ADVANTAGES OF TURBOCHARGING

By 460-BBF-Turbo-In-CC

 

Car Crafters often ask why turbocharge instead of building a bigger engine or using nitrous oxide as a "power adder."

 
Here are some of the advantages of using a turbo over "all motor"

1. "Area under the curve"-- A proper turbo engine can have a huge advantage in midrange and top end torque compared to a naturally aspirated engine.

For example, Here's the torque curve for a Dodge Viper 8.4 liter engine:

RPM Torque
3600 500 lbs/ft
4000 530
4400 545
4800 560
5200 560
5600 550
6000 525

Here's a torque curve for a turbocharged 4.6 liter Ford tested by Richard Holdener at 14 psi:

RPM Torque
3600 490 lbs/ft
4000 615
4400 720
4800 730
5200 755
5600 740
6000 705
6500 670

Here's the torque curve for a Gale Banks turbocharged 6.0 liter SBC on 91 octane at 8-12 psi:

RPM Torque
3800 590 lbs/ft
4400 605
4800 650
5200 650
5600 675
6000 650
6500 625

2. Fuel economy -- a smaller turbo engine with the same peak power as a radical big block is obviously a smaller engine when its off-boost. In cruise conditions, the turbo mill can yield 3-5 m.p.g. better fuel economy, or even better.

At $3.00+ per gallon, that can add up fast on a daily driver. For example, let's say you wanted to run the Hot Rod Power Tour at a round trip of 2,500 miles. With a 11 m.p.g. big block, it would cost $682 at $3.00/gallon. But with an 18 m.p.g. turbo engine, it would only cost $417. And a 22 m.p.g. turbo mill would run the trip for a paltry $340.

3. Drivability -- a 750 lbs/ft "all motor" engine is going to require a fairly big cam, carb and head combo. That usually means a rough idle and fairly crude low-speed manners. A loose torque converter and steep gears are generally necessary to keep the engine in its narrow powerband.

A 750 lbs/ft turbo engine can run a mild cam with a near-stock idle. Off-boost it can be so docile that you could let your grandma drive it. Turbos tend to work well with tighter torque converters and highway gearing.

4. Greater use of stock parts -- big "all motor" power typically requires high r.p.m. That means thousands for valvetrain and induction parts that can stand the revs. The lifespan of these parts is often much less in street driving than stock components.

The same power from a turbo mill can be achieved with mostly stock valvetrain parts. Reliability is measureably increased. Moreover, because high r.p.m, isn't necessary, the rest of the engine can use more stock parts.

For example, the April 2011 issue of Hot Rod magazine features the turbo build of a 150,000 mile GMC Denali engine (5.3-liter 5.3 LM7 engine). With nothing more than a mild LS6 camshaft (203.8/ 212.1 duration; .523/.522 lift; 115.9-degree Lobe Separation Angle) and a cheap Chinese turbo, the engine reportedly produced a massive 594 horsepower and 585 lbs/ft of torque.

5. Power density -- A turbo engine can be smaller and lighter than a big block of similar peak output. That can mean better weight distribution and more power-per-pound of engine.

6. A turbo engine can actually be cheaper to build -- Unless you're building a stock-based combo, building a big block can be expensive nowadays. It's not uncommon for an 800+ h.p. "all motor" big block to cost in excess of $15,000. The same level of power with a turbo engine often costs a fraction of that.

Now for nitrous

7. More tractable than nitrous oxide -- Most nitrous systems are on/off. A sudden 100-300 h.p. can be hard to manage. Even an expensive multi-stage nitrous system can have harsh transitions. Turbo engines can be more tractable because they can be modulated with the accelerator and boost controllers.

8. No bottle to run out-- A nitrous rule of thumb is 1 lb for 10 seconds = 100 h.p. A "200 shot" burns through 15 lbs of N20 in about 75 seconds. That can get expensive in a hurry.

75 seconds of turbo power doesn't really cost anything more than the fuel burned. And the turbo is still there for another 75 seconds . . . and another . . . and another . . . .

9. No nitrous backfires or other accidents -- Many heavy squeezers have stories to tell about intake manifold explosions, fireballs, clogged jets, melted pistons and other horrors of living on the edge with spray. A dialed-in turbo system simply doesn't have the same level of "drama." Many serious turbo racers report much longer engine service intervals than with N20.

10. Nitrous on the street is illegal in 38 states. And nitrous is banned in many forms of competition (drag racing is one of the few places where N20 is legal). There are a lot more places where you can run a turbo.

11. Less "prep" before a pass is needed with a turbo -- Turbos require no "purging" and no bottle heating. They're always ready for immediate action.

12. Easier to adjust for track conditions -- Dialing back a nitrous system for a "loose" track can be time-consuming (especually if it's a staged system). Dialing back a turbo system usually only takes a couple of seconds.

13. You can still have fun without race gas in the tank -- A big-power nitrous 'plant will require race gas to keep detonation at bay. On pump gas you've either got to change the jets or keep off the bottle.

But you can still make decent power with most turbo systems even when there's no race gas in the tank.

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!

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.

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).

2011 FORD MUSTANG "COYOTE" 5.0 SPANKS CAMARO SS . . . IN FUEL ECONOMY?

(Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here)

The more advanced dual-overhead-cam, four-valve 5.0 liter Coyote V8, standard in the 2011 Ford Mustang GT, is widely expected to more than make up for the lost years of being down on power to Chevrolet's pushrod two-valve V8 Camaro.

But the Environmental Protection Agency has proven Ford's Coyote V8 wins in another, perhaps unexpected area: fuel economy. "Government Motors'" antiquated pushrod engine design and portly "Holden" Camaro are no match for the lighter, more efficient 2011 Mustang. And that's without even adding start-stop, electric hybrid assist, or cylinder deactivation! So theoretically, there's even more part-throttle efficiency that Ford left on the table (for now).

While "Truth With Speedzzter" is troubled by developments such as the ridiculous, V8-less Volvo-Taurus-based 2012 "Police Interceptor," (a Coyote V8 in the Panther chassis would likely "intercept" the 2012 PI in cost, reduced complexity, performance, serviceability, and durability), at least FoMoCo still has one RWD V8 with a bright future.

Here's FoMoCo's glowing press release:

DEARBORN, Mich., March 16, 2010 – The 2011 Ford Mustang GT, powered by a new 412-hp 5.0-liter V-8 engine, adds yet another notch to its belt: an EPA rating of 26 mpg highway when equipped with the six-speed manual transmission, giving it the best fuel economy in its class.

