EPA & DOT PLAN "CAFE" ATTACK ON THE ENGINES THAT POWER AMERICAN BUSINESS

By Cammie
The American economy is a disaster. Millions of Americans want more jobs and fewer Federal government intrusions. Regulations and red tape are choking American innovation. The EPA and DOT have already hammered the auto manufacturing sector with billions upon billions of unfunded mandates.

So what do the absolutely clueless Obama bureaucrats do now?

They want to drop a harsh round of Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards on the hardest working vehicles in our economy. The Obamamaniacs want to jack up prices on everything to make another sacrifice at the altar of "global warming" by establishing a first-ever CAFE standard on big trucks, buses and work vehicles.

This is absolutely the wrong move to make at a time when transportation industries are struggling and demand for heavy trucks, buses and work vehicles lags. It's a hidden regulatory tax on all of us.

Perhaps no sector of transportation is more market-based than medium and heavy trucks. If the market demands radical and expensive fuel-saving technologies, they will be produced to satisfy "bottom-line-sensitive" customers without any Federal intervention.

But the Obama whiz-kids seemingly hate market-based approaches to anything. Instead, they want extract ever more costs from what's left of American industry. They want to gamble with our economy in order to serve leftist canards like "climate change" (the new name for "global warming" considering that no warming has taken place for a decade).

CAFE is a failed approach. So it's not surprising that a pack of failures such as Obama's bureaucrats want to expand the failure to our most esssential transportation sector.

What a mess!

Remember to vote against the liberal Obama/Pelosi/Reid Democrat powermongers and their henchpersons (any Democrat and even some RINO Republicans ) in Congress on November 2!(see sidebar list of the free-spending, big government liberals who voted for "Cash for Clunkers" and vote against each and every one of them)

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WANTS "END OF THE WORLD" FOR V8 & HIGH-PERFORMANCE

By Cammie

Fox Business is reporting:

Passenger cars would have to achieve fuel efficiency of up to 62 miles a gallon by 2025 under an initiative the Obama administration is rolling out Friday in its newest push to control greenhouse-gas emissions.

As if the draconian 2016 35.5 m.p.g. CAFE wasn't bad enough. They've already jacked up the standard high enough to likely kill off high-performance V8 power for ordinary working folks. But 62 m.p.g. will kill off high-performance for everyone. Even the dangerous little rolling golf-cart cars will have to be neutered to pull that kind of average.

This is the kind of wimp cars that Obama apparently wants to force us into:

I'm counting the days until these power-mad, freedom-hating chumps are thrown out of office! Too bad Rahm can't take'em all back to "sweet home Chicago."

WASHINGTON’S NEW WAR OVER FUEL ECONOMY

By Cammie (the SANE, CHASTE, AND SOBER LIFTER SISTER)

(I’m taking the high road by ignoring Hydra’s cheap shots from yesterday. There’s more important things to discuss. Such as what Speedzzter would have called another “attack on our automotive liberty.”)

Apparently none of our elected officials or the overpaid executives in the boardrooms of the major auto makers trust in the free-market. Instead they want big government to tell us what we can drive with “draconian” fuel economy regulations, such as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (C.A.F.E.) standards and harsh limits on “carbon emissions” (that evil stuff that all of us exhale).

President Obama, having trashed the U.S. health care system and vandalized what's left of our financial sector, now wants to move on to wrecking our national energy policy on the false altar of "global warming." Not content with the awful burden of 35 m.p.g. C.A.F.E. in 2016, the OEMs and the freedom-hating pols are gearing up for another round of telling us what we can drive and how we can fuel it.

Here’s a quick and dirty summary of what the free market-haters propose (based on a report from the “inside Congress” reporting of “The Hill” (given what fecal matter usually comes out of Washington D.C. these days, perhaps it should be renamed “The DUNG Hill”)

1. THE DETROIT APPROACH: Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) reportedly have been asked by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers to push for a low-carbon requirement for fuels. This, of course, would drive up the price of automotive fuels and is an unfunded mandate on the oil companies, instead of more fuel efficiency requirements on the automakers.

Stabenow and Levin have also been asked to "codify federal authority to enact fuel efficiency standards beyond the existing authority that runs out in 2017" (READ: More rounds of market-distorting C.A.F.E. standards; more peanut-sized, low-performance cars) and to provide federal handouts to car makers for “advanced vehicle technologies” that the marketplace doesn’t support (if drivers wanted them, they wouldn't require any government subsidies).

2. THE ANTI-DETROIT COUNTER-ATTACK: The Consumer Energy Alliance — which includes the five biggest U.S. oil companies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, major airlines represented by the Air Transport Association and manufacturing and other big energy users – argues that imposing carbon restrictions on the industry is "too much" on top of current unfunded renewable fuel mandates. They’re going to spend a million dollars to sway public opinion against Detroit's “low-carbon” fuel plan.

3. THE SMASHMOUTH C.A.F.E. APPROACH: Liberal Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) [all worthless, liberty-grabbing chumps that should be shown the door ASAP] want to force the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation to use “existing authority” to jack up automotive fuel economy standards between 6 to 7 miles per gallon annually from 2017 to 2030.

(Enter the "Shelby GT 105," and "Corvette Z03" . . . each FWD micro-machines, powered by 1000cc 3-cylinder electric hybrid drivetrains . . . Yawn, Zzzzzz)

They say it will maximize “oil savings and greenhouse gas emission reductions.” I say it will destroy thousands of lives lost in highway crashes and demolish what little is left of automotive free choice in America. Sports cars and muscle cars as we know them would be legislated out of existence. An endless future of deadly, low-performance, boring micro-mini wheezeboxes would be assured.

4. THE REPUBLICAN-IN-NAME-ONLY C.A.F.E. APPROACH: RINO Sens. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) [three more worthless chumps that should be turned out of office, PRONTO] want more 4 percent annual increases in fuel economy standards and new fuel economy requirements standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks starting in 2017.

All of these “options” are HORRIBLE for those of us who value unfettered high-performance motoring. Whatever happened to “let the market decide?” Whatever happened to freedom in America? What a mess!

THE FORD IN SHORTEST SUPPLY IS LINCOLN'S TOWN CAR

By Cammie.

According to Forbes.com America's Hardest-to-Get Ford is a Panther on death row: Lincoln's RWD Town Car The average day supply of Town Cars in inventory is 26.

While I find it hard to believe that the Town Car is in shorter supply than SVT's Raptor and Shelby GT500, I'm not surprised that there's still life left in the last of the "real" Lincolns. To many, there is simply no substitute for a properly-refined, anvil-tough RWD, body-on-frame (BOF) vehicle. Lincoln Town Car has long been the preferred vehicle for the urban "black car" commercial trade, as well as the only choice for fans of traditional "American" luxury cars.

Alan Mulally and Billy Ford's CAFE-driven "green" makeover of Ford has been hard to take for lovers of traditional cars. Mulally and Ford have denied Lincoln's "Townie" any advertising. They've refused to offer Marauder DOHC or Coyote engines. They've kept the same styling for what seems like eons. And after starving it, they've slated it for extinction.

Ford seems to have learned nothing from GM's mid-1980s debacle. Back in the Reagan years, GM decided to kill off almost all of its RWD BOF cruisers in search of profits and CAFE efficiencies. This myopic mistake drove thousands of customers to Lincoln-Mercury.

