car in the current downsized motoring world. The lightest Camaros will have a curb weight of nearly 3,800 pounds. The hot SS model will tip the scales at around 3,900.

2. THE “PAST” AND THE FURIOUS:

It’s too big, too heavy, and too neo-retro to appeal to what’s left of the young import tuner generation (although the overachieving 260-horsepower turbo Cobalt SS is GM’s primary salvo to this rapidly declining niche). Thus, the vast majority of Camaro sales will be to those old enough to have experienced an original Gen I Camaro (either new or before they were pampered collector cars).

3. THEY DON’T MAKE’EM LIKE THEY USED TO:

Some buyers will prefer the more pure and brutally muscular lines of the Dodge Challenger or the lithe, neo-retro Mustang to a loose, bloated, distorted caricature of a ‘69 Camaro.

4. BEAUTY IS ONLY SKIN DEEP:

Beyond the new Camaro’s love-it-or-hate it cartoon styling, the new Camaro has some abysmal ergonomics. While it may not be as hard to live with as the last generation of “spaceship” F-bodies, GM made so many compromises merely for the sake of style that some drivers will be put off.

5. I COULD HAVE HAD A V8:

Although the Camaro’s base 304 h.p. direct injection, DOHC V6 ought to terrify Mustang’s brand managers, the antediluvian two-valve, pushrod Corvette-sourced V8 is emblematic of old-school, inefficient performance technology.

6. QUALITY ISN’T JOB ONE:

According to some, the old “spaceship” Camaro started disassembling itself in the train car on the way to the dealer. While it remains to be seen if the Australian engineers, American stylists, and the Canadians who screw them together have done any better this time, the nameplate perception is currently not one of high build quality. Some testers have already criticized the occasional cheapness of the new Camaro’s interior.

7. I HATE THE IRS:

The Australian Holden chassis underpinning the new Camaro uses a heavy independent rear suspension (IRS) that will not prove to be very robust for traditional “Camaro-type” activities (i.e. drag racing).

But Team Mustang shouldn’t be breaking out in any celebrations.
Why not?

1. IT’S 1970 AGAIN (almost):

In 1970, the Mustang had to fight off a glut of “me-too” pony cars from Chevrolet, Pontiac, AMC, Mercury, Dodge, and Plymouth. Now the Mustang has not only the new Camaro to fend off, but competition from Dodge, Hyundai, and Nissan. If, as Mr. LeBeau opines, the market for is on-the-ropes, then Camaro will certainly cannibalize some Mustang sales.

2. IT’S WORSE THAN 1970:

The first Earth Day was in 1970.

This corresponded with the beginnings of the end for the First Supercar Era. These same tie-dyed hippies and flower children of Earth Day are now the grandparents to the “climate change” hysteria that’s sweeping our “tiny, fragile, nearly-dead Planet.” Therefore, the muscle-car-hating “appliance motorists” will increasingly single out anything that’s not a government-regulation 40+ m.p.g. golf cart as profligate, neurotic excess. Such public and political pressure could constrict the market for pony cars.

3. “I’M GIVIN’ YA ALL SHE’S GOT, CAPTAIN:”

As has been well-documented, Team Mustang has mistakenly decided to send the 2010 Mustang into battle well down on horsepower and torque to their Motown competition. Although the Mustang is generally lighter than either the Camaro or the Challenger, the power-to-weight calculations do not work in Mustang’s favor.

As one enthusiast recently wrote:

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

*[Actually, the Camaro SS is slated to produce 426 h.p. in LS3 form, and the weight should be a bit lighter than 4100 lbs as well]

**(Not available to regular guys who have to punch a timeclock for a living. . . . )

***[Even with 540 h.p. for 2010, the GT500 is still not relevant to 98% of potential Mustang buyers because of limited supply, high MSRP, and rampant dealer gouging]

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.

I'm sick and tired of all the excuse making for Ford.

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.

4. THE BEAM IN THE PURISTS’ EYES:

True Mustangers understand why we need a beam rear axle.

IRS folds like a pretzel in a drag strip launch and wheel hops like a Mexican jumping bean in many “performance” driving situations. Beam axles are lighter, more foolproof and more durable, too. And Mustang’s success in Grand Am and Miller Cup competition clearly proves the merits of the current beam axle rear suspension.

But all of the self-appointed “car experts” from Car and Driver on down to high school Twitter exchanges believe in the APOCRYPHAL GOSPEL of the IRS. Thus, the Mustang is going to get shelled in some corners of the automotive press for not at least offering an optional IRS (notwithstanding the huge weight and cost penalties).

5. THE DETROIT LIONS:

Ford is often the Detroit Lions of automakers. As the "Recent Blunders" side-bar shows, they often start with uncompetitive products and then kill them off instead of fixing them. Thunderbird, Marauder, Lincoln LS, SVT Contour, SVT Focus, and (to a lesser extent) SVT Lightning are all recent examples of Ford’s drop-back-and-punt “losers” mentality.

It is entirely possible that the bean counters and the environmentalists in the Glass House – the ones who simply cannot understand why logical consumers would buy a Mustang in the first place – will use sales losses to the Camaro and the larger decline in auto sales as a bludgeon to deprive Team Mustang of developmental resources.

The acid test is whether the this final showdown of the dying Second Supercar Era will kill off some or all of the pony cars. In the aftermath of 1970, only the GM F-Bodies survived. Dodge’s Challenger, Plymouth’s Barracuda, and AMC’s Javelin were all killed. At the behest of Lee Iacocca, the Mustang was grotesquely shrunken into some sort of glorified Pinto (even without a V8 option for one season)

Thus, while the Camaro may not resurrect GM, it could possibly finish off the Mustang as we know it.

Let’s all hope that the Glass House Gang and Team Mustang have the resolve to “fight the good fight” and make sure that the Mustang is the last pony car standing (and in a form that Mustangers still want).