"The 2011 Mustang continues to exceed expectations in every category, and these fuel economy numbers are another chapter in an incredible story," said Derrick Kuzak, Ford's group vice president, Global Product Development. "To offer this kind of horsepower and class-leading fuel economy in a comfortable, beautiful, tech-savvy and affordable package – it's really unprecedented."

With the six-speed manual transmission, Mustang GT coupe is rated at 17 mpg city and
26 highway, while models with the available six-speed automatic achieve 18 mpg city and
25 highway.

The GT's best in class fuel numbers come on the heels of the Mustang V-6, which just last week cracked the record books as not only the most fuel-efficient Mustang ever, but also the first production car in history to produce 305 horsepower and 31 mpg highway.

Mustang GT is powered by an all-new 5.0-liter double-overhead-camshaft (DOHC) V-8 with a host of advanced features to deliver the combination of power and class-leading fuel economy.

Twin Independent Variable Camshaft Timing (Ti-VCT) adjusts the valvetrain in microseconds depending on driver inputs. A carefully tuned intake and exhaust system ensures free breathing at all engine speeds. And all-aluminum construction results in a lightweight yet durable powerplant.

A pair of new transmissions, both with six forward ratios, also play a large part in making the 2011 Mustang a breakthrough car. Regardless of whether drivers want to shift for themselves or let the car shift for them, they're treated to carefully chosen gear ratios to maximize fuel economy while still delivering high-horsepower performance

"Mustang powertrain development has reached a point where customers don't have to choose between fuel efficiency and performance," says Barb Samardzich, Ford vice president of Global Powertrain Engineering. "Thanks to technologies like Ti-VCT and our six-speed gearboxes, a Mustang driver has the best of both worlds."

Fuel economy improvements on all Mustang models
Mustang GT shares fuel economy accolades with the new 3.7-liter Mustang V-6 – the first production car ever to offer both 300-plus horsepower and 31 mpg on the highway. Official 2011 EPA fuel economy ratings for the Mustang product line are:

Mustang V-6

*19 mpg city and 31 highway (automatic coupe)
*19 mpg city and 29 highway (manual coupe)

Mustang GT

*18 mpg city and 25 highway (automatic coupe)
*17 mpg city and 26 highway (manual coupe)


In addition to powertrain improvements, upgrades to Mustang's body and chassis design contribute to its 2011 performance. Examples include:

*New EPAS eliminates the drag of an engine-operated hydraulic power steering pump
*Combined with the new six-speed transmissions, standard 3.31 (manual) and 3.15 (automatic) rear axle ratios provide an ideal blend of relaxed cruising rpm and all-out acceleration
*Aerodynamic improvements include a new front fascia on the Mustang GT, tire spats on the rear wheels, modified underbody shields, a taller air dam and an added rear decklid seal

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

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.

MAJORITY OF AMERICANS OPPOSE "CA$H FOR CLUNKER$" WELFARE PLAN

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Although a hoard of appliance motoring automotive vandals in the Congress and President Obama have championed the welfare-giveaway-bailout boondoggle popularly known as "Cash for Clunkers," a solid majority of Americans still oppose the plan.

Rassmussen reports that 54 percent of Americans disapprove of the new entitlement aimed at cleansing the streets of some seldom-driven vintage V8s through borrowing or printing money and handing it over to the automakers and their dealers in the form of welfare vouchers for purchasers of fuel efficient cars (mostly imports).

ELECTRO-FUSION IS THE "MOST PATENTED CAR" (BUT VW'S TWINCHARGER IS 2009's INTERNATIONAL ENGINE OF THE YEAR)

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

A couple of interesting items from Autoblog Green . . . .

VW 1.4-liter Twincharger wins 2009 International Engine of the Year

And

Ford Fusion hybrid, the most patented car in history

So what if these two got together (like chocolate and peanut butter in a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup)?


Given FoMoCo's funding of Eaton's development of the modernized Roots blower in the 1980s, Ford's once and recent history with turbocharging, and the allure of hybrid-electric powertrains, its too bad that a twincharged (hopefully a displacement-on-demand DOHC V8) electric-hybrid isn't in Ford's lineup (Think hybrid electric Mustang)

CARS ACT: THE DEMOCRAT-RINO WAR AGAINST V8s

[Get the latest Truth With Speedzzter here]

It reads like an endangered species list . . . Mustangs, Cougars, Jaguars, Panthers,Thunderbirds.

These are just a few of the collectable cars caught up in the insane greeniac dragnet of the so-called “Ca$h for Clunker$” bill passed by 298 automotive free-market haters in the U.S. House of Representatives.

These vandals of our American automotive history, led by Freedom-hating, green-welfare-sugar-mama Representative Betty Sutton (D-OH) and encouraged by Supreme Enviro-Socialist Commander Barack Hussein Obama (when he’s not groveling at the feet of Islamic Mullahs or calling the shots for “Government Motors”) have declared war against the V8 engine, auto collecting and grassroots motorsports.

Aided by 58 Republican-In-Name-Only (RINO) collaborators (each of which who ought to be immediately ejected from the GOP), the power-mad “Greenazis” are poised to borrow up to $4,000,000,000.00 from the Communist Chinese and the Fed (e.g. the printing press) to buy up V8-powered collector cars and destroy them.

Here’s how HR2751, the so-called “Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act” works (in its own words):

WHAT COLLECTABLE VEHICLES ARE TARGETED FOR DESTRUCTION?

(

7) the term `eligible trade-in vehicle' means an automobile or a work truck (as such terms are defined in section 32901(a) of title 49, United States Code) that, at the time it is presented for trade-in under this Act--
1. (A) is in drivable condition; [NOTE THAT IT DOESN’T SAY COMPLETE, SO THEORETICALLY A GUTTED, INSURED ROLLING SHELL THAT MOVES UNDER ITS OWN POWER WOULD BE “DRIVEABLE”]
(B) has been continuously insured consistent with the applicable State law and registered to the same owner for a period of not less than 1 year immediately prior to such trade-in;
(C) was manufactured in model year 1984 or later [WHICH IS CONTRADICTED IN ANOTHER SECTION OF THE BILL]; and
(D) in the case of an automobile, has a combined fuel economy value of 18 miles per gallon or less [NOTE THAT THIS IS THE NEW, LOWER EPA RATINGS, AND IS BASED ON THE VIN CODE. THE CARS BILL APPARENTLY OMITS ANY REQUIREMENT OF AN ORIGINAL ENGINE, WHICH MAY LEAVE OPEN THE DOOR FOR CREATIVE PRE-TRADE ENGINE SWAPS];

HOW DOES "BIG BROTHER" DEFINE FUEL ECONOMY?

