FORD EXPLORER AND THE DEATH OF HOT RODDING
By Cammie
The automotive world is abuzz with the formal debut of Ford’s Taurus-based Explorer.The old truck-based Explorer was the vehicle that made SUVs mainstream. It was the antidote to mini-van-induced soccer-mom boredom.

To Ford dealers, the "truck" Explorer was a "cash cow." A profit machine.

To trial lawyers salivating over the Firestone tire debacle, the truck-based Explorer facilitated adding a new wing to their McMansions.

To sports car enthusiasts, the Explorer was often a moving chicane or a luxury crew vehicle.

And to hot rodders, V8 Explorers were another source of inexpensive junkyard parts.

To environmentalists and other "car haters," the Explorer was only exceeded by larger SUVs as an emblem of automobility and consumption gone amuck.

Although the "truck" Explorer was never a hard-core 4x4 off-roader, consumers often perceived it as a having more than a little "macho" swagger under a preppy, Eddie Bauer veneer.

Now Explorer is basically a Volvo car distilled through Alan Mulally’s style shop. So what does it really mean?

1. PAY MORE, GET LESS: It’s a given that the future of anything above the commodity level of motoring in this "green-obsessed" world is going to be smaller and more expensive. The new "car" Explorer is no exception.

Repackaging a Taurus X into some semblance of an SUV means slashing towing capacity, killing off the V8 option, and plugging in a tiny EcoBoost four-cylinder engine. Because Ford can’t make a turbo mill – even a direct-injected one – hold up using pot-metal internals, turbocharged engines will certainly be more expensive. Likewise, as Nash discovered decades ago, unitized construction tends to increase costs and hamper design updates in the long run. All of that extra cost will be passed on to the consumers.

Ford’s PR machine is crowing (almost ad nauseam) about how the new micro-mills are pounding out more power than the previous V8. But Ford’s pre-Coyote modulars (at least in non-SVT form) were such underachievers that it doesn’t take much to beat them. And it’s unlikely the new powerplants will produce the torque and delicious sounds of a proper V8.

2. IT’S WORTHLESS FOR HOT RODDERS: Ford has built millions of "Tauri" since 1985. After they’ve wheezed into America’s junkyards, they’ve provided virtually nothing of value for hot rodding. In contrast, whole drivelines of "truck" Explorers have attracted hot-rodding "love." And somebody someday might just figure out how to rebody "truck" Explorers into something more sporting.

While some lust after the near-microscopic turbochargers used in the EcoBoost system, the new "car" Explorer likely will provide nothing useful for building hot rods. And it probably won’t be very attractive as a hot rod platform. Like most other transverse-engine FWD-based vehicles, it will be hard to work on and too complex for the average hot rodder.

As Ford has systematically killed off traditional RWD vehicles, the supply of inexpensive "raw material" for hot rodding has almost dried up. The "car" Explorer is another huge "chip from the edifice."

3. IT’S PROBABLY EVEN MORE WORTHLESS FOR SERIOUS OFF-ROADING: While nobody expected the new "car" Explorer to be a five-door, seven passenger SVT Raptor, it now joins the pretentious "CUV" class of fakes. Too bad someone like "Top Gear’s" Jeremy Clarkson probably will not expose what a wretched off-roader a tall, tarted-up Taurus station wagon with cartoonish all-terrain tires makes. Not much real exploring will likely be possible with this one.

4. IT’S A POSTER CHILD FOR THE NANNY STATE: The Explorer "brand" was savaged by the Firestone rollover mess. Its forgotten progenitor – the narrow, tippy Bronco II – flipped over with even more verve and regularity. While the later IRS Explorers apparently have tamed down the tip-over risk, for some "Explorer" is probably still a synonym for unwanted adventures with the shiny side down. Sales are currently down to only a fraction of their pre-Firestone crashfest peak.

The new "car" Explorer will be so packed with electronic nannies and passive safety do-dads (such as inflatable seat belts) that it might almost repeal the laws of physics. Of course enterprising drivers and texting teens will still be able to rotate the "car" Explorer around its roll axis. But most drivers will be reigned in by all of the expensive techno-nannies.

