GETTING HAMMERED DEFENDING ECOBOOST & COYOTE

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Sometimes Truth With Speedzzter thinks that Ford Motor Company simply doesn't care about its reputation in the hot rod community. Even though Ford has some brilliantly innovative engines, the "word on the message boards" often remains anti-Ford.

Take for example this recent exchange regarding the EcoBoost V6 at Bangshift.com Even though the EcoBoost engine has huge apparent advantages over the antique Buick v6 of the 1980s, the average hot rodder apparently does not believe EcoBoost engines have more potential.

This is consistent with Ford's lagging reputation in the hot rodding and grassroots motorsports community. As one poster opined:

[W]hat it will NOT do, and what either does not concern Ford, or they figure they are so far behind on as to not compete, is find it's way into the garages and engine bays of the aftermarket and hot rod community. At this point, I think they've punted on that market.

As Zora Arkus-Duntov's famous 1953 memo accurately stated:

Like all people, hot rodders are attracted by novelty, However, bitter experience has taught them that new development is costly and long, and therefore they are extremely conservative. From my observation, it takes an advanced hot rodder some three years to stumble toward the successful development of a new design. . . . [B]ut to let things run their normal course . . . not too many hot rodders will pick Chevrolet for development.

Of course, history shows that GM took Zora's advice and dethroned Ford in hot rodding and most forms of grassroots motorsports.

With the modern high-tech engines (which are much harder for the grassroots to develop) and nearly a decade and a half wasted by insufficient factory aftermarket development and promotion of the Modular V8, Ford is facing a "Mount Everest" of skepticism and resistance to adoption of its EcoBoost, Boss 6.2 and Coyote engines by hot rodders. Moreover, rules bias against DOHC in NASCAR and other "stock-based" racing series also hampers "trickle-down" adoption of Ford's more advanced engine designs for repower and retrofit projects.

Truth With Speedzzter wonders if Ford Motor Company even monitors how its reputation is being damaged by the vocal skepticism of a majority of the hot rodding community. While it is fine to concentrate on Mustang as Ford's primary American grassroots motorsports vehicle, Can Ford just ignore the overwhelming pro-GM bias that has infected the important, opinion-leading segments represented by hot rodding and the aftermarket.

Clearly, Ford must do more to gain competitiveness. High horsepower demonstration projects with the Coyote and the EcoBoost engines in older vehicles would be a start. Emissions-legal crate engines, along the lines of GM's E-Rod would also spur a sea change in the "street/strip" scuttlebutt about Ford. For Ford to be successful in shifting public opinion, Ford engines need to be perceived as a superior alternative to GM's LS V8. Ford Performance Group and Ford Racing Performance Parts clearly have not done enough to get this message across.

But for now, a relatively few of us pro-Ford "shock troops" will continue to be overwhelmed by the anti-Ford tidal waves that saturate most venues where hot rodding ideas are exchanged.

SPEEDZZTER AT BANGSHIFT: SPEEDY SAYS: WHY I HATE SWAP MEETS

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

On March 23,2010, Truth With Speedzzter was honored with another "front page" column at Bangshift.com, entitled "Speedy Says: Why I Hate Swap Meets."

Be sure to check it out!

SPEEDZZTER ON BANGSHIFT: ELEVEN HOT VISUAL CUES FOR HIGH-PERFORMANCE

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Truth With Speedzzter has been honored again with "front page" content at Bangshift.com. In a column entitled Speedy Says: The 11 Styling Elements That Suggest High Performance, Truth With Speedzzter ranks eleven top elements that automobile designers use to convey speed and power.

Don't miss it.

SPEEDZZTER ON BANGSHIFT.COM: MOTORSPORTS EDITION

(Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here)

As the 2010 racing season has cranked up, Truth With Speedzzter has been honored by several “front page” commentaries on motorsports topics at Bangshift.com.

1. Top 11 Products That Should Have Motorsports Celebrity Endorsements.

2. Grading Daytona’s “Pothole 500.”

3. Here’s the Next Rulebook NASCAR Should Adopt.

4. Top 11 Things That “Jam” Bangshifters.

Truth With Speedzzter has also made significant forum commentary on the NHRA’s tragic accident at Phoenix. See also here.

Finally, in honor of Bangshift.com editor Brian Lohnes’ 30th birthday, Truth With Speedzzter adapted Billy Crystal’s famous “Value this time” monologue from “City Slickers” to reflect the typical hot rodder’s life cycle.

SPEEDZZTER ON BANGSHIFT.COM: ELEVEN THINGS THAT "JAM" BANGSHIFTERS

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Truth With Speedzzter's done it again . . . another front page column at Bangshift.com This time, Truth With Speedzzter rips on eleven things in motorsports and hot rodding that "jam" enthusiasts. The column is entitled "Speedy Says: The Top 11 Things That Get Speedzzter's Goat." Happy reading.