(

5) the term `combined fuel economy value' means--
1. (A) with respect to a new fuel efficient automobile, the number, expressed in miles per gallon, centered below the words `Combined Fuel Economy' on the label required to be affixed or caused to be affixed on a new automobile pursuant to subpart D of part 600 of title 40 Code of Federal Regulations;
(B) with respect to an eligible trade-in vehicle, the equivalent of the number described in subparagraph (A), and posted under the words `Estimated New EPA MPG' and above the word `Combined' for vehicles of model year 1985 through 2007, or posted under the words `New EPA MPG' and above the word `Combined' for vehicles of model year 2008 or later on the fueleconomy.gov website of the Environmental Protection Agency for the make, model, and year of such vehicle; or
(C) with respect to an eligible trade-in vehicle manufactured between model years 1978 through 1984, [HERE’S A DEAD GIVEAWAY THAT THEY’LL BE BACK AFTER PRE-1984 MODELS] the equivalent of the number described in subparagraph (A) as determined by the Secretary (and posted on the website of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) using data maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency for the make, model, and year of such vehicle;

SO WHAT SORT OF POTENTIAL COLLECTOR CARS ARE ON DEATH ROW?

Virtually any vehicle with a V8 engine built after 1984 and before 2000 is potentially at risk of being crushed if its been in the hands of the same greedy, welfare-loving owner for a year and has insurance. Most certainly, the few V8-powered vehicles built after 2000 probably have enough “trade in” value left to exceed the $3,500-$4,500 government bid.

But scores of collectable and donor vehicles built during the Clinton and Reagan Administrations are at risk.

For example, Every Mustang GT (except the super-rare turbo 4) and all SVT Cobras with trade-in values of less than $4,500 are potential victims of the Congressional vandals, as well as competitors, such as Pontiac Trans Ams and Chevrolet Camaros. The Kelly Blue Book values suggest that V8 Mustangs built before 1996 are most significantly at risk.

Any vintage Jaguar built after 1984, including the exotic V12 XJS and the legendary six-cylinder XJ6 will qualify for crushing.

Every V8-powered Lincoln built after 1984 qualifies for the senseless slaughter, including such collector standouts as the Mark VII LSC, the 32-Valve Continental, and the Mark VIII (each of which represent types of milestone cars that will NEVER BE BUILT AGAIN UNDER THE DRACONIAN 2012-2016 OBAMA CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY REGULATIONS)

No Panther-platform Ford, Lincoln, or Mercury escapes. Crown Victorias, Grand Marquis, Police Interceptors, Town Cars and even Marauders fall below the arbitrary “clunker” line set in the CARS Act.

Even a few rare FWD models are targeted, such as the 1989 Pontiac Grand Prix Turbo, the Oldsmobile Aurora, and the Cadillac Allante.

But most mass-produced, smoking junkpile FWDs are ineligible. In other words the kid with the oil-burning Honda ricer (a true anti-American clunker that will never be collectable anywhere) can’t trade in his beat-down, primered, unsafe-at-any-speed heap for some quick ObamaCa$h. But he can trade in his Grandma’s pristine, seldom-driven Crown Victoria on a new KIA . . . .

SO HOW MUCH ARE THE WELFARE PAYMENTS?

1) $3,500 VALUE- The voucher [A NEWSPEAK WORD FOR WELFARE] may be used to offset the purchase price or lease price of the new fuel efficient automobile by $3,500 if--

(A) the new fuel efficient automobile is a passenger automobile and the combined fuel economy value of such automobile is at least 4 miles per gallon higher than the combined fuel economy value of the eligible trade-in vehicle;

(B) the new fuel efficient automobile is a category 1 truck and the combined fuel economy value of such truck is at least 2 miles per gallon higher than the combined fuel economy value of the eligible trade-in vehicle;

(C) the new fuel efficient automobile is a category 2 truck that has a combined fuel economy value of at least 15 miles per gallon and--

(i) the eligible trade-in vehicle is a category 2 truck and the combined fuel economy value of the new fuel efficient automobile is at least 1 mile per gallon higher than the combined fuel economy value of the eligible trade-in vehicle; or

(ii) the eligible trade-in vehicle is a category 3 truck of model year 2001 or earlier; or

(D) the new fuel efficient automobile is a category 3 truck and the eligible trade-in vehicle is a category 3 truck of model year of 2001 or earlier and is of similar size or larger than the new fuel efficient automobile as determined in a manner prescribed by the Secretary.

(2) $4,500 VALUE- The voucher may be used to offset the purchase price or lease price of the new fuel efficient automobile by $4,500 if--

(A) the new fuel efficient automobile is a passenger automobile and the combined fuel economy value of such automobile is at least 10 miles per gallon higher than the combined fuel economy value of the eligible trade-in vehicle;

(B) the new fuel efficient automobile is a category 1 truck and the combined fuel economy value of such truck is at least 5 miles per gallon higher than the combined fuel economy value of the eligible trade-in vehicle; or

(C) the new fuel efficient automobile is a category 2 truck that has a combined fuel economy value of at least 15 miles per gallon and the combined fuel economy value of such truck is at least 2 miles per gallon higher than the combined fuel economy value of the eligible trade-in vehicle and the eligible trade-in vehicle is a category 2 truck.

Nothing in the bill seems to limit the WELFARE VOUCHERS to American vehicles, so plenty of collectable American milestone vehicles will be “replaced” by soulless, boring FWD imports of dubious future collectability (and minimal grassroots motorsports potential).

Destruction of ONE MILLION VINTAGE VEHICLES will decimate many small businesses involved in used car sales, auto repair, customizing and grassroots motorsports.

The Senate can still stop this madness. Call and write your senators today.

If the idiotic vandals get their way and the CARS WELFARE/BAILOUT ACT becomes law, perhaps the best resistance is to buy a 1984-1999 V8-powered potential collectable (while you still can afford to) and DRIVE IT. And be sure to send photos to President Obama!

And at the mid-term elections, be sure to tell Obama, Sutton, Pelosi and the other Democrats and RINOS to keep their FILTHY HANDS OFF OF OUR VINTAGE V8s!

HP2G/PELMEAR V8: ONLY 200 POUNDS?

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Team HP2g's departure from the Progressive Automotive X-Prize and the June 2, 2009, announcement of an Ohio production facility for the Pelmear "mystery" motor has a number of internet wags in a tither.

