MUSTANGER DR. DONALD FREY: DEAD AT 86

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Legendary former Ford Motor Company Senior Product Planner Dr. Donald Frey passed away earlier this month. Frey was a key leader in the team that developed the "sporty Falcon" which became Ford's Mustang.

"A few of us at Ford were sitting around one day in the early 1960s and thought it would be a good idea to produce a small, sporty car that would appeal to a mass market," [D]r. Frey once told a reporter. "We were a bunch of young guys in our 30s and early 40s then."


[D]r. Frey and his cohorts had a hard time selling Henry Ford II on the idea. "The company was just getting over the Edsel flop and really didn't want to gamble on another new model," [D]r. Frey said. So development funds for the Mustang were taken from excess money buried in the budget.

Dr. Frey also had a highly-distinguished career after his time at FoMoCo in business, leading Bell & Howell and in leading technological developments important to the development of the ubiquitous compact disc, as well as in academia.

Here's a sampling of the tribute articles on the Dr. Frey:

http://www.insideline.com/ford/mustang-godfather-don-frey-86-dies.html

http://www.thestate.com/2010/03/23/1214042/ford-mustang-designer-donald-frey.html

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20100323/CARNEWS/100329958

http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/664

http://www.michigandaily.com/content/alum-and-auto-legend-donald-frey-dies-age-87

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/obituaries/ct-met-0324-frey-obit-20100323,0,1648660.story

http://www.mustangworld.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=638545

Condolences to Dr. Frey's family and friends.

ROLEX 24 AT DAYTONA: FRUSTRATING START FOR FORD

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

The 2010 racing season got off to a frustrating start for Ford fans in the first weekend of Grand-Am competition at Daytona International Speedway. Ford racing afficionados were buoyed by a Ford-powered Daytona Prototype on the pole for the 48th Rolex 24 at Daytona.

Ford’s 2009 success in the supporting “Challenge Series” (Formerly Koni, now Continental Tire Challenge) fueled ebullient hopes for a strong start to 2010 in the “Fresh From Florida 200.”

Ford racing fans, of course, are not unlike fans of the Chicago Cubs – always waiting for “next year” while fondly recalling glory in times past. After all, Shelby’s Cobras and Ford’s mighty GT once boomed at Daytona during the “Total Performance” era. More recently, Ford-powered cars prepared by Jack Roush once held a mighty ten-in-a-row streak in the Rolex 24 (sadly in the days before it was nationally televised). And with the retrenchment of Lexus and euthanasia of Pontiac, a fairly respectable number of Roush-Yates Ford powerplants were competitively in the Rolex 24 starting field. Surely this would be a breakout year for Ford at Daytona.

Yet when the last shard of carbon fiber from Grand-Am’s season kick-off had finally been deposited on track and Speed Channel’s part-time cameras turned their attention to NASCAR, Ford’s sports car racing fans were left with lots of dust, but little glory.

The results of the Rolex 24 at Daytona and the supporting Fresh from Florida 200 are fully reported elsewhere. But from a Ford-centric perspective, it was a weekend of frustration and missed opportunities.

Ford left Daytona behind BMW and Porsche in the “Grand Sport” division of the Continental Tire Challenge standings. The mighty Ford Racing Mustangs came up short. But since most of America won’t have a chance to see the Florida 200 until it is televised on February 13, most Ford racing fans probably aren’t even aware of how the Mustangs lost.

In the lesser “Street Tuner” division for Sport Compact cars, Ford has ceded the field to Honda, BMW and its corporate partner Mazda, among others. Given Ford's new emphasis on smaller cars, this omission seems short-sighted.

Similarly, in the Grand Touring division of Rolex-series competition, Ford fans could only root for a phalanx of Mazdas. Meanwhile, a couple of silhouette Chevrolet Camaro GT-Rs, along with a few stray Corvettes and Pontiacs soaked up seemingly hours of television time. More than a few Ford racing supporters undoubtedly wondered where the Mustangs were at the so-called “Superbowl of Sports Car Racing.”

At least a SpeedSource Mazda took the win in the GT class, albeit one that may have been marred by Speed Channel’s reporting about Nick Ham’s apparent release from the team and forced retirement.

But the big show was in the Daytona Prototype class. Despite the pole and an extraordinary number of entrants “Powered by Ford,” Prototype glory went to the unheralded Action Express team, running a non-factory authorized Porsche Cayenne V8 and a host of Dinan BMW-powered prototypes that gave chase. The Fords all managed to take themselves out of competition, mostly with a number of bizarre, non-engine-related failures and avoidable mistakes.

Even then, Ford-powered cars were often the fastest cars on track. A.J Allmendinger, in one of Michael Shank Racing’s Ford-powered prototypes, led as late as early afternoon until he collided with a GT car off-camera, starting a downward spiral that eventually resulted in a fiery D.N.F.

So what can Ford fans take from the frustration of the Rolex 24 weekend?

1. Ford stands a decent chance of winning races in Daytona Prototype. Clearly the Fords D.P.s are fast. And in the sprint races that make up most of the Grand-Am schedule, the numbers and quality of the Ford teams suggests that Ford will take some races in 2010.

2. Mazda is serious about winning the GT manufacturers’ title in 2010. While the Camaros will probably snag a disproportionate share of the publicity and fan affections, Mazda seems poised to make a serious challenge to Porsche’s GT hegemony.

3. Ford is missing out by not seriously contesting the GT Class. Because Grand-Am events are generally televised live, more potential sports car buyers will see the Camaros run than Ford’s brilliant Continental Tire Challenge racers. Even though the Challenge cars are more relevant to what Ford sells on Monday, continuing to opt out of GT is an obvious mistake.

4. Speed Channel’s coverage of the Rolex 24 needs improvement. Speed Channel should be celebrated for showing at least part of the Rolex 24 live. But the event (and the 24 Hours of Le Mans) merits flag-to-flag coverage. Nothing is more frustrating than waiting through stupid infomercials just to learn at 7:00 a.m. EST that most of the Fords took themselves out of D.P. competition during the hours when Speed was airing forgettable, non-time sensitive programming. And Speed Channel seemed to miss many of the pivotal crashes and other moments that affected Ford’s chances. While the Speed Channel announce crew is solid and entertaining, Speed simply doesn’t employ enough cameras to adequately cover the event. And Speed Channel sometimes forced commercial breaks when they should have stayed with developing on-track action.

5. At least Ford beat Chevrolet . . . sort of. When Ford’s partner Mazda is factored in, Ford did much better in the final Daytona results than GM. But Ford shouldn’t underestimate the appeal of the GT Camaros. Along with Team Corvette in the ALMS series, GM probably still has more sports car racing presence than Ford.

6. Where’s Roush? The Rolex 24 used to belong to Roush Fords. Surely the Roush organization is large enough to return to endurance racing. If Chip Ganassi can do it, why not Jack Roush?