SPEEDZZTER AT BANGSHIFT: DO AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERS HATE US & TELLING APART POLITICIANS FROM JOURNALISTS AT THE NORTH AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL AUTO SHOW

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Bangshift.com has selected another "Truth With Speedzzter" column for a "front page" feature: Speedzzter Says: Why Do Automotive Engineers Hate Us? The column explores why modern cars are so difficult to work on at home.

Also at Bangshift.com is an essential guide for telling "who is who" at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit.

Finally, Speedzzter provides a number of snarky captions to a photo of a sad Nissan station wagon bearing taped-on cardboard and foil customizing.
Happy reading!

SPEEDZZTER AT BANGSHIFT.COM -- TOP COLLECTOR FORD PRODUCTS FROM THE LAST DECADE

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Bangshift.com has published a front-page feature column by "Truth With Speedzzter, entitled "Ranking the Top 11 High Performance Fords From the Last Decade That You Have to Own."

Perhaps not so surprisingly the most criticism has come from those who can't see the appeal of Ford's SVT Focus or Mercury Marauder.

WOLFE OUT, ALLISON IN AT FORD RACING

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Bangshift.com and others are reporting that Brian Wolfe is out and former Ford Racing Performance Parts helmer Jaime Allison is in as the NEW BOSS at Ford Racing.

Here's FoMoCo's official statement about the change.

Here's TWS's initial reactions at Bangshift:

Revolving door leadership is not usually a positive sign for a business. Even more so when it involves a unit that some green-types and beancounters at Ford don't understand and probably believe is expendable.

But an MBA such as Allison hopefully can talk all the "business case" gibberish that the beancounters spread to oppose just about every fun or high-performance market initiative.

The tooling gig might not be so bad if Wolfe can "deliver tooling efficiencies" with vendors who are SEMA members (e.g. Edelbrock, Honeywell Garrett, TFS). What am I saying! It would totally suck compared to being the racing boss (even in a year as underbudgeted and dismal as 2009). Perhaps Wolfe has his eye on a bigger prize . . . .

A VP that's got a garage-full of drag cars and muscle would be a lot better than what's usually "run up the flagpole." We need more folks like Walter Hayes and fewer anti-fun, anti-motorsports hatchet people in charge at Ford.

Guys like Vince Piggins, Jon Moss, Dan Davis and Michael Kranefuss didn't really obey the "two-year rule" . . . . [The two-year rule is the conventional wisdom that says you've got to change jobs in an automaker every two years or your career is dead]

If I recall correctly, there was a passage in Frank Moriarty's book Iron Fist, Lead Foot: John Coletti and Ford's "Terminator" that taking one of the high-performance niche or racing boss jobs was considered a career killer, the two-year rule notwithstanding.

Best wishes to Brian and Jaime!

Now Mr. Allison, about entering some Coyote V8s in the Car Craft Engine Swap Drags . . . . (see yesterday's post)

EPA ENDANGERMENT FINDING THREATENS TO "NUKE" HOT RODDING

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

As probable as the Sun rising in the East, the United States Environmental Protection Agency -- corrupted by the Obama Administration's radical greeniac political agenda and a dodgy "scientific consensus" -- has made a finding of "endangerment" under the Clean Air Act on "six key greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride."

This, of course, is the regulatory prelude to draconian limits on our automotive liberties and more tampering in what little is left of the free market.

This finding of "endangerment" basically empowers the E.P.A. to outlaw many practices near and dear to the hearts of American hot rodders and motoring enthusiasts.

Over at Bangshift.com, the threat to nitrous oxide is the focal point of the discussion thus far.

(Nitrous oxide (N20) is a popular "power adder" used by many hot rodders and tuners to make additional horsepower by allowing their vehicles' engines to burn additional fuel)

While some Bangshifters still don't believe that N20 use by hot rodders is threatened, Truth With Speedzzter has attemped to set the record straight:

DanStokes: "As so often happens, the idiot who writes the article had NO @#$%!% clue what he/she is writing about and gets it wrong. Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) is NOT the same as N2O - nitrous oxide. The concern is NOx which is the catalyst that works with sulpher compounds and atmospheric hydrocarbons to form smog. This concern is reasonable. Banning N2O makes no sense at all and, I'm pretty sure is not on the table - I'll check in with my EPA buddies and verify that. A case of crappy reporting and a failure to fact check."
* * * *

The Silver Buick: "Nicely said Dan. I didn't read the article, no sense in it I figure. Let us know if your EPA buddies get back to you."

TWS: Sorry, but the threat to N20 is real.

In the infamous MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA decision, "Petitioners maintained . . . that carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are 'heat trapping greenhouse gases.'"

The U.S. Supreme Court found that the Clean Air Act "embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe, and underscores that intent through the repeated use of the word "any." Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt 'physical [and] chemical . . . substance(s) which [are] emitted into . . . the ambient air.' The statute is unambiguous."

