FORD POISED TO LOSE A HUGE SHARE OF COP CAR MARKET

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter here]

Once there was a market dominated by Ford Motor Company. Ford’s product had anvil-like reliability. Parts were cheap. Tooling was amortized. Ford made minimal revisions as its competitors introduced newer, more powerful and stylish vehicles. Ford rationalized its stubborn hubris, claiming that it produced what its customers really needed. And as the model years rolled by, Ford lost its once-dominant place in the market.

The title of this blog entry suggests that the story above is a summary of Ford’s recent performance in the police and taxi fleet markets.

The storied Police Interceptor/Crown Victoria (PI/CV) is an icon of the fleet markets. Its rugged full-frame construction, rear wheel drive, and study beam axle are unmatched for resistance to damage, low maintenance costs, ease of repair, and dependable service.

But Ford’s Glass House Gang have been trying its best to starve the Panther platform upon which the PI/CV is based to death for nearly a decade. No restyling since 1998. No improvements to the suspension or brakes in since the days of the sadly underpowered and conservative Mercury Marauder. Minimal improvements to address concerns about fuel tank fires. No promotion to speak of. No love.

But most importantly, no increases in power to match or beat the newer unibody Dodge Charger or the upcoming unibody GM/Holden Zeta-based RWD police vehicle (formally announced this week as the Chevrolet Caprice PPV).

Both the Hemi Dodge and the 6.0 LS Chevrolet handily outpower and out-torque the weak two-valve SOHC PI. In fact, Dodge even touts that its standard six beats FoMoCo’s neglected and underdeveloped V8! Despite having a modestly deep shelf of better V8s to offer in the Panther, the stubborn hubris of the Panther-haters in the Glass House has kept the PI standing pat with less power and torque than even a 1996 “Shamu” 9C1 Caprice!

Gravely myopic sorts approved the Volvo-derived D3 platform, despite its inability to accept the FWD-compromised Modular V8. It flopped, of course. These same folks now seem to believe that the company who brought Americans the low-cost V8 can survive without them – blinded by a haze of EcoBoost promises and rationalizations.

They’ve undoubtedly deluded themselves to believe that some sort of cheap, unitized AWD six-cylinder “Police Interceptor” will fill in for the legendary Panther when the expensive Canadians who assemble Town Cars, Mercury Grand Marquises, and “the last of the [real] Interceptors” are canned as “centrally-planned” in the next couple of years.

These are the sorts of “steady Eddie” bureaucrats and bean-counters who, armed with charts and reams of “market research,” convinced everyone that the lack-luster Edsel would succeed. They are the know-it-all “no” brigade. They perennially seem to think that “just good enough” to snag some “market share” (thereby justifying their continued employment)is the only goal.

They're the “appliance motorists” who cannot see the folly in sending a Mustang GT to market that’s down 100 horsepower to its competitors.

They’re the ones who have no understanding of the aftermarket.

They’re the ones who are willfully ignorant about how underpowered Fords are perceived in the marketplace.

They’re the ones who don’t understand the powerful psychology behind V8 power and traditional RWD automobiles.

Ford doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel here. No uni-body cop car will ever match the reliability, durability, and easy maintenance of the strapping, full-frame Panther. Merely pumping up the optional propellant to SVT Cobra levels would go a long way to fending off the charge of the Chargers and the coming invasion of the U.S. Government-backed Australians.

The bureaucrats and bean-counters, however, have too much invested in the death of the Panther to listen to common sense or customer desire.

Deep down, they don’t really care about beating Dodge or GM. They don’t care about building milestone vehicles. They don’t care about Ford’s bulletproof reputation in the fleet markets. All they worry about is being proven “correct” on page 500 of some cost report. All they dream of is forcing fleet customers into some too-small, too-weak, too-slow, lackluster FWD civilian sedan that most of the cops on the beat do not want as a means to slash parts inventories and assembly complexity.

In short, Ford is poised to lose a huge share of the police market because it has chosen to neglect the legendary Panther, instead of building on its herculean strengths.

As for the introductory story, historians recognize that it is about Ford’s Model T. The T once commanded half of the U.S. new car market. Yet Henry Ford’s stubbornness kept FoMoCo from keeping up with the competition. Ex-Ford executive William S. Knudsen used the opportunity to build Chevrolet from an also ran into a juggernaut which outsold Ford.

Ford never really recovered from the time Henry wasted in the mid-20s.

Ford is on the brink of the same disaster today in its police and taxi fleet market. Ford is blowing yet another lead.

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.

BUILD YOUR OWN FORD MOTOR COMPANY?

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

With Ford Motor Company stock selling at LESS than half the price of a gallon of gasoline and prospects OVER for any government action in 2008 to stabilize the Detroit 3 so that the 2010 United Auto Workers contract concessions have a chance to take effect, it is a grim world for Ford enthusiasts.

And if the bankruptcy dominos fall, resulting in a chapter 7 liquidation of the Detroit 3, what will those with "Ford Blue" flowing in their veins do?

One grassroots enthusiast already has his own answer. He built his own model Ford Motor Company!

Sure, it may not be a real or realistic solution to Detroit's meltdown. But maybe it is a way some enthusiasts will keep memories of the storied brand alive if the end were to come because of UAW greed, bean-counter myopia, and political stupidity.