7. Isn't it time to outlaw or restrict carbon fiber? Grand-Am has a number of rules to limit costs and ensure close racing. But one of the biggest problems for side-by-side racing is tire-popping shards of expensive carbon fiber. A casual fan might think that the cars are built out of "shards" as much as that phrase was uttered during the telecast. Surely a return to older, cheaper materials would both reduce costs and eliminate another source of groove-narrowing "clagg" on track.

While the 2010 Rolex 24 weekend temporarily dampened the spirits of Ford fans, hope still springs eternal that 2010 will be a banner year for the Blue Oval.

IS GEORGE PIPAS “ON THE PIPE” ABOUT THE MUSTANG-CAMARO SALES WAR? (Or, where are the "Coyote" and "Road Runner" V8s when we need them?)

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

The Detroit Free Press is reporting that “Camaro is muscling in on top spot of Mustang” and is now less than 10,000 units behind in the annual sales race.

For the past five months, Government Motors’ pavement-pounding Camaro has been slamming the underpowered 2010 Mustang in retail deliveries. Camaro closed the gap by a whopping 3,000 units in October, according to the FREEP’s Tim Higgins and Brent Snavely.



CUSTOMIZED CAMAROS BEING PREPARED FOR DISPLAY AT THE 2009 SEMA SHOW

FoMoCo’s top sales genius George Pipas valiantly tried to spin what’s shaping up to be an epic, clearly foreseeable retailing disaster, quipping to the FREEP "I don't think Mustang sales would have been much different one way or another."

Pipas further rationalized that "What we are seeing right now is 10 years of pent-up demand ... rather than some positive indicator about the economy."

Right next to Pipas’ musings in the internet version of the FREEP’s story is graphic a showing Mustang’s sales nose-diving after March 2009. To anyone with an elementary school familiarity with charts and graphs, the data unmistakably shows Camaro and Dodge’s Challenger are tearing through Mustang’s market share like famished termites on a rotten two-by-four. Only the Mustang is trending downward. It’s not “pent-up demand” so much as a good, old-fashioned drubbing by products that seem to have a bigger “rep” and more buzz on the streets.

Some long-suffering Mustang advocates should be forgiven for thinking that Pipas must be “on the pipe” if he really believes what he’s shoveling . . . .

Pipas may be right insofar as the current Mustangs (excluding the hyper-expensive, limited-production dealer gougefest known at the Shelby GT500) are so down on advertised power in both V8 and V6 forms to their rivals that nothing short of a biblical miracle could save this sales year.

It doesn’t do much good to “Win on Sunday” if what you’re selling on Monday is going to get mercilessly whipped in countless bench racing sessions and stoplight grand prixs on the weekdays.

How anyone from the Glass House Gang could wade into any multi-brand automotive forum or chat room and be remotely pleased with current brand perceptions of the weak-sister production Mustangs is a mystery. If the Ford “suits” really believe that sales wouldn’t be “much different one way or another,” someone must be making container-load deliveries of Prozac to 1 American Road, Dearborn, Michigan.

And even if the lithe Mustangs had a better power-to-weight ratio (which in the ordinary blue-collar forms they surely don’t) than the portly Camaros and Challengers, bragging rights on the streets are based on “fan-boy” statistics like cubic inches, horsepower, and reported quarter mile times. In every one of these emotionally-charged measures, the 2010 Mustang comes up lame.

How anyone thought that Ford could sell a V8 Mustang GT that’s on virtual horsepower parity with the base Camaro’s V6 and gets slaughtered in market and aftermarket perception by GM’s antediluvian pushrod V8 is self-delusion of the highest order.

This website has been calling on Ford to quit fooling around for almost half a decade, yet Ford still hasn’t built an affordable V8 Mustang that can credibly take on even a slightly modified $4,000 LT or LS-powered USED Camaro, much less one of the smashmouth 426 horsepower new ones!

It’s almost as if a clueless bunch of Robert McNamara clones are micro-managing the storied Mustang into extinction.

Where are the swashbucklers who will not stand for Mustang to be second or third best in BOTH stock and customer-modified forms? Where are the clued-in “street rats” who understand the logical and emotional essentials to winning the Pony Car war? Where are the champions who can defeat the paralysis of Ford’s bureaucracy and actually offer a car that Mustangers want?

In virtually every important measure other than quality, fit and finish, Mustang is getting pummeled in public perception:

1. Bang for the buck – How many people would pay in the mid-30s for a “track pack” Mustang that’s 100 horsepower down on its competitively-priced rivals? Apparently not enough.

2. Power-to-weight – It’s closer than some folks think, but this arcane engineering measure is evidenced by M.P.H. in standing quarter mile testing. And the Mustangs are coming up short again.

3. The “Look”– Pony cars are a fashion-based segment. A pony car has to be tastefully and purposefully communicative of speed and power. It must be properly accessorized as well.

Both Camaro and Challenger have done a better job at capturing the essence of the boulevard bruiser than the mildly redesigned 2010 Mustang. And given the lack of steam under the average Mustang’s hood, the Mustang’s mild looks have become linked with a perception of milktoast performance.

4. The “Sound” – Mustangs still sound hot . . . even more so with the new “piped-in” induction sound tube. But in the buzzin’ half-dozen segment of the Pony Car market, some say Chevy’s high-reving direct-injection DOHC has got better "pipes."

5. Image – Pony Cars need to posit a swaggering image of competition heritage, non-conformity/individuality, and adventurous spirit. This image must be wrapped up in a car that’s practical, useable and “bulletproof” reliable.

While Ford might have the edge in actual competition at the moment, the image isn’t successfully transferring down to the street.

6. Cake Mix – An apocryphal story from the early days of pre-packaged cake mixes is that millers discovered consumers wanted “mixes” that were easy to make, but required the addition of more than just water before baking. The perception was that a “just add water” cake mix didn’t allow for enough participation by the home baker.

Similarly, a successfully Pony Car has to have dominating “bang” out of the box, but it’s got to “leave enough on the table” to prompt “Day Two” or post-warranty modification. And it’s got to be easy to work on.

GM’s LS V8 is clobbering Ford’s cubic-inch limited Modular in these respects. Although Ford’s seldom-used DOHC design has much more cube-for-cube on-paper potential than an obsolete two-valve pushrod engine, GM is continuing to dominate the aftermarket – and aftermarket perceptions – with their big, crude sledgehammer of an engine.

What’s worse, Ford has seen fit to hamstring all of its “blue collar” V8 Mustangs with glass-weak hypereutectic pistons, spindly cracked-cap powdered-metal rods, cast cranks, and inadequate SOHC two-valve and three-valve heads. These light-duty cheapskate parts severely limit the “cake mix” potential of stock long-block Ford engines in the hands of opinion-leading hot rodders. Mustangers are forced to buy expensive aftermarket forged cranks, rods and pistons to withstand the necessary supercharger/turbocharger/nitrous oxide boosts just to stay competitive with the larger GM V8s. And as GM rodders also buy these heavy-duty components, the market perceptions of the “upside potential” of the bigger LS engine eclipses the Modular.