5. IT DULLS THE EDGE AND PERPLEXES THE FLEX: The early photos make the new "car" Explorer make it look like a bloated Edge with a Taurus-inspired grille. And how exactly is the "car" Explorer functionally any different from the boxy Flex? At first glance, it appears some of the "Cars-splorer’s" biggest competition will be in Ford’s own showrooms.

6. IT WILL LIKELY GUARANTEE NO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF A REAL MIDSIZED SUV: Just as the 1986 Taurus that the Mulally-ites worship killed development of any future RWD midsize sedans, the "TAURUS-PLORER" will stymie any future development of a real midsized SUV. The reason is that those who "bet it all" on the "crossover" plan won’t want to be shown up by a cheaper and tougher truck-style SUV. So if you want to bash the Rubicon or tow a real load someday, you probably won’t be doing it in a smallish Ford SUV.

I can’t get very excited about the new "car" Explorer. Whether all of the not-so-rugged "individualists" (posers) who buy SUVs to "profile" on America’s boulevards will now flock to it remains to be seen.

MULALLY TO AUSTRALIA: YOU’LL GET THE TAURUS AND LIKE IT

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

Ford Motor Company boss Alan Mulally’s penny-pinching obsession with “One Ford” (i.e. ending home market models and selling only “global” platforms) has broadsided the legendary RWD Australian Ford Falcon at Detroit’s 2010 International Auto Show.

According to Australia’s “Drive” website, Mulally intends to kill off the home-market RWD Falcon and cram some future derivative of the wimpy, V8-less, Volvo-derived FWD Taurus down the throats of Australia’s motorists. The story reports:

Ford's large car is likely to be based on the American-designed and built front-wheel-drive Taurus, which was unsuccessfully imported into Australia in the 1990s

.

As one sagacious commenter on Bangshift.com observed:

Mr. M has that bass-ackward, he needs to bring the Falcon to the states. So there. Bet 1/2 billion Falcon owners back me on that one. Taurus my assus.

Another RWD V8 fan on Bangshift.com blasted back:

Memo to Alan M.:

Sir

Cranial-Rectal Inversion has hit. Remove head and try again. Use supplied crowbar.

Seemingly only Mulally and a room-full of idiotic accountants are enamored with sending the wrong-wheel-drive “Chicago Bull” to the Land Down Under.

The short-sightedness at the heart of this “One Ford” decision is the same sort of “penny-wise, pound-foolish” thinking that saddled what’s probably “the last of the V8s – Ford’s Coyote V8 -- with the same 100mm bore centers and similar spindly powdered metal rods as the “Gen I” modulars.

(Ford’s loyal, GM LS-fighting hot rodders really only wanted three main problems fixed with the DOHC modular: (1) displacement-limiting narrow bore centers, (2) glass-jawed hypereutectic pistons, (3) spindly cracked cap rods. And Ford’s Coyote V8 apparently fails to deliver any of these. 5.0 Mustang & Super Fords reports that the Coyote’s flimsy stock internals (save the forged crank) WILL NOT WITHSTAND SUPERCHARGING IN STOCK FORM!

Ford has apparently learned little in the past twenty years about how their customers tend to modify their Mustangs or what made the original 5.0 such a phenomenon.

But it’s at least better than the “buzzin’ half-dozen” V6s that are mandatory in Ford’s large FWD/AWD vehicles.)

The ever coy Mulally reportedly told the press that the decision to make the next global large car FWD, AWD or RWD doesn’t have to be made until 2011. But it should already be obvious that a fairly important group of Ford’s customer base still wants RWD and optional V8s.

Perhaps to pacify the critics, Mulally blew a little “imaginary” smoke the way of the RWD advocates:

"We also have some really good RWDs, like the Mustang. You can imagine another new platform, just like the Falcon, that's going to be RWD for Mustang, so you can imagine driving the One Ford we're going to have every one of those, and so there's no reason why we can't have it in Australia."

What we really imagine, Alan, is that “One Ford” is going to combine with CO2 and Corporate Average Fuel Economy jitters, myopic beancounting, and bureaucratic “appliance motoring” sensibilities to justify the “business case” for killing V8s and RWD. And that would be a mistake of Roger Smithian proportions.

TAURUS SHO: FINALLY PAST 100 M.P.H. IN THE "1320" BUT STILL TOO HEAVY AND OVERPRICED

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

The print reviews of the 2010 Ford Taurus SHO are starting to come in.

