IS GEORGE PIPAS “ON THE PIPE” ABOUT THE MUSTANG-CAMARO SALES WAR? (Or, where are the