Ford's mismanagement of the Panther is soon to pay analogous dividends. The irony is that the Volvo-derived six-cylinder D3s that are replacing the storied Panther really don't yield much better economy or performance than could be achieved with a properly set-up RWD BOF. The Taurus-derived replacements are too heavy, too complex, and much more diffcult to repair. Even as RWD remains the preferred standard in the luxury class and among many fleet buyers, Ford is moving head-over-heels away from it. That's just stupid.

The last of the "real" V8 Lincolns is in short supply. Get one while you still can.

WHERE IS SPEEDZZTER? REQUIEM FOR A FOMOCO BLOGGER

By Cammie of the Lifter Sisterz

Some of you may be expecting to see another commentary on Ford Motor Company by Speedzzter in this space.

So was I.

Yet weeks went by without anything new from Speedzzter. Even Speedy’s occasional gig over at Bangshift.com has fallen silent.

I wondered why. So in a few moments when I wasn’t covering for or trying to find my goldbricking sister, I decided to look into Speedzzter’s mysterious disappearance.

I ended up with Speedy “pitching me the keys” (so to speak) to this site. I watched Speedy’s V8 Mercury roar off into the West. The last thing Speedy mumbled was something about writing a proper sequel to “Two-Lane Blacktop.”

I don’t really know why Speedy quit. Maybe Speedy realized the meaninglessness of vanity blogging. Maybe Speedy realized that Ford’s “Glass House Gang” could care less about what old V8/RWD-loving hot rodders wanted. Most likely, Speedy just gave up on the future.

So how did it all begin?

Best I can tell, Speedy started musing on the internet about automotive topics on Car Craft’s massive “So were not rich but we arent stupid” [sic] message board thread. That thread was mostly about “politically incorrect” grassroots turbocharging of big V8 engines.

In actually, Speedy was one of several “personas” written by the same person on the CC Board. Speedy once explained all of this to CC’s head honcho Douglas Glad a couple of years ago:

[David] Freiburger triggered "our" "turbo-project-in-CC" campaign when he quipped in his first editorial as CC's Editor-in-Chief that "turbos were for diesels." I read that closed-minded slam in the mid 1990s as [a] cash-strapped . . . student who couldn't even afford a set of spark plugs, much less the V8 turbo project I'd been studying, engineering, and planning since high school.
When the CC forum started in 2003, . . . I still didn't have the time, place, or financial resources to build that V8 turbo.

Writing on the forum became a way to escape . . . stress, drudgery, and disappointment . . . . At times, it was a Walter Mitty-esqe exercise in "playing" a hot rod journalist.

At some point, various on-line "personas" developed to add divergent voices and perspectives . . . to spice up the discussions and potentially make them more entertaining (and to make bumping the "were not rich" thread less repetitive):

--Turbo Ted -- the sarcastic humorist with a reserve of technical knowledge about turbocharging;

--MrFoMoCo -- the old-fashioned brand advocate (based on growing up in the 1960s brand rivalries and my . . . experience as a . . . parts counterman/tire salesman)

--Chevysxz -- a failed experiment with urbanized hip-hop-based dialogue and extreme anti-Chevy partisanship based in imaginary street racer trash talk.

--Speedzzter -- the voice of legislative concerns and warning of the impending end of the Second Supercar Era (based on the horrible, pretentious "Truth With Speedzzter" blog).

I came to enjoy writing some of these characters as much as many novelists enjoy writing various "voices" in works of fiction. When I'd sit down to post, I often wondered which character might best voice a thought I'd had. . . .

Perhaps this has all been nothing more than "talking to . . . [my]self" in a series of vanity posts, but I suspect that many other readers have been entertained and, perhaps, even informed by these characters. After all, the "Were not rich" thread has more than 50,000 hits (and they couldn't all be from my IP address).

And after all these years, I still haven't gotten that turbo big block project much past the design phase. Too few resources, too little time.

A Google search shows that Speedy was also a sometimes prolific commentator on other blogs and news sites. Mostly, Speedy’s comments were about politics, religion or automobiles. That’s a much broader range of interests than I expected to find. In fact, the earliest posts on this blog from 2005 are about confirmation of a U.S. Supreme Court justice (a subject Speedy’s been surprisingly silent about this time around).

But Speedy’s wheelhouse during the past five years was mostly occupied by commentary on Ford Motor Company. It is obvious that Speedy loved FoMoCo. But Speedy didn’t shrink from criticizing Ford’s mistakes (see sidebar). Speedy blogged with the naive and pretentious hope that Ford would learn something from its storied past. Speedy was an unabashed advocate of motorsports, rear wheel drive and V8 power.

In a world where more than half of American consumers buy imports and believe that Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards should be raised to more than 50 miles per gallon, Speedy was clearly an anachronism.

Speedy was a nostalgic throwback to a distant era of American industrial hegemony – a time when ordinary blue-collar workers could realistically expect to move up into the middle class and to buy on credit powerful V8 Fords with supercar acceleration . . . a time when average Americans fixed their own cars in their driveways and even bolted on speed equipment . . . a time when people actually cared who won the Indianapolis 500 . . . a time when there was some “stock” left in “stock cars” . . . a time when “real men” shifted manual transmissions and even wore neckties. And it was a time when Ford’s “Total Performance” factory racing program dominated everything it touched.

That America is apparently dead.

Next year, the only V8 Ford car left will be Mustang. And with 35+ M.P.G. C.A.F.E. on the near horizon, the Coyote may be an endangered species.

Next year, Ford will offer no RWD sedans or traditional full-framed passenger cars.

There will be no manual transmissions in Ford’s 2011 Super Duty. And Ford’s lone V8-strength manual transmission is reportedly assembled in Communist China.

New Fords are increasingly “tamper resistant.” and working on them is mostly beyond the skill set of weekend home mechanics.

Ford cannot seem to buy a win in the non-stock, common-template abortion that NASCAR has become. Ford continues its lengthy absence from Formula One and Indianapolis. Before too long, the Glass House Greeniacs and bean counters will likely plunge Ford back into the post November 1970 “dark ages” of factory motorsports abandonment.

And now the gigabite-wasting, text-messaging, Twittering, know-it-all “Autoblog experts” say that Mercury must go the way of Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Plymouth.

It’s not that Speedy left FoMoCo. FoMoCo (and America) left Speedy.

And now it seems that after 489 posts Speedy’s left blogging.

I’m not sure what Hydra and I are going to do with this blog. Well, actually I’m sure that Hydra probably won’t do much of anything. But I suppose there probably still some bandwidth out there for commentary on Ford and the declining state of America’s automotive liberty.

Godspeed, Speedzzter.

HOW TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER "CELEBRATES" MICHAEL MOORE’S 56TH BIRTHDAY
(Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here)
Massive millionaire socialist propaganda film maker Michael Moore is 56 years old today. Moore shot to infame and liberal superstardom through his sophomoric 1989 "mockumentary" "Roger & Me."

"Roger & Me" attacks General Motors plant closings Smith’s hometown of Flint, Michigan, mostly through selectively documenting Moore's ridiculous, self-promoting efforts to interview GM head honcho Roger Smith on camera.