They're mixed, at best.

Apparently both Car and Driver and Motor Trend were provided with a SHO that was fitted with the performance package left off of the Edmunds test car.

Both CD and MT managed to get the EcoBoost-powered SHO past the magic 100 m.p.h. in quarter mile testing. But both magazines ripped the portly size of the car, the high buy-in, and the somewhat anticeptic driving experience produced by it.

A side-by-side photo of older SHOs flanking the 2010 tells much of the story about the SHO-Bloat problem.

One reviewer even suggested shifting the SHO down to the Fusion to recover some of what's been lost since '89.

Other commentary mirrored the "failed lessons" ideas posted here, claiming that the new SHO was too "adult" and too anonymous.

Apparently Ford has managed to make a 13-14 second "appliance" car that lacks excitement and panache.

Slow . . . Heavy . . . Overpriced? Indeed.

"LUTZ SEZ" PONTIAC G8 SHOULD BECOME CHEVROLET CAPRICE (AND THEN "LUTZ SEZ" IT DOESN'T)

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Here's a rumor that ought to give nightmares to the Glass House Gang. Just when it looked like the mega-potent V8/RWD Holden Commodore, oddly known in the States as the Pontiac G8, would be retreating back to the "Land of Wonder, the Land Down Under," "Maximum Bob" Lutz may intervene to save it as a Chevrolet Caprice.

(That sound you just heard was a host of Ford lifers exclaiming "Crikey!")

Given that the Commodore is already sold as a Chevrolet Caprice in the Middle East and likely could be easily "badge engineered" into a bow-tie bruiser (Why bother to do anything more than just rip off the "Pontiac" badges and glue on some new Chevy ones?), Lutz's proposal is a "beyond obvious" move.

Whether "Obama/U.A.W. Motors" can pull off the switch before the Obama hikes in Corporate Average Fuel Economy hit is a question. Another question is whether an obviously good idea such as the "Holden Caprice" can survive the current political climate for what would likely be a short run.

Ford, of course, will be left without any U.S. certified V8 capable RWD sedan chassis after the slaughter of its Panthers sometime in the 2010-2011 time frame. Thus, as the Second Supercar Era ends in the hailstorm of "climate change"/"Cap-n-Tax"/"Global Governance" madness, FoMoCo will not be able to build one last "muscle car" sedan to tide us over through the coming malaise. (The overweight, under-performing, V8-less "Fat Buddha" 2010 Taurus and SHO (Slow, Heavy, Overpriced) certainly won't!

Tragic. Stupid. And just as predicted here, Ford has "Lutz more to worry about."


[UPDATE: After this post, Truth With Speedzzter reader "Alex" and Bangshift.com reported that Lutz had to flip-flop on the Caprice, saying that there was no "business case" for it.

As Speedzzter wrote over at "Bangshift,"

And a bunch of those FoMoCo execs who approved the Taurus SHO (Slow, Heavy, Overpriced) are now breathing again . . . .

(Of course they probably never really expected that "Government Motors" would offer something as audacious as the RWD V8 G8/Caprice.

and

No "business case" is Detroit-speak for the when the parasitic Robert McNamara bean-counter types (i.e. Fritz Henderson and his appliance motorist handlers on the Car Czar Central Committee) shoot down a what looks to everyone else like a "no brainer."

So much for another good idea.]

GRAND MARQUIS & RANGER: OVERPRICED?

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

According to Forbes Magazine and an outfit known as Vincentric, Mercury Grand Marquis and Ford Ranger are overpriced.

Vincentric’s multi-variable analysis determined that the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) for Grand Marquis is a whopping 21.4 percent above market value. This placed the Grand Marquis in the penultimate position of shame, only behind bankrupt Dodge’s Ram pickup.

Ford Ranger Supercab and regular cab 2wd were overpriced 11.1 Percent and 11.5 percent respectively.

A SAD WAY TO STARVE A PANTHER

Grand Marquis’ poor showing are wholly predictable. The car has not be restyled in over ten model years. Even Henry’s Model T had more exterior updates than that.

