HOW SHOULD FORD INTRODUCE THE COYOTE V8?

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

The biggest news in Ford Performance for 2010 is the introduction of the Coyote V8 in the 2011 Mustang.

The Coyote reportedly corrects the narrow bore center problem of the 1992-Present Modular V8 and should make Ford more than competitive with GM’s LS and Chrysler’s Gen III Hemi.

But how should Ford hammer this point home?


Heads up racing.

Nothing will get potential customers talking up the Coyote better than shutting down the current popularity king of the late model V8s – GM’s LS.

And no better place for such an assault exists than the Car Craft Magazine Engine Swap Drags on Sunday March 28, 2010, at SpeedWorld Dragstrip in Arizona.

This new event will be for heads-up racing of 1991-1955 model American street cars (no tube frames, decals or imports). Only two classes will run (power adder and naturally aspirated), although other classes will be running at the track that day (a good back-up plan if Ford wanted to run some Ford Racing Cobra Jet Mustangs on the track the same day for "comparison purposes.")

The winner gets an ocean of free publicity in Car Craft Magazine, and likely in other Source Interlink Media publications, as well as on YouTube and the internet.

The timing of the event perfectly coincides with the expected launch of the Coyote V8.

The early buzz suggests that Mustangs defaced with GM LS V8s are the hot set up. That should make the blood of guys like Ford Racing’s Brian Wolfe and Jack Roush boil.

It would likely take operating outside normal corporate channels, but entering a few old Mustangs powered by hopped-up naturally-aspirated and supercharged/turbocharged Coyote test engines could yield a public relations bonanza for Ford.

As a hedge, some Modular Cobra Jet engines could be swapped into back-up cars.

A modest effort with 3 or 4 cars ought to be enough to guarantee a ton of favorable magazine coverage. If Ford were to use trusted contractors and existing eligible cars, the cost could be literally peanuts!

And a Coyote win would put the engine on the gearheads’ map better than $1 million dollars worth of advertising.

Some guys, such as Paul Svinicki of Paul’s High Performance Inc. say that the Modular is on par with the LS. But that’s not the popular perception. And if the Ford powers-that-be miss this opportunity to “represent,” the LS-is-Best perception will be reinforced in the minds of hundreds of thousands of Car Craft readers.

Some naysayers will claim that running Coyotes in old Mustangs will do nothing to spark 2011 Mustang sales. Nothing could be further from the truth. V8 buyers will want to know early if the Coyote has got the chops to beat the LS. And they’re smart enough to figure out that if a built Coyote runs hard in a Fox-Body, then it can be made to run hard in a new 2011 Mustang.

Come on Ford Racing . . . Just do it!

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.

IS THE NEW CAMARO A THREAT TO FORD’S MUSTANG?

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

CNBC’s Phil LeBeau rains on Chevrolet’s publicity parade with a piece entitled "Can New Chevy Camaro Muscle Up Sales?"

How much can the Camaro muscle up sales? Not much. This is a niche vehicle coming at a time when consumer confidence is so low, little is driving enthusiasm for new cars. Here's how bad it is. When I told a friend of mine who is your typical "car guy" that I would be driving the new Camaro, his reaction was, "That's nice."

Clearly LeBeau doesn’t expect the new Camaro to live up to its 100,000+ units per year advance billing.

General Motors’ shaky future also does not help generate sales for the Camaro, beyond a hard-core group of “true believers.” Moreover, the new Camaro has a number of faults which should depress sales.

1. HEAVY CHEVY:

It’s too big and heavy for a pony car in the current downsized motoring world. The lightest Camaros will have a curb weight of nearly 3,800 pounds. The hot SS model will tip the scales at around 3,900.

2. THE “PAST” AND THE FURIOUS:

It’s too big, too heavy, and too neo-retro to appeal to what’s left of the young import tuner generation (although the overachieving 260-horsepower turbo Cobalt SS is GM’s primary salvo to this rapidly declining niche). Thus, the vast majority of Camaro sales will be to those old enough to have experienced an original Gen I Camaro (either new or before they were pampered collector cars).

3. THEY DON’T MAKE’EM LIKE THEY USED TO:

Some buyers will prefer the more pure and brutally muscular lines of the Dodge Challenger or the lithe, neo-retro Mustang to a loose, bloated, distorted caricature of a ‘69 Camaro.

