ROLEX 24 AT DAYTONA: FRUSTRATING START FOR FORD

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

The 2010 racing season got off to a frustrating start for Ford fans in the first weekend of Grand-Am competition at Daytona International Speedway. Ford racing afficionados were buoyed by a Ford-powered Daytona Prototype on the pole for the 48th Rolex 24 at Daytona.

Ford’s 2009 success in the supporting “Challenge Series” (Formerly Koni, now Continental Tire Challenge) fueled ebullient hopes for a strong start to 2010 in the “Fresh From Florida 200.”

Ford racing fans, of course, are not unlike fans of the Chicago Cubs – always waiting for “next year” while fondly recalling glory in times past. After all, Shelby’s Cobras and Ford’s mighty GT once boomed at Daytona during the “Total Performance” era. More recently, Ford-powered cars prepared by Jack Roush once held a mighty ten-in-a-row streak in the Rolex 24 (sadly in the days before it was nationally televised). And with the retrenchment of Lexus and euthanasia of Pontiac, a fairly respectable number of Roush-Yates Ford powerplants were competitively in the Rolex 24 starting field. Surely this would be a breakout year for Ford at Daytona.

Yet when the last shard of carbon fiber from Grand-Am’s season kick-off had finally been deposited on track and Speed Channel’s part-time cameras turned their attention to NASCAR, Ford’s sports car racing fans were left with lots of dust, but little glory.

The results of the Rolex 24 at Daytona and the supporting Fresh from Florida 200 are fully reported elsewhere. But from a Ford-centric perspective, it was a weekend of frustration and missed opportunities.

Ford left Daytona behind BMW and Porsche in the “Grand Sport” division of the Continental Tire Challenge standings. The mighty Ford Racing Mustangs came up short. But since most of America won’t have a chance to see the Florida 200 until it is televised on February 13, most Ford racing fans probably aren’t even aware of how the Mustangs lost.

In the lesser “Street Tuner” division for Sport Compact cars, Ford has ceded the field to Honda, BMW and its corporate partner Mazda, among others. Given Ford's new emphasis on smaller cars, this omission seems short-sighted.

Similarly, in the Grand Touring division of Rolex-series competition, Ford fans could only root for a phalanx of Mazdas. Meanwhile, a couple of silhouette Chevrolet Camaro GT-Rs, along with a few stray Corvettes and Pontiacs soaked up seemingly hours of television time. More than a few Ford racing supporters undoubtedly wondered where the Mustangs were at the so-called “Superbowl of Sports Car Racing.”

At least a SpeedSource Mazda took the win in the GT class, albeit one that may have been marred by Speed Channel’s reporting about Nick Ham’s apparent release from the team and forced retirement.

But the big show was in the Daytona Prototype class. Despite the pole and an extraordinary number of entrants “Powered by Ford,” Prototype glory went to the unheralded Action Express team, running a non-factory authorized Porsche Cayenne V8 and a host of Dinan BMW-powered prototypes that gave chase. The Fords all managed to take themselves out of competition, mostly with a number of bizarre, non-engine-related failures and avoidable mistakes.

Even then, Ford-powered cars were often the fastest cars on track. A.J Allmendinger, in one of Michael Shank Racing’s Ford-powered prototypes, led as late as early afternoon until he collided with a GT car off-camera, starting a downward spiral that eventually resulted in a fiery D.N.F.

So what can Ford fans take from the frustration of the Rolex 24 weekend?

1. Ford stands a decent chance of winning races in Daytona Prototype. Clearly the Fords D.P.s are fast. And in the sprint races that make up most of the Grand-Am schedule, the numbers and quality of the Ford teams suggests that Ford will take some races in 2010.

2. Mazda is serious about winning the GT manufacturers’ title in 2010. While the Camaros will probably snag a disproportionate share of the publicity and fan affections, Mazda seems poised to make a serious challenge to Porsche’s GT hegemony.

3. Ford is missing out by not seriously contesting the GT Class. Because Grand-Am events are generally televised live, more potential sports car buyers will see the Camaros run than Ford’s brilliant Continental Tire Challenge racers. Even though the Challenge cars are more relevant to what Ford sells on Monday, continuing to opt out of GT is an obvious mistake.