Some internet "experts" are quick to brand HP2g and Pelmear as frauds.

Others, question whether any V8 in a twenty-two-year-old Mustang could ever achieve 80+ m.p.g. and 400 horsepower.

A few, including "Truth With Speedzzter" are withholding judgment until we see more.

Thus far, Doug Pelmear has kept the "miracle" Mustang's hood locked tighter than Fort Knox. However Pelmear did suggest some interesting details to the local Ohio press about the Pelmear V8:

While the E85-only engine was not on display for the general public, Pelmear did reveal that it was quite a bit smaller than the normal engine of today and only weighs about 200 pounds. He also showed the documentation that he had taken it to an Ohio EPA station last Friday for an emissions test. His emissions were half of the legal limit and that mark was achieved without a catalytic converter.

Is the HP2g/Pelmear "mystery" motor in fact a pocket-sized, ultra-low-friction, forced-induction engine with an array of electronic engine management strategies and perhaps some sort of unthrottled, lean-burn prechamber ignition? A downsized Miller-Atkinson-Otto (MAO) cycle engine that is turbocharged within an inch of its life on 85-percent Ethanol could possibly produce significant increases in low-power fuel efficiency.

Given that Pelmear has suggested that some of the proprietary technology was first envisioned by his grandfather back in the 1940s, could the "mystery" motor be some sort of high-tech Ford V8-60 derivative?

The original V8-60 was a 136-cubic-inch (2.23 liter) flathead engine designed to skirt European displacement taxes and U.K. bore size taxes. It simply lacked the torque necessary for satisfactory performance in Ford's full-sized cars, but was a modest hit in American midget oval track racing. The V8-60 had a tiny 2.6" bore and a short 3.2" stroke.

A modern turbocharged "2 liter" V8 could take advantage of multiple overhead valves, direct injection, cylinder deactivation, and valve timing alterations to dramatically boost low-speed efficiency.

But 200 pounds?

That suggests that maybe even two liters is on the high side of displacement estimates. Most certainly it excludes cast iron as a predominant material and the antique V8-60 as anything more than an inspirational starting point.

The last of the Cosworth Indy V8s (the XF) was approximately 162 cubic inches (2.65 liters) and weighed in at a svelte 264.6 pounds (120 kg). That's about 1.6 pounds per cubic inch. Theoretically, downsizing the XF to two liters at the same CID-to-pounds ratio could result in a new engine around 200 pounds dry. However, the XF was hardly a low-cost production-style engine.

And while a 400 h.p. road-car V8 would have only half the horsepower of the low-boost, 12,000 r.p.m. XF, it would need to go 1,000 times longer between rebuilds to be practical. Moreover, a fairly dominant percentage of the road-car V8's duty cycle would be at net power outputs of less than 30 horsepower (and would necessarily be so to achieve fuel consumption within the ballpark Mr. Pelmear suggests).

But a road-car V8 would not need to be a structural member of the chassis (which was a key feature of Cosworth V8s starting with the legendary DFV) which theoretically could allow for some additional lightening.

Current power density assumptions suggest that about the minimum displacement for a 400 h.p. alcohol-fueled engine of reasonable potential durability would be in the 66-100 cubic inch range. For example, RB Racing sells air-cooled Harley-Davidson style Vee-twin turbo "Orca" engines with similar power-per-cube outputs (notwithstanding only two valves per cylinder). Of course, even making an off-the-shelf 400 h.p. motorcycle engine function adequately in an automobile would be a daunting task. Moreover, nothing suggests that any of the turbo Orcas would yield 80+ m.p.g. in a lightweight motorcycle, much less a compact automobile. Thus, the HP2g?Pelmear "mystery" motor would have to be something more than just a tiny V8 with a turbo.

The design challenges of creating a hyper-efficient micro-V8 for highway use would be significantly different than for an 800 h.p. turbocharged Indy Car engine or a 500h.p. Harley. Whether HP2g/Pelmear have achieved such a "breakthrough" remains to be conclusively proven. It is premature to speculate either for or against the Pelmear "mystery" motor.

NOTE: This news story contains unverified information based on forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 27E of the Securities Act of 1934. Statements contained in this report that are not historical facts may be deemed to be forward-looking statements. Investors are cautioned that forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain. Actual performance and results may differ materially from that projected or suggested herein due to certain risks and uncertainties including, without limitation, ability to obtain financing and regulatory and shareholder approvals for anticipated actions.

Truth With Speedzzter is wholly unaffiliated with HP2g, LLC, Doug Pelmear, Revenge Designs, Inc. or anyone affiliated with these entities. All trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective holders and any use herein is under the "fair use" provision of U.S. Copyright law.

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."

HP2g L.L.C. AND THE REVENGE VERDE SUPERCAR?

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Doug Pelmear and the team that initially claimed to have built an 100+ m.p.g.e. Fox-Body Mustang for the Progressive Automotive X-Prize Competition has now announced a manufacturing facility for their mysterious engine technology.

First manufacturing facility for 110 MPG HP2g engine / R&D lab


Grand Opening June 1, 2009

Wauseon, OH: June1,2009 Time 10am -12noon ---- Horse Power Sales.net, Inc. and HP2G, LLC will officially open the first manufacturing facility for the production and assembly of their revolutionary, 110MPG, V-8, HP2g engine on June 1, 2009 in Wauseon, Ohio.

The HP2g is a revolutionary alternative energy solution that will reduce the nation’s reliance on foreign oil, and help keep the environment clean. The engine runs on E85, (a green alcohol-based fuel) that significantly reduces green house gas emissions. In testing, HP2g has exhibited ultra-high fuel economy and outstanding horsepower upon demand. The first production vehicle to utilize the HP2g technology will be the Revenge Verde Super Car, a luxury performance super car from Revenge Designs Inc.

The opening of the facility will create immediate jobs for the Northwest Ohio area. Planned expansions could result in the creation of as many as 2,000 support jobs in the next three to five years.

Also to be on display is HP2g Mustang, Revenge GTM-R Super Car and other performance vehicles. Both companies look forward to displaying the HP2g motor and Revenge Verde Super Car in the future after their late 2009 release

According to Autoblog Green, the Revenge Verde supercar is to be displayed at the 2009 Los Angeles Auto Show in December.

Revenge Designs, Inc. is apparently primarily a Pontiac Solstice and 2004-2006 Pontiac GTO tuner.