The EPA now says "Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a clear, colorless gas, with a slightly sweet odor. Due to its long atmospheric lifetime (approximately 120 years) and heat trapping effects -- about 310 times more powerful than carbon dioxide on a per molecule basis -- N2O is an important greenhouse gas."

http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/scientific.html

Bangshifters are being put on the defensive here because we've not come together and fought hard enough to preserve our automotive liberties.

Some of us debated all this back in 2008 over at Car Craft.com (when there was more we could do about it). Here's a few choice "sound bites:"

"More horsepower means more CO2. And nitrous oxide is a much more "heat-trapping" greenhouse gas than CO2 when released into the atmosphere. If the radical greeniacs obtain unfettered power in Washington -- look out!"

"Carbon emissions are not something that you can just "adapt" around. Carbon production is proportionate to fuel consumption (on anything but hydrogen fuel). Fuel consumption is proportionate to horsepower. In other words, cutting carbon means cutting horsepower. It's that simple."

"BTW, methane is a far more "offensive" greenhouse gas than CO2 to the Sierra Clubbers. (Not because of smell but because of heat-trapping ability) Some of the more radical elements on the left have even called for forced reductions in the consumption of beef and dairy products (fewer cows, less methane. Less methane, less climate change). That's crazy!

Perhaps we ought to all go eat a huge steak, wash it down Indy 500-style with a quart of ice-cold "victory" milk, then vent our nitrous bottles to the atmosphere in a huge plume and do a massive tire-popping burnout to protest this greenhouse gas madness . . . ."


http://forums.carcraft.com/70/7142901/car-craft-magazine/get-ready-to-kiss-your-chance-at-a-v8-goodby/index.html

Truth With Speedzzter hates to say "I told you so" . . . but I did:

October 16, 2008: Car Craft has been mostly silent about the impending end of V8 street machining in America.

In less than a month, the die will apparently be cast that will guarantee the end of affordable V8s in new vehicles. Without V8s, Car Crafting will either become another form of "import tuning" or will shrink into an prohibitively expensive sport based on an increasingly scarce pool of "classic" muscle cars.

Ordinary working Joes need not apply.

Of course, a few rich guys will still trade impossibly expensive rides at Barrett-Jackson. But what, if anything, that's left of genuine high performance will be so limited in supply and so expensive that ordinary Car Crafters would have to live in their cars to afford one.

Don't believe it?

According to Barack Obama's campaign website, "Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years."

Apparently, that means that he supports an increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard from the recently-enacted 35 miles per gallon to SEVENTY miles per gallon! (Even if Obama merely wanted to "double" the old CAFE standard, he'd be imposing by big government mandate a FIFTY-SIX miles per gallon average on all light vehicles sold in the United States of America)

Such radical fuel economy proposals would plunge the world of high-performance and sports cars into an age of banishment far worse than the "dark ages" of the 1970s.

A tiny three-cylinder turbo diesel would be the "Shelby GT 500" or "Dodge Viper" "musclecar" of the Obama age of government-controlled motoring.

If Car Crafters still remain skeptical of Obama's intention to destroy all semblance of automotive freedom in America, his next proposal ought to remove all doubt: "Obama supports implementation of a . . . system to reduce carbon emissions by . . . 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050."

Such a "system" would undoubtedly target the new and used parts supplies for keeping "classic" and "special interest" motorcars on the road (if not the vehicles themselves) as energy-thirsty industries sought to "offset" industrial uses of power through "cap and trade" deals. Chevron's infamous car crushing program of the early 1990s is just a harbinger of what's sure to follow if "President Obama" attempts to roll back energy use to EIGHTY PERCENT LESS than 1990.

The automotive aftermarket won't go unscathed, either.

Energy conservation standards will likely be expanded to stop "tampering" that potentially increases greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, huge swaths of bolt-on parts could be regulated out of existence.

Many smaller aftermarket companies and shops will see huge tax increases and other expensive mandates which will be passed along to a shrinking customer base as higher prices.

Fewer new OEM performance cars will mean lower demand for hop-up parts. Reduced sales volumes will mean higher prices, less selection and slower product development times.

The forces that hate Car Crafting and all other automotive hobbies are betting that our sport will die from attrition and escalating costs. And they're probably right if we don't stand together to stop the Government from taking our freedoms away.

* * * *

April 23, 2007: EPA HACK: BACK TO THE DISMAL ‘70s AGAIN

The United States Environmental Protection Agency apparently sees the hysteria about "global warming" as another 1970s-style power-grabbing opportunity.

Undoubtedly buoyed by the twin engines of 40 m.p.g.-Democrat talking points and the U.S. Supreme Court’s command to take a hard look at carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, Margo Oge, director of the EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality laid down the law at the SAE 2007 World Congress.

According to the Automotive News (www.autonews.com), she taunted the assembled SAE engineers (who are actually the ones required to "make bricks without straw" when the coming CO2 regulations decimate the Second Supercar Era): "For many the first reaction was, 'The sky's falling. We cannot do it.' Well, you know what? The sky didn't fall," Oge said.