A wide-bore center DOHC modular (Coyote?) cannot arrive soon enough to stop the bleeding. And even then, Ford will be pumping against a half-century of prejudice and aftermarket investment favoring GM’s “small block.” So Ford’s DOHC engine must have significantly greater “cake mix” potential, as well as dominating showroom output. And it’s got to be priced at point where millions of ordinary wage-earning Mustangers can afford it.

[SOME INTERNET RUMORMONGERS ARE EVEN PUSHING THE THE IDEA OF A TURBOCHARGED GT500, CODE NAME "ROAD RUNNER," AS A RESPONSE TO THE LS/CAMARO PROBLEM FOR 2012 . . . . Public confirmation of the Coyote and Road Runner rumors could come as early as the 2009 Los Angeles Auto Show in December The Coyote Mustangs could be in showrooms as early as March 2010 . . . not a moment too soon]

7. Drivability – A successful Pony Car’s driveability has to be seamless and maneuverable. This is one of the few areas where the lighter Mustang shines.

Even then, the often clueless “buff books,” imported car shills, and internet “experts” repeatedly lambast Ford’s beam-style rear axle. Mustang’s rugged beam axle is clearly better for sportsman competition and serious “muscle car” use. It is highly competitive in stock-based competition as well. Too bad Ford hasn’t done a good enough job in explaining the unnecessary weight, expense and fragility of IRS for Pony Cars. Or in the alternative, offered an optional, bolt-in IRS similar to the 2003-2004 SVT Cobra’s system.

8. Practicality – The fastest, hottest-looking car in the world won't sell in sufficient numbers unless it also functions well as an automobile during the 95% of the time when looks and high-performance are irrelevant.

At the moment, this category may be a wash in the new Pony Car war. While the gunslit windows, tiny trunks and claustrophobic back seats of Mustang’s plus-sized domestic competitors should disadvantage them, Mustang does not seem to have any higher perceptions of practicality. Even Camaro’s weird ergonomics haven’t yet turned off customers intoxicated by the huge horsepower underfoot. All the practicality in the world doesn’t do enough if the Pony Car doesn’t deliver as a bench racing and track star as well.

GM also has an additional advantage in fuel economy perceptions. Camaro’s direct-injected V6 produces exceptional fuel economy in comparison to Ford’s lower-powered V6. And consumers believe the hulking LS V8s are more fuel-efficient than Ford’s smaller, weaker Mustang GT V8.

CONCLUSION: Ford knows better than probably anyone else that a Pony Car is a fashion statement purchased by thousands of individualistic “Walter Mittys” craving a sporting, high performance image and some tightly-coiled, objective and subjective performance to back it all up. At the moment, Mustang’s competitors are doing a better job at nurturing the dreams and expectations of these customers. And that’s why Mustang’s sales trend line is sinking like the Titanic.

68 PERCENT INCREASE IN PONY CAR SALES IN OCTOBER 2009

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Bangshift.com has linked to a Wall Street Journal Article by Jonathan Welsh entitled "A Varoom of One's Own: Muscle Cars Return."

The premise of the article is that Ford's Mustang, Chevrolet's Camaro and Dodge's Challenger are performing contrary to the general automotive market.

Welch's piece quotes several new Pony Car owners about why they've switched from formerly trendy vehicles such as trucks, SUVs, imported sports cars, and Euro sedans to the latest automotive fad.

Among the grease-stained "true believers" and muscle car fundamentalists at Bangshift, these casual owner comments have raised no small level of irritation. For example, one commenter lamented:

"Musclecar sales are up 68% this Oct. as compared to Oct. last year...let's see, would that be the Oct. '08 when the handful of Challengers available were only yours at between list and $10,000 over, and you couldn't find a Camaro? Remarkable point the writer makes there. Then he couldn't finish the piece without making a jab at the Mustang and championing his probable favorite car, the BMW...which the article is not about. . . .

He should be working for Csaba Csere somewhere. Anyhow, if the WSJ can't get it right at something you know about, don't figure they do much better at things you don't."

The WSJ article is not a bad piece of journalism. The reporter merely quoted the Pony Car buyers he interviewed.

Of course the "midsize sporty" sales category is ridiculous -- a brain-dead snoozefest FWD wimp car like a Toyota Camary Solara is hardly in the same niche as a Shelby GT500 or a Challenger SRT-8 (anywhere other than in the editorial offices of Consumer Reports, and among some bean-counting auto company bureaucrats who need to justify ripping off the motoring public).

Certainly an increase in supply (Challenger, Camaro) has rallied nostalgic brand partisans and increased demand. And the basic premise of the article is correct insofar as there are certainly some faddish customers who would likely be buying something bigger and/or more expensive if the economy and energy markets were better.

But the following factors cannot be discounted:

1. Gasoline: Fuel prices have stabilized in a range which favors the current crop of Pony Cars.

2. Last Call: Dread over future CAFE increases and environmental regulations likely motivates some buyers to go for one last automotive party before the 35 m.p.g. wussmobiles become the order of the day. In many ways we're at about the "1969-1970" phase of the "Second Supercar Era."http://speedzzter.blogspot.com/2007/04/missing-second-supercar-era-its-old.html

3. Rebellion: These cars are the essence of socially-acceptible, middle-class, "Red State/Suburban" rebellion against the "system" of government-controlled, sealed-for-your-protection motoring. Pony Cars are a "look at me" way of "showing off" and rejecting the current "PC" orthodoxy (Just as much as Prius-styled electric hybrids are "the other side's" banner for "showing off" and rejecting "selfish" consumerism).

4. Macho: The Pony Cars are among the few "masculine" automobiles produced in America (hence the attractiveness to former image-conscious light truck consumers)

5. Another Fad: With the Pony Cars being about the only new thing appealing to casual automotive enthusiasts (not Bangshifters) that's being produced by the bankrupt Detroit automakers, it's not surprising that these niche vehicles would counter the declines in other sectors. Moreover, both the Challenger and the Camaro are still perceived as new and fresh (a sporty coupe typically has about a 3-4 year lifespan before the style becomes dated among the trend chasers).

6. The visceral appeal: As we know, these cars have an emotional swagger that's missing in inoffensive, Japanese-style transportation appliances. That still resonates in a fairly large sector of the American motoring public.

7. Power-to-Weight: There's a tipping point at ~ 13 pounds per horsepower. At that point, a car accelerates fast enough to make 95% of the public believe it's "hot." Virtually all of the current Pony Cars are now in this range. Combind that with the fact that none of these cars require any special "futzing" or hassles and are reasonably practical as daily drivers. If the price point is low enough and the styling fits the vehicle's persona, then you've probably got a guaranteed winning combination (at least until insurance costs, fuel prices, social pressures or some other external squelches demand).

8. Empty nests: The current generation of Pony Cars are selling predominantly to folks who do not need minivans, SUVs or sedans to ferry around kids. The prices are still too high to appeal to the youth market (insurance price must be factored in here).

