COBRA JETS, BOSS MUSTANGS, SVOs AND T. BOONE PICKENS

As Ford Motor Company’s (tm) stock (Stock symbol: F) settles in a range approaching a one-share-for-a-gallon of gas exchange, a number of conflicting signs are emerging from the Blue Oval’s fun and games sectors:

1. NO MORE DAN DAVIS: On the troubling side, Autoweek is reporting long time FoMoCo racing boss Dan Davis is retiring.

Of course, SVT went in the tank when John Colletti bailed out with his “gold watch” after the Ford GT control-arm recall fiasco. For those fearing a reprise of the infamous and idiotic 1970 abandonment of racing in the U.S.A., the loss of Dan Davis might just be a harbinger of bad, bad, bad times on the horizon.

2. NO BOSS MUSTANG: More troubling is a Jalopnik report that the way-overdue, wide-bore center BOSS V8 may not make it into any Mustangs. The Glass House gang has always toyed with the possibility of a BOSS V8 with all the resolve and vision of Hamlet, directly leading to a market-missing delay of the program.

Now the chance of the BOSS to power future Mustangs is undoubtedly a casualty of FoMoCo’s sad finances, the crushing burden of the increasing Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, and $4.00/gallon fuel costs.

The real tragedy in Ford’s apparent “firing” of the BOSS is that it guarantees that FoMoCo will not have a late-model homologated “big” V8 for any streetable purpose. This will insure that GM’s LSX and Chrysler’s Gen III Hemi will continue to dominate the aftermarket and traditional grassroots hot rodding/amateur motorsports for decades after such engines are “CAFE’d out” of OEM fitments. Remember that about the only way enthusiasts survived the 1970s was by building combinations based on 1960s muscle cars. Yet FoMoCo has selfishly chosen to send its troops into the reprise of the 1970s without a Hemi-sized bullet in the arsenal.

Had FoMoCo homologated the BOSS in the Mustang during the narrow window when such engines would still fit within CAFE’s straightjacket, enthusiasts would have been able to retrofit literally thousands of crate BOSSES into lesser Mustangs, and probably a host of other Fords.

Ford decision to can the BOSS will lead to an increased number of “bastardized” GM LS-into-Mustang swaps over the next two decades, regardless of what the EPA and CARB does. Why? Because until at least a couple of generations of hot rodders die off, relatively large cubic inch engines will remain popular for limited use sporting vehicles, drag racers and hobby performance cars. FoMoCo will be left out.

Sadly, no one with any real power at FoMoCo seems to get “it.”

3. RETURN OF THE SVO: FoMoCo is getting slaughtered in the sub-V8 niche of the performance market.

Ford has “nothing” for buyers considering the EVO, WRX STI, turbo Cobalt SS, Dodge SRT-4 and a number of other mini-turbo cars (excluding a couple of Mazdaspeed offerings). Since the death of the underperforming SVT Focus, FoMoCo has completely and utterly ignored the “tuner/youth market.”

Long ago, Speedzzter suggested a return of the SVO as a standard-bearer for a “tuner-focused” Mustang. A number of sources are claiming that FoMoCo may plug an Eco-Boost engine into a lightened Mustang and call it an SVO in 2010 or so.

What took them so long?

4. RETURN OF THE COBRA JET: Apparently one of the last gasps of the Dan Davis administration at Ford Racing is to revisit the 1968 invasion of the NHRA by the legendary Cobra Jet Mustangs by offering a turn-key factory, not-street-legal FR500CJ pony car for “stock class” drag racing.

According to the Ford Racing press release:

The 2008 Ford Racing Cobra Jet Mustang (FR500CJ) will be a factory-built race car, ready for the drag strip with only minor additional prep required of the racer.