Mechanically, the Grand Marquis soldiers along with a wonderful full-frame RWD chassis that was redone for the 2003-2004 Marauder, but is hamstrung with a puny 281-cube SOHC having only two small valves per cylinder. It’s also limited by an out-of-date four-speed automatic. Since the sacking of the overpriced/underpowered (for a sports sedan) Marauder, Mercury has offered virtually no touring or performance options on the big Panther.

So here you have it: A relatively low-performance “grandma” car that looks almost identical to one sold ten years ago, and starved of any development or promotion for the better part of a decade is a shoe-in for low market values.

And it’s all on purpose.

The Glass House Gang is TRYING to kill the Panther through obvious neglect. Clearly, a lot of pricy executive egos are invested in forcing Panther customers into the Volvo-derived six-cylinder FWD “D3s” and their flabby derivatives. The “Fat Buddha” 2010 Taurus gets all the love while the long-serving RWD Panther doesn’t even get the scraps! And in this sick, self-fulfilling prophecy, FoMoCo will justify slaughtering the last “real” full-frame RWD car that probably will ever be offered for sale in America at the end of 2010 or 2011 because of declining sales.

The bean counters and Panther haters destroyed any chance the Marauder had of igniting the Impala SS sports sedan/muscle car formula. And the bean counters and Panther haters have shamefully milked the 1998/2003 Grand Marquis, withholding from it obvious off-the-shelf parts that would have made it more competitive and a better value.

Of course, the irony is that back when GM was killing RWD and V8 power in the 1980s, Ford, Lincoln and Mercury benefitted from keeping their Panthers alive (albeit mostly on limited investment life support).

The development budget since 2003 seems to be about $1.95 . . . .

Had Mercury made reasonable investments in the Grand Marquis (i.e. restyling on the customary Japanese four-year cycle, multivalve engines, cylinder deactivation and variable valve timing, six-speed transmissions, and the sorts of performance options suggested by (or withheld from) the Marauder, and perhaps even the return of two-door body styles or the still-born Marauder convertable) market values would not have nosedived like a new “1998 model.”

The story is similar for Ranger. Long neglected, new Rangers are fundamentally the same as older models. Without high-performance V8s or other image-builders (an electric hybrid or a modern turbo-diesel would have been an obvious choice a while back given the green interests and rhetoric of William Clay Ford, Jr.), the Ranger, like the Grand Marquis is a dated commodity vehicle.

The slow "Terri Schivo" starvation deaths of the Panthers and Ranger evidence a poor way of running an automobile company.

IS THE 2010 FORD TAURUS A "FAT BUDDHA?”

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

It now seems that SHO in the current Taurus vernacular stands for . . . .

Slow
Heavy
Overpriced

But does the base “Bull” (or more fittingly, the “steer” -- based on recent road tests) stand for something else? Something theological?

Usually automobiles do not have any religious qualities. They are non-sectarian machines. They have no consciousness or an eternal "soul." Accordingly, manufacturers tend to avoid religious themes.

But a recent press release from Ford Motor Company suggests that “centered” interior designer Lon Zaback apparently attributes Zen Buddhist aesthetics to the 2010 Taurus interior design!

For example, Zaback jabbered to FoMoCo’s in-house P.R. scribes that:

The rubber mats in the storage compartments have a pebble-in-pond water droplet pattern,” said Zaback. “It’s a Zen detail that imparts a sense of harmony and well-being. It really shows the distance we’ll go to impress a customer with our attention to the most minute detail.”

A similar Zen “wave” pattern also is repeated in the pads in the base of the center console.

This sort of new-age gibberish causes eyes to glaze over in much of the heartland.

Most certainly potential Taurus customers will appreciate “attention to detail” and the absence of cheap, smelly molded plastics. But few, if any, will anticipate . . . or appreciate . . . that the “patterns,” “harmony” and “well-being” were apparently inspired by misplaced devotion to some obtuse, morbidly obese, dead Chinese religionist!

On the other hand, perhaps it does explain the Taurus’ weight problem . . . .

And all that "harmony and well-being" balogona will give Taurus drivers something to think about when they're getting their clocks cleaned by the Hemis, V8s and Eurotrash sports sedans in the next lane . . .

This is not FoMoCo’s first foray into the “Zen” morass.