Bunkie Knudsen famously said, "you can't sell an old man's car to a young man, but you can sell a young man's car to an old man." In other words, practical, hassle-free high performance combined with attractive style will likely always outperform the "commodity market" for vehicles.

That being said, a 2% share means that 98% of the market needs, wants or is settling for something else (which ought to alarm high-performance enthusiasts). For example, Ford's low-performance Fusion garnered record sales during the same time period. Most certainly the Mustang-hating bean counters in the Glass House will be championing that fact as they push for more "cost synergies" and "eco-responsible" FWD product.

2010 MUSTANG UNLEASED: RALLY AMERICA!

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Why fret over Ford Motor Company's financials?

Why lose any sleep over the clear and present danger that GMPP's new "E-Rod" crate engine program represents?

Why even worry about the 2010 Camaro's sales lead or its mid/low price point horsepower advantage?

Instead, escape with these cool videos of Mark Utecht bashing around in a brand spanking-new 2010 Ford Mustang GT on dirt and gravel somewhere in the rough Minnesota woodlands during a Rally America event!

http://www.motorator.com/videos/1019

http://www.motorator.com/videos/873

Utecht's gonzo blast was part of Ford's "2010 Mustangs Unleashed" advertising campaign. And there are no 426-horse Camaros in sight. Just the glorious sights and sounds of a Ford V8 being used in a way 99.9% of new Mustang buyers never would.

Enjoy!

GM VERSUS FORD AT THE 2009 SEMA SHOW

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

LAS VEGAS – In some ways, GM versus Ford seems a bit like Mad Magazine’s “Spy versus Spy.” It’s often an entertaining series of moves and countermoves which seldom alter the fundamentals of the performance market niche.

On the surface, the 2009 Specialty Equipment Market Association Show was no exception. In a battle of dueling press conferences on the first day of SEMA, Ford and General Motors took divergent approaches. GM’s big news was aimed directly at mass market performance – a pre-OBD II legal 430 horsepower “E-Rod” crate engine with an expected street price under $8,000.00. This is only the first in a series of “E-Rod” crate engines, including a 315 horsepower 5.3 liter LS, a 505 horsepower 7liter LS7, and a 550 horsepower "LS8."

An hour or so later, Ford’s big announcements were decidedly more exclusive. First, Ford officially unveiled its 2011 Ford Racing Raptor XT truck.

Racing version of the Raptor

The XT will feature a 500 horsepower SOHC 6.2 liter engine and a host of race truck suspension parts. With a price tag in the $100,000 range, the market for Raptor XTs will undoubtedly be limited.

Ford’s other feature vehicle was the recently announced 2010 Cobra Jet drag car.

Ford Racing boss Brian Wolfe discussing features of the 2010 Cobra Jet with potential customers

Aimed at NHRA Super Stock A and B, the latest Cobra Jet reportedly will be NHRA legal down to 8.50 quarter mile elapsed times and will run out of the box in the ten-second e.t. bracket. Ford will offer a choice of racing transmissions, including a drag-prepped manual. For sportsmen racers who cannot afford factory assembly, Ford will offer virtually every part necessary to build a Cobra Jet at home in the Ford Racing Performance Parts catalog. Ford claims it will offer affordable production “bodies in white” that are “not seconds.”

In some ways, these moves are reminiscent of the 1960s. Back in the Total Performance era, Ford’s burned up tracks around the world, but were criticized by some for not “makin’ it” on the streets. Chevrolet, banned from overtly supporting racing, circumvented corporate edicts with hotter street cars and an unmatched factory “severe service” parts program. Thus, while Ford dominated in many professional ranks, the streets tended to belong to the much larger GM.

GM’s latest move is a CARB-legal shot across Ford’s bow. Almost immediately, internet experts were heralding the “E-Rod” program as a catalyst for more awful crossbreeding of Chevrolet engines in pre-1996 Fords. GM may be attempting to solidify its position as the “crate motor” leader before the waters are muddied by Ford’s rumored Coyote V8.

Truth With Speedzzter hopes that Ford will not repeat the mistakes of the 1960s by allowing GM’s dangerous provocation to go unanswered. Ford needs to move with all due speed to market more emission-legal crate engines for the repower market. FRPP’s Boss 302 and Boss 351, as well as the DOHC modulars are excellent foundations for emissions legal countermoves to GM’s “E-Rod” line . . . at least until a production wide-bore center DOHC comes along.

SPEEDZZTER DEBATES DOHC V8S AND ECOBOOST

[Get the latest Truth With Speedzzter here]

GM Performance Parts released a "Pre-SEMA Show teaser video" on a "Crate Engine that Changes the Industry." GM's "gamechanger" will be officially announced to the public on the first day of the 2009 SEMA Show (November 3, 2009)

But ridiculous pre-show hype prompted a debate at Bangshift.com on what a hot rod V8 engine that could REALLY change things would be like. Truth With Speedzzter was in the thick of it.

Ford also got into the pre-SEMA publicity game, with a couple of "teasers."

A bevy of tuned Ford Mustangs prompted this discussion involving Truth With Speedzzter.

But the real fireworks ensued when Truth With Speedzzter commented on an EcoBoost V6-powered 1934 Ford street rod that will be shown at the SEMA Show. The debate ranged far and wide on what sort of power a street rod ought to have and whether the EcoBoost program ought to be expanded to V8s (including pocket-sized 2-3.5 liter V8s).

Happy reading!

IS THE RUMORED BOSS 302R A "COYOTE" PREVIEW?

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Multiple sources, including Bangshift.com, are reporting that Ford will build 50 "Boss 302R" Mustangs in 2010.

Students of recent Ford history will note that Ford has often released an "R model" Mustang or other "special" prior to selling a mass-produced street version with similar power:

300 h.p. 1995 Cobra R, which foreshadowed the 305 h.p. 1996 SVT Cobra;

390 h.p. 2000 Cobra R, which foreshadowed the 390 h.p. 2003 SVT Cobra;

540 h.p. 2008 Shelby GT500KR (as modified by Shelby in Las Vegas or Shelby mod shops) which foreshadowed the 540 h.p. 2010 Shelby GT500.

Now I'm not saying this "R" is a precursor to a street 5.0 "Coyote" Mustang, but it's something to think about . . . .

On the other hand, this move may suggest to some that Ford is going to fumble around and miss the limited window to build an affordable "ultimate" Mustang before Corporate Average Fuel Economy increases kill the party.

As it stands now, GM's 426-horsepower Camaro SS seems to be capturing all of the excitement in the below $45,000 supercar class.

Mustang's sales are reportedly being hurt by the horsepower deficit.

Ford needs to move quick in response to the GM threat. And 50 expensive, track-only cars won't cut it.

Just like the Bosses at the end of the First Supercar Era, the cars that Ford builds in the next couple of years will become legends over the next couple of decades. Let's hope that the bean-counting, appliance-motoring, "steady-Eddie" bureaucrats at Ford doesn't mess this up for all of us.