However, the Verde is self-reportedly a clean-sheet design:

The all-new Revenge Verde Super Car will be totally designed in-house. The Revenge Verde Super Car makes extensive use of carbon fiber and has a chromoly tubular chassis design as well as a wheel base similar to the Ferrari GTB in order to allow for considerable leg and head room. The mid-engine compartment is specifically designed for the HP2g engine technology.

The production of the GTM-R Super Car will not continue. It is simply not feasible to produce a vehicle that is not entirely designed in-house and requires such a considerable amount of reconstruction and design.

With several months into the development of the Verde Super Car, Revenge Designs hopes to release the new Verde Super Car at the LA International Auto Show in December 2009. Revenge intends to display two versions of the Verde; one left-hand and one right-hand drive with the purpose of releasing the vehicles to the world market and not simply the American stage. Following the Revenge Verde Super Car, the company will be producing a Super Saloon vehicle in late 2010 that will accommodate the four-door passenger car market.

According to a Revenge Designs press release, "Revenge [will be] the sole and exclusive Certified Installation Centers in the United States for the installation of HP2g engines for aftermarket purchasers. Revenge will be the sole and exclusive Certified Installation Center for HP2G's HP2g engine for those clients."


Truth With Speedzzter has thus far been unable to verify independent, objective scientific verification of HP2g's claims. Moreover, Truth With Speedzzter is not privy to any proprietary information about the "Pelmear Mystery Motor" from HP2g However, it seems that HP2g may soon have their alleged revolutionary engine in the hands of the motoring press or members of the public. Until then, Truth With Speedzzter will remain skeptically optimistic about HP2g's and Revenge's spectacular claims.

NOTE: This news story contains unverified information based on forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 27E of the Securities Act of 1934. Statements contained in this report that are not historical facts may be deemed to be forward-looking statements. Investors are cautioned that forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain. Actual performance and results may differ materially from that projected or suggested herein due to certain risks and uncertainties including, without limitation, ability to obtain financing and regulatory and shareholder approvals for anticipated actions.

Truth With Speedzzter is wholly unaffiliated with HP2g, LLC, Doug Pelmear, Revenge Designs, Inc. or anyone affiliated with these entities.

FEW MOURN TILLER, GM, OR CHRYSLER (BUT MITT “SLICK WILLARD” ROMNEY IS STILL ABSOLUTELY WRONG)

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

The rule of law is supposedly a hallmark of the American system. Yet the events of the past few days have shown that the rule of law is under virulent attack.

As expected, the nationalization of General Motors has now moved into the friendly confines of bankruptcy court.

As expected, the Indiana Pensioners and other creditors got steamrolled in Chrysler’s Obama administration-orchestrated “show bankruptcy.” Now the Treasury Department is partners with FIAT and the U.A.W.


Capitalism, anyone?

And on Sunday, May 31, 2009, the heinous and vicious late-term abortionist George Tiller met his Maker somewhere in the aisles of the Reformation Lutheran Church of Wichita, Kansas. Tiller was murdered at the hands of a rogue anti-abortion zealot who cast off the essential philosophy of the pro-life movement to mete out vigilante justice that was “above [the assassin’s] pay grade.”

Meanwhile, President Obama has nominated to the Supreme Court a liberal, pro-abortion, “policy making” identity politician masquerading as a jurist. Judge Sonia Sotomayor has expressed a belief that neutral questions of law and constitutional interpretation are better decided by an inarticulate, brusque, unquestionably liberal, Ivy-league-educated, Puerto Rican woman who grew up in the ghetto, than by any Caucasian male: “ I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

In each of these events, pragmatic, ends-justifies-the-means rationales were clearly at work.

And each of these events is an indicator that the impartial rule of law is dying in America.

Few seem to be mourning that.

The average Obama voter certainly doesn’t.

Deeply imbibing the mellifluous snake oil of “hope and change,” the average Obama supporter blithely wheels her non-union-made Japanese car and sheds no tears for the government-union-regulatory nexus that mostly destroyed GM and Chrysler’s competitiveness over the past seventy years. Instead, she demands increased environmental and organized labor intrusions into the business of American manufacturers, even as she personally consumes products made in dirty overseas sweatshops at record rates.

And as long as the government checks keep coming, the mobs of special interests that support Obama and the power-mad Democrats will scarcely question the costs of current deficit spending spree, or the de facto nationalization of our most basic industry, or the sacrifice of what’s left of the free market and success-through-merit on the altars of forced redistribution, “fairness as justice,” and climate change.

Few will mourn that the creation of “Government Motors” will have the unintended consequence of driving many more short-sighted, selfish consumers into the arms of the predatory Japanese invader automakers in retaliation for the perceived largess toward the U.A.W. and the recent federal interference in the business of GM and Chrysler (notwithstanding that decades of federal interference mostly predicated the crisis to begin with).

Few will mourn the loss of American industrial muscle and of vehicular freedom-of-choice that will result from the polarizing events of the government effectively running over half of the domestic auto industry.

Few will mourn the thousands of family-owned automobile dealerships which will be forcibly closed in “reorganization” (and some will even celebrate that these losses fall most prominently upon Republicans).

Few will mourn that an emerging Climate-Industrial Complex is becoming poised tocontrol or affect virtually every aspect of life in America.
Likewise, few will truly mourn the premeditated murder of an unrepentant, cold-blooded killer-for-hire who crushed the skulls of defenseless children sometimes just days or hours before birth and vacuumed out their innocent brains like some sort of fetal parasite. Many will see the irony that Dr. Tiller’s end was as unwilling and violent as the untold numbers of unborn children he dismembered for profit.

A few misguided souls will attempt to rationalize that Tiller’s quantum of moral evil somehow justified the moral evil of his murder. Such a result would indicate a profound misunderstanding of the underpinnings of the pro-life movement.

Undoubtedly, the Planned Parenthood lobbyists, abortion mills, “pro-choice” activists, and grandstanding leftist politicians (many with politically-motivated crocodile tears flowing) will attempt to elevate Wichita’s most infamous baby butcher into some sort of sick, fetid “martyr” for the pragmatic cause of the “right” to murder unborn children for convenience -- or in the sanitized P.C. vernacular of the pro-abortion movement: for “choice.” Some may even try to link the special-interest campaign to confirm the “Wise Latina” and budding constitutional vandal Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court as the necessary response to Dr. Tiller’s slaying. Yet, few will mourn that the rule of law and valid, transcendent principles of conscience failed to constrain both Dr. Tiller and his assailant.