The Cobra Jet Mustang (M-FR500-CJ) joins Ford Racing's two successful road racing Mustangs, the M-FR500-C and M-FR500-S, as turn-key race cars available only from Ford Dealers. A limited number of units are under consideration for 2008; the specific number remains TBD.
Ford Racing Part Number: M-FR500-CJ
Vehicle content:
400hp (est.) 5.4L DOHC supercharged engine
6-speed manual transmission standard; optional automatic TBD
NHRA legal to 10.00 second ETs
NHRA Stock Eliminator legal interior
Lightweight – 3,300 lbs (est.)
Unique trim and appearance package
Drag race wheel/tire combination
Cobra Jet graphics package
Program intent:
Provide a Mustang that is a true A Stock competitor
50 units initial build
Off-road only (VIN replaced by serial number)
Estimated pricing, $69,990 (MSRP)
2008MY designation
Built in 12/2008; vehicles delivered 2/2009

Believe this one when you see it at a strip near you.

If it pans out, hopefully it will stick around longer than the original CJ Mustangs and will lead to an affordable “trickle down” on-road version. (Don’t bet on it).

While Speedzzter is encouraged by FoMoCo’s Porsche-style turn-key race car operations, arguably Ford is still not doing enough to stimulate Ford’s competition fortunes in lower forms of grassroots motorsports. Certainly, Ford Racing isn’t repeating all of the mistakes of the “Total Performance” era (i.e. limiting its focus to professional racing while allowing Chevrolet to steal the streets, strips and dirt bull-rings with cheap over-the-counter speed parts), Ford’s competition program has a huge gap between the minor “pack” bolt-ons and expensive, full-blown, track-only limited production racing cars.

As emission/fuel economy regulations increasingly take their toll on late-model streetable high performance, grassroots enthusiasts will rely more on Ford to homologate street-legal “combinations.” The FR500CJ does nothing to serve the huge street/strip market or to homologate anything for use by anyone who races a dual-purpose machine. So in a way, it does sort of repeat one of the "mistakes" of the "Total Performance" era (ignoring the "real" grassroots -- folks who will never compete at an NHRA national event).

5. THE PICKENS PLAN: Octogenarian oilman T. Boone Pickens – who is most notorious for a series of high profile acquisition moves in the 1980s and, more recently, some record-setting donations to a certain college in the pastures of Oklahoma – is engaging in a high-profile campaign to convert much of America’s electric generation capacity to wind power and divert natural gas into vehicle propulsion.

The Pickens Plan apparently sets up a show-down between the alternative fuel forces of ethanol and compressed natural gas.

The web version of the "Pickens Plan" is not sufficiently detailed on issues relating to the collateral and direct effects of creating a huge, new NGV infrastructure on various forms of recreational motoring, such as grassroots motorsports, automotive hobbies (such as "hot rodding," automobile collecting and vehicle restoration), and power boating.

Presumably, the Pickens Plan (as presented) does not advocate the OEMs converting future high performance vehicles, motorcycles, ATVs, and certain classes of recreational off-road vehicles to NGVs. In fact, the Pickens Plan's focus seemingly fails to even acknowledge such uses of petroleum, notwithstanding that a sizeable and influential minority of Americans hold such special purpose vehicles central to their automotive liberty.

Moreover, the Pickens Plan (as presented) does not seem to endorse any conversion of existing gasoline vehicles (high performance, special interest, or otherwise) to natural gas. It fails to address the the significant and wholly unnecessary regulatory barriers erected by the U.S. EPA, CARB and a handful of similar state environmental agencies to the retrofitting of vehicles manufactured after 1993.

Finally, the Pickens Plan (as presented) does not educate potential supporters as to the "performance benefits" (if any) of natural gas in comparison to any other petroleum alternatives. In contrast, advocates of ethanol and E-85 have selectively used enthusiast media and several motorsports venues (e.g. "Indy Car" racing, Dynomax "Power to the Wheels" competition) to establish the high performance properties of these alternative fuels among the leading edges of the motorsports community, which undoubtedly will pay future dividends in the battle for broader market perception and demand.

These "gaps" in the Pickens Plan are undoubtedly troubling to millions of serious motoring enthusiasts and hobbyists -- who have little interest in supporting the introduction of a new, competing motor fuel unless it promises tangible microeconomic and individualized performance advantages.