"Not only were you able to do it; you were able to meet emissions standards and regulations put forward for the past 30 years, and do it better than the regulations required you to do, and do it earlier than what the regulations required you to do, and do it in a very cost-effective way."

TRANSLATION: Kiss your chance at a factory-built supercar goodby.

* * * *

October 12, 2006: SHOULD AUTOMOBILE ENTHUSIASTS BE POLITICALLY ACTIVE?

Imagine how much fun motoring will be in 10 or 20 years if:

--Fuel economy standards become so high that no V8s can be produced.
--The OEMs "can" all V8 crate engines and other performance parts out of fear of "carbon" litigation.
--Draconian "carbon use" taxes (sort of like the punitive cigarette taxes smokers now routinely pay under the various "tobacco lawsuit settlements") on gasoline, gasoline-burning equipment and the replacement parts for such equipment are enacted to curb "excess" emissions. (Far-fetched? I just read Al Gore (D) is now pushing a "carbon use" tax as a replacement for payroll taxes!)
--Harsh "clunker" legislation is passed, aimed at clearing the roads of C02-emitting "old" cars and drying up parts supplies for them.
--Increased state- or industry-sponsored "crusher" programs (such as UNOCAL's infamous one) are instituted in settlement of the lawsuits.
--Increased restrictions on registering "kit" and "continuation" cars (such as the "new" 1969 Camaros built from Chinese uni-body stampings or even "new" 1932 Ford-based "street rods") are enacted to force people into state-approved, factory-built economy cars.
--Competition for the shrinking number of "collector" cars drives prices even higher than they already are today.
--Lawyers and regulators begin turning their focus on extorting payments from racing venues, tuners and aftermarket supply companies for "carbon pollution."
--More force-fed propaganda fills the public school curriculum about the harms that motorsports and "gas guzzlers" (i.e. performance cars and race-car tow vehicles) allegedly cause to the environment (as if it couldn't get any worse)

All of these scenarios are foreseeable if this sort of California/Kyoto CO2 madness takes hold.

NECROTIC NASCAR 2009: THOUGHTS ON THE SPRINT CUP BANQUET

[Get the latest Truth With Speedzzter here]

One of Truth With Speedzzter's most popular posts is "The Day NASCAR Died" (see sidebar).

While the homgenized FunnyCar of Tomorrow, the plethora of "cookie cutter" race tracks, the loss of traditional venues, and the Toyota invasion have drained the life out of the sport formerly known as "stock car racing," a larger problem is the scripted, corporate ciphers driving the "NASCARS" in seemingly endless nose-to-tail succession around the tracks.

About 98% of the current NASCAR drivers are some of the most uninteresting automatons on the face of the Earth. And one of the few things worse that watching the mess that NASCAR has become on-track, is watching some "made-for-TV" spectacle off-track. One such waste-of-time was the 2009 NASCAR SPRINT CUP awards banquet.

Rebeldryver on Banghift.com put it succinctly:

Tried to watch Nascar awards show. I couldn't. Even more boring than Hollywood award shows. Same speeches by the drivers. Only difference is that they are wearing monkey suits instead of racing suits. Speed's coverage is about usual for a Nascar on Speed show.

Yup.

Too bad that "Think With Your Dipstick" guy (Not Tiger Woods, BTW) didn't come out to liven the thing up a tad.

Of course if he did, today's typical namby-pamby NASCAR celebrity driver wouldn't have decked the guy . . . but instead would have launched into another memorized listing of sponsors . . . .

"Well the ARMANI TUXEDO really absorbed the sting of that dipstick today at The WYNN LAS VEGAS HOTEL AND CASINO. And I've got to hand it to the LOWE'S CHEVROLET crew who got me dressed up and dialed in for tonight's NASCAR SPRINT CUP Banquet on SPEED. Those HAINES ALL-COTTON BRIEFS were really workin' too."

"And PRADA really gave me a good set of shoes for tonight's NASCAR SPRINT CUP Banquet on SPEED. . . . I was able to maneuver around and put my LOWE'S CHEVROLET keaster exactly where I wanted it on stage tonight." It really helped me collect my fourth consecutive NASCAR SPRINT CUP championship trophy for HENDRICK MOTORSPORTS, LOWE'S, QUAKER STATE, KOBALT TOOLS, THE NATIONAL GUARDand CHEVROLET."

"And Chad Knaus really made all the right calls to get me away from that crazy dipstick guy and get me back to the head table here at The WYNN LAS VEGAS HOTEL AND CASINO."

"And I'm sure that after a couple of cans of MONSTER ENERGY drink, some GOODY'S COOL ORANGE POWDERS, and another NASCAR drug test, we'll be ready just cash that $6.6 Million SPRINT CUP check and keep on diggin' for Number 5 . . . Could somebody get my man -- the 2009 Bill France Award of Excellence winner Rick Hendrick -- a KLEENIX and some VISINE eye drops?"