Truth With Speedzzter readers will recall that “Zen” nonsense was part of the plan for revitalizing Mercury (See "Zen and the Art of Killing Mercury" in the "Best of Speedzzter" sidebar) And unsubstantiated flirtations with Buddhism have long dogged Chairman William Clay Ford, Jr. A 2004 USA Today article contained this interesting passage:

Ask Ford Motor CEO Bill Ford if he CEgO [sic] surfs, and he shakes his head. "It's too depressing," he says.

What Ford would find are frequent mentions of him being a Buddhist. He pinpoints it to a 2000 article in The New York Times magazine with the headline: The Buddha of Detroit. It was a straightforward profile, but the lead paragraph seized on Ford's interest in Eastern mysticism, acupuncture, homeopathy, Zen -- and Vipassana Buddhism.

Ford says he wouldn't "categorize" himself as a Buddhist. "Not exclusively a Buddhist by any means, although I have read quite a bit." Still, it's grist for the Internet mill. A recent search for "Bill Ford" and Buddhist on the search engine Dogpile.com returned 72 hits.

(Perhaps if “Lil’ Billy” read more about automobiles and less worthless bilge from false and deceptive Eastern religions, his tenure at Ford wouldn’t have been such a mess).

Undoubtedly somebody at Ford has market researched all of the silly “Zen talk” and decided that it is not a liability. Perhaps they believe that it makes FoMoCo more “Oriental” in an age when Pacific Rim predators are raiding the American market. Of course FoMoCo market research also brought us the Edsel, so perhaps faith in it is misplaced.

And this sort of thing may not sit too well with some of Ford’s more conservative and sensitive Judeo-Christian Taurus customers. Some of these customers still have a bad taste left over from FoMoCo’s pandering to the radical homosexual rights lobby and the resulting boycott. Moreover, it was bad enough that Ford named the original front-wheel-drive “steer” after an astrological symbol. But now some may blow all of the allusions to new age and Buddhist religions out of proportion to attack the image of the car.

A memorable line from the film “Animal House” is "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.” To paraphrase it for the 2010 Taurus – Fat, slow and Zen Buddhist is no way to design (or market) a sedan, son.

TAURUS SHO IS A PIG IN EDMUNDS TESTING

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

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

And a recent Edmunds comparison test bears that out.

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

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

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

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

It's an inauspicious start for the EcoBoost era.

FOMOCO ENGINEERS "WHIP IT, WHIP IT GOOD" (With apologies to Devo)

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Calibrating the latest generation of airbags is a tough job . . . .

Ford's safety engineers also have concocted a clever test method using a multi-tailed, lead-tipped steel whip. They use it to repeatedly "pepper" the underbody area where side impact air bag sensors are located. Data collected from such tests is used to refine sensor calibrations as well.

Feel free to write your own punchlines . . . .

MULALLY’S WAY: A BLUEPRINT FOR OBAMA’S AUTO CZARS?

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

The recent BusinessWeek PR puff piece profile on Ford Motor Company Boss Alan Mulally ought to be informative to the inexperienced know-nothings President Obama selected for his Car Czar “Central Committee.”

Of course, General Motors and Chrysler might not hang on long enough to suffer – or in the longest of long-shots, benefit – from the collective wisdom of a group of political/environmental hacks (some of which do not even own cars, and none of which have ever built or tried to sell one).

But miracles may happen.

One or both of the “Beg 2" might make it into summertime without being totally bankrupted by the confluence of: (a) the traitorous Japanese invasion, (b) the insatiable greed of the United Auto Workers union,(c) the corrosive, anti-Detroit drum beat of the automotive press, (d) the virtual collapse of the American financial system, (e) the crush of Federal regulations that have bled the life out of the American automakers for nearly four decades (and which cede huge cost advantages to places like India, China, South Korea, and even Japan in some instances), (f) America’s “U.S.A. Last” trade polices; and (g) the twenty trillion dollar spending binge at the heart of Obamanomics.

If they hang on, Obama’s “Car Czars” “Central Committee" could actually influence the direction of the U.S. auto industry. And they could do worse in taking a few cues from Alan Mulally.