Touting a a bland, four-cylinder front-wheel-drive Honda as the prototypical "car of the future" simply will not engage the millions of hands-on, grassroots automotive opinion leaders who comprise the broad and diverse automotive hobby throughout the U.S.

These impassioned automotive hobbyists/motorsports enthusiasts and practitioners are virtually the only consumers paying any attention to the "alternative fuel" debate (other than even smaller numbers of techophile environmentalists (most of whom are skeptical of CNG as a "greenhouse gas" fuel that will delay their ultimate dreams of vehicle electrification and forced mass transit), investors, OEM engineers, environmental regulators, and the discrete and insular energy production community).

The majority of non-automobile enthusiast Americans are vastly ignorant as to automotive technology and see their vehicles as "black box" appliances. To expect a groundswell of support for a "revolution" in motor fuel from people who are not the least bit interested in automobile technology and view their vehicles simply as a commodity is a daunting task. While focus on the macroeconomic and geopolitical implications of oil importation may scare some into action, it will undoubtedly be dismissed as a too-remote, too-abstract clamor by most non-automobile enthusiast Americans.

However, if CNG could be positioned in the minds of professional and grassroots automotive opinion leaders as a clean, abundant, cheap and higher performance alternative motor fuel, this "premium" niche can drive public demand for expansion of the CNG infrastructure. Analogous efforts on other automotive technologies and vehicle marketing plans have been at the heart of the old saying "Win on Sunday; sell on Monday."

A switch to CNG on the scale apparently anticipated by the Pickens Plan presumes a paradigm shift.

One only need to look to automotive history to identify a roughly similar (albeit far more simple) marketing problem. In 1953, GM engineer Zora Arkus-Duntov believed GM was faced with the challenge of making Chevrolet's Corvette and the upcoming 1955 RPO OHV Chevrolet V8 an economically-viable success in a crowded automotive market place. He sent a legendary memorandum to his bosses which outlined, in part, a strategy which GM employed to create a huge paradigm shift in vital opinion-leading segments of motoring. Arkus-Duntov wrote, in part:

"The Hot Rod movement and interest in things connected with hop-up and speed is still growing. As an indication: the publications devoted to hot rodding and hop-upping, of which some half dozen have a very large circulation and are distributed nationally, did not exist some six years ago."

"From cover to cover, they are full of Fords. This is not surprising that the majority of hot rodders are eating, sleeping, and dreaming modified Fords. They know Ford parts from stern to stern better than Ford people themselves."

"A young man buying a magazine for the first time immediately becomes introduced to Ford. It is reasonable to assume that when hot rodders or hot rod-influenced persons buy transportation, they buy Fords. As they progress in age and income, they graduate from jalopies to second-hand Fords, then to new Fords."

"Should we consider that it would be desirable to make these youths Chevrolet-minded? I think that we are in a position to carry out a successful attempt. However, there are many factors against us:

- 1.Loyalty and experience with Ford.
- 2.Hop-up industry is geared with Ford.
- 3.Law of number-thousands are and will be working on Fords for active competition.
- 4.Appearance of Ford’s overhead V8, now one year ahead of us."

"When a superior line of GM V8’s appeared, there where remarkably few attempts to develop these, and none too successful. . . ."

"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. Overhead Fords will be in this stable between 1956 and 1957."

"The slide rule potential of our RPO V8 engine is extremely high, but to let things run their natural course will put us one year behind-and then not too many hot rodders will pick Chevrolet for development. One factor which can largely overcome this handicap would be the availability of ready-engineered parts for higher output."

Zora Arkus-Duntov, "Thoughts Pertaining to Youth, Hot Rodders, And Chevrolet." (December 16, 1953).

Arkus-Duntov's views were correct and Chevrolet's focus in marketing high performance Corvettes, "Corvette-powered" V8 sedans, and a prodigious selection of over-the-counter performance parts to grassroots hobbyists and lower-level professional motorsports participants ultimately caused a dramatic paradigm shift which affected mass market perceptions and, correspondingly, increased demand for more ordinary Chevrolet products for decades.