Few will mourn that an allegedly “Christian” church – the so-called Reformation Lutheran Church – was apparently so devoid of the Gospel and of sound doctrinal teaching on matters of life that a horrific, rebellious, unrepentant serial murderer such as Dr. Tiller could peacefully thrive within their congregation and was even reportedly permitted to assume a leadership role. Certainly, the pragmatism of such a“church” has blinded them to God’s laws and has lead them into an unholy union with the “god of this age.” The inherent idiolatry of popularity has seemingly caused their salt to lose its savor (if it ever had any).

Few will probably mourn that the unlawful, yet sickly “pragmatic” act of murdering Dr. Tiller will distract and detract from decades of righteous, non-violent, law-abiding opposition to the unspeakable horror and manifest injustice of abortion-on-demand.

However, the pragmatists on both sides of the aisle will be out in force maneuvering. A prime example is “Slick Willard” himself, Willard Mitt Romney.

Romney is ever the pragmatist, and is seemingly unguided by consistent principles. Previously, Romney has repeatedly demonstrated his permutability on the abortion question.

And now Romney has conclusively shown his lack of insight on the automobile crisis. On Fox News Sunday, “Romney suggested that the roughly 70 percent of GM that the government could own after it emerges from bankruptcy should be immediately distributed to taxpayers, and the 17.5 percent that will go to a UAW trust fund for retiree healthcare should be handed out to UAW members.”

Romney’s “pragmatic” grandstanding makes absolutely no sense. It is simply transferring ownership of GM to people who have done nothing individually to merit it. The billions of dollars in GM debt held by the Treasury Department that purportedly justify the government acquiring an ownership stake would not flow with the distributed stock under the Romney Plan. Certainly, the only hope for recovering any of the taxpayer money spent thus far is the remote possibility of GM and Chrysler recovering (against the crushing load of Obama’s carbon-reduction, environmental, foreign, and labor policies) and a sale of the new stock to investors. Romney’s plan would be nothing more than a windfall to people who did nothing much to deserve it. Moreover, it compounds one abuse of the rule of law with another one.

The events of the last few days show that the rule of law in America is in grave crisis. And there is no shortage of charlatans, such as Barack Obama, Sonia Sotomayor, and Mitt Romney, who are poised to “pragmatically” take advantage of the crisis for their own benefit. And few will join Truth With Speedzzter in mourning 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.

OBAMA, THE U.A.W. AND GM: TWO FLEETS TO THE WIND

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

With all the talk of the impending, Obama-backed “part-out” of General Motors (perhaps the new smaller GM will be truthfully known as “Government Motors”), some contrarians are betting that Obama and the Car Czar Central Committee are just bluffing.

The Wall Street Journal’s Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. is apparently one of the “no bankruptcy” contrarians.

Why?

Even a "prepackaged" filing runs too much risk of a judge imposing more "sacrifice" on the UAW than the administration is prepared to tolerate.

GM bondholders understand this: They've been intransigent precisely because they calculate the UAW is too important to Democratic electoral politics for Mr. Obama to risk losing control of the reorganization process to a bankruptcy judge.

The GM bailout has become a political operation run out of the White House. It will stay that way.

Jenkins also succinctly identifies the real problem “the UAW captivity”

That captivity, imposed by the 1935 Wagner Act, is the sole relevant factor distinguishing the Detroit Three from the world's other auto makers. The result is downright weird: "Our" auto companies operate in a world that's less "American," in a sense, than the Japanese and German companies that come here and enjoy a free labor market.

And as Truth With Speedzzter readers already know, the “captivity” is reinforced by the byzantine regime of Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE). Jenkins explains:

The Wagner world was given a second lease on life by a peculiar feature of Congress's 1975 fuel economy law. Known as the "two fleets" rule, it effectively forces Detroit to make its cheap small cars in high-wage domestic UAW factories, even if it means losing money on every car. The rule has no fuel-economy function. Its only purpose is to shield the UAW monopoly inside each Detroit auto maker from global labor competition.

* * *

The UAW's Mr. Gettelfinger had testified, coyly, during Congressional hearings that failing to renew two fleets might cost 17,000 auto workers jobs building small cars. He didn't say that two fleets is in fact the fulcrum by which, for the past 30 years, the UAW has been able to defeat globalization.

Then Senator Obama, of course, voted in lock-step with Ron Gettlefinger in support of the “two fleets” CAFE standard.

The “two fleets” rule has also led to other bizarre market disruptions since 1975, such as the expatriation of assembly operations for V8-powered cars (which leaves Ford’s Mustang and GM's Corvette variants as the sole-surviving U.S. assembled RWD V8 automobiles). Even if GM and Chrysler wanted to build "pony cars" in the U.S.A., the "two fleets" calculus would prevent it.

A bankruptcy judge can’t do anything about the inane “two fleets” standard. But he can attack the very thing that “two fleets” was meant to shelter.

If GM ends up in a “prepackaged” bankruptcy, the U.A.W.’s “captivity” could be slammed (or at least painfully trimmed) by a bankruptcy judge. The “let’em fail” chorus has repeatedly reminded us over the past six months that the airlines have shed unions in bankruptcy. Even though Ford has renegotiated with its “captors” (and even extended them a seat at the big table), the Glass House Gang is certainly worried that the new, post-bankruptcy “Mini General” will receive a more competitive labor deal from the bankruptcy court.

Jenkins and GM’s bondholders are betting that Obama – who certainly doesn’t want to repeat Jimmy Carter’s one-and-done tenure in office – will ultimately do the U.A.W.’s bidding and keep GM out of bankruptcy court.

Of course, one wild-card in this scenario is the union-backed “card check” legislation, a/k/a the Employee Freedom of Choice Act. Obama and the Big-Labor-sycophantic Democrats see this as the “magic bullet” for almost instant unionization of the Japanese invader assembly plants in “Right to Work” states.

Truth With Speedzzter suspects that Obama wants to keep GM on life-support long enough so that the horrible, anti-secret ballot “card check” law can be passed and the U.A.W. will have an opportunity for an expansive new revenue stream.

If the U.A.W. gets this arm-twisting gift from the Obamacrats, the U.A.W. could possibly have a stronger argument against the bankruptcy court’s rejection of GM’s “pattern” contract. Right now, the court would be looking at GM’s “scab” competition as setting the market price for assembly labor. GM’s platinum-plated labor agreement clearly exceeds the prevailing market price. Thus, the court could easily reject it. In Ron Gettelfinger’s probable dream world, "card check" unionization of the Japanese invader plants could slash Tokyo’s cost advantage on U.S. assembled vehicles and would result in a quick windfall for organized labor. It would also drive up the prevailing market price for assembly labor and protect the U.A.W.'s other contracts.