PEARL HARBOR DAY SPECIAL: FIVE REASONS NEVER TO BUY JAPANESE AUTOS

[Get the latest "Truth From Speedzzter" here]

Bangshift.com posted a fine tribute to the 2,388 (or more) Americans who lost their lives sixty-eight years ago in the savage, unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

Although Franklin Delano Roosevelt claimed that the Japanese attack would "live in infamy," you could hardly tell it by looking in the average American parking lot today. We might not have had more Japanese cars in America now if the Japanese had won World War II! (Japan may have lost the shooting war, but they've arguably won the "economic war" that followed)

Here's Truth With Speedzzter's comment from Bangshift.com:

I'll bet all the kids and "appliance motorists" driving the Toyotas and Hondas are really moved by all of this. . . .

Awhile back I posted in a discussion at Seeking Alpha (http://seekingalpha.com/article/128958-five-reasons-not-to-buy-american-cars) "Five reasons NEVER TO BUY A SINGLE THING FROM A JAPANESE AUTO COMPANY":

1. Protectionism -- Japan's car makers incubated in protectionist climate which prevented the Detroit 3 from making more than token investments in Japanese OEMs or selling cars in their market.

2. Predatory Business Model -- Japan's car makers were only profitable because of exports, which created huge trade deficits.

3. Lack of Domestic Content -- Just because a Japanese invader car is assembled by non-union labor in the U.S. doesn't mean the parts come from here. American cars support hundreds of thousands more OEM parts supplier jobs than do the invading Japanese transplants.

4. Lack of soul -- excluding a handful of limited-production sports models, Japanese vehicles have all of the driving panache and "soul" of a refrigerator. Buying a Japanese sedan is like wearing a $20-80,000 badge proclaiming that "I'm a self-centered weasel who wouldn't know an exciting car if it ran over me."

5. Government Subsidies -- According to Toyota-ex Jim Press, the Japanese government virtually paid for all of the electric hybrid technology that the tree huggers are ramming down our throats. And its well documented that the Japanese government has provided scads of subsidies and incentives for Japan's invasion of the U.S. auto market.

6. (Just like Joe Isuzu, I lied -- there are more reasons not to send any more American money to Tokyo)

Buying Japanese deprives the Detroit 3 and their suppliers of necessary investment capital.

7. Bataan Death March.

8. Battle of Midway.

9. Iwo Jima.

10. Guadalcanal

11. Battle of Leyte Gulf

12. Saipan

13. Battle of the Java Sea

14. Kamikazes (not the drink)

15. Nanking Massacre (300,000 Chinese People Killed, 20,000 Women Raped)

16. Causes thousands of quality U.S. jobs to be outsourced to Asia.

17. Destroys many American communities who depend on manufacturing.

18. Subsidizes the . . . sexist, and zenophobic Japanese culture.

19. Increases the trade deficit.

20. Hurts the value of the U.S. Dollar

21. Multiplier effect (dollars staying in the U.S. will keep circulating in the U.S. economy, creating more jobs and improving the standards of living)

22. National pride -- Let's act like AMERICANS!

23. There are plenty of excellent vehicles sold by Detroit (don't buy into the sycophantic pro-Japan bias of the elite media and the self-selected, methodologically-invalid "Consumer Distorts" surveys.)

24. Your grandchildren -- you won't have to look them in the eye and explain why you selfishly helped bankrupt the U.S. auto industry.

25. The Japanese are apparently incapable of making a Mustang or a Shelby GT500, or a Corvette, or a "real" Challenger, or any legitimate performance car that isn't festooned with a hideous "body kit" and/or a stupid "boy racer" wing.

26. When left to their own devices, Japanese styling is "Tokyo-at-night" terrible. The bland exceptions to this rule are from Western collaborators. Thus, if we give the auto business over to the Japanese, we'll get more bland and hideous vehicles.

27. Safety. For example, Toyota trucks have been recalled for fatal steering, brake and airbag defects. Thousands have been killed in undersized, understructured Japanese cars over the years (just look at how some of them fold up like a cheap suit when crashed). Toyota has been sued over the defective seat belts and deadly door latches of its Corolla models. And this is just the tip of the safety iceberg.

[UPDATE: Here's some more "love" courtesy of Caddy-V -- a reader over at Autoblog:

Quote
"They're only looking at the Toyota's because there's a sign on one end that says
'Please be very quiet and listen carefully and you can hear our frames rust.' [ http://www.toyotaframerust.com/;http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2009/04/27/toyota-tundra-frame-rust/]
on the other end a sign reads 'Toyota will not be held responsible for any injurys from any display cars that accelerate unexpectedly.' [http://www.safetyresearch.net/2009/09/18/fatal-california-crash-highlights-toyota%E2%80%99s-sudden-unintended-acceleration-problem/]
And then the sign on the Tundra. 'Please do not sit on Tailgate. 25# weight limit strictly enforced. Our rugged Truck that is changing it all is designed for all show and no go.' [http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/tundra/115222-toyota-tailgate-facts-2/]
And last but not least is the sign on the Camry. Guaranteed not to sludge for at least two oil changes.'" [ http://www.autosafety.org/toyota-oil-sludge; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs7WI2s-CVw]


28. Repair costs. When they do break down (and they're machines, they all do -- have you ever seen a Japanese traitor/invader dealership without a service department?), Japanese cars are horrendously expensive to repair. One study found that building a typical $20,000 Japanese car out of replacement parts would cost $60,000 (excluding labor, of course). And when was the last time you saw a 20+ year old Japanese car still on the road?