4. BEAUTY IS ONLY SKIN DEEP:

Beyond the new Camaro’s love-it-or-hate it cartoon styling, the new Camaro has some abysmal ergonomics. While it may not be as hard to live with as the last generation of “spaceship” F-bodies, GM made so many compromises merely for the sake of style that some drivers will be put off.

5. I COULD HAVE HAD A V8:

Although the Camaro’s base 304 h.p. direct injection, DOHC V6 ought to terrify Mustang’s brand managers, the antediluvian two-valve, pushrod Corvette-sourced V8 is emblematic of old-school, inefficient performance technology.

6. QUALITY ISN’T JOB ONE:

According to some, the old “spaceship” Camaro started disassembling itself in the train car on the way to the dealer. While it remains to be seen if the Australian engineers, American stylists, and the Canadians who screw them together have done any better this time, the nameplate perception is currently not one of high build quality. Some testers have already criticized the occasional cheapness of the new Camaro’s interior.

7. I HATE THE IRS:

The Australian Holden chassis underpinning the new Camaro uses a heavy independent rear suspension (IRS) that will not prove to be very robust for traditional “Camaro-type” activities (i.e. drag racing).

But Team Mustang shouldn’t be breaking out in any celebrations.
Why not?

1. IT’S 1970 AGAIN (almost):

In 1970, the Mustang had to fight off a glut of “me-too” pony cars from Chevrolet, Pontiac, AMC, Mercury, Dodge, and Plymouth. Now the Mustang has not only the new Camaro to fend off, but competition from Dodge, Hyundai, and Nissan. If, as Mr. LeBeau opines, the market for is on-the-ropes, then Camaro will certainly cannibalize some Mustang sales.

2. IT’S WORSE THAN 1970:

The first Earth Day was in 1970.

This corresponded with the beginnings of the end for the First Supercar Era. These same tie-dyed hippies and flower children of Earth Day are now the grandparents to the “climate change” hysteria that’s sweeping our “tiny, fragile, nearly-dead Planet.” Therefore, the muscle-car-hating “appliance motorists” will increasingly single out anything that’s not a government-regulation 40+ m.p.g. golf cart as profligate, neurotic excess. Such public and political pressure could constrict the market for pony cars.

3. “I’M GIVIN’ YA ALL SHE’S GOT, CAPTAIN:”

As has been well-documented, Team Mustang has mistakenly decided to send the 2010 Mustang into battle well down on horsepower and torque to their Motown competition. Although the Mustang is generally lighter than either the Camaro or the Challenger, the power-to-weight calculations do not work in Mustang’s favor.

As one enthusiast recently wrote:

Vehicle type Wt./ H.P./ Lbs per H.P.
2010 Mustang GT.... 3800 lbs / 315 h.p/ 12.06 lb/hp
2010 Camaro SS..... 4100 lbs/ 400 h.p.*/ 10.25 lb/hp
Challenger R/T..... 4100 lbs/ 372 h.p./ 11.02 lb/hp
Challenger SRT-8... 4200 lbs/ 425 h.p./ 9.88 lb/hp
Shelby GT500**..... 3900 lbs/ 500 h.p.***/ 7.8 lb/hp

*[Actually, the Camaro SS is slated to produce 426 h.p. in LS3 form, and the weight should be a bit lighter than 4100 lbs as well]

**(Not available to regular guys who have to punch a timeclock for a living. . . . )

***[Even with 540 h.p. for 2010, the GT500 is still not relevant to 98% of potential Mustang buyers because of limited supply, high MSRP, and rampant dealer gouging]

Does anyone else see a problem with this picture?

Even if the 2010 Mustang is 300 lbs. lighter than the Challenger and Camaro, it's going to get KILLED on the street.

With nearly a decade to plan for the return of the Pony Car wars, it would seem that Ford's been asleep.

Hyper-partisans, such as "Camaro Craft's" own Jeff "LSx" Smith are going to have a field day pushing the Camaro and dogging the Modular.

It didn't have to be that way.

Certainly, given the state of the Detroit 3, who knows if any of these pony cars (or the companies that build them) will be around in five years (Barring a miracle or a merger, GM will run out of cash in 2009; Chrysler will be sold and niche market stuff like Challenger will probably get axed; 35 m.p.g. CAFE is going to kill V8s for anything except ultra-expensive luxury and sports models).