But the film ignores most of the real structural problems at the heart of Detroit’s problems in the 1980s. Detroit was hammered by huge unfunded mandates from Washington, D.C. 1930s labor laws allowed unions to score vastly above-market compensation and benefits in "pattern bargaining" extortion, as well as hugely expensive work rules (none of which the foreign invader "transplant" assembly plants had to bear). Inflation and interest rate problems in the late 1970s and early 1980s demanded Detroit to slash costs, which ultimately hurt product quality. Unfair trade policies allowed Asian automakers to protect their home markets and dump exports in the U.S.A.

In short, Smith’s analytical skills are superficial at best. Yet he used "Roger & Me" as a springboard for a highly lucrative career shilling for extreme leftist "social justice" causes (redistribution of wealth, reductions in personal liberty, abdication of personal responsibility) in slick, sometimes witty propaganda films. He is a slouchy, plus-sized Leni Riefenstahl of the left. Only in America . . . .

So in denigration of Mr. Moore’s 56th birthday, Truth With Speedzzter looked for a video that might be the polar opposite (at least in an automotive sense) of the barren, central-government-controlled World Moore apparently pines for:

WAR ON V8s: 37.8 M.P.G. CAFE AVERAGE FOR CARS BY 2016.

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

It's official -- The dreaded EPA/NHTSA "Clean Car" regulations are geared to punish automotive freedom-of-choice by cramming down a draconian 37.8 miles-per-gallon fuel economy average by 2016. This will likely relegate V8 power to only a handful of hyper-expensive exotics and artificially-limited production muscle cars in less than four years time.

Blue-collar gearheads can kiss their chance at reasonably-priced V8 muscle goodby. Thanks, Mr. Obama. And thanks to the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court, who misread the Clean Air Act in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, bought into a compost heap of junk science, and made this greeniac power grab possible.

According to the Detroit News, the bloated 1,469-page "final regulation" from EPA and NHTSA will extract a massive $51.5 billion extra over five years from new car buyers (assuming the cost estimates are better than what the Feds guessed for programs like Medicaid and Medicare). The "Clean Cars" market-tampering regulations will punish consumers an average of around $1000 per car by 2016 (before financing charges).

Of course the problem with averages is that bringing high-performance models within the 37.8 m.p.g. average will cost much more than $1000 per car. Get ready for $40,000+ Mustang GTs (if they survive in any recognizable form at all)

A 100,000 car cumulative loophole exists for makes that sold fewer than 400,000 vehicles in the States during 2009. So while American cars are immasculated on the altar of fuel economy, German and Italian luxury brands will be able to avoid some of the pain (but take more profits from their high-performance customers as their competitors' prices are forced upward).

Even the E-85 loophole, which has been a boon for keeping V8s in production by diluting their impact on CAFE, will close in 2015 unless the OEMs can show the vehicles are really being operated on ethanol.

The big automakers, who are all poised to punish their most loyal customers with huge jumps in the prices of "limited edition" high-performancee vehicles, all praised this fiasco through paid super-lobbyist Dave McCurdy. McCurdy said:

"America needs a roadmap to reduced dependence on foreign oil and greenhouse gases, and only the federal government can play this role . . . The national program announced today makes sense for consumers, for government policymakers and for automakers."

No, Dave. What America needs is FREE MARKETS, not thousands of pages of expensive, liberty-killing regulations.

Of course, the reason highly-paid appliance motorist shills like Democrat Dave McCurdy are so gleeful at the prospect of forcing Americans into expensive, less-safe economy cars is that the apparent alternative -- states following California's proposed greenhouse gas rules -- was even worse.

Of course the 2012-2016 "Clean Car" rules are just a start. Obama-appointed DOT Secretary Ray LaHood chirpped that "post 2016 work will begin as soon as the ink is dry."

Make no mistake, the radical greeniacs driving this bus will not be satisfied until muscle cars are banished, automotive liberty is stamped out, and everyone is stuffed into smelly public transit or tiny, sealed-for-your-protection, tamper-proof 50+ m.p.g. electric golf carts.

It's apt that the "Clean Car" regulations were announced on April Fools Day. Because only a fool would believe that this is the best course for automotive liberty.

WAR ON V8s: V6 FOR THE “C8” CORVETTE?

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

Autoweek is reporting a “senior GM insider” said the upcoming C7 Corvette “will be the last of the traditional, old-style Corvettes." According to the report, the C8, due in 2016, will feature a turbocharged V6 instead of a V8.

Of course the main driver of the move against V8 power is the EPA/NHTSA carbon regulations set to be announced April 1, 2010. The so-called “Clean Cars” rule “would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. The new rules would require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile." That dovetails with the 35.5 miles per gallon Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard for 2016.

Downsized engines are a primary means of meeting the carbon standards because they can be made more efficient in part-throttle driving.

While some Ford fans may hope that “Government Motors” fatally tampers with the Corvette franchise, loss of the antediluvian pushrod LS V8 in Corvette will give Ford product planners some cover to dump V8s as well. Already, Ford’s lazy sales job on the EcoBoost V6 puts Ford’s V8 tradition at risk. Instead of developing smaller high-tech V8s, Ford and the other Detroit carmakers appear to be taking the easy way out by merely trimming cylinders to cut displacement. A right-sized V8 with a full array of efficiency technologies can meet the unreasonable and unfounded demands for fewer “greenhouse gas” emissions while preserving the traditional essence of full-throttled V8 motoring.

Although Corvette labored its first couple of sales seasons with the “Blue Flame Six” in the 1950s, a Corvette simply isn’t a Corvette without eight cylinders. No "buzzin' half dozen" will do.

1000 LAPS AT BRISTOL IN A 2011 V6 MUSTANG?

(Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here)

One of the few nuggets among the FoMoCo rubble of last weekend’s NASCAR debacle at Bristol was Ford’s successful promotion of the “Mustang 1000-Lap Challenge.” On June 23, 2010, a select group of FoMoCo insiders and celebrities will attempt to drive a 2011 Mustang V6 at least 1000 times around the high-banked half mile Bristol Motor Speedway on a single 16-gallon tank of unleaded gasoline. Ford lovers who are eager to win a new 2011 Mustang can guess how many laps the E.P.A.-rated 31 m.p.g. Mustang will actually make at www.Mustang1000lapChallenge.com.

Here’s part of Ford’s press release about the Mustang 1000-Lap Challenge:

One year after the Ford Fusion Hybrid, America’s most fuel-efficient mid-sized sedan, successfully eclipsed 1,000 miles on a single tank of gas, Ford will put its new 2011 Mustang V-6 on a similar quest as it attempts to run 1,000 laps on a single tank of gas at Bristol Motor Speedway on June 23 . . . .

A team of Ford engineers and celebrities will attempt to prove Mustang’s ranking as the most fuel-efficient pony car to date by circling the half-mile NASCAR bullring at least 1,000 times – more than 500 miles – and highlight the 3.7L V-6 model’s best-in-class 31 mpg.

“We all know how much fun it is to drive Mustang, but in today’s market it’s also about fuel economy,” said Jamie Allison, director, Ford North America Motorsports. “By going 1,000 laps or more on one of NASCAR’s most popular tracks, we expect to show that when it comes to Mustang, you can be mean and green.”