There's probably about 500 more reasons NEVER TO BUY FROM A JAPANESE CAR MAKER!

SPEEDZZTER ON BANGSHIFT: BANGSHIFTING -- INTERNATIONAL STYLE

[Get the latest "Truth with Speedzzter" here]

Bangshift.com has published another "Truth With Speedzzter" column, entitled Speedzzter Says: BangShifting International Style is Fun.

Be sure to log in to the Bangshift forum and leave your comments on the column! And share your own insights on "Bangshifting: International Style!

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.

SPEEDZZTER -- LIVE AT SEMA 2009!

[Get the latest Truth With Speedzzter here]

LAS VEGAS--For the first time ever, Source Interlink Magazines and Ford Motor Company invited twenty-five ordinary citizens to experience the 2009 Specialty Equipment Market Association Show and blog their impressions as to the hottest new trends in the aftermarket.

Truth With Speedzzter is one of the invitees!

Covering SEMA is like taking a sip from a fire hose. Everywhere you turn, there's something new, different and hot. The SEMA Show also allows unprecidented access to industry leaders.

I'm heading back to the show floor. Check back here and at Bangshift.com more . . . .

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!

BANGSHIFT:"DOES HOLLYWOOD MISTREAT MUSCLECARS?"

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Truth with Speedzzter has been honored with another guest article at Bangshift.com:

"Speedzzter Says: Carnage or Classic, Does Hollywood Mistreat Muscle Cars?"

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.

SPEEDZZTER DISHES ON THE MUSTANG II AT BANGSHIFT

(Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Ever wonder about "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" Ford's controversial 1974-1978 Mustang II? Get "Truth With Speedzzter's" take at http://www.bangshift.com/blog/Mustang-II-The-Good-The-Bad-and-the-Ugly.html

SPEEDZZTER: NOW ON BANGSHIFT.COM!

(Get the Latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here)

Truth With Speedzzter is now providing "front page" content for Bangshift.com. Speedzzter's first article is entitled "The Top 11: Never Made Special Edition Ford Mustangs."

SPEEDZZTER ON THE RAY NICHOLS/EPA SUPERBIRD, MAYFIELD V. NASCAR, DON GARLITS, AND THE WAR AGAINST MUSCLE CARS

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Truth With Speedzzter (TWS) has been hanging out over at Bangshift where a number of interesting topics are under discussion.

1. The Three Million Dollar Ray Nichols / EPA Plymouth Superbird

TWS's take:

At one level, this doesn't really seem much more insane than the million dollars paid for the Ray Allen LS6 Malibu Convertible a couple of years ago at Barrett-Jackson by a "private collector" (who is now apparently having RM Auctions liquidate it and about 80 other race cars and hot rods at the Petersen Museum on September 26, 2009 (See http://www.rmauctions.com/PressRelease.cfm?PressID=668 or pay RM EIGHTY DOLLARS for a catalog (Talk about insane!)))

On the other hand, paying even six figures for any muscle car (not to mention THREE MILLION DOLLARS) probably represents a triumph of ego gratification over common sense. Still, it's good that some collectors are apparently motivated to pay the crazy money necessary to preserve many of these unique historical vehicles for future generations.

2. The Burnout Kid (Kid wrecks Dad's collector car after an epic burnout)

TWS's take:

I wonder if his friends got a picture of the smoke for Car Craft's "burnout" page?

3. Another Don Garlits comeback?

TWS's take:

Actually, although the NHRA does have more opportunities for "senior drivers" than virtually any other motorsport (because of the limited duration of the races and lessened physical demands on drivers), it's too bad that the promoters, manufacturers, and sanctioning bodies haven't figured out a way to develop viable "seniors tour" championships for drag, oval and road racing.

There are probably a lot of fans who'd still pay to see famous septuagenarians like Garlits still mixing it up on a regular basis (see e.g. the celebration of octogenarian Hershell McGriff's return to stock cars http://sports.yahoo.com/nascar/blog/from_the_marbles/post/81-year-old-NASCAR-driver-will-outdrive-you-punk?urn=nascar,171500)

And don't senior citizens need role models too?