Mulally is an attractive example because he cannot be tagged with the claim that he’s one of the Detroit insiders that Senator Richard Shelby and the “let’em die/let the Japanese win” crowd claims caused the entire problem (ignoring Washington D.C.’s expensive interference in the free markets). He’s an “outsider,” just like the clueless rookies on the “Central Committee.”

Of course Mulally rolled into Dearborn as a seasoned manufacturing executive, and not some idealistic think-tank/academic/bean counter who knows more about “Earth Day” than the day-to-day operations of a Fortune 5 automaker. But Mulally was not a consumer of American automobiles or even an automobile enthusiast.

So how has he kept FoMoCo out of the hands of the bankruptcy court or the Obama “Car Czar” “Central Committee?”

1. He listened.

By the time Mulally took Ford's helm, he had met with every senior staffer and asked a trunkful of questions. "Alan said there was a lot he didn't know, but that he was a quick study," says [William Clay Ford, Jr.]. But once he settled in, Mulally began providing the answers, meeting with employees in groups ranging from 25 to several hundred. No speeches. Just off-the-cuff remarks followed by 45 minutes or so of Q&A.

2. He required realistic transparency.

The old Ford way rewarded the creation of fiefdoms, top-down decision making, rejection of outsiders, delayed responsiveness, me-first careerism over teamwork, frequent reassignments among leaders, and “CYA” hiding of problems.

Mulally has instead encouraged a constant data stream, reduced leadership shuffling, quick responses, collaboration, and transparency. In other words, Mulally is attempting to apply the same lean, realistic management methods used by successful motorsports teams for decades.

3. He appreciated the immediate problems and took decisive action.

Within three months of his arrival, Mulally sold Wall Street on a $23 billion recapitalization, one that Ford had been working on but about which investors had been lukewarm before Mulally's arrival. That has meant the difference between death and just being sick. Because he had no loyalty to Ford's luxury brands, Mulally overrode internal opposition and sold Jaguar, Land Rover, and Aston Martin before buyers became scarce.

He also recognized the obvious – that the Volvo-based, orthopaedic-shoe D3 cars were duds and reached back to what made the original Taurus a success (notwithstanding its boring, non-sporting specifications, the handicap of low-performance front wheel drive, and the lack of optional V8 power). While renaming, repowering, and ladling some chrome and a Fusion grill on the Taurus, nee Five Hundred couldn’t make steak out of Hamburger Helper (tm), Mulally has focused FoMoCo’s interior and exterior design efforts toward a more internationally competitive, high value language. The next Taurus, due out in the summer of 2009, bears the fruits of this handiwork. The improvements to the 2010 Mustang (excluding the major let-down in the engine room) are also evidence of this strategy.

4. He didn’t kill off motorsports or high-performance to save money.

Certainly “Truth With Speedzzter” has long been a critic of the Mustang’s mismanagement.

But for the near-death of Chrysler and GM and the cratering of the broader market, Mustang would be in a more uncompetitive position because of Ford’s under-the-hood penny pinching, Shelby price gouging, and virtual abandonment of the blue-collar high performance niche.

Nor has Ford hasn’t optimally managed its SVT brand.

And “Truth With Speedzzter” remains skeptical of Ford’s long-term commitment to serving its performance and racing customers.

However, new products such as the amazing SVT Raptor, the upcoming Boss 6.2 SOHC and Coyote DOHC V8s, improvements in the Ford Racing Performance Parts crate engine program, Ford’s investment in EcoBoost technology, Ford’s recognition of the value of Australia’s indigenous FPV line, and Ford’s continued commitment to motorsports (albeit at too low of a level to replicate the domination of the “Total Performance” era), all indicate that Mulally at least has some minimal appreciation for the essence of Ford.

Ford was founded on motorsports.

Ford’s 1908 Model T, segment-busting 1930s V8s, original Thunderbirds, 1960s Mustangs, and 1980s Mustang 5.0s all revolutionized their market niches through providing more “bang for the buck,” more driving excitement (relative to their competition), and attractive platforms for decades of individualization, hot rodding, and grassroots motorsports.

Ford’s involvement in professional motorsports over the past half century has benefitted virtually every form of racing, has trickled down to the products Ford has offered to consumers, and has kept the Ford brand vital as an international force, even after blowing the huge lead of the Model T era.