The Mustang 1,000-Lap Challenge will begin the morning of Wednesday, June 23 with a team of Ford test drivers continuously circling the track billed as “the world’s fastest half-mile” until the vehicle runs out of fuel with a goal of surpassing 1,000-lap mark.

“To go at least 1,000 laps at Bristol means we’ll be going twice as far as the NASCAR drivers do during their races, and we’ll be doing it without a pit stop," said Fritz Wilke, Mustang Brand Manager.

The V-6 Mustang will be no stranger to Bristol by then, having been selected to serve as pace car for this weekend’s Food City 500 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series event.

This event is a follow-up to last year’s challenge in which Ford NASCAR driver Carl Edwards participated in driving the 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid a total of 1,445 miles (an average of 81.5 mpg) on a single tank of gas around Washington, D.C.

1000 LAP MATH:

1000 laps (500 miles) at 31 m.p.g. will consume 16.12903226 gallons of fuel. Of course, given Bristol’s configuration and the embarrassment that would result in running fewer than 1000 laps, expect the actual m.p.g. and lap count to be considerably higher.

The E.P.A. highway fuel economy test lasts 765 seconds, with an average speed of 48.3 m.p.h. and an top speed of approximately 60 m.p.h. The E.P.A. highway cycle features more than a half-dozen speed changes that are partial or full acceleration events. The E.P.A. Highway test is also supplemented with an abbreviated "high speed" test of 596 seconds with an average speed of 48.37 m.p.h. and a top speed of 80 m.p.h.

While no reports yet suggest how fast the 1000 Lap Challenge Mustang will circulate Bristol, expect it to be at a steady pace of less than 50 m.p.h. in order to limit aerodynamic effects and fuel waste on acceleration. Moreover, the engineers might dig into the bag of driving tricks from the fuel economy runs of the 1950s and 1960s, or the “hypermilers” of today, by devising a plan for coasting on Bristol’s steep banking. Most likely, the engineers will specify a speed that keeps the car just barely in sixth gear for most of the Challenge.

Given that Ford extracted almost double the E.P.A. estimates for the hybrid Fusion in the last Challenge, do not be surprised if the Challenge Mustang makes in excess of 1200 circuits around Bristol (37.5 m.p.g.).

Although Truth With Speedzzter could get a lot more excited about a variable displacement DOHC V8 in the sub-4.0 liter size range instead of a “buzzin’” six, given the sales volumes necessary to sustain production of the RWD Mustang, it is important for the “economy ‘Stang” to be successful. The 1000 Lap Challenge ought to help get that message out.

However, the 1000 Lap Challenge should be seen as nothing more than publicity for an interim step. Meeting the 35.5 m.p.g. Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard in 2016 will likely require even more gas-sipping wizardry from Mustang’s engineers, such as start-stop or electric hybrid assist, further engine downsizing (hopefully with a traditional eight cylinders), and high-boost turbocharging combined with Ethanol Boosting Systems direct Ethanol injection system (Code Name: Bobcat).

305 HORSEPOWER 2011 MUSTANG V6 AUTOMATIC SIPS 31 M.P.G. (HIGHWAY)!

(Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here)

By 2016, the looming specter of the 35.5 m.p.g. Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard will force cars to average more than 40 m.p.g. (to offset the thirsty light truck component). Thus, we are likely in the twilight of the current high-performance era.

But making the transition to EPA/NHTSA/CARB wimpmobiles a little easer is the current generation of 300+ horsepower RWD pony cars. And Ford's brilliant, new 2011 Mustang is now the leader of the pack on fuel economy. Mustang's new 3.7 liter, 305 horsepower DOHC V6, when equipped with a six-speed automatic, churns out an amazing 31 m.p.g. in the EPA highway test cycle. The sporty six-speed manual gets only one m.p.g. less (a worthwhile trade off).

It's still a long way from what will likely be required to meet the 2016 CAFE requirements. But the 2011 Mustang does not use any intrusive economy technology, such as start-stop or full hybrid electric drive.

Still whipping the portly Camaro at the pump is sweet. And it will go a long way to offsetting the impact of the V8 Mustangs we want on the CAFE average. WELL DONE, FORD!

Here's FoMoCo's official announcement:

DEARBORN, Mich., March 4, 2010 – The 2011 Ford Mustang today breaks new ground, cracking the record books as not only the most fuel-efficient Mustang ever, but also the first production car in history to produce more than 300 horsepower and more than 30 mpg highway.

The Mustang's official EPA ratings – completed this week – certify that models equipped with the 305-hp 3.7-liter V-6 and available six-speed automatic transmission achieve 31 mpg on the highway and 19 mpg in the city. The standard six-speed manual transmission is rated at 30 mpg on the highway and 19 mpg in the city.

Mustang is powered by a lightweight, all-aluminum 3.7-liter dual-overhead-cam (DOHC) V-6 engine that uses advanced engineering to deliver its combination of power and economy. Twin Independent Variable Camshaft Timing (Ti-VCT) adjusts the valvetrain in microseconds depending on driver inputs, further contributing to the engine's overall efficiency.

The fact that Mustang achieves its top fuel economy rating with the convenience of an automatic transmission also marks a shift in conventional wisdom. Ford engineered a modern six-speed automatic transmission with carefully calibrated gear ratios and shift programs to maximize economy, while still delivering high-horsepower driving fun.

"Advanced powertrains like our Ti-VCT V-6 and six-speed automatic really speak to the future of Mustang," says Barb Samardzich, Ford vice president of Global Powertrain Engineering. "We've proven that, using technology, Ford can deliver both power and fuel economy."

In addition to engine improvements, upgrades to Mustang's body, powertrain and chassis design contribute to the higher fuel economy numbers for 2011. Examples include:
New Electric Power Assist Steering (EPAS) system eliminates the drag of an engine-operated hydraulic power steering pump
Six-speed manual and automatic transmissions allow lower cruising revs without sacrificing off-the-line performance
Aerodynamic changes include improvements like a new front fascia, tire spats on the rear wheels, modified underbody shields, a taller air dam and an added rear decklid seal

The new 2011 Mustang already has more than 11,000 orders. Half of all the nationwide orders are for the car's fuel-efficient 3.7-liter V-6 engine. The 2011 Mustangs are also being equipped with record levels of technology, giving customers the option of choosing navigation, high-intensity discharge (HID) headlamps and rearview cameras.

The new 2011 Mustang goes on sale this spring and will be built at the AutoAlliance International Plant in Flat Rock, Mich.

PROOF POSITIVE CLARENCE DITLOW IS EITHER A SOPHIST OR AN IDIOT

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Ralph Nader disciple Clarence Ditlow has long been a controversial figure in the automotive world. As head honcho of the hyper-regulatory activist group Center for Auto Safety (CAS), Ditlow has frequently turned his Naderesque fire on the Detroit 3. The CAS list of causes célèbre often reads like a contingency-fee trial lawyer pirates' wish list. (Plaintiffs trial lawyer shakedown artists often champion scores of regulations to bootstrap questionable negligence and products liability claims)

Now Ditlow wants General Motors and Chrysler to just "roll over" to the extreme, radical demands of the pirate lawyers and other liberals who want to regulate every aspect of motoring and vehicle production under the guise of "safety."