4. Mayfield v. NASCAR (Why do so many people hate NASCAR?)

TWS's take:

There are several imbeded and overarching conflicts motivating the "fan boys" on both sides of the Mayfield controversy:

1. Monolithic dictatorship vs. the little guy (the following factors are motivating beliefs and concerns)

a. NASCAR's five decades of crushing those who don't "go along."
b. American individualism and the "underdog" preference.
c. Fear of "crossing" or criticizing NASCAR (see subpoint "a" above).
d. Widespread fear of getting caught up in a similar bureaucratic nightmare/SNAFU and not being able to defend against it.
e. Distrust of accumulations of power.

2. Angst over drug testing vs. worries over the effects of drug abuse on society.

a. Concern over loss of privacy to bureaucratic "War on Drugs" measures.
b. Concern about the "role model" effect of even minor celebrities such as Mayfield.
c. Concern that illegal drugs are making society more dangerous, more selfish, less productive, and less safe.
d. NASCAR's hypocrisy (sport built on the foundation of Southern bootleggers, moonshiners, and tobacco/alcohol money).

3. Hatred of NASCAR for ruining "stock car" racing vs. Unquestioned loyalty to "The Show."

4. "Old" NASCAR vs. "Modern" NASCAR. (i.e. The hope that anything that "brings down" the "Modern" NASCAR could help the return of what was good about the "Old" NASCAR)

5. Libertarianism vs. Support for law & order.

6. Rebellion vs. Conformity.

7. Distrust of NASCAR's objectivity and procedures vs. faith in NASCAR's bureaucracy.

For some, its just personal (e.g. they like Mayfield and/or don't like Brian France). There's also probably a lot of "tweakers" who simply wouldn't want Mayfield (if he's actually on meth) to suffer any punishment for doing the same thing they're doing.

TWS's second take:

["Every type of racing eventually gets ruined . . . ." -- Mopar57]

Racing gets ruined because the sanctioning bodies have not found any way to beat the "cycle."

1. Beginnings -- pioneers of the sport experiment in obscurity and set the basic parameters of the sport

2. Period of grassroots innovation (mostly sportsmen and innovators battling on their own money in front of a few locals or in obscurity. In retrospect, these are usually remembered as the "golden days" of the sport, notwithstanding the carnage that often results from "pushing the envelope" )

3. Emergence of commercial viability (stars, sponsors, professional teams, media attention, sanctioning body bureaucracy, basic rules and parameters take a set)

4. Dominance -- one or a few professionals start to "stink up the show" by "breaking out" to dominate all of the events (this is when the huge haulers and the super-teams emerge, often with factory backing)

5. Shakeout -- marginal teams get tired of getting slaughtered and the sportsmen move on; rules packages start to squelch grassroots innovation as a means to "level the playing field", marginal promoters/tracks ushered out by move to increased "professionalism" and higher event costs (appearance fees, sanctioning fees, prize money).

6. Crisis (some star gets hurt or killed, economic crisis, fad wears off, too many marginal teams leave the sport, older tracks close)

7. Protectionism -- rules are conformed to protect the monopoly of a few professional professional teams and their "stars" and the "loyal" tracks & promoters. Outsiders, grassroots dreamers and nonconformists are excluded.

8. Stagnation -- sport trapped in "feedback loop" of Stages 4-7 as new stars are groomed and older stars/teams are replaced. Mass media and savvy promoters may increase fan base for a while but the novelty often wears off. "OG" fans start becoming alienated as too many traditions are lost. Sanctioning body is focused on maximizing revenue and keeping the super-teams/stars happy.

9. Decline -- lack of innovation, barriers to grassroots entry, and too much stagnation starts killing the sport.

Just name a type of racing and I can show how this "cycle" has occurred.

TWS's third take:

Quote from: Brian Lohnes on July 28, 2009, 11:19:56 AM
"Swamp Buggies and LSR.

You're 100% right on your cycle for any truly popular form of racing though. The niche stuff can maintain it's purity as there is minimal commerical investment.

Money corrupts all."



That's what my boss says every time I ask for a raise . . . .

And if Diamond P's American Sports Cavalcade would have just covered the Swampers a little more (or Sumner Redstone not bought The Nashville Network from the Gaylord family and turned the TNN cable channel into "Spike") maybe even the buggies would have gotten past stage 3 . . . .

It also could be that nearly all forms of "clock racing" (e.g. autocross, LSR, hill climbs, and other non-side-by-side forms) are exceptions to the "cycle" because they never become commercially viable or have such diversity and decentralization that sportsmen never have to directly compete with the stars or the factories.

On the other hand, some fairly unpopular forms of racing (judging from the number of fans in the seats, the TV ratings, and the magazine ink) are definitely subject to the "cycle" (i.e. many forms of sports car racing; dirt oval track racing).

TWS's fourth take:

Quote from: Brian Lohnes on July 28, 2009, 04:31:16 PM
"Speed, my personal hero is EJ Potter. Not sure if you know of or about him, but if not google him up. A great empirical thinker and a truly neat guy.

Potter came up with an idea for what he saw as the perfect form of automotive competition a few years ago and it was published here. It's a neat read. Potter saw this form of competition as being immune from the corruption of purpose (hell I'm starting to sound like you) that big money brings to racing.