4. Speed Channel’s coverage of the Rolex 24 needs improvement. Speed Channel should be celebrated for showing at least part of the Rolex 24 live. But the event (and the 24 Hours of Le Mans) merits flag-to-flag coverage. Nothing is more frustrating than waiting through stupid infomercials just to learn at 7:00 a.m. EST that most of the Fords took themselves out of D.P. competition during the hours when Speed was airing forgettable, non-time sensitive programming. And Speed Channel seemed to miss many of the pivotal crashes and other moments that affected Ford’s chances. While the Speed Channel announce crew is solid and entertaining, Speed simply doesn’t employ enough cameras to adequately cover the event. And Speed Channel sometimes forced commercial breaks when they should have stayed with developing on-track action.

5. At least Ford beat Chevrolet . . . sort of. When Ford’s partner Mazda is factored in, Ford did much better in the final Daytona results than GM. But Ford shouldn’t underestimate the appeal of the GT Camaros. Along with Team Corvette in the ALMS series, GM probably still has more sports car racing presence than Ford.

6. Where’s Roush? The Rolex 24 used to belong to Roush Fords. Surely the Roush organization is large enough to return to endurance racing. If Chip Ganassi can do it, why not Jack Roush?

7. Isn't it time to outlaw or restrict carbon fiber? Grand-Am has a number of rules to limit costs and ensure close racing. But one of the biggest problems for side-by-side racing is tire-popping shards of expensive carbon fiber. A casual fan might think that the cars are built out of "shards" as much as that phrase was uttered during the telecast. Surely a return to older, cheaper materials would both reduce costs and eliminate another source of groove-narrowing "clagg" on track.

While the 2010 Rolex 24 weekend temporarily dampened the spirits of Ford fans, hope still springs eternal that 2010 will be a banner year for the Blue Oval.

THE MYTH OF THE “CHEAP CAR”

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter” here]

Here we go again.

Someone in a poverty-wage second or third world country builds a stripped-down, underpowered, barely legal, tin-box, probable death-trap of a “car,” markets it for a used car price, and the automotive press starts spinning out all of the “lessons” Detroit could learn from it.

BusinessWeek has such a story on the Tata Nano.

They say Detroit could learn about engineering-up from a price point (rather than de-contenting), engaging suppliers earlier in the design process, and creating a “less capital-intensive, less integrated, more flexible model.”

They pay people to write stuff like that?

Engineering up from a price point tends to produce dangerous messes like the Ford Pinto.

Price is merely one component of developing a product.

Most certainly, product planners have to identify underserved markets and viable price points. And successful designers and engineers never lose sight of technological meta-trends of miniaturization, simplification, benchmarking, and mainstreaming as they strive to hit the chosen segment or niche with the best bang-for-the-buck. And it’s important to tune into the target niche with relentless focus.

All of the cool features, breakthrough styling, technological innovation, and aftermarket parts support in the world is virtually useless if nobody can afford that big payment book.

On the other hand, cutting performance, functionality, durability, modifiability, serviceability, parts interchangeability and the “a-ha” factor out to hit a cheap price point is a proven loser strategy.

Team Japan was initially successful in the U.S. market through balancing these factors, not just targeting a low price point. For example, instead of building the cheapest, smallest engine they could get by with, Toyota marketed its 1970s Corolla with a higher-performing hemi-head engine. The Toyota SR-5 Corolla also featured “boy racer” styling and performance upgrades, such as “riveted” fender flares, low-profile performance tires, and a five-speed transmission. Mazda’s early 1970s cars were equipped with up-market “a-ha” features unavailable in domestic competitors, such as a power retractable radio antenna. For a couple of decades, Honda has mostly focused on high power density four-valve DOHC engines (even as Ford was still trying to sell obsolete 2-valve SOHCs and Falcon 6-derived 2.3 liter HSCs)

Of course, the genius of the Ford Model T was that it blended performance, functionality, durability, modifiability, serviceability, and parts interchangeability at a price America’s farmers and ranchers could afford. And it lost marketshare when the technology, performance and “a-ha” factor of cars built by Ford-trained competitors made the T look and feel out-of-date.

Even most appliance motorists are value-price sensitive, rather than just price sensitive. Relevance, simplicity, differentiation, believability, credibility and defensiability are all intangible brand attributes which are mostly price insensitive.

Building a vehicle of off-shelf components or with heavy supplier involvement is hardly unknown to Detroit. As the white collar staffs decline, reliance on suppliers and component standardization will undoubtedly increase. (And now that some of them are going to be getting a $5 billion bailout from the Treasury, maybe some of them will still be around . . . .)

Certainly a “less capital-intensive, less integrated, more flexible model” is a hard goal in this hyper-regulated, unionized era. Unitized body construction also reduces model flexibility and increases costs.

It was easier back in the days of Henry Ford, when designs, production techniques, and labor supplies were easier to change rapidly. However, plants such as AutoAlliance’s Flat Rock, Michigan facility demonstrate that Detroit has made progress in lean production systems, quality control, and flexible assembly.