Thus, it's just plain stupid that Ford expects its long-suffering loyalists to go up against a pair of twelve-gauge sawed-off shot guns with a cap gun.

I'm sick and tired of all the excuse making for Ford.

They're blowing the last opportunity to build a legendary supercar for the masses (one that will likely have to tide all of us "Joe Lunchbox" V8 lovers over for a decade or more).

A wise man once said, "if you claim to build a better mousetrap, you'd better catch a few mice."

The emerging problem with the 2010 Mustang GT is "no mice" . . . . Do we really want to spend thousands more on a V8 that's going to be matched up with the other guy's secretary-special V6 in the minds of those at the Drive-in on Cruise night?

Do we really want to give up all of the technical leadership to the Japanese? (If you want a DOHC 4V V8 with variable valve timing and other modern feature, it doesn't look like you're going to be getting one from Detroit . . . .)

I can't tell you how MAD I AM at Ford BLOWING IT!

Finally, it might be almost OK if the wimpy 2010 Mustang GT had the basic building blocks for aftermarket performance, such as forged pistons, H.D. forged rods and a forged crank. Then on "day two," Mustangers could feed some serious boost to their new Steeds to keep up with the "day two" Camaros.

4. THE BEAM IN THE PURISTS’ EYES:

True Mustangers understand why we need a beam rear axle.

IRS folds like a pretzel in a drag strip launch and wheel hops like a Mexican jumping bean in many “performance” driving situations. Beam axles are lighter, more foolproof and more durable, too. And Mustang’s success in Grand Am and Miller Cup competition clearly proves the merits of the current beam axle rear suspension.

But all of the self-appointed “car experts” from Car and Driver on down to high school Twitter exchanges believe in the APOCRYPHAL GOSPEL of the IRS. Thus, the Mustang is going to get shelled in some corners of the automotive press for not at least offering an optional IRS (notwithstanding the huge weight and cost penalties).

5. THE DETROIT LIONS:

Ford is often the Detroit Lions of automakers. As the "Recent Blunders" side-bar shows, they often start with uncompetitive products and then kill them off instead of fixing them. Thunderbird, Marauder, Lincoln LS, SVT Contour, SVT Focus, and (to a lesser extent) SVT Lightning are all recent examples of Ford’s drop-back-and-punt “losers” mentality.

It is entirely possible that the bean counters and the environmentalists in the Glass House – the ones who simply cannot understand why logical consumers would buy a Mustang in the first place – will use sales losses to the Camaro and the larger decline in auto sales as a bludgeon to deprive Team Mustang of developmental resources.

The acid test is whether the this final showdown of the dying Second Supercar Era will kill off some or all of the pony cars. In the aftermath of 1970, only the GM F-Bodies survived. Dodge’s Challenger, Plymouth’s Barracuda, and AMC’s Javelin were all killed. At the behest of Lee Iacocca, the Mustang was grotesquely shrunken into some sort of glorified Pinto (even without a V8 option for one season)

Thus, while the Camaro may not resurrect GM, it could possibly finish off the Mustang as we know it.

Let’s all hope that the Glass House Gang and Team Mustang have the resolve to “fight the good fight” and make sure that the Mustang is the last pony car standing (and in a form that Mustangers still want).

2010 ROUSH MUSTANGS: ENOUGH BANG FOR THE BUCK?

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Make no mistake about it: Truth With Speedzzter loves Jack Roush.

Roush is even more important to Ford Motor Company today than Holman-Moody AND Carroll Shelby were combined to Ford during the legendary "Total Performance" era. Roush is the single most important "outsider" to Ford's motorsports efforts since 1981. Without Roush, the awesome Ford GT (which will likely be the high water mark for Ford for the foreseeable future) might not have happened.

Truth With Speedzzter can even forgive Roush's contracting on projects with Ford's competitors because he's got to keep the doors open and the heart of his company bleeds Ford blue.

And we like the idea of Roush building street cars with a harder, purer edge than the "Melvins," cheapskates, and the tree-huggers in the Glass House could ever allow to escape as regular production models.

At least Roush's street beasts still have a warranty . . . unlike some other Ford-based tuner cars ((cough) ahem . . . SAH . .(Cough) . LEEEN . . . (cough) (cough)).

But are they good values?

Roush will debut his 2010 line-up of tuner Mustangs later this month

However, with all the talk of "427" and Roush-specific badging and body appearance packages and "Roushchargers," Truth With Speedzzter still wonders whether Roush cars really provide a decent bang-for-the-buck.