Given the government's ownership, the lobbyists are in essence working for the government," said Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, a consumer group. "The government ought to be able to tell them, 'Do what we say because we are you.'"

This evidences either empty sophistry or a profound lack of understanding as to how government actually works. Even if "Government Motors" and "Fix It Again Tony Chrysler" were cabinet-level government agencies (and not just captives to the Obama-UAW-sponsored bailout madness) they would be urging the other components of government to formulate policies meeting their mutual interests (anyone who has ever spent any time around government at any level realizes this fact of intra-governmental "lobbying.").

Is it reasonable to for policy makers to make decisions without the input of those who will be affected? Clarence Ditlow apparently thinks so.

The fact that GM and Chrysler will still be required to have registered lobbyists adds a level of transparency to something that would inevitably occur.

As one lobbyist wrote:

Before we start casting stones, however, consider for a minute that the vast majority of these lobbyists are working on issues that you might actually care about! For example, are you a member of AARP? Do you contribute to the Sierra Club? Do you own a car and have an AAA membership? All of these organizations use funds from their members to hire "lobbyists" in Washington, DC. In fact, you, yes you, might actually be acting as a lobbyist in your daily life. Have you ever called up a city agency to express the need for a stop sign in your neighborhood? Have you signed on to a petition or letter from a professional organization that was then sent to elected officials at the state or federal level? That's lobbying, my friend, pure and simple

.

Perhaps in Ditlow's world, banning GM and Chrysler from any lobbying would lead to more hasty, anti-free market, bad deals, such as the Obama Administration's sudden hike in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirements (Which Jim DeMint attibutes to the Detroit 3 being reduced to "pawns," even without Ditlow's dream of a lobbying ban).

Or perhaps Ditlow and CAS just want the liberal Naderites and the GreeNazis to have completely unfettered control over the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Moreover, he likely does not want anyone at GM or Chrysler lobbying Congress to reign in the abuses of the Obama Administration. Perhaps CAS believes that getting rid of input from the experts at GM and Chrysler will make the road to government-approved Obamamobiles smoother.

Regardless, Ditlow's demand for no lobbying is classic overreaching.

But the real problem isn't lobbyists, but rather the NEED for lobbyists. Ford Motor Company CEO Alan Mulally candidly observes that "We've become so stymied with regulation" . . . . "We have to say enough is enough and get back to freeing people up."

Daniel J. Mitchell also put it succinctly back in 2004:

The real problem is that government is too big and has too much power -- and this attracts lobbyists for the same reason that rotten meat attracts flies.

In other words, lobbyists exist because many people cannot resist the temptation to try to redistribute resources in their direction -- while others seek representation because they don’t want to be the chumps footing the bill. . . . And don’t forget federal regulations. Rules and red tape cost the economy about $850 billion annually [in 2004]. Does anyone really think it odd that this costly regulatory maze encourages lobbying?

To paraphrase Professor Wigmore, the adversarial system is the greatest engine ever invented for the discovery of truth. Yet, if taken at face value, Clarence Ditlow apparently wants no debate and no opposition from those whom his comrades are seeking to regulate.

This view is either highly naive or completely disingenuous. Even fellow Naderite Joan Claybrook can't agree with Ditlow: "I do believe in the First Amendment and speaking your mind . . . If they don't have lobbyists expressing their point of view, who does it?"

OBAMA'S CAFE HIKE AND CA$H FOR CLUNKER$ DOOMS SUVS

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

To most enthusiast motorists, sport utility vehicles are either a nuisance or a necessary evil. Typically, SUVs are rolling chicanes or road blocks for sporting pony car drivers. They've often been the transportation "appliance" of choice by many marginal motorists who value size and perceived safety over handling, acceleration,and fuel economy.

A few SUV drivers are serious off-roading enthusiasts.

Other enthusiasts tolerate SUVs for their practicality. Since Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards killed the large station wagon, SUVs have been the most popular replacement for drivers who need to haul large quantities of people and things without the mind-numbing boredom of a minivan. And SUVs have been placed into service towing boats, race cars, and recreational trailers, which are tasks the current crop of FWD vehicles are not equipped to perform.

Many hot rodders and grassroots motorsportsmen have viewed aging SUVs as donor vehicles for V8-based RWD projects.

But now SUVs are under a winnowing attack. Used SUVs at the bottom of the market stand to be decimated by the welfare/bailout plan known as "Cash for Clunkers." And President Obama's massive acceleration of hikes in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards will likely choke off new supplies of affordable and mid-market SUVs.

Industry observers warn it will be difficult to keep crossovers such as Equinox — never mind traditional SUVs — in the line-up as the result of the Obama administration’s recent move to raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard to 35.5 mpg by 2016.

Further downsizing may be essential, which could drive full-size SUVs like the Ford Expedition, Mercedes GL and Cadillac Escalade off the road entirely. Already, a number of manufacturers have begun paring back SUV projects.

Future SUV sales will compete with high-performance car sales under the new CAFE rules. This stands to drive up the sticker price of each.

And while expensive hybrid, turbo-diesel and exotic lightweight materials technology will keep some of the high-end SUVs on the road (in downsized form, no doubt), many in the middle class will be effectively "priced out" of the SUV market.

Certainly as some of these fuel-saving technologies are applied, they may "trickle down" to V8 RWD performance cars through the aftermarket, if not through the OEMs. But whether the volume of OEM production will be sufficient to reduce the costs of the "trickle down" technologies remains to be seen.

As it is now, only GM's rare and expensive hybrid Tahoe-class SUVs contain any electric hybrid technology that appears adaptable to traditional RWD muscle cars and street rods.

Ford's more conservative approach to SUVs has produced little technology for "trickle down" to muscle car retrofits. Ford's parsimony and short-sightedness stands to put Ford-loyal performance car builders at a huge disadvantage if future fuel price/taxation costs trigger electric hybridization of muscle cars and street rods, or the torque-boosting "electric nitrous" concept catches fire.

Unfortunately, the current sales depression and bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler mean that the pipeline of quality late-model used SUVs will be less-than-full as supplies of new SUVs escalate in price.

In short, artificial market restrictions championed by President Obama and his radical green special interest constituency will dramatically increase the "buy in" cost for SUVs and constrict their supplies in the future. This stands also to restrict developments in the performance aftermarket, as well as putting a crimp in our freedom of mobility.

Now that's "change" we'll all have to pay for.

"Some future!"

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."

OBAMA'S ROSE GARDEN CAFE STEAMROLLER

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

The Wall Street Jounnal wonders aloud about the coalition behind the Obamanator-Governator-EnviroNazi "deal" on the 2012-2016 Corporate Average Fuel Economy hike in an editorial entitled "Car Crazy." Of particular interest to Ford fans is the following observation:

Ford and the other foreign-owned auto makers, which will have to raise private capital to make changes that U.S. taxpayers will fund at Chrysler and GM, no doubt want to maintain their political viability by not standing athwart this regulatory steamroller.

We wish these folks luck "working together" with the Obama auto-design team. One thing seems certain by 2016: Taxpayers will be paying Detroit to make the cars Americans don't want, and then they will pay again either through (trust us) a gas tax or with a purchase subsidy. Even the French must think we're nuts.