2010 NASCAR MUSTANG: A NOT-SO-HUMOROUS "FUNNYCAR"
[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Autoblog has posted the Ford Racing press release and initial photo of the 2010 NASCAR Nationwide Series "Mustang."

[Warning: the photograph at the following link may cause any number of side effects ranging from uncontrollable laughter to nausia and vomiting, depending upon how much you revere Mustangs and the discarded concept of "stock car" racing . . . ] See http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/28/ford-mustang-is-officially-nascar-bound-in-the-nationwide-seri/

Calling this "Nationwide" aesthetic abortion a "funny car" is an insult to proper NHRA funny cars. While John Force's "Mustangs" have a distorted, stretched, jacked and pulled look about them, at least they still remotely resemble a cartoon of a production Mustang.

But the 2010 Nationwide "Mustang" looks like it was designed by some Chinese "dollar toy" maker attempting to avoid a "trade dress" lawsuit or licensing fees. It's almost as if a handful of Mustang graphics were printed on a generic one-size-fits-all car cover and the mess was shrink-wrapped around a buck for NASCAR's common-template "Car of Tomorrow. Yuck!

Perhaps the reason it's scheduled for a "limited rollout" is that nobody can look at it long enough to build them full-time.

NASCAR's Mike Helton, of course, sees nothing wrong.

"We're excited about the new car in the NASCAR Nationwide Series, and particularly the new body styles such as the Ford Mustang," said NASCAR President Mike Helton. "It's going to be one good-looking race car."

Time for an eye exam, Mike. (Of course some will conclude that it's hard for Mike to see anything when his head is . . . . [fill in your own punchline])

Perhaps the old saw needs to be revised: Instead of "Race on Sunday, sell on Monday," it should "Race on Saturday, Spend all day Sunday trying to forget what horrors you saw, and sell on Monday (if you can get a "Cash for Clunkers" welfare voucher, that is) . . . ."

What a mess!

TAURUS SHO IS A PIG IN EDMUNDS TESTING

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Truth With Speedzzter previously opined that Ford Motor Company hadn't learned the correct lessons from the Mercury Marauder debacle.

And a recent Edmunds comparison test bears that out.

The EcoBoost Taurus is an expensive, fat pig that labored to card a weak 14.2-second quarter-mile timeslip. Notwithstanding all-wheel drive and a brace of liliputian turbos, the SHO failed to break the 100 m.p.h. barrier in the quarter mile. That makes the SHO "easy pickin's" for a long list of cheaper sport sedans.

The 2010 Ford Taurus has undoubtedly picked up right where the last 1999 Ford Taurus SHO left off. The problem is, this is not the year 2000. . . . In the end, the 2010 Ford Taurus SHO feels like an excellent all-new Taurus with a muscular engine, period. It's not quite up to the sport sedan badge. [T]he 2009 Infiniti G37 (and the crowd in which it is typically found) has nothing to worry about from the Taurus SHO. That is, unless someone starts changing the G37's list of standard equipment to include two NFL players.

Brakes are apparently an area where Mulally's boys seem have a problem. Edmunds panned the SHO's stoppers. Similarly, Car and Driver (which is no friend to the Glass House Gang, notwithstanding the underdog victory it declared for the underpowered 2010 Mustang GT in last months issue) dogged the brakes of the regular non-SHO 2010 Taurus.

The 2010 Taurus and Taurus SHO are shaping up to be less than expected. Ford's penny-pinching, false economy, and poor benchmarking may have doomed them to also-ran status.

It's an inauspicious start for the EcoBoost era.

MUSTANG IS THE NUMBER ONE CAR TEENS WANT

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

The elite automotive press often makes it seem like only Japanese invader cars are the only ones popular among America's "Fast and Furious," video-game-saturated teen drivers.

Think again.

According to a recent survey reported on Forbes.com, three of the top ten most popular vehicles among teens are Fords. And the most popular vehicle of all? Ford's Mustang!

This is not a new position for the lead ponycar.

Unfortunately, some parents who buy cars for their young drivers don't seem to be as enamored with Ford's iconic ponycar.

However, this survey shows that many of America's kids aren't ready to quietly acquiesce to the Prius-ification of the American highway. Soulless, government-approved FWD Obamamobiles haven't yet captured the hearts and minds of our next generation of drivers.

For Mustang brand manager Allison Revier and the others charged with nurturing the Mustang legacy, it is critical that Mustang be kept true to its legendary V8, RWD heritage and not be diluted into a FWD ProbeStang gelding.

This will be hard under the crushing burden of the Obama Administration hikes in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. However, Mustang is a defining, aspirational model for Ford. Much like some Harley-Davidson motorcycles, Mustang provides an iconic canvas for self-expression. It has strong cross-generational appeal. It is the spiritual successor to the '32 Ford V-8 as a foundation of grassroots motorsports.

Even though most of the current Mustang powerplants (excluding the hyper-exclusive Shelby GT500) are way down on power to GM's Camaro and other competitors, the Mustang remains the true heart and soul of the Ford Motor Company. Other Fords may sell in greater volumes, but the Mustang is the one that Fordophiles care about.

Jim Farley, Ford Group Vice President of Marketing and Communications, told 0-60 Magazine that "The Ford Mustang is one of the world’s most beloved automotive and cultural icons . . .Since April 17, 1964, it has been a symbol of American freedom and fun.”

Thankfully, many of the kids still "get that."

IS THE SOUTHERN 500 A MICROCOSM OF MULALLY’S FORD?

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

General Motors is careening toward bankruptcy faster than a napalm-covered snowball on a greased hillside.

But you couldn’t tell it Saturday night in Darlington.

The latest “renewal” of the Southern 500 proved to be another Appomattox for Ford’s FUNNYCar-of-Tomorrow Fusions.

To add insult to injury, former Roush-kat-teer Mark Martin glided a Hendrick “[W]Impala” to victory over a phalanx of Hendrick affiliated Chevrolets in the top seven positions.

Darlington is universally acknowledged as a drivers track – the “Lady in Black” and the “Track Too Tough To Tame.” So how did Ford’s yeoman group of drivers do?

Roush-Fenway ended up with a few haulers full of wrecks and only a couple of spots near the tail end of the top ten.

1. Roush-kat-teer Greg Biffle drove the best Ford to eighth. Although Biffle lead the most laps, a particularly vicious “Darlington Stripe,” pit strategy, and track position relegated him to also-ran status. He even finished behind rookie part-timer and Talladega demolition derby winner Brad Keselowski!

2. Matt Kenseth dropped from the front row to tenth in a forgettable drive.

3-4. David Ragan and Cousin Carl Edwards sufficiently partook in the record-setting Southern 500 caution-fest to end up (or shall we more properly say END DOWN) in the thirties. (This time, Cousin Carl didn’t need Keselowski’s help to finish towards the back)

5. Jamie McMurray finished as the last car on the lead lap in twenty-second.

The only other Fords were driven by Paul Menard (15th) and Bobby Labonte (18th).