Roush cars appeal to a "do-it-for-me" muscle car buyer who wants something other than an ordinary tuner car. Thus part of the cost mark-up is for the panache of owning a "Roush."

Yet in the eyes of some, Roush's late entry into the tuner field puts his products a rung or two below more established tuners like Shelby and Steve Saleen (not to be confused with Steve's old company). Such an assessment is probably not fair because of Roush's decades of competition success (which far outshadow Shelby in the minds of some) and obvious in-house engineering prowess. Still, public perceptions aren't always fair.

Roush is a bit like the Rodney Dangerfield of the Mustang tuner scene: Not enough respect.

The problem with the value question is the box Roush is forced to work inside.

It's a box dictated by the parsimony of Ford Motor Company. Apparently Roush has to deconstruct production Mustang GTs to build its appearance and peformance packages. This reassembly process is inherently inefficient and costly. Thus, what seems like modest performance and appearance upgrades cost thousands over a production model. It eliminates much of the advantages of mass production and assembly line technology.

Because of the weak hypereutectic pistons, cast cranks, and spindly cracked-cap rods in the production Mustang GT engines, Roush has to pull and rebuild them with proper forged internals for reliable high-boost use. Just like when Mustang enthusiasts do this at home, this is an expensive proposition.

But given the huge cubic inch advantage of production Chrysler and GM muscle cars, Modular-powered Fords simply aren't competitive without high boost.

If Ford would just optionally equip the production V8s properly with forced-induction-ready forced parts (or even factory-installed forced induction), some of this unnecessary expense would be eliminated.

Moreover, Roush (as is most Mustang enthusiasts) is forced to work without DOHC four-valve heads. Given the small bore size of the Modular V8, this is a major disadvantage.

Four valve DOHC heads are one of the major advantages of the Modular V8, yet Ford has never properly taken advantage of this design feature, either in production form or in the aftermarket.

Roush has also been reluctant to push the envelope on efficient high-performance technologies, such as turbocharging, variable geometry intake manifolds, ram-tuning combined with supercharging, and variable valve timing. Again, this is mostly caused by Ford's failure to make these features optionally available on production Mustang V8s.

On the other hand, Mustang tuners such as Roush have had virtually no non-Ford-based domestic competition for many years. Only just recently have "pony cars" from Chrysler and GM been available for tuning and their impact on the Mustang tuner market is not known.

And some of Roush's lower-performance packages sell in that huge chasm between the pedestrian Mustang GT and the dealer-gouge-o-rama known as the Shelby GT500.

Clearly, if Roush-style modifications were added on the Flat Rock production line, the net unit cost of the vehicles should be lower.

But would that translate into a lower MSRP?

It hasn't with the Shelby GT500. Therefore, there's little hope that the savings would be passed onto the customers.

Everyone in the supply chain of performance cars is charging a premium for high-performance. There are seldom any rebates or employee pricing or "special deals" as with ordinary "appliance" sleds.

Why does everybody gouge high-performance customers?

They do this because they know that no one NEEDS a high-performance car, but many desperately WANT them. Some high-performance Mustang buyers have dreamed about a "hot pony" for literally decades.

Thus, new high-performance vehicles seldom become commodities. There's simply little meaningful competition for "tuner-type" muscle cars. Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards artificially restrict supplies and work as a profit/price-support program for performance models. And why go to the risk and effort to sell ten cars to net $10,000 when you can sell one at $10,000 net?

This endemic price gouging is causing many potential customers to wholly miss what's left of the Second Supercar Era.

Sure, that's unfair to Ford's loyal and long-suffering "Total Performance" fans, but that's how it is. Roush is merely caught up in that bad but prevailing system.

If Roush cars are judged against objective performance measures, there are assuredly cheaper ways to go as quick and fast. Most involve getting ones hands dirty and making compromises in driveability and reliability, jettisoning warranty coverage, or buying a non-Ford product.

Apparently for some Roush customers, the tradeoffs aren't worth the cost savings.

Truth With Speedzzter wishes Roush the best in its tuner car efforts. However, Truth With Speedzzter wonders whether Roush's Mustangs provide enough "bang-for-the-buck."

IS THE 2011 FORD “COYOTE” V8 A DOHC?