This will doubly apply if FoMoCo is forced to dilute the Mustang (e.g. no V8, no RWD) in sacrifice to Obama and environuts' false gods of "climate change."

On the other hand, given Billy Ford's shilling for draconian federal fuel taxes and anti-collector "Ca$h for Clunker$" bailout money, Truth With Speedzzter wonders whether FoMoCo's emerging business plan is predicated upon becoming part of what Bjorn Lomborg describes as a "climate-industrial" complex:

Some business leaders are cozying up with politicians and scientists to demand swift, drastic action on global warming. This is a new twist on a very old practice: companies using public policy to line their own pockets.

The tight relationship between the groups echoes the relationship among weapons makers, researchers and the U.S. military during the Cold War. President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned about the might of the "military-industrial complex," cautioning that "the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." He worried that "there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties."

This is certainly true of climate change. We are told that very expensive carbon regulations are the only way to respond to global warming, despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test. We must ask whether a "climate-industrial complex" is emerging, pressing taxpayers to fork over money to please those who stand to gain.

Whether Ford is avoiding being steamrollered or whether caving into the climate change madness is a strategy calculated to enrich Ford by driving up vehicle margins remains to be seen. But either way, the Rose Garden Steamroller flattened grassroots automotive interests.

42 M.P.G. CAFE AND THE FUTURE OBAMA-ENVIRONAZI BODY COUNT

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Dreamkilling Barack Obama may have conducted his propaganda photo op announcing the death of automotive liberty in America in the White House Rose Garden, but it's a different kind of flower that will proliferate under the 42 M.P.G. automobile Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard: FUNERAL FLOWERS.

USA Today, which is hardly a reliable bastion of automotive liberty or conservatism, has a "day after" story on the grave safety concerns of the fast track to micro-cars that is sure to result from the Obamanator-Governator-EnviroNazi "deal" to jack up fuel economy to Prius levels by 2016:

The National Academy of Sciences, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Congressional Budget Office and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have separately concluded in multiple studies dating back about 20 years that fuel-economy standards force automakers to build more small cars, which has led to thousands more deaths in crashes annually. Even though the standards were updated in recent years to reduce the incentive for automakers to sell more small cars by allowing different fuel-economy targets for different vehicles, the fastest way to make cars more fuel-efficient is to make them smaller.

Some safety experts worry that the administration's green focus could reverse progress made in reducing the highway death toll. The fatality rate in car crashes reached its lowest ever in 2007 and is projected to drop even lower for 2008 — to 1.28 deaths per 100 million miles traveled.

Of course, it doesn't take a Harvard-trained physicist to figure out that: (a) weight and fuel economy are inextricably linked; and (b) smaller and lighter loses out every time to bigger and heavier. The pre-Obama CAFE was a proven killer. Now the Obamanator and the governator have just made it even worse.

However, the mere mention of hiked fuel economy standards and more "hamburger on the highway" was enough to cause the granola-eating, all-natural-fiber high priests of the environmental left to kowtow Obama into sacking his initial NHTSA nominee.

President Obama this month withdrew the name of his nominee to lead the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, longtime safety advocate Charles "Chuck" Hurley, after an outcry from environmentalists over Hurley's statements linking fuel-economy rules to highway deaths.

(However, sporting motorists were hardly sorry to see "MADD Chuck" go, given that he was poised to be the Obama Administration's stalking horse for a return of the 55 m.p.h. national speed limit)

FoMoCo's face of limp-wristed appliance motoring (other than William Clay Ford, Jr.), Vice President for Environment and Safety, Sue Cischke weighed in with the obvious:

When regulations establish requirements on what people buy, not what we make, if people aren't buying those, we have to offer incentives . . .We can't force people to buy what they don't want to buy.

We already know FoMoCo's favorite incentive is a draconian federal fuel tax . . .

Cischke also gave a clue about the butchering up of the next generation Mustang:

Though it'll be expensive, Ford's Cischke says, a lighter car can be made as safe as a heavier car.

Even before the new regulation, Ford Motor was planning on "taking between 250 and 750 pounds from (each of) our vehicles. That's a huge challenge," she says.

"It's all about managing the energy, protecting the crash cage," she says. "There are ways you can design a vehicle to be very strong, to provide the same crash safety as a heavier one."

Although anyone familiar with NASCAR racing knows that a "cage" can provide remarkable strength-to-weight and protection, the cost and the inconvenience is enormous. Thus, "taking between 250 and 750 pounds" out of the Mustang without using cost prohibitive methods, such as aluminum unibodies and carbon fiber, while at the same time beefing up the "cage" MEANS DOWNSIZING, CANNING THE V8s, AND FRONT WHEEL DRIVE.

If that happens, most Mustangers probably won't care if the ObamaMobile FWD "Mustang IIs" aren't as safe, because they'll be so depressed at the death of the "real" Mustang (V8 & RWD) that they'll WISH THEY WERE ALREADY DEAD!

Across-the-board downsizing is virtually a certainty in the lower-priced ranks because it does no good to build rolling high-tech fortresses of carbon fiber, magnesium, aluminum and dozens of airbags if regular wage earners cannot afford to buy them.

The $1,300.00-per-vehicle average price "tax" that will be extracted from new vehicle buyers to cover the fuel economy technology doesn't take into account the hidden costs of the Obamanator CAFE hike, such as higher insurance premiums that will be required to cover increased personal injury payouts, lost productivity, and manifold pain and suffering that will occur when the ObamaMobile hybrid minicars collide with working trucks or vintage vehicles that survive the Billy Ford and the Democrats' war on historic vehicles (a/k/a "Cash for Clunkers").

But as the highway carnage inevitably rises with the downsizing of the fleet, the radical Obamamaniacs and the freedom-hating EnviroNazis will certainly be waiting in the wings with the final piece of 1970s greeniac nostalgia: The federal 55 m.p.h. speed limit.

CAFE + CASH FOR CLUNKERS = FOMOCO'S "ONE-TWO PUNCH"

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter here]

No doubt about it, William Clay Ford, Jr., Alan Mulally and the other radical greens at Ford Motor Company threw the automotive enthusiast and racing communities "under the bus" when they caved in to the infamous Obama-Schwarzenegger 42 m.p.g. Corporate Average Fuel Economy deal, and supported the disguised bailout/corporate welfare plan known as "Cash for Clunkers."

The company that's been gouging us for years on the overpriced Shelby GT500s, and which further plans to rip-off more of its most loyal customers with the bogus, V8-less Taurus SHO, is likely planning to use the OBAMA-nator's artificial market limitations to line its corporate pockets and kill off virtually all OEM rear wheel drive performance vehicles.

Under this fetid "deal" "Truth With Speedzzter" predicts that the vaporware "Coyote V8" will have one of the shortest careers for a mass-production engine ever.

Ford will wholly abandoned all pretense of serving the traditional RWD V8 enthusiast as it does backflips to cajole us into tiny, expensive Fiestas and other mini-cars that RWD V8 lovers will absolutely hate.

Whatever the OBAMA-Schwarzenegger-Eco era "Mustang" becomes, it's likely that current V8 ponycar customers will reject it as a worthy successor (even as Ford has done its dead level best to lag behind in the Second Supercar Era horsepower race with undersized V8s constructed with the weakest, cheapest, most worthless possible internal components). Of course, factory-paid journalists and propagandists will extol the virtues of the next generation wimpy, V8-less spiritual successor to the horrible 1974 Mustang II and the awful FWD Mazda-Probe-stang.