The task of a paradigm shift to CNG, of course, is much more daunting than the popularization of Chevrolet's 1955 RPO V8 because of the interrelated retail supply and demand side problems. However, a useful component to increasing public pressure for increased retail-side infrastructure (and government encouragement/subsidy thereof) would be a targeted "demonstration" campaign to focus automotive opinion leaders on the potential localized advantages of CNG. Such a campaign would likely include (in addition to more traditional methods of creating demand/subsidy/participation for infrastructure investment) the following components (This would also work for the Ethanol forces):

1. Obtaining the OEM manufacturing and retail sale of high performance "flex-fuel" CNG vehicles which are programmed to achieve higher levels of performance on CNG (i.e. with computer-controlled turbocharging to take advantage of CNG's purported octane superiority over unleaded gasoline on a flex-fuel basis).

2. High performance CNG conversion demonstration projects by prominent aftermarket engine builders (perhaps culminating in an annual CNG-fueled engine dynamometer competition similar to the popular "JEG's Engine Masters" competition).

3. Aftermarket targeting of high performance CNG conversions/crate engines for the non-emission controlled enthusiast market (i.e. pre-1948 "street rods" and pre-1968 "muscle cars" and replicas), to be followed up with certified CNG conversions for later model high performance vehicles. (U.S. EPA and CARB rules would likely need to be adapted to reduce market-chilling disincentives for conversions of certain emission-controlled high performance and sporting vehicles).

4. Specific targeting of certain grassroots motorsports venues for contingency-based CNG fuel use (this would require working with influential sanctioning bodies on rules modifications and equivalency formulas in a limited number of national, grassroots/semi-professional competition formulae with identified strong analogs to street performance).

5. Obtaining a series of technical stories in popular enthusiast and professional media publications detailing the technology involved in applying CNG to high performance and sport motoring.

The foregoing plan, while not inexpensive or easy, would rapidly build a substantial base of enthusiastic customers for CNG and provide a demand-side base of support for the implementation of a paradigm shift to CNG on a broader basis.

It should strongly be noted that motorsports and the motorsports aftermarket have historically been strong drivers of OEM technological shifts. Merely relying on an OEM-only strategy with no high performance component will dramatically slow any increase in retail demand for CNG, as well as expansion of OEM offerings. However, reliance strictly on aftermarket forces would obviously doom a paradigm shift to failure.

Gasoline has almost a 150 year lead on CNG, a loyal market following, broad public acceptance, and a huge installed base. Overcoming all of this will take an attack plan that is far broader than anything evidenced by the Pickens Plan. The foregoing ideas suggest one alternative to building a niche of market pressure for CNG to overtake gasoline in important, opinion-leading automotive segments and pave the way for a broader paradigm shift.

ANOTHER BLACK EYE FOR SHELBY?

Autoblog has forwarded a report from the 67Mustangblog that the defunct Carroll Shelby licensee Unique Performance used as much as "13 gallons of Bondo," cheap Taiwan parts and unskilled prison labor on the up-to-$200,000 "continuation" Shelby Mustangs.

Texas-based Unique Performance closed last fall and Shelby revoked its license after a hailstorm of legal allegations, alleged unfilled orders and apparently scores of lost six-figure customer deposits.

One customer, who is reported to be a former Secret Service agent, is quoted as saying "You would never Bondo a car of this value, so that would be deceitful. That would be fraud . . . .”

Indeed, authorities in Texas are investigating multiple counts of fraud against Unique Performance's principals.

Unique Performance was best known for the "Eleanor" Shelby GT500 replica, copied from the Nicholas Cage remake of the film "Gone in Sixty Seconds."

67mustangblog reports that "Investigators say . . . inmates illegally removed the VINs from the Unique Performance cars."