CAFE “BIG FOOT” SQUASHES HIGH PERFORMANCE SPORTS CARS

[LOOKING FOR THE “CLICK AND CLACK” (tm) POST REFERENCED ON “CARTALK.COM?” CLICK HERE and HERE]

The Wall Street Journal and Seeking Alpha are reporting that “Today's Gas-Guzzling Exotic Cars May Get Zapped by New Fuel Rules.” So-called “footprint based” Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards will virtually guarantee that “Specialty, high powered luxury and sports cars cannot meet the compact and midsize footprint mileage requirements. They will have to either redefine luxury and sport, or pay fines.”

Not surprising. In fact, Speedzzter predicted it. One-size-fits-all bureaucratic tampering with the free market often adversely affects fringe and niche segments more adversely.

Don't be surprised if we see "footprint" circumvention through larger "Bonneville" streamliner-styled sports cars (i.e. a larger, "lower-density" aerodynamic vehicle designed to artificially increase the "footprint" through wider tracks, tapered and extended tail sections and larger front "splitters"). Also don't be surprised if we see more "trucklets" (Utes, "Rancheros," "El Caminos") and CUV-based "sports cars," with just enough "truck" features to qualify under the more generous truck CAFE standards.

One thing is sure, the new rules will bloat the price of high performance models and will tend to reduce nimbleness.

“SPEED RACER” CRASHES AND BURNS?

Nikki Finke and the Drudge Report claim that the new film “Speed Racer” is a flop.

Of course the mere idea of making a hugely expensive CGI-live action version of a relatively obscure and crude Japanese cartoon has always seemed dodgy at best.

But “Speed Racer’s” crash and burn has caused some to question whether audiences will respond to ANY film on motorsports.

It remains to be seen whether or not current audiences will watch a great film about automobile racing (or automotive themes, for that matter), because Hollywood hasn't produced one in almost three decades.

(And just because "Talladega Nights" generated big “box office” with crude and "racy" humor in a NASCAR setting doesn't make it a great RACING movie. Nor does the "01" painted on the side of the "Jumpin' General Lee" make the "Dukes of Hazzard" mess great).

"Speed Racer" merely bloats the list of acerebrially stupid "car racing" movies, along with such forgettable duds as "The Fast and The Furious" franchise, "Da[ze] of Thunder," "Six Pack," "Stroker Ace," "Driven" and others that are simply too horrible to mention.

"Speed Racer" apparently flopped because it was: (a) too ridiculous to appeal to knowledgeable automobile enthusiasts, hot rodders, racing fans and other "gearheads;" (b) too coarse and crude for family audiences; (c) too old and obscure for trend-savvy kids; & (d) too heavy on the computer-generated, video-game FX for older, more serious cinema afficionados.

What a waste!

A MODEL T FOR THE 21ST CENTURY?

Ford Motor Company ® is sponsoring an elite contest among a select group of design colleges to come up with a Model T for the 21st Century. The new “Universal Car” has to come in at a $7,500.00 price point.

In today’s complex and highly regulated auto market, that’s a tall order.

Undoubtedly, the design teams will submit a slew of simple, futuristic and minimalist designs. However, Speedzzter would suggest the following attributes should be included to truly capture the spirit of the original Model T:

1. Modular construction – Henry Ford’s legendary Model T could be easily configured into numerous body styles and uses. Abandoning the restrictions of the modern unitized body for some sort of a space frame platform would seem necessary to provide this flexibility.

2. Home serviceability – Nearly every farmer with an ordinary set of tools could maintain and even rebuild a Model T. To be true to the spirit of the original, the new “universal car” would have to be simple and accessible enough for home mechanics to keep running.

3. Off-road capability – Henry’s T was designed for both paved and unpaved roads. One could argue that the WWII Jeep ® was little more than a four-wheel-drive version of the same concept packaged in a utilitarian semi-envelope body. A spiritual successor to Henry’s T would need to be able to function even where the pavement ends.

4. Performance – High performance is not usually associated nowadays with Henry’s T. But at its 1908 introduction, the Model T virtually doubled the amount of horsepower and torque available at that price point. And Henry’s factory Speedsters and numerous aftermarket conversions were at the heart of hot rodding and grassroots American motorsports for over a generation. Any modern iteration of the Model T which does not capture this aspect of its design would not be a valid spiritual successor.

5. Flex-fuel capability – Henry’s T was designed to run on a variety of fuels, including renewable, farm-based ethanol. A modern Model T should also contain this capability.

6. Simplicity – Model T clubs have demonstrated the ability to assemble one of Henry’s Model Ts in less than 30 minutes (with the drivetrain already put together and ready to drop in). That’s a testimony to the simplicity of the original design. A modern successor should also strive to reduce complexity in the non-power train systems as much as possible.

7. Size and weight – The original T wasn’t a tiny microcar. But neither was it a heavy weight. It could snugly fit four full-sized Americans in its most common forms. Thus, a modern T should not be so downsized as to cramp its primary function as flexible transportation for passengers and cargo.

The Model T wasn’t the first car or even the first simple car. But it became a legend because it was the first relatively inexpensive, mass-produced car which incorporated the foregoing functional elements.

A number of more specialized simple cars have been designed since, such as the aforementioned Jeep ®, the Volkswagen Type 1 Beetle, the Citroën 2CV, the Lotus 7, the BMC Mini and a number of others. However none of these later cars have captured the complete essence and functionality of the original “Universal Car.”

Thus, even attempting to design a worthy modern version of the Model T is a daunting task.

(Probably one more suited to a group of savvy “hot rodders” and tinkerers in tune with Henry Ford’s way of thinking than it is to young design students).