[Get the Latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

Since the first photos leaked in January 2009 of the 2011 Mustang “Coyote” V8, internet speculation has been rampant about whether the “new 5.0" is an OHV, an OHC or a DOHC.

The valve covers tell the tale.

The coil-on-plug ignition starts well aft of the front of the valve covers, indicating overhead cams. OHV engines have no technical need for the valve covers to extend so far ahead of the front spark plugs.

The plugs run down the center of the valve covers, indicating twin cams per bank -- unlike the early photos of the Boss/Hurricane SOHC V8 drag tested by Roush and available in the upcoming SVT Raptor high-performance off-road pickup.

The valve covers are similar (but not identical) to the pattern of the 3.5-liter “Cyclone” Duratec V6. This suggests that the Coyote has similar direct-acting mechanical bucket tappets instead of the rockers used on the Modular.

This photo also shows a couple of curious electrical connections at the front of the passenger-side bank, possibly related to the cam gear phasing or cam position sensors.

Thus, the “Coyote” engine in the internet “spy” photos appears to be a DOHC four-valves-per-cylinder engine, hopefully with wider bore centers than the DOHC 4V 4.6/5.4.

The only real defect in the Modular DOHC design is that the bore centers were set far too narrow in order to accommodate FWD applications that never really materialized (save the forgotten FWD Lincoln Continental).

A wide-bore-center DOHC 4V engine should produce greater power density than the comparatively low-tech 3G Chrysler Hemi and the GM LS. 80-85 horsepower-per-liter (naturally aspirated) should be easily achievable with a DOHC 4V V8.

In comparison, the ultimate “all motor” LS engine (the expensive 2V 7-liter Z06) yields a paltry 72 horsepower-per-liter in emission-legal trim. The stock SRT-8 Hemi even fails to break the 70 horsepower-per-liter barrier.

More power with less displacement promises the possibility of improved part-throttle efficiency because of reduced pumping losses, albeit at the cost of some low-end torque (which could be easily replaced -- and surpassed -- with on-demand forced induction).

Given Ford’s reluctance to build high-horsepower naturally-aspirated Modulars (the best unblown OEM Modulars were in the low 70 horsepower-per-liter range due to Ford’s reluctance to add variable cam timing and other torque-broadening technology), a 400-horsepower 5.0 “Coyote” would be a significant milestone in Ford's proud V8 tradition.

The “Coyote” code name is also historically interesting. When A.J. Foyt took over development of Ford’s 1960s DOHC Indy V8 (which was based upon the pushrod Fairlane/Challenger/Windsor V8) after Henry Ford II’s disastrous retreat from racing in November 1970, Foyt’s cars were “Coyotes.”

Thus, based on the “spy” photos now available, “Truth With Speedzzter” predicts that the 2011 "Coyote" V8 is a DOHC.

Now if Ford would just start work on a EcoBoost Coyote V8 . . .

VIGOROUS DEBATE ON THE 2010 MUSTANG GT

[GET THE LATEST "TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER" HERE]

Over on the Car Craft Magazine forums, the assumed deficiencies in the 2010 Mustang are producing a prodigious debate. One poster -- Turbo Ted -- speaks passionately for scores of Mustang fans who are worried about the 2010 Pony's competitiveness:

"Vehicle type--------Wt.. . . H.P.. . .Lbs per H.P.
2010 Mustang GT....3800. . . 315 . . . 12.06
2010 Camaro SS.....4100. . . 400 . . . 10.25
Challenger R/T.....4100. . . 372 . . . 11.02
Challenger SRT-8...4200. . . 425 . . . 9.88
Shelby GT500**.....3900. . . 500 . . . 7.8

**(Not available to regular guys who have to punch a timeclock for a living. And who knows if they'll even keep making it after 2009.)

Does anyone else see a problem with this picture?

Even if the 2010 Mustang is 300 lbs. lighter than the Challenger and Camaro, it's going to get KILLED on the street.

With nearly a decade to plan for the return of the Pony Car wars, it would seem that Ford's been asleep.

Hyper-partisans, such as "Camaro Craft's" own Jeff "LSx" Smith are going to have a field day pushing the Camaro and dogging the Modular.

It didn't have to be that way.

Certainly, given the state of the Detroit 3, who knows if any of these pony cars (or the companies that build them) will be around in five years (Barring a miracle or a merger, GM will run out of cash in 2009; Chrysler will be sold and niche market stuff like Challenger will probably get axed; 35 m.p.g. CAFE is going to kill V8s for anything except ultra-expensive luxury and sports models).