Not so good.

Jay Hart opined “Not since Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird donned the red, white and blue to humiliate the world on a basketball court in Barcelona has one team dominated its competition quite like Hendrick Motorsports is doing now.”

He could have easily have written the converse about Ford’s underfunded, undersized and undermanned NASCAR efforts.

Mark Martin virtually has said it: “When I go over to that shop, I feel like I’ve gone to NASA and they’re getting me prepared to go to the moon . . . Every detail is handled as if it’s the most important thing in our race. It’s just really, really cool. It’s quite an experience for me to get to be a part of it at this point in my career.”

The bitter pill for Ford Racing fans is that had Ford been able or willing to accommodate Martin’s now-forgotten desire for a part-time schedule in a competitive car, he might still be driving for the Blue Oval. On the other hand, few believe that if Martin were still driving for Roush-Fenway that he’d already have two victories in 2009.

At least Ford traitor Jeff Gordon didn’t win another Southern 500 to tie Ford-ex Cale Yarborough’s win record.

(Curiously, although Cale bookended his NASCAR career in Fords, his most notable years were in Junior Johnson’s Chevrolets – which, of course, were the direct result of Ford’s myopic abandonment of Holman-Moody, Cale, and Junior Johnson in the 1970s. However, Cale appeared in the Fox Television’s Southern 500 pre-race show wearing a Honda hat. So much for brand loyalty . . . .)

Speaking of Honda, open wheel racing wasn’t any better for Ford Racing fans this past weekend.

Although qualifying for the “Greatest Spectacle in Racing” – the Indianapolis 500 – is now so unimportant as to be relegated to some cable channel that is apparently available in about 1 of every 100 cable television homes, Ford has been gone from Indy so long that what happens there has no meaning. General Motors did, however, display a whole row of “official” Camaro pace cars. And every car in the “spectacle” will be powered by Honda. There will be a Ford or two in the parking lots.

The Spanish Grand Prix was another Brawn GP 1-2 finish. Ford has also been gone so long from F1 that few will remember that Ross Brawn found his initial success at Benneton-Ford. Incidentally, before Benneton-Ford, Brawn was first “discovered” by Jaguar -- back in the days when the mangy kitty contested international sports car events, such as the 24 Heurs Du Mans. Who knows what would have happened had Ford’s Racing bosses kept the brilliant Brawn applying his legendary skills to Fords?

The bottom line is that if success in racing is a matter of having the right people in the right places with the right resources, bankrupt Chevrolet (through Hendrick), Honda and upstart Brawn GP have each been doing a much better job of it.

On the business side, Ford continues to move with full force to convince everyone that Alan Mulally is the right person in the right place with the right resources.

The energetic Mulally, according to the latest Fortune puff-piece is a frenzied mass of color-coded, data-intensive, no Blackberry, no excuses, no cross-talk, 12-hours-a-day continuous action. His somewhat minimalist product strategy is apparently to concentrate on “One Ford” multinational platform sharing, deproliferation/simplification, “quality,” and profitability in smaller, value-added cars -- mostly powered by electricity or downsized EcoBoost engines. Given Ford’s continuing losses, this is probably about all anyone helming Ford could muster at the moment. Still, that Mulally’s managing it with an ever-present Mayberry grin and no Obama Car Czar Central Committee oversight during this great depression of light vehicle sales is no small accomplishment.

The Fortune article, of course, makes scant mention of the enthusiast side of FoMoCo. Readers are left wondering whether Mulally even has any meetings, charts, or color-coded reports on Mustang or Ford Racing. Like Robert McNamara fifty years ago, high-Performance is not one of Mulally’s index-carded core values. Nor is overt respect for Ford’s V8 and motorsports traditions. Nothing in his professional background indicates any understanding of this core constituency of Ford. After all, he drove a somnolent Lexus before he arrived in the Glass House. And he’s left virtually all of the public Ford Racing duties to board member Edsel B. Ford II.

Is Mulally even aware that Mustang has fallen significantly behind both Camaro and Challenger in the most important measures of street performance (even if only until the Coyote V8 comes on-line)? And if so, why would he let it happen on his watch when on-the-shelf supercharged alternatives could have prevented it? Will the Coyote V8 be given a chance to put Mustang back on top one last time before Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations likely kill all the fun for a generation or more? Will there be an EcoBoost V8?

Does Mulally understand that V8s and RWD are essential to the Mustang heritage, or will he be seduced by the bean-counters and appliance motorist bureaucrats who almost saddled us with the hideous FWD MazdaProbeStang twenty years ago?

Does Mulally even have a plan to turn around Ford’s underperforming racing operations?

Does he have any appreciation of GM Performance Parts’ advantage in the repower market?

Does he understand the indispensable importance of a strong factory parts program and niche market specials in homologation of parts and engines for grassroots motorsports?

Is he aware of GM’s huge advantage in many forms of grassroots motorsports?

Does he have the right people in the right places with the right resources to compete in these critical, brand-sustaining, loyalty-building niches and programs?

Just like racing at Darlington, whether “Mulallyism” will work (and how well) depends a lot on forces beyond FoMoCo’s control. Will appliance motorist Americans pay more for value-added, European-quality small cars, or will they abandon American cars in increasing numbers for cheaper soulless Asian “commodity” sleds?

Will possible nationalization of GMAC give “Government Motors” and FIAT-Chrysler a huge advantage in financing?

Will the U.A.W.’s plea to “turn off lights in Tokyo and Seoul” end up in a trade war?

Will the $7,800,000,000.00 loss by the Evil Empire (Toyota) awaken them to a new round of brutal predatory moves?

Are we in for a “lost decade” of stagflation and constrained credit?

Will Ford’s bloated and greedy dealer network offset advances in product?

Has Ford’s failure to adequately tend the youth market for a generation written off millions of vehicle purchasers for a lifetime?

Will Ford’s myopic shilling for a “Cash for Clunkers” bailout alienate vintage vehicle collectors, hot rodders, and enthusiasts?

Will the import-centric automotive press give Ford’s new products a fair shake?

Are these outside forces “too tough to tame?”

It is alarming that according to some estimates, Ford only stands to gain one in every four sales lost by GM and Chrysler. Losing seventy-five percent of the “conquest” sales to the invaders is even worse than Ford’s disappointing record against the Hendrick Chevrolet juggernaut. It is emblematic of Ford’s decades of uncompetitiveness in certain market niches and the built-up brand capital of the predatory invaders.

Thus far, Mulally’s sold a lot of chair shuffling, reductions-in-force, and blue sky futurism. While thankfully Ford is not in as bad of shape as its crosstown rivals (much because of Mulally’s cash-conserving/mortgage-for-the-future instincts), it is not clear whether Ford’s next generation of value-added cars will reverse the flow of red ink.

However, if the current Mustang/Camaro/Challenger and Hendrick/Roush-Fenway battles are any indication, Ford still may not have learned how to throw a knockout punch. Or dominate. Or cross the finish line first when conditions are “too tough to tame.”