Truth With Speedzzter suspects the real harsh lessons of the Tata Nano are yet to come. But there’s little new to learn from it at present.

MORE EVIDENCE THAT FORD IS KILLING PERFORMANCE (AGAIN)

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Call this one a rumor. But if it's true, it's bad.

“The new Focus RS is pretty special, and not just because of its incredible performance, but because it’s likely to be the last car of this type you will see from Ford.”

He explained the economic downturn meant there was “absolutely no business case” for any new RS models at the moment and that this situation would probably never change.

This sad development, if true, reminds "Truth With Speedzzter" of FoMoCo's disasterous overreaction and myopic retrenchment from high performance and racing in 1970:

After nearly a decade of "Total Performance" success (mostly at the professional level), Henry Ford II became concerned by the safety-emissions regulatory storm brewing in Washington D.C. and his responsibility to Ford's shareholders. After some turbulent hearings by a Congressional committee, Henry reacted by slashing the racing program. When Henry fired Bunkie Knudsen (who had left GM after being bypassed for promotion), Ford lost its biggest racing fan. Lee Iacocca was then all too ready to purge "Knudsen" loyalists, many of which shared Knudsen's passion for motorsports and to strictly execute Henry's hasty retreat on factory racing and high performance.

Thus, in November 1970, Ford killed its racing and "Muscle Parts" programs. Ford's largest domestic competitor at the tracks -- Chrysler-- also severely cut back its sponsorships and then killed the Hemi. An era was over.

Ford seems poised to repeat all of the same mistakes again.

Let's all hope another wimpy "Mustang II" or FWD PROBE-Stang isn't on FoMoCo's tree-hugging docket (although that would be better than killing off the storied Pony Car tradition entirely).

Speaking of wimpy and green, FoMoCo is busting a gut to sell "THE ALL-NEW 41-MPG 2010 FORD FUSION HYBRID"

The 2010 Fusion Hybrid is the most fuel-efficient midsize sedan on the planet. And right now, you can take advantage of a $3,400 tax credit when you make the new 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid your own.

Now that'll really make up for a dwindling supply of real high performance vehicles . . . .

Tell'em Barack Obama sent you . . . .

Not that taxpayer subsidzed hybrid motoring in a Mexican Ford will be cheap. It will cost around $1,000 more than in a hybrid Camry ("$27,270 for a hybrid gas-electric version" versus $26,150 for the Tokyo version of Mr. Electric's snoozemobile).

But then Ford would like to sell SOMETHING . . . ANYTHING . . . .

Ford Motor Co's (NYSE:F - News) chief analyst, George Pipas, estimates that U.S. auto industry sales dropped in February to a range of about 9 million units. Retail sales, or vehicles sold at showrooms, likely declined about 40 percent in February.

This is reflecting in poor dealership profits, according to the Automotive News:

U.S. auto dealer profits slid to a nearly two-decade low in 2008 and could fall even more this year. According to the National Automobile Dealers Association, the average dealership made a net pretax profit last year of just 1.0 percent of sales, down from 1.5 percent in 2007.

Apparently even gouging baby boomers on GT500s can't take up the slack . . . .


NOW EVERYBODY . . . .

Gray skies are gonna clear up,
Put on a happy face;
Brush off the clouds and cheer up,
Put on a happy face.
Take off the gloomy mask of tragedy,
It's not your style;
You'll look so good that you'll be glad
Ya' decide to smile

That's apparently what the folks at MazdaSpeed have done. On steroids.THE NEW MAZDASPEED 3. . . a front end "happy face" only a clown could love?

Perhaps it's just "Truth With Speedzzter," but does the juxtiposition of the new front-end blackout panel, eye-shaped headlamps and nameplate on the new Mazdaspeed 3 look like some sort of clown on "meth" (that other, bad kind of "speed")?

Not good.

And the new Mazdaspeed 3 apparently is shipping with the same engine that gets slaughtered by GM's direct-injected turbo EcoTec. So perhaps the clown face is for display in the mirrors of the various tuner cars that outrun the 'Speed 3.

Or maybe it's a grimace.

Where are brilliant "muscle car" designers like the late Larry Shinoda when you need them? At least Shinoda knew how to apply contrasting "blackout" panels to a musclecar without creating a circus wagon effect.

LOSE ON SUNDAY, LOSE ON MONDAY

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

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

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

Speedzzter will throw a few more theories into the mix.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ford’s racing problems are bigger than NASCAR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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