Thus, it's just plain stupid that Ford expects its long-suffering loyalists to go up against a pair of twelve-gauge sawed-off shot guns with a cap gun.

They're blowing the last opportunity to build a legendary supercar for the masses (one that will likely have to tide all of us "Joe Lunchbox" V8 lovers over for a decade or more).

A wise man once said, "if you claim to build a better mousetrap, you'd better catch a few mice."

The emerging problem with the 2010 Mustang GT is "no mice" . . . . Do we really want to spend thousands more on a V8 that's going to be matched up with the other guy's secretary-special V6 in the minds of those at the Drive-in on Cruise night?

Do we really want to give up all of the technical leadership to the Japanese? (If you want a DOHC 4V V8 with variable valve timing and other modern feature, it doesn't look like you're going to be getting one from Detroit . . . .)

I can't tell you how MAD I AM at Ford BLOWING IT!

Finally, it might be almost OK if the wimpy 2010 Mustang GT had the basic building blocks for aftermarket performance, such as forged pistons, H.D. forged rods and a forged crank. Then on "day two," Mustangers could feed some serious boost to their new Steeds to keep up with the "day two" Camaros.

BUT NO!

Ford, in all of its MYOPIC WISDOM will probably see fit to keep on plugging in worthless, glass-jawed hyperecutectic cast slugs, spindly cracked-cap rods and willowy cast cranks, limiting stock-block boost to a paltry 5-8 psi. That will force anyone wanting to build a competitive Mustang to spend thousands of dollars on a "built" short block.

That's not what made the 5.0 Mustang a legend. And that's not what's going to drive the Challenger and Camaro back to extinction.

Doing the job half-way and letting the stupid bean-counters run the show is part of what got Ford in the mess its in now.

Well said!

FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S “REVIVAL MEETING”

[GET THE LATEST "TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER" HERE]

The latest “bold move” marketing slogan for Ford Motor Company is “Drive One.”

It's a truncated remake of another marketing slogan from another time when FoMoCo was on the ropes ("Have you Driven a Ford Lately")

Yet not enough customers are taking Ford up on the offer.

“Ford sales are off nearly 14 percent through the first seven months of the year, with U.S. car sales off almost 5 percent and trucks down just over 18 percent. Overall, the U.S. market is down 10 percent with growth in small cars and drops in truck and sport utility vehicle sales, Ford's traditional profit centers.”

“The sales slump has contributed to Ford losing $8.7 billion in the second quarter as it races to adjust from trucks to a stronger car lineup. The company has said it will bring over several small car models from Europe including the Fiesta subcompact and the European Focus compact, but those won't arrive until 2010.”

With a share of FoMoCo (F) now trading for less than a good hamburger at Red Robin, a mostly lame-duck vehicle line-up, and an operation hemorrhaging billions each month, the Glass House Gang decided it was high time for the dwindling number Ford staffers “Drive One.”

“Last week, Ford started pulling around 4,000 workers from their desks at sites near the Dearborn headquarters and onto a test track for a few hours of driving and learning about how Ford hopes to set its vehicles apart from other automakers.”

One could think of it as FoMoCo’s version of a “dream cruise” (not to be confused with the Woodward Dream Cruise) with a healthy dose of chautauqua mixed in.
Hey it’s better than workin’ . . . or worrying about the next round of layoffs.

However, how does a company-paid revival meeting for “true believers” that are hopefully already committed to FoMoCo address what “Autoextremist” Peter DeLorenzo call the “perception problem?”

The perception problem in a nutshell is that the general public’s perceptions about quality improvements, style and competitiveness lags behind the actual product developments. In other words, most people are lemmings who make decisions based on hunches, obsolete data and imitating what their neighbors do.

That’s tough sledding for appeals to “Drive One” if almost no one down the street is.

The America-killing Japanese brands have a lot more “paid in” capital in the mass perception “bank.” Until the natural cycles of decay, obsolescence and brand hubris take their toll and the entry-level markets are bloated with worn-out Japanese “hoopties,” (and Ford has a bolder line-up of market appropriate products, supported by quality “entry level” used vehicles) Ford will have a tough time undoing a generation of mixed perceptions borne out of FoMoCo’s missteps in the late 1980s and 1990s.