FOMOCO LEGENDS ELLIOTT AND HAJEK TO SET CLOSED COURSE RECORD

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Bangshift.com is reporting that the legendary Awesome Bill Elliott and Ford racing super-collector Brent Hajek have teamed up to reset the closed course stock car record at Talladega. The historic run is scheduled for May 13, 2009, in Hajek's Bonneville-proven 252 m.p.h. E85 Cobra Jet Mustang.

Elliott, who holds (and likely will hold for all time) the official NASCAR closed course speed record, once drove a NASCAR-legal 1987 Ford Thunderbird stock car to an astonishing 212.229 m.p.h. at Talledega.

(Now, twenty-two years later, the few remaining vintage 1987 Thunderbirds will be primary targets of the "Cash for Clunkers" bailout/Federal war against collector cars. And far from the old days of "Million Dollar Bill," Elliott has aged into Richard Petty-esque backmarker status as a part-time campaigner on NASCAR's ridiculous FUNNYCar-of-Tomorrow Sprint Cup Circuit. However, back in the day, Elliott and his family-built Dawsonville, Georgia Thunderbird were the fastest stock car team ever. Sadly, those days appear gone forever. )

Best wishes and Godspeed to Hajek and Elliott as they challenge "the demon" that lives over 200 m.p.h. at Talledega. Keep the pedal down and the shiny side up, Bill.

"OBAMACA$H FOR CLUNKERS" DESTROYS THE USED CAR MARKET, BALLOONS THE DEFICIT, AND KICKSTARTS VEHICULAR INFLATION

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

"Cash for Clunkers" is a horrible idea that will inflate the deficit, destroy the used car market, and drive inflation.

1. It will dramatically hurt late model residual values.

In a copyrighted story in the Automotive News, the chief economist of the largest U.S. auto auction said:

'Cash for clunkers' incentives to new-car buyers would have the same impact on prices of late-model used vehicles as new-vehicle cash incentives from the factory, said Tom Webb of Manheim, based in Atlanta.

In general, every $1,000 rebate on a new vehicle reduces the price of the same-make, current-model-year used vehicle by $700 to $800, Webb said. The impact on used-vehicle prices lessens as vehicles get older, he added.

Further compounding this problem is the reduction in frequent vehicle traders

There is evidence that that love affair is fading, and that for more Americans the car is becoming a longevity-driven commodity like the Maytag washing machine. New-vehicle sales fell 38.4% in the first quarter compared with the year-ago period, according to Autodata Corp. A recently released annual survey from R.L. Polk & Co. found that the median age of American vehicles in operation has risen to a record 9.4 years from 9.2 the previous two years.

And perhaps most worrisome for the industry is the recent disappearance of that iconic American character: the new-car enthusiast, otherwise known as the tuner, motor head, speed freak, buff, nut and zealot. [These people have not disappeared, but have simply been priced out of the marketplace**] The percentage of trade-ins newer than two years had hovered for years between 9% and 10%, says J.D. Power and Associates. Last year it slipped to 8.4%, and in the first two months of this year it fell to 6.6%, says J.D. Power.

Thus, as supplies of used vehicles shrink, the long-run outlook for the used vehicle market is poor indeed.

2. Cash for Clunkers will target V8s and other donor vehicles essential for motorsports and grassroots automotive hobbies.

The cash-for-clunkers proposals circulating in Congress vary. But the basic concept is represented by a plan backed by [Mouth-breathing Appliance Motorist Moron] U.S. Rep. Betty Sutton (D., Ohio). Her [pitiful excuse for a] bill would offer bonuses starting at $3,000 [added to the ballooning deficit and borrowed from the Chinese] for someone who scraps a 2001 or older model for a U.S.-made car that gets 27 miles per gallon on the highway. Buyers of a U.S.-made car that gets 30 mpg on the highway could get $5,000.

Dumping a "clunker" to get a new U.S.-made truck that gets at least 24 mpg on the highway would make you eligible for a $4,000 payment under Ms. Sutton's [idiotic] proposal. Businesses that buy a "work truck" that is cleaner than the vehicle replaced based on federal emissions testing could get $5,000 -- so long as the truck is registered in the name of a business.

3. "Cash for Clunkers" will inflate the price for older used American cars.

The reasoning is obvious -- anything older than 2001 that will wheeze to life for 50 feet or so (long enough to cross the "ObamaCrusher" "Cash-for-Clunkers" finish line") and which is categorically deemed a "clunker" by the know-nothing appliance motorists in Congress and the Obama Administration will instantly be worth as much as $5,000.00 in taxpayer cash if forever destroyed. Thus, the minimum "buy-in" for restorable cars and trucks built before 2001 will quickly inflate to more than $5,000.00. If not, then the artificial "ObamaMarket" will eventually suck most of these irreplaceable vehicles into the crusher.

As more and more enthusiast vehicles and more pedestrian donor vehicles are lost, the prices of the "survivors" will skyrocket. While natural attrition tends to increase prices on its own, "aborting" a whole generation of vehicles during the vulnerable time before they become recognized as collectable will spike prices.

This will also dramatically increase the price of used auto parts because of supply restrictions on the most desirable vehicles -- RWD V8s(Presumably, "Cash for Clunkers" won't target hideous four-cylinder imports, which are virtually useless as donor vehicles and have minimal future prospects as historic vehicles or restoration candidates). The loss of affordable used spare parts for RWD American vehicles will lead to fewer restorations and "builds" of vehicles from the 1980s and 1990s.

Fewer restorable "special interest" vehicles from the 1980s and 1990s will hamper development and sales of aftermarket restoration and modification parts. Fewer parts sold will drive up prices for the parts that do make it to market.

All of this, in turn, will price millions of automobile hobbyists out of the market. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT OBAMA'S APPLIANCE MOTORISTS AND POWER-HUNGRY GREENS WANT!

4. Cash for Clunkers disproportionately targets seldom driven marginal vehicles.

As the Wall Street Journal's Joseph B. White unwittingly points out, "cash for clunker" incentives will be too low to "hit" the SUVs that Obama's free-spending greens want to junk.

If I owned a 2000 Ford Explorer Eddie Bauer all-wheel-drive model equipped with a 5.0 liter V-8 -- a popular configuration that year [and an excellent donor vehicle for various grassroots sporting vehicles] -- I would be getting about 15 mpg or less in daily driving. This is exactly the kind of vehicle Mr. Obama wants retired to the junkyard. But if Mr. Obama was a car dealer, I'd want him to give me as much as $5,300 for my old Explorer, based on the used vehicle trade-in values at Edmunds.com, an auto-shopping Web site.


[P]rying Americans out of their paid-off SUVs may require more than offering a fraction of the vehicle's trade-in value -- and that means more public money.

Thus, buyers will seek out cheaper trades, which will disproportionately come from the ranks of veteran vehicles that are not really in daily service.