If the reports prove true, who was looking out for Carroll Shelby? Who was monitoring the quality? And who will make all of the people who lost deposits whole?

The growing Unique Performance scandal is a black mark on both Carroll Shelby's legacy and on the perfomance tuner aftermarket.

LEGAL STREET RACING . . . IN POLAND?

Autoblog also has this interesting story about how Polish authorites are handling the "problem" of street racing.

[Note: as any NHRA member will tell you, the wild, often dangerous world of "street racing" is NOT drag racing. Real drag racing is safe, organized and conducted under controlled conditions]

Given the land use pressures on purpose-built American drag strips, the innovative Polish solution bears some study.

Just don't count on it happening.

American law enforcement and politicians prefer a one-size-fits-all, "speed kills" model of traffic enforcement. Unlike the earliest days of drag racing, most local law enforcement is wholly unwilling to find a safe, less structured "outlet" for high performance cars. Thus, except for a handful of "Beat-the-Heat" and closed course "open road" events, the vast majority of the U.S. has few safe, legal alternatives to clandestine street racing.

And that's short-sighted. Maybe American police can learn something from their Polish counterparts.

LOSE ON SUNDAY, LOSE ON MONDAY

Automotive News is reporting on September 5, 2007, that August sales for Ford Motor Company (F) are off a whopping 14.4% (12.5% for the first eight months of 2007). "[T]he Mustang, which traditionally has its best sales in spring and summer, dropped 35 percent in August. The F-series truck declined 9.9 percent."

In comparison, GM was up 6.1% for August (but down 7.1% for the year). Toyota was down a trifling 2.8% for the month (but still up 4.9% for the year). Chrysler was 5.6% for the month (down 2.7% for the year). Mazda was up 11.0% for the month on relatively insignificant volume in compared to the other Asian makes (and is up 7.6% for the year).

FoMoCo’s excuses, of course, are legion. Fewer low margin fleet sales . . . Reductions in new housing starts (quelling subcontractor demand for F-Series trucks) . . . The credit crunch from problems in the "subprime" mortgage market . . . high fuel costs (even though demand for Ford’s Expedition climbed 17% in August and Land Rover’s tiny, yet fuel thirsty volume shot up 32%) . . . . GM’s aggressive incentives on its newer-than-Ford C/K pickups. . . The American Family Association Boycott . . . .

Speedzzter will throw a few more theories into the mix.

1. Obvious to everyone is FoMoCo’s long neglect of the entry-level/youth market. According to the Automotive News, Toyota’s drop resulted not from economic issues, but from lack of supply. "Sales of the Yaris small car plunged 31 percent, fueled by an unexpected demand for the three-door hatchback and a shortage of all models." Yet Ford was not positioned to take up the slack.

FoMoCo’s U.S.A. market Focus has not electrified the entry-level market and FoMoCo’s continuing erosion of market share to the Asians is undoubtedly helped along by Ford’s declining capacity to attract younger generations of customers. The de facto ceding of the entry-level market to the Asians is perhaps Detroit’s biggest failure of the past forty years (even bigger than the unsustainable contracts awarded to the United Auto Workers).

2. Ford’s failure to keep the Mustang fresh and "on the edge." While the current Mustang is iconic and Ford has delivered occasional "specials" of note (i.e. the dealer markup rape-fest known as the Shelby GT500 and the woefully underpowered/overpriced Shelby GT), FoMoCo has been "pumping against a slow leak" on the mass-market Mules.

Part of the problem is that the Mustang’s styling is now familiar and FoMoCo has done little to differentiate the new ‘Stangs from the 2005 and later used ones. Style changes have always been a premium in the sport coupe market. And some money is undoubtedly on the sidelines in anticipation of the Camaro and the Challenger.

But Ford has failed to develop a Mustang variant which can attract youth market interest AND run the parents/insurance agent gauntlet.

Ford has failed to produce a high-efficiency "green" variant of the Mustang (i.e. no trendy hybrid).

Ford for years has failed to offer anything of interest to young "import-style" tuners who love small-cube, forced induction engines and eschew "old school" V8s.