Obviously FoMoCo has to do what it can to hang on until:

(a) Alan Mulally’s European rescue plan has a chance;
(b) fuel prices stabilize and (hopefully) abate, improving the weak economy that is challenging most automakers;
(c) somebody at Ford can figure out how to counteract the growing Japanese menace; and
(d) some future Ford hits the illusive combination of style, value, exclusivity, design, economy and performance that makes it a red-hot “must have” sales hit and automotive icon (such as the original Mustang or even the original Taurus, notwithstanding the bull-mobile's handicap of low-performance front wheel drive and its obvious lack of staying power as a “classic”).

Prominent in FoMoCo’s in-house “Drive One” revival was the vaporware of “Eco-Boost.” Some startled desk jockeys planted the obligatory quotes of amazement in the press coverage of the event.

But sadly missing in action is any suggestion of a V-8 Eco-Boost engine. Such a high efficiency and high performance engine is necessary if Ford hopes to weather the coming 1970s-style Corporate Average Fuel Economy storm with any hope of marketing anything remotely satisfying to FoMoCo’s loyal Mustang and SVT customer bases.

If Ford doesn’t do it. Somebody else will.

Similarly, if Ford doesn't build a technology-leading high performance Eco-Boost V8 electric hybrid muscle car (with necessary features such as Ethanol Boosting System's direct "on-demand" ethanol injection , variable geometry intake manifolds, DOHC, variable cam timing and phasing, and perhaps even VW-style "twincharging"), somebody else will.

And if FoMoCo doesn't address the Modular V8 bore center problem in it production and Ford Racing Peformance Parts aftermarket engine programs to counter the Hemi and GM's LS-series V8s (i.e. a big cube DOHC version of the too-oft delayed Boss engine) then FoMoCo's share of the huge, influential automotive aftermarket will continue to decline as "hot rodders" and tuners avoid "Powered by Ford" like the plague.
Ford’s blind-eyed neglect of its loyal enthusiast base apparently continues.

BOSS LOSS? SOMEBODY’S WRONG ON FORD’S BIG V8

A "hurricane storm surge" of speculation has surrounded the notorious "Ford Experimental" V8 displayed under the hood of the Roush Engineering/Don Bowles Mustang at Michigan’s Milan Dragway.

Roush is using Bowles’ National Mustang Racing Association Open Comp Roush Mustang for severe duty testing of this "experimental" engine. Based on the low 9-second elapsed times posted, automotive journalists have estimated the "experimental" engine’s output at 800 naturally-aspirated horsepower.

Virtually everyone who has ventured a guess has assumed this "experimental" mill is a development mule for the new "Boss" production engine.

Michael Galimi provides additional speculation in the November 2007 issue of Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords("MMFF"). In a minor cover story entitled "Alternative Gas, Experimental Power," Galimi reports:

"Our source in Detroit tells us it’s 7.0 liters (about 427 ci), and can go as big as 7.5 liters. We also hear it has favorable 4.250 inch bores, and from that we can calculate that the stroke is roughly 3.75 inches, offering nice revability. As for the heads, we hear the valves are laid out in a Hemi-style configuration, and we think there’s a camshaft in the block and some pushrods in there."

SOMEBODY’S WRONG.

Speedzzter strongly hopes that Galimi’s "source in Detroit" is as phony as a room full of Elvises. The photographic details suggest as much.

FIRST, unlike common, old-school pushrod engine practice (but exactly like a modular OHC V8), the valve covers clearly extend a couple of inches over the front timing cover. This strongly suggests a camshaft over each bank of cylinders. It would be wholly unneccessary for a cam-in-block engine.

Second., a glimpse of blue paint in front of the "experimental" air box shows a deep, modular-style valley between the cylinder banks. Given that recent cam-in-block designs (Speedzzter will not call any pushrod engine "modern") position the camshaft high in the block for better valvetrain geometry and lighter valvetrain weight, the deep valley strongly contra-indicates a pushrod design (unless it's hopelessly out-of-date).

Third, the deep setback of the intake in relation to the front of the valve covers is substantially more indicative of an OHC than a cam-in-block pushrod engine.

Fourth, the spark plugs apparently do not run down the middle of the cylinder heads as would be expected with a true hemispherical combustion chamber.