Mulally apparently understands that Ford’s most loyal customers are those who identify with Ford’s high-performance and motorsports traditions.

Given the precariousness of the auto market and Ford’s shrinking cash reserves, it may be premature to celebrate Mulally and his team as the ones who pulled FoMoCo out of the fire once again. Ford may still have to ask for the Feds to pony up some loan money to survive the crisis the Government mostly created. Ford still has lots of problems to solve and is still mismanaging much of its heritage and potential. And Ford must still fight into the regulatory, energy policy, and trade policy headwinds that are buffeting nearly every OEM.

But even so, Obama’s hapless and unqualified“Car Czars” would be well-served to put aside their political ideologies and wishful thinking to follow Alan Mulally’s thoughtful and realistic lead.

WHY AN ECOBOOST V8?

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

“Why an EcoBoost V8?”

1. Better breathing (more valve curtain area possible for a given displacement) with better port velocities.

2. Increased firing pulses per crankshaft revolution provides smoother torque delivery.

3. Only a V8 can produce the classic V8 burble. Six cylinders sound . . . like sixes. A
“buzzin’ half dozen” simply doesn’t sound as good as a proper V8. (Even V8s of less than two liters sound like V8s)

4. Higher RPM potential in modified form with direct injection because injector dwell time is less.

5. No American manufacturer has built a world-class turbocharged V8 . . . ever (the Oldsmoblie Jetfire and the V8 Turbo Trans-Am were poorly done and did not have DOHC or modern engine controls).

6. Heritage: Harley-Davidson is known for V-Twins (even though that's not the best for high power density) and it's part of their brand persona. Similarly, Ford introduced the mass-market monoblock V8 to the world in 1932 and the 135-cube V8-60 (later a Simca engine) in 1937. Ford V8s have been legendary in 70+ years of motorsports. Ford has led American V8 development with its Modular and Boss/Hurricane engines in recent years. An EcoBoost V8 would be a worthy successor to this tradition and heritage.

7. Cylinder deactivation: Although Honda and GM successfully deactivate 3 of 6 cylinders, cutting 4 of 8 is inherently less vibration prone.

8. Motorsports: An EcoBoost V8 (if it were small enough in displacement) could homologate a hand-grenade-sized V8 for several forms of grassroots motorsports. A larger EcoBoost V8 would also be a boon to grassroots motorsports.

9. Efficiency: The current Eaton supercharged Modular V8s lack sufficient fuel efficiency for the coming CAFE standards. An EcoBoost V8 could increase off boost efficiency.

(Probably what will eventually happen someday is a computer-controlled, electrically-assisted Miller/Atkinson/Otto-cycle (MAO) engine with a clutched Eaton TVS, split-pulse turbocharging, intercooling, and direct Ethanol/E-85 injection. Such a MAO engine would allow for dramatic off-boost efficiency gains (Atkinson Cycle with cylinder deactivation, hybrid electric torque assist, and engine start-stop), low-boost efficiency gains (Miller Cycle), instant torque upon full throttle acceleration (via the TVS blower operating in the Otto Cycle, transitioning to larger-than-otherwise split-pulse turbos), an even broader torque curve than the current EcoBoost engines, waste energy recovery at mid and high R.P.M. (via the turbos) and dramatically increased power density. An EcoBoost V8s would be the first step toward the MAO engine. While a MAO engine would take a large amount of computer processing power to manage its transitions, it would not be as hard to manage as an HCCI or HCCI/Otto-cycle engine.

10. Intake ram-tuning/variable geometry intake: Unlike the current Eaton supercharged Modular V8s, an EcoBoost V8 could use a variable geometry intake manifold for Helmholtz resonance tuning, and multiple torque peaks (Ford, if it were so inclined could also add some intake runner length to the Eaton supercharged Modular V8s (ala Saleen & Edelbrock), but it’s more likely they’d do it with a turbo engine)

11. Halo Effect: V8 EcoBoost engines would stand out as unique in a sea of similarly-sized turbo sixes that will likely flood the market as CAFE requires increased power densities.

12. Camshaft timing: V8s can run wilder cams with acceptable levels of low-speed driveablity because of the increased number of firing pulses per revolution. Thus an EcoBoost V8 could potentially not have to sacrifice as much cam timing on the altar of the idle smoothness that the Japanese-dominated marketplace expects.