Ford has also abandoned many of the grassroots "5.0 generation," who still want the option of ordering a hot, easy-to-modify V8 and heavy-duty driveline on a lightweight, stripped-down coupe at a blue-collar price.

And Ford has not done enough to satisfy the influential "power-adder V8 pony car" niche. While the Ford Racing Performance Parts "packs" are a start, any Mustanger who wants to play at the 500+ horsepower level with a new car must be prepared to spend $65,000+ on a GT500 or spend thousands for a "boost friendly" shortblock (such as FRPP’s Aluminator).

3. Ford’s continuing failure to lead the light truck market with turbo-diesels and larger SOHC/DOHC gas power (i.e the BOSS V8) also hurts. FoMoCo’s F150 is now "old hat" in comparison to newer trucks from most competitors. Down on power and lacking factory sport variants (e.g. Lightning), the smaller Ford trucks simply do not generate much excitement anymore.

4. If there’s even a shred of truth to the old saw "win on Sunday, sell on Monday, FoMoCo’s retreat from motorsports undoubtedly has dampened sales. As late as the 1990s, Ford had a dominant presence in the upper echelons of international motorsports including Formula One, Indy cars, Trans Am-style sports cars, and even as much as almost 2/3s of the NASCAR Winston Cup entries.

But now, Ford has slashed the racing program almost to the bone.

FoMoCo’s dismal NASCAR season (only four measly wins in the Nextel Cup Series, compared to EIGHTEEN so far from Chevrolet) starkly illustrates how far the Blue Oval has fallen. Ford is in danger of finishing THIRD behind Chevrolet and Dodge in the NASCAR Nextel Cup Manufacturer’s Championship. When compared to Ford’s successes in the 1990s, it should be obvious that Ford does not have enough teams competing in NASCAR at the present. Moreover, with FoMoCo apparently not even being in the running for the two biggest prizes in NASCAR in 2007 (Dale Earnhardt Jr. and Joe Gibbs Racing), Ford is giving its long-suffering supporters in the grandstands little if anything to celebrate this year.

Ford’s racing problems are bigger than NASCAR.

Although Ford is winning the World Rally Championship, few in North America are remotely aware of it. (And nothing Ford has on the street in the U.S.A. is analogous to the WRC Focus RS).

More obvious is Ford’s abandonment of open wheel racing. Mazda, which took over as the sponsor of former Ford affiliate Cosworth’s engines in the Champ Car World Series, is climbing in sales as Ford sinks. Ford has been AWOL from Indianapolis 500 (which is still the most important open wheel event in America) for a decade.

Ford’s conquests in Formula One and in world class events such as the Rolex 24 at Daytona, the 12 hours of Sebring and the 24 Hours of LeMans are all but forgotten.

The grassroots isn’t much healthier. Ford captured none of the top ten positions in Hot Rod Magazine’s Pump Gas Drags in 2007. Ford continues its minuscule presence on the thousands of dirt oval tracks in the U.S. Ford’s sportsman drag racing penetration continues to lag. Few Fords of any stripe will compete at the SCCA National Runoffs (even though GM’s top racing brass will almost certainly be well represented in several classes).

The few U.S. successes for FoMoCo in competition tend to occur outside the spotlights and away from the cameras. Ford’s Grand American Mustangs almost never get any air time. Ford’s drag racing efforts are almost all sportsmen competing in the IHRA or in the insulated "Ford only" events. Ford’s off-road trucks are also seldom seen on televison or in print.

As if to illustrate Ford’s declining competition results, old reliable John Force – who remains drag racing’s most compelling personality-- failed to qualify for the Mac Tools U.S. Nationals, almost certainly dooming his chance at another NHRA Funny Car championship.

It’s clear that FoMoCo’s sales declines are the result of a complex web of factors. But let no one doubt that Ford is losing sales in part because it is failing to "Win on Sunday" and then give the fans something relevant, affordable and interesting to "Buy on Monday."