5. Cash for Clunkers is a huge wealth transfer program to the Asian automakers.

Because of World Trade Organization (WTO) concerns, any "Cash For Clunkers" plan cannnot discriminate against imports. Thus, any "Cash for Clunkers" plan will have the unintended consequence of sending billions across the Pacific to the Asian automakers.

6. "Cash For Clunkers" will not screen out historically-significant models for preservation or salvage.

Plenty of marginal collector cars languish in the sub-$5,000.00 price bracket. Most of these are highly worn original vehicles or vehicles long parked in barns, fields, classic car salvages, or backyards. Many of these cars will be "monetized" by greedy opportunists if "Cash for Clunkers" becomes law. There is no mechanism to differentiate between a smoking, rusted-out, common-as-a-belly-button, boring Toyota Camry and a rare Rambler American, a Hudson Hornet, an Edsel, or a restorable 1938 "Spirit of Motion" Graham. Undoubtedly, some milestones such as these will be crushed in the haste to "cash in" on the "'ObamaCash' for Clunkers" windfall.


**A NOTE ON PRICING ENTHUSIASTS OUT OF THE MARKET

In 1967, the median income was $7,143.00. A huge variety of tire-smoking RWD V8 musclecars were available for $5,000.00 or less (Some substantially less. For example, a well-equipped 1967 GTO 400/4-speed stickered for around $3,300.00 -- that's less than 50% of the median income). The average musclecar in 1967 sold for 45-60% of the median income. Thus, an enthusiast who wanted a performance or sports car could often finance one during the boom years of the First Supercar Era for only a few dollars a month. Even clock-punching hourly workers could often afford a factory musclecar.

By 1985, the median income was $23,618. New Mustang GTs sold for only a little more than half of that amount. Even a state-of-the-art turbocharged, intercooled Mustang SVO or Buick Grand National sold for only about 70% of the median income. Thus, while respectable muscle was not as common or affordable as in the 1960s, it was still somewhat affordable for ordinary wage-earners and young college graduates.

As recently as 2003, the median income was $43,318. A 390 (net) h.p. SVT Cobra stickered for around $35,000.00 (right at 80% of the median income).

Now the median income is around $50,000.00. The few traditional musclecars left generally sticker for $35,000 or more, which pushes them above 70% of the median income. A 2010 Shelby GT500, exclusive of dealer gouging, retails for a whopping 92% of the median income! The bare-bones cheapest Mustang GT (which is saddled with glass-jawed hypereutectic pistons, spindly cracked-cap rods, a cast crank, and a pedestrian SOHC valvetrain) stickers in excess of 55% of the median income.

Obviously, if the Detroit automakers had been able to hold to price-income relationship of the 1960s, or even of the 1980s, new high-performance vehicles would still be affordable for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more enthusiasts. OEM greed, unfunded regulatory mandates, and Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards have artificially cut supplies and driven up prices on high-performance vehicles during the past 30 years.

If Ford could bring in a power-adder-ready (i.e. forged pistons, forged rods, forged crank, good multivalve heads) or even a power-adder-equipped V8 Mustang for around 50% of the median income, sales would be much, much higher (it's basic microeconomics).

Moreover, if Ford could offer a practical, affordable RWD V8-capable sedan (saloon)and crossover (we used to call them "station wagons" or "shooting brakes") with such attributes (i.e. Australian Falcon), it would further expand Ford's market share and high-performance image.

However, the emerging Obama "war" on high-performance and vehicle collecting will extract even more of a hidden "tax" on racers, hot rodders, tuners, and collectors.

EDMUNDS RUNS THE 2010 MUSTANG GT AGAINST CHALLENGER R/T AND CAMARO SS

Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

The old racing saying "Second place is the first loser" couldn't apply more to Edmunds.com's shoot-out between the underpowered 2010 Mustang GT and its pavement-ripping rivals from Chrysler and GM.

Among this power-laden bunch, the Mustang's 315 hp is like bringing a corkscrew to a jihad.

Of course the Glass House Gang is probably more occupied with "Ford Developing Fusion Replacement on Current Mondeo Platform" and saving money than the fact that Ford's most loyal customers are GOING TO GET SMOKED ON THE STREET AND STRIP BECAUSE SOMEBODY WAS ASLEEP IN TEAM MUSTANG'S ENGINE DEPARTMENT!

The only saving graces are Mustang's lighter weight and better quality. Now that's something to think about while your new pony's slinking home in defeat . . . .

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).

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."

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.

2010 TAURUS SHO PROVES THAT FORD LEARNED LITTLE FROM THE MARAUDER DEBACLE

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here.

At the Chicago Auto Show, Ford Motor Company announced the return of the Taurus SHO (tm) in 2010.

For TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS more than a pedestrian Taurus, the new SHO will feature a 365-horsepower Eco-Boost (tm) twin-turbo V6 and all-wheel-drive.

No manual transmission . . .

No Eco-Boost V8. . . .

No symphony of high performance V8 sounds . . . .

According to Automotive News, Ford’s Jim Farley, V.P. of marketing and communications claims that "The car has better performance and much better gas mileage than a BMW 550i, which uses a 4.8-liter V-8."

That, of course, remains to be seen.

The early photos of the car suggest an almost-sleeper profile, with only big tires and a rear spoiler distinguishing the new SHO from the Tauri that Ford may end up peddling to fleets and rental car houses (like Dearborn’s new friend Dollar Thrifty – just when you thought the Glass House Gang was FINALLY kicking the addiction to residual/reliability score-killing “program car” sales . . . .)

While the new SHO isn’t approaching the market as down on power as the 2003-04 Mercury Marauder and will have the traction advantage of all-wheel drive, the price point ought to give some cause for concern.

Will enough Taurus buyers pay a one-third premium for a V6 turbo car with no particular competition heritage or image?

(That much markup stinks of price gouging – and that’s before Ford’s dealers kill off initial demand with greedy “additional dealer markups” and other add-ons).

Is Ford prepared to move enough SHOs to prevent the “sales constipation” borne of dealer greed that killed initial demand for the Marauder and hurts GT500 sales to this day?

Are there enough buyers who want an American-sized WRX/EVO (sans all of the entertaining boy-racer wings, scoops, flaps and body kit) or more likely what will be seen as an Americanized Audi?

Will the SHO be compared favorably in the market to the simpler, cheaper V8-powered offerings of Dodge (Charger) and Pontiac (G8)?

Will it get killed on the street and the drag strip by 415-horse G8 GXPs and 425-horse Hemi SRT-8s?


Is 365 horsepower enough for the last blast of the Second Supercar Era?

Does the SHO sap all of the excitement (if any) for the paltry 315-horse Mustang GT?

There are a lot of questions that the new SHO has to answer.

Certainly many will celebrate the SHO, even as they lament the huge price markup that prevents many of them from purchasing it. And perhaps it’s enough of a halo model to make people forget twenty years of neglect and damage to the Taurus/SHO franchise.

But is it too little, too late (and for too much money)?