13. Dashes the “Gas Guzzler” stereotype: Many uninformed people believe that V8s are inherently thirsty. Displacement, not number of cylinders is the primary factor in fuel consumption. Thus a properly-sized EcoBoost V8 would go a long way in rebutting the mistaken belief that V8s cannot be fuel efficient.


WHY COMPARE THE 2010 TAURUS TO JAPANESE TUNER CARS?

Comparison of the WRX/EVO to the 2010 Taurus SHO is not as unreasonable as it might seem. Each of these cars are all-wheel-drive performance cars using turbocharged engines. The EVO and the SHO have the same basic layout (transversely mounted engines). Each of these cars are four-door sedans. Thus, it’s reasonable to see the SHO as a larger, “grown-up,” Americanized version of a Japanese WRC homologation car.

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

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here.

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

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

No manual transmission . . .

No Eco-Boost V8. . . .

No symphony of high performance V8 sounds . . . .

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

That, of course, remains to be seen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

CUT IN FLEET SALES LEADS FOMOCO LOWER IN JANUARY 2009

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Ford, Lincoln and Mercury car sales dropped 35.1% to 28,707. Total trucks fell 40.5% to 61,889 with the flagship F-Series pickup down 38.6%.

Ford said fleet sales, primarily to rental car companies, plunged 65%. The retail business slipped 27%, though Ford pointed out that it gained retail market share for the fourth consecutive month, a streak that hasn't happened since 1995.

Ford Motor Company's pull-back from rental car sales is painful but necessary. While rental fleet units keep factories humming at a predictable level (and yield some economies-of-scale profit potential), they drive down the residual values and brand reliability scores.

Moreover, with the a few exceptions, such as the limited-production Hertz Shelby GT Mustang, fleet cars are equipped as bland commodity vehicles. These vehicles tend to give potential customers the wrong impression of model features and flagship technologies.

Some fleet sales are useful, such as FoMoCo's taxi and police business. Fleet sales can also be used to highlight a halo or niche model that might otherwise be ignored in the crowded marketplace (Speedzzter wonders if Mercury might have had more success with the somewhat understated, underpowered, and overpriced 2003-2004 Marauder if it had featured it as a fleet model in place of the pedestrian Grand Marquis).

However, as Ford rebuilds its image among skeptical, import-biased consumers, reduction in fleet sales should have a long-term positive effect on brand perceptions, even if it causes some short-term "pain" through reduced sales.

RWD DODGE CHARGER AND PONTIAC G8 GONE IN 2011?

The current issue of Road and Track features a Battle-of-the-American-Pushrods shoot-out between the 425-horsepower SRT-8 Charger and the 415-horsepower Pontiac G8 GXP. The end of the story encourages potential buyers not to wait in their purchases.

Good advice.

Notwithstanding the precarious conditions of GM and Chrysler, the R&T story notes that the huge increases in Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards coming from the Obama Administration (not to mention even stricter state standards that will be rammed through by California and the nearly one-quarter of U.S. states that will follow in lockstep) will likely mean the death of rear wheel drive and high-performance V8s in the redesigned Charger and G8 by 2011.

Ford, of course, will completely miss out on this last round of RWD V8 super sedans. Its 2010 Taurus is still on the ill-proportioned, V8-adverse Volvo D3 platform. Although much of the bland, orthopedic-shoe styling will be gone in the next Taurus, Ford will enter the "last dance" for "American Muscle" with nothing more than a 350-horsepower EcoBoost V6.

That's a sad legacy.

However, one could argue that the die was cast when Ford failed to develop world-class RWD V8 sport sedans in the 1980s. Most certainly, Ford's failures to (a) recognize the resurgence of RWD in this decade and/or (b) make sure that the FWD-ready modular V8 would fit into its mass market AWD sedans were missed opportunities.

Hopefully at some point Ford will tap into its long heritage of popularly-priced V8 leadership with a "right-sized" DOHC Eco-Boost V8, featuring variable valve timing and lift, cylinder deactiviation, variable-geometry intake manifolding and other high-efficiency technologies. Sadly, that day -- if it ever comes -- will be after fuel efficiency standards have killed off the traditional RWD V8 sedan for years to come.