Whether all of this would actually work is conjecture.

But no one should forget that Obama could not have won election (and cannot win re-election) without the strong support of organized labor. And notwithstanding his breezy rhetoric, its unlikely that he won’t continue to “dance with the ones who brung him.”

2011 CAFE STANDARD IS AN OBAMA RE-ELECTION PLAY

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has announced that the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard for 2011 will compute to an "industry-wide combined average [of] 27.3 miles per gallon (a 2.0 mpg increase over the 2010 model year average)" The auto portion of the CAFE average will be 30.2 m.p.g. and the truck standard will be 24.1 m.p.g.

These numbers are undoubtedly disappointing to many of Obama's "green" contributors and supporters. The greens anticipated a steeper ramp-up to the authorized 35 m.p.g. CAFE standard. They have been encouraged by the President's rhetorical frustration and "woodshedding" of "Detroit"

The 2011 CAFE standards, however, are probably somewhat of a relief to the automakers because they do not require huge immediate changes in the fleet mix.

Moreover, the UAW and the various non-environmentalist Democratic stakeholders are probably ecstatic because it reduces the potential electorial backlash from CAFE-caused market disruptions before the 2012 elections. In other words, there is less potential for legions of small business persons, soccer moms and others that would be adversely affected by a sudden reduction in the availability of larger vehicles because of regulatory concerns, to hold Obama accountable at the ballot box in 2012.

But the 2011 fuel economy standard should not be interpreted as any long-term deviation from Obama's pursuit of draconian limits on automotive freedom. It is simply typical pragmatic incrementalism, calculated to make "change" so gradual that many will not notice.

ANOTHER REASON "TEAM MUSTANG" OUGHT TO FEAR THE 2010 CAMARO
(assuming GM hangs around long enough to build them, that is)

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

According to the Los Angeles Times "Up To Speed" automotive blog:

Chevy originally suggested the EPA-rated highway gas mileage for the base-model Camaro with the V-6 engine and manual transmission would be 27 miles per gallon, but final EPA testing placed the highway number at 29 mpg -- not bad for a 304-horsepower, 3.6-liter engine. City mileage is EPA rated at 17 mpg.

Ford's relatively low-tech Mustang six lags far behind at the pump. (16 m.p.g. city/24 m.p.g highway)

Of course there's simply no techological reason why Ford couldn't match or beat the V6 Camaro's fuel efficiency with a properly outfitted V8 engine in a RWD Mustang. A smaller, high-tech EcoBoost V8 (or better yet, a "twincharged" DOHC V8 outfitted with Ethanol Boosting Systems' direct ethanol injection) would provide a traditional symphony of V8 sounds on demand (Fabulous sounds no "buzzin' half-dozen" or rough, raucous "weed whacker" four could ever hope to duplicate) yet deliver spectacular part-throttle fuel economy.

A high-tech EcoBoost V8 in the 2.0-3.5 liter range could be a legendary high-performance engine which would preserve Ford's V8 tradition during the coming "Automotive dark ages" and would have measurably more panache than a relatively boring EcoBoost 4 or 6.

(Competition-savvy readers will note that the legendary Ford Cosworth DFV V8 was a 3.0liter engine and the later turbocharged Ford Cosworth XB/XD/XF V8s were 2.65 liter engines.)

Additionally, such an engine would be a lock for nearly permanent status on Ward's Ten Best Engines.

Given the current sales tanking of low-performance electric hybrid cars, perhaps it's time to shift the hybrid niche more into the "high-performance hybrids."

A 30+ m.p.g. variable-displacement V8 Mustang with 500+ "on boost" horsepower could generate more excitement (and sell for a higher premium) than a boat-load of "low-po" 41 m.p.g. Fusions (which are slated to be no more than a paltry 1% of sales).

Moreover, such a car would send an even stronger message to Ford's loyal owners regarding Ford's committment to balance its recent "Green faith" with its storied racing and performance heritage.

If Ford adapted the clutched integrated-assist motor system of Porsche and backed up the powerplants (IC and electric) with a manual transmission, a hybrid-electric V8 Mustang could be a huge kick to drive. And during that 95% of driving when high performance is not used, the hybrid electric V8 Mustang could make room under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy cap for some cheaper models (i.e. Coyote V8-powered Mustangs).

Ford should note that the electric hybrid Mustang driving experience would not have to be as automatic or antiseptic as a "mainstream" hybrid, because drivers of sporting cars enjoy more driver interactivity and are more engaged in the experience. Thus, some of the transitional seamlessness current hybrids provide is unnecessary in a high-performance hybrid.

(Note: For simular reasons, "Truth With Speedzzter" believes that if variable displacement technology would have been introduced in sports and musclecars, instead of in the ill-fated 1981 Cadillac V4/6/8, it would have been successful years ago in the marketplace.

Moreover, "Truth With Speedzzter" is disappointed that Chrysler and GM have failed to pair up such technology with manual transmissions or in their highest-performance models.

Finally, "Truth With Speedzzter" expects retrofits of variable displacement technology to become an aftermarket modification (JSC Engineering already claims to have built a 21 M.P.G. SRT-10 "Viper" Truck with a "mild" injector-shutdown cylinder deactivation "Fuel Saver" system.

The JSC "Fuel Saver" is a "mild" deactivation strategy because it does not reduce pumping losses in the deactivated cylinders. Aggessive OEM-style cylinder deactivation disables the intake and exhaust valves in addition to cutting the fuel on the deactivated cylinders))

Besides, to have any hope of volume production of any traditional muscle under the Obama CAFE caps (and to any market after Obama's "cap and trade" scheme drives up the cost of fuel), Ford will need to adapt such technologies to their V8s.

So why not get started now?

WHAT OBAMA’S CAR CZAR CENTRAL COMMITTEE WANTS

[Get the latest Truth With Speedzzter here]

“Auto Task Force Road Trip Shows Long Road Ahead,” posted by CNBC’s Phil LeBeau is a prime example of the Seinfeld Rule of blogging – e.g. A post about nothing.

LeBeau’s feel good thesis is that the Obama Auto Task force (the way-in-over-their-heads appliance motorists, liberal car-hating activists, and mass transit riders known here as the “Car Czar Central Committee") haven’t produced diddly-squat yet because General Motors and Chrysler are really big problems.

President Obama's Auto Team has been working long hours the last two weeks trying to figure out how to re-build an industry broken by a painful recession and problems that have festered for decades. . . It will take longer than two weeks for the mechanics in Washington to come up with a way to repair it.