This is one of my favorite things to read every now and again. EJ's a very neat guy and I've had the pleasure of talking t to him several times.


Check it out...

Part 1 -- http://www.draglist.com/artman/publish/daily_stories/article_1030.shtml
Part 2 -- http://www.draglist.com/artman/publish/daily_stories/article_1031.shtml


Brian"

We've certainly drifted off-topic a bit . . . .

Yeah, I'm old enough to remember E.J. Potter and his crazy SBC Harley. He's a legend.

But his idea, of course, has been "corrupted" (i.e. Engine Masters Challenge http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/dynopulls/index.html)

Potter admits that much of the motivations for competitive hot rodding are "showing off" (excluding, of course, hot rodding's private gratification and entertainment effects -- to which Warren Oates's G.T.O. in "Two-Lane Blacktop" erroneously alleged -- without any actual experience -- that "Those satisfactions are permanent" (They're not, as the legion of "for sale" vehicles at any Goodguys or NSRA event or collector car auction can demonstrate))

"Showing off" requires somebody to watch and lawful venues for the contest. By eliminating uninvolved spectators and promoters/track owners as mostly superfluous, Potter's plan deprives hot rodders of much of the "fuel" and "air" for "showing off." Back before NASCAR, a couple of bootleggers racing their 'shine haulers on an improvised oval in pasture somewhere simply didn't stroke the egos of the "show offs" enough. Besides, racing, like most "masculine" competitions, really boils down to attracting girls and besting rivals for the "best" girls. Thus, "showing off" in relative obscurity doesn't really cut it.

Certainly You Tube and the internet allow for "virtual" spectators and clandestine (often illegal) locations. But a better solution would be for the development of public access "speed parks" that are not dependent upon the "big event/full grandstand/broadcast TV" model for financing.

Of course (back on topic) Mayfield is may soon learn about the dissatisfactory nature of having to "show off" in obscurity . . . .

5. New York Times says muscle cars are bad

TWS's take:

Quote from: Schtauffer on Today at 07:37:52 AM

"Someone from the city of New York writing an editorial about which cars everyone else should like-- that sounds like a vegan saying what kind of meat tastes good."

Do we really expect people who travel by taxi, "black car service" and subway to understand anything about motoring or motorsports or automotive freedom?

Global warming has taken on the elements of a quasi-religion in the toney echo-chambers of the elites. (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Global+warming+religion+First+World+urban+elites/1835847/story.html) The NYT editorial merely reflects what's being said in some of the exclusive coastal coctail circuits, where "climate change" assumptions are elements of "faith."

On the other hand, back in the '50s and '60s, the appliance motorists and the mainstream press were often campaigning against the "evils" of speed, racing, muscle cars and hot rods, so what's really new here?

Tom McCahill put it best in 1966, when somebody wrote into Mechanix Illustrated to ask why Detroit was downplaying horsepower and playing up cubic inch displacement. "Horsepower" was then the safety/environmental/Insurance lobby's whipping boy. Paraphrasing from memory, McCahill opined that even the next-to-dumbest kid on-the-block could make comparisons on basis of cubic inches, but that the dumbest kids were in the Senate and Detroit was hoping that they wouldn't be able to figure it out . . . .

And why should we be surprised that they're using 1980 as a benchmark. That's what the environmental bureaueaucrats and policymakers have been doing for a while now. (See http://speedzzter.blogspot.com/2007/04/epa-hack-back-to-dismal-70s-again.html ; http://speedzzter.blogspot.com/2007/07/pee-eewww-liberal-pew-campaign-spews.html ; http://speedzzter.blogspot.com/2008/04/whackos-click-and-clacks-tm-earth-day.html)

5. Formula One: Massa's injury and Renault's suspension

TWS's take:

A Brawn launches a part that nearly killed Massa (and most likely has ended his career) and no suspension, but Renault muffs a tire change, no one gets hurt, but Renault is suspended.

Logical?

On the other hand, the stewards claim that Renault knowingly released Alonso's car without the wheel nut retainer in place, and then didn't even tell him when he complained of tire trouble just before the wheel launched.

And the suspension was in the wake of the death of Henry Surtees, who was killed by a loose wheel while competing in a Formula Two event at Brands Hatch.

I also seem to remember somebody saying on the Fox/Speed broadcast that this was not the first time that Alonzo's Renault had a problem like this.

Any wonder why French cars aren't sold here anymore . . . .

7. Pending loss of "Old" GM and Chrysler archival documents

TWS's take:

Thousands of V8s lost to "Cash for Clunkers" and now this.

This sacking of MoTown's history is like watching the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.

These historic documents ought to be donated to an archive. If the Government owns them, then the Smithsonian seems a logical choice. Or maybe the LeMay or National Automobile Museum or AACA.

Some of these employees may actually be enthusiasts who will preserve the documents better than the factories would have, though.