Fifth, the width of the valve covers seems to be substantially less than any "hemi" with a 4.2+ inch bore. While the valve covers are wide enough for some splaying of the valves, the valve angles would need to be far narrower than a true "hemi" design (or extremely short) to fit within the modest valve covers of the "experimental engine." On the other hand, the valve covers appear well within the width parameters of an OHC.

Sixth, based on the relationship of the engine to the shock towers, the engine is too wide to be a pushrod powerplant with a mere 7.5 liter maximum capacity.

Thus, a number of possibilities present themselves:

A. MMFF and their "source in Detroit" are wrong, and the "experimental" engine is an wide-bore center OHC modular V8!
B. MMFF and their "source in Detroit" are correct on the disappointingly low-tech specifications of the new "Boss" . . . and the "experimental" engine is something other than a new Boss prototype.

C. MMFF and their "source in Detroit" are correct and Ford Motor Company (F) has decided once again to "reinvent the wheel" for no reason.

THE ONLY THING REALLY WRONG WITH THE CURRENT MODULAR V8s IS BORE CENTER SPACING.

As has been reported ad nauseam, the Modular V8 was unnecessarily compromised by narrow bore centers. This limits the expansion capacity of the current Modular V8 family. Although FoMoCo should have learned this lesson with the FE-series, Ford’s engine shop narrowed the Modular’s bore centers for anticipated use in front wheel drive vehicles. But except for the underwhelming and mostly forgotten FWD Continental, the Modular has been a RWD powerplant, and the narrow bore centers have prevented Ford from building the 350-430 cubic inch V8s necessary to be competitive au natural with GM’s LSx and Chrysler’s Gen III Hemi.

Of course, unless restricted by archaic rules packages (e.g. NASCAR, NHRA), limited engine compartment space or hide-bound tradition (GM LSx), no "clean sheet" engine designer would engineer any new engine with pushrods or a cam-in-block design.

Fordophiles have been patiently waiting since the abortive S.O.H.C. 427 of the 1960s for a big-cube OHC/DOHC engine. Merely enlarging the bore centers of the 5.4 Modular would suffice. The 5.4 Modular has ample stroke capability and fits within the engine compartments of virtually all modern RWD Ford products.

• A wide-bore-center Modular would immediately make GM’s LSx and Chrysler’s Hemi appear obsolete. (Such engines are only kept alive in motorsports by antique rules packages and lack of factory-backed alternatives)
• A wide-bore-center Modular would set the stage for huge four (or more) valve high-performance cylinder heads that could "rev" and breathe better than any old-fashioned two-valver ever conceived.
• A wide-bore-center Modular would establish Ford as technologically head-and-shoulders above their Detroit competitors. It would also promise domination of the 7-liter classes in progressive and open forms of motorsports.

But if MMFF and their "source in Detroit" are correct, Ford is absolutely wrong!

Developing yet another incompatible pushrod V8 family is a huge mistake. While bringing an updated Windsor/Cleveland architecture back to production would have a few advantages, starting from scratch to build an incompatible LS/Hemi clone eliminates most of them.

There’s simply no reason to change such well-established Windsor "hard points" as the bore centers and head/bellhousing bolt patterns if all Ford wants is another me-too pushrod engine in the 7 liter range. Developing hemi heads, variable valve timing, and a modern cross-bolted, deep-skirt "NVH" block for the Windsor would suffice (and be far cheaper than starting over again).

While a clean-sheet pushrod engine might satisfy a dying breed of antediluvian luddites who refuse to see the inherent advantages of OHC designs, it would set back American engine design at least a generation. It would also further feed the popular notion that America cannot compete on the world stage (Other than for NASCAR, how many pushrod engines have been developed over the past twenty years by any OEM outside Detroit?)

Of course Ford has a history of needlessly starting over on incompatible (or mostly incompatible) V8 engine families (Flathead, Y-block, FE/FT, MEL, Windsor, 385-series, Cleveland, 335-series, Modular (Romeo and Windsor versions), Yamaha) . This inability to stick with important retrofit "hard points" has hamstrung the acceptance and development of Ford engines for grassroots motorsports for more than fifty years.

Another pushrod V8 would unnecessarily overlap with Ford’s existing pushrod V8 families and create more confusion than it would be worth. It would unnecessarily divide development resources at both the factory and aftermarket levels between essentially similar architectures. A OHC/DOHC Boss, however, would firmly plant Ford in the future.

Let’s all hope that MMFF and their "source in Detroit" are wrong.

Dead wrong.