Other than the obvious, reflexive gagging at the thought of any one of the Car Czar mopes being referred to as “mechanics,” the savvy reaction of any reader should be: how could anyone who has NO AUTOMOTIVE DESIGN, MANUFACTURING, MARKETING, REPAIR, OR EVEN SALES EXPERIENCE ever hope to even figure out the true causes of the problem, much less viable solutions in six months, much less two weeks!

LeBeau, of course, apparently doesn’t want to point out the absolute insanity of Obama’s “task force” approach.

It’s as if the infamous “O.J. jury” has been charged with determining the fate of one-tenth of the U.S. economy. And apparently these newly-minted “mechanics in Washington” are cramming through a listening tour that’s even less than the one Hillary Clinton took before her well-financed entry into carpet-bagging name-recognition/liberal identity politics.

So nearly anyone who can fog an auto-darkening mirror ought to have already realized that the “listening tour” is nothing more than window dressing for what the Car Czar Central Committee is already expected by their political handlers to do.

1. Engineer a “soft landing” for the U.A.W.

Obama simply cannot “throw” the U.A.W. under the union-built, union-driven “bus.” The union played too big a role in his electoral coalition. The Central Committee listening tour is thus about being able to dissemble on how new “green” “electo-matic micorcars” (which no one on the Central Committee has a clue about how to engineer, build, market, or sell profitably) are going to “save” oodles of Democrat-voting U.A.W. jobs.

In other words, look for the Central Committee to approve any expenditure that keeps union members in the short-term working on untested and unproven electrics and hybrids and to deny anything that would compete for resources or showroom space with “green” vehicles or reductions in union jobs.

Also expect the Central Committee to push retasking of the Beg 2 into more mass transit manufacturing at some point.

The bankruptcy alternative would be messier because if liquidation is to be avoided, so must the gold-plated U.A.W. contracts. The Car Czar Central Committee will do their best to avoid this outcome, unless the Beg 2 simply do not kowtow to the “change” agenda.

Regardless of whether one or both of the Beg 2 end up liquidated, much of the U.A.W.’s VEBA responsibility will be off-loaded onto the taxpayers under the guise of national health insurance and “pension reform.” The Car Czar Central Committee will sell this off-loading as “our responsibility.”

2. Provide cover for dramatically ratcheted-up national standards on fuel economy/Greenhouse gas emissions.

California Air Resource Board chairwoman Mary Nichols told an EPA hearing last week that the state would consider withdrawing its request for a waiver allowing it to regulate carbon dioxide. Before that happens though a national standard needs to be put in place.

Reading between the lines, the Obama Administration is virtually certain to link “saving Detroit” with even higher national (or perhaps even international) fuel economy standards. The Car Czar Central Committee is undoubtedly collecting sound-bites on the “necessity” of “one standard” as a means to increasing the Beg 2's competitiveness.

Lurking in the background will be other “sticks” to force consumers into their government-approved electric-wonder microcars, such as European-style fuel use taxes, punitive carbon taxes on “clunkers” (which will include anything from a million-dollar Duesenburg Phaeton to a barely-mobile Yugo), and a revival of government/utility-funded scrappage programs to dry up alternatives to government-mandated micromachines and mass transit.

The “carrots” will consist of wide open taps for research and development of new econo-boxes and mass transit systems, and more redistributive transfer payments to low-income voters to “enable” the transition to urbanized mass transit, higher operational costs for private vehicles, and expensive restrictions on automotive choice.

The current depression in auto sales plays into this because it will deprive the used car market of “fresh meat” for a period of time, drive up used car prices, and make the “winners” picked by the Central Committee more economically viable.

3. Criticize unacceptable manifestations of automotive freedom.

The Obama Car Czar Central Committee will use the cigarette litigation/gun control models to isolate and demonize “unacceptable” automotive choices.

The narrative will be that the Detroit 3:(a) lured consumers into planet-killing and “unsafe” trucks, SUVs and vans, (b) unreasonably marketed speed, horsepower, and rugged off-road adventure through advertising and motorsports involvement, (c) conspired to deprive the market of fuel-saving technologies, and (d) fought reasonable consumer protections and necessary safety/emission regulations at every turn.

They will demand a quid pro quo: Stop “irresponsible” marketing in exchange for a government lifeline.

4. Cover up Washington D.C.’s policy failures.

Nothing that the Obama Car Czar team will utter will come close to admitting the real truth behind the “problems that have festered for decades” – that federal meddling in the free market has mostly caused this mess.

Instead, they will attack the anecdotal short-sightedness of “Detroit” and laud the anecdotal brilliance of the Japanese (while ignoring that we let the Japanese auto industry incubate for decades without domestic competition and develop a government-subsidized, predatory business model. They also won’t admit that federal policies tied the hands of the Detroit 3 to compete on a level playing field and bled them to death through thousands of regulations, lawsuits, and unfunded mandates.)

They will lament the lack of regulation in some areas as “market failure” and will proclaim that only more government control will keep the Beg 2 from committing suicide in the market.

The Obama Car Czar Central Committee may not know a thing about the automobile business, but they’re undoubtedly well-schooled on what “the ONE” and his legion of mean green social engineers want for it.

IS OBAMA AGAINST THE CALIFORNIA FUEL ECONOMY WAIVER?

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Reuters reports that Obama and the automakers are now aligned against the Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act waiver for California and the other liberal states who crib off of CARB's jack-booted, anti-free market emission rules.

Of course this is a flip-flop from Obama's "states should be free to increase standards" campaign rhetoric.

Yet environmentalists need not worry. The standards that will emerge from the Obama bureaucracy will be draconian enough to kill off or neuter those "scary" muscle cars, V8s, SUVs, and the other "bad" vehicles that greens believe that Americans should not be allowed to own. The wimpy, VW-Bug-driving, "chess club" nerds who hated the "dangerous and irresponsible" hot rodders and "gearheads" in the 1960s are still going to win in the end.

It would seem that Obama doesn't want to share duties as "the party pooper" with RINO Gov. Schwartzenegger or anyone below the federal level.

Of course, if "Truth With Speedzzter" were to testify at the high-stakes waiver hearing to be held on Thursday, March 5, We'd say CAFE is a huge failure that distorts and destroys the free market, drives up the prices on millions of vehicles Americans want and need, and absolutely guts automotive freedom. Making it worse by allowing CAFE standards to be Balkanized upward is "change" in the wrong direction.

Is the sudden attraction to "one standard" a manifestation of Obama's emerging global ambitions?