When that happens, there will be little if any reason for any Ford V8 traditionalists to darken the doors of a Ford dealership. The only thing that will be left of eighty years of affordable V8 performance tradtion at that point will be fading memories, and the dwendling number of collector Fords that somehow manage to escape the jaws of Billy Ford's "Cash-for-Clunkers" crushers.

Ford's "eco" politicking is simply a one-two punch to the guts and the wallets of its most loyal customers.

About the only other thing that's certain is that everything will cost a lot more.

Car Connection had this analysis:

The only reliable prediction, in fact, is that it will cost more--simply the cost of developing low-consumption new cars and advertising them to an uncertain public.

More involved is the dynamic for used cars. On the one hand, used-car prices are sure to rise as consumers can no longer buy a brand-new Chrysler 300C or Cadillac STS--as those companies get out of the big rear-drive-car business and shift their product mix heavily downward in size and engine output, some will opt instead to buy used and see how the new cars size up later. Since there will be a shortfall of new models as automakers spin on their heels to meet the new rules and to change American tastes roughly overnight, there will be a resulting shortfall in used cars as well. Shutting down production of bigger new cars now means fewer of them for sale later--and at the same time, more of you will want recent-model used cars that are bigger and safer on average, when compared to what you'll be offered in 2016.

Also pushing used-car prices higher: proposed cash-for-clunkers legislation. While some think it's yet another sop to the rich, giving a credit to people who can afford new cars, cash-for-clunkers deals also pull used cars with some value off the market. According to the Detroit News, under a plan still wending through Congress, drivers who turn in a car getting less than 18 mpg and purchasing one with fuel economy better than 22 mpg would get a voucher for $3,500 to $4,500 off a new car. Those incentives might very well take good used cars off the market for families that need low-cost used transportation.

Whatever the end result, the car of the future will look a lot less like today's Chrysler 300 and Ford Crown Victoria and a lot more like the 2011 Chevrolet Volt and the 2011 Ford Fiesta. Of the roughly 300 models sold in the U.S. today, about 130 meet a 30-mpg standard--not the nearly 40-mpg goal that will be required to blend with truck requirements and meet an overall goal of 35.5 miles per gallon

In other words, pay a lot more and get a lot less. Just like back in the 1970s.

FoMoCo and William Clay Ford, Jr. in particular, of course, apparently don't care about any of that. The Panther's dead. RWD is dead. V8s are dead. The Mustang as we know and love it is now on death row. Obama's plugging the wimpy hybrid Escape. And they're most likely giddy about all of that.

And they'd probably be happier if the Obama-Schwarzenegger assault on vehicular liberty destroys the "business case" for SVT, Ford Racing Performance Parts and Ford's support of motorsports. The appliance motorists in the Glass House will raise a toast with the liberal U.A.W. at the death of factory-built "American Muscle." The bean counters and "Steady Eddies" left in FoMoCo's bureaucracy will celebrate the "deproliferation" of high-performance options, just like they did in the 1970s.

As long as the per-widget profit margin is high enough, most of the hacks at Ford Motor Company would be happy building glacially-slow, one-cylinder plug-in hybrids. They simply just don't care about serving the wants, needs, and dreams of potential customers in the high-performance V8 market niche.

They will decry market-based oil imports as dangerous to "national security" even as they hypocritically become more beholden to cheap imported components and materials from Communist China and other places that categorically oppose America's national security.

And when the cookie-cutter, expensive new OBAMAmobile FWDs do not sell in sufficient volume to be profitable, William Clay Ford, Jr. and his paid public relations henchmen will undoubtedly be lobbying the Democrats for a draconian increase in the federal gas tax as a means of "re-educating" Ford customers to what Dearborn thinks is best for them.

The sad thing is that the thouands who would have enjoyed GT500-level RWD performance, had it been packaged in a more affordable form, will never have the opportunity.

WHY RETOOLING THE WAYNE TRUCK PLANT MAKES SENSE

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

For the last couple of days, the Ford world has been a-twitter with Ford Motor Company's (F) announcement of its committment to build the next generation Focus and an some sort of electric-golf-cart-phone-booth-city car right here in the U.S.A. With $500,000,000.00 pledged to retool truck plants for the purpose, both the stock market and appliance motoring auto journalists have been cooing FoMoCo's praises.

Still, history suggests that building small cars in U.A.W.-controlled plants is a money-loser. FoMoCo boss Alan Mulally says that its different this time.

But even if it's not, it still makes sense.

Why?

Undoubtedly the new Wayne plant tooling and line will be flexible, so that FoMoCo can dump the electric toy cars on short notice.

On the other hand, building small cars in America is one of Ford's few potential strategic advantages. Even if the next-gen Focus is not profitable under the UAW-Obama-Radical Green captivity of Ford's microeconomics, it is necessary because of the "two fleets" rule to offset the sorts of larger and high-performance vehicles consumers really want and need.

It is also good business as an active counter to the backlash against perceptions of a predatory Asian invasion of the U.S. auto market (As quality American jobs become more scarce and unstable, it is inevitable that some consumers will turn more "nationalistic" in their durable goods purchases out of a feeling that we're losing too many "good" jobs overseas. Purchase of an "all-American" vehicle instead of an import or "invader"/transplant will seem to many as a symbolic show of support for the American economy and America's industrial future)

Moreover, as the economy shrinks under the weight of Obamanomics ("Cap and trade," "card check" unionization, huge deficits, stagflation, punitive taxation and regulation of small businesses and entrepreneurs, expansion of government entitlements, etc.) Ford will be forced to increase its marketshare in smaller vehicles.

It's also a necessary hedge for opposing unreasonable regulatory adjustments of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. Pressure from the courts, California, and Obama's environmental constituents will be to jack fuel economy averages to as much as 40 m.p.g. or more! Ford has to at least try to build and sell small cars in the U.S.A. before it can credibly argue future regulatory increases in these standards are wildly unrealistic (which they are). Increasing the U.A.W.'s stake in this debate is brilliant.

Finally, it fits with the "touchy-feely" corporate narrative that FoMoCo is pushing at the present time. (See the Ford Story website link on the sidebar) While most of the profits may still come from the working (e.g. SUVs/trucks) and fun (high performance/sporty) sides of the business, Ford needs a strong smokescreen of "Good Green Global Citizen" claptrap to placate politicians, activist shareholders, special interest groups, and certain members of the Ford family.

SMART, HONDA FIT AND TOYOTA YARIS MICROCARS: UNSAFE!

[Get the latest Truth With Speedzzter here]

An old proverb goes something like this:

The rock hits the jug . . .
The jug hits the rock . . .
The jug still ‘gets it.’”

To anyone with an abecedarian grasp of grasp of physics, the meaning is obvious. When something heavy and hard hits something light and fragile, heavy and hard wins every time.

And so it is with the new flyweight microcars that the freedom-hating greens want to force us into.

You shouldn’t need a crash test to confirm what is apparent to informed logic. However, in this age of science, a crash test is a powerful convincer.

In crash tests released Tuesday [April 14, A.D. 2009], the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that drivers of 2009 versions of the Smart "fortwo," Honda Fit and Toyota Yaris could face significant leg and head injuries in severe front-end crashes with larger, mid-size vehicles.

The tests involved head-on crashes between the fortwo and a 2009 Mercedes C Class, the Fit and a 2009 Honda Accord and the Yaris and the 2009 Toyota Camry. The tests were conducted at 40 miles per hour, representing a severe crash.

Predictably, the Honda proved “unFit,” the Smart was “fortwo” to the hospital, and the Yaris increased “YaRisk.”

In the fortwo collision, the [I]institute said the Smart, which weighs 1,808 lbs, went airborne and turned around 450 degrees after striking the C Class, which weighs nearly twice as much. There was extensive damage to the fortwo's interior and the Smart driver could have faced extensive injuries to the head and legs.

[Head injuries are not good]

In the Fit's test, the dummy's head struck the steering wheel through the air bag and showed a high risk of leg injuries. In the vehicle-to-vehicle test, the Fit was rated poor . . . .

In the Yaris test, the [In]stitute said the mini car sustained damage to the door and front passenger area. The driver dummy showed signs of head injuries, a deep gash on the right knee and extensive forces to the neck and right leg.

Predictably, trial lawyers are salivating while Smart, Honda, and the Evil Empire (Toyota) are spinning P.R. denials and excuses worthy of the infamous Tobacco Institute.

Truth With Speedzzter, of course, believes in informed vehicle choice.

And that means the freedom to choose a less-than-safe microcar.

Thus, if you want to put your kid in a cheap, flimsy, airbag-filled micromachine, it ought to be your choice (so long as the rest of society doesn’t have to pick up the tab for injuries sustained when Junior or Muffy staggers out of a frat kegger and bounces Daddy’s little B-car off of a 5,000-pound pick up truck).

But that also means the freedom to chose a larger, safer vehicle.

The greens and some among the ranks of the mini-golf/phone-booth/toy-car sellers are against the liberty to wrap one’s most precious cargo in 3,500-7,000 pounds of life-saving steel. They believe that selfishly protecting one’s family “kills the planet” and endangers green dreams of a road packed with GM-Segways, electric cycle-cars, bicycles, and pedestrians. They use anti-choice sledgehammers such as increases in Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards to drive larger, better crash-absorbing vehicles off the road, or at least reduce their diversity and make their further development cost prohibitive. This deprives consumers of the ability to “choose safety” as a free-market value.

The IIHS is not a full-throated supporter of vehicle choice. They’re in the game to assess risks and save the insurers money. If the IIHS had its way, we’d all be riding around in ugly, low-performing, idiot-proof, padded battle tanks (see e.g. the “Safety Cars” promoted in the 1970s). However, considering the high costs, pain and suffering of personal injuries, the IIHS data bears consideration when policy makers, regulators . . . and unfortunately . . . judges sit down to tamper again with the not-so-free market for new light vehicles.

RAGING, RADICAL "SAN FRANSICKO" GREENS SUE OBAMA OVER CAFE

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

If you needed any further proof that the global warming crazies intend to stamp out all automotive freedom in America, you need to look no further than the off-the-charts greeniacs at The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD).

In an ominous press release, CBD announced that it "filed suit to strike down the Obama [A]dministration’s [C]orporate [A]verage [F]uel [E]conomy (CAFE) standards for cars, trucks, and SUVs for model year 2011. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires miles-per-gallon standards be set at the “maximum feasible level,” yet the Obama rule sets a significantly lower standard than proposed by the Bush administration in 2008, and is much lower than current standards in Europe, Japan, China, and other countries."

The apparently automotive free-market-hating "Director of the Climate Law Institute" at the CBD, Kassie Siegel said:

"Reducing the proposed fuel economy standards is a step backwards from the clean energy future President Obama has promised. These low standards, which ignore greenhouse gas emissions and the climate crisis, are illogical, illegal, and very disappointing from a president who has promised to make the United States a leader in the fight against global warming. The technology for better, smarter, safer vehicles exists today. The U.S. auto industry is collapsing in large part because it has rejected new, more efficient technologies. These standards embrace instead of reversing this failed approach."

“Obama promised change, but this is change in the wrong direction. With all the bailout money spent, the U.S. government practically owns the U.S. auto industry, but unfortunately the bankrupt policies of auto industry lobbyists are still behind the wheel at the Department of Transportation.”

The CBD is among the groups of hysterical, freedom-grabbing "appliance motorists" and car-haters and California Attorney General Bill Lockyer who urged the off-the-hook crazy-liberal "Ninth Circus" Court of Appeals in 2007 to strike down the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 2006 CAFE standards.

The ["Ninth Circus"] court ruled that the [2006] standards failed to adequately consider the vehicles’ greenhouse gas emissions. As the Bush administration was formulating new standards, [the liberal Democrat-controlled] Congress [mistakenly] passed the Energy Independence and Security Act in December 2007, which mandates that the agency require the combined car and truck fleet reach a minimum of 35 mpg by 2020. In May 2008, the Bush [A]dministration issued a new proposal. While those standards were well below what are technically feasible [at least according to some granola-eating, pencil-necked geeks and muscle-car-hating wimps who have never engineered or built or sold a single new car or truck . . . and would be as horrified as "Click and Clack," the Tappet Brothers (Tom & Ray Magliozzi) to actually ride in a bona-fide supercar] and required by [bad, unconstitutional] law, they were higher than the final decision issued by the Obama [A]dministration last week.

So now you have it. Obama apparently triangulates his re-election strategy by goading his zany left-of-left flank into suing him for even more draconian butchering of the automotive free market in service to the false "climate change idol-god." Then when the activist judicial heavies "hometown" our automotive freedom into a fetid San Francisco trashcan, Obama will have the excuse that he was "just complying with a court decision" when he jacks CAFE to 35 m.p.g. in a huge jump.

Does anybody really think the Obama Administration will put up much of a fight against his allies and friends in the CBD? Or is this going to be another weakly-contested "show trial" like the one that resulted in last week's Iowa Supreme Court's decision forcing another of San Francisco favorite radical causes de jure onto the citizens of America?

Autoextremist Peter M. DeLorezo -- commenting on a host of uninformed, inane "greenazi" Detroit-bashing gibberish spewing from "San FranSICKO" Mayor Gavin Newsome -- had the right idea:

We have an excellent idea for Newsom and his ilk: Let's close off Northern California from the rest of the Union and let them "re-imagine" their own auto industry. After the citizenry realizes that they can only buy Obamalosimobiles and Shiny Happy Smiley cars of diminishing degrees of realistic feasibility then we can sit back and joyfully watch as the state government in Sacramento is dismantled and thrown out on their @$$#$ until some semblance of rational thought can return.

Eventually, litigeous, authoritarian liberal anti-automobile jerks like Lockyer, Newsome and the CBD will be coming for your collector cars, muscle cars, race cars, Jeeps(R), SUVs, work trucks, RVs, and car haulers. After all, they've got to "save the planet" by stealing our right to automotive "choice" and "self-determination." And after Obama packs the federal bench with like-minded wing-nut activists, you can expect no help in protecting your rights in the courts.

It's about to get a whole lot worse. And don't say Truth With Speedzzter didn't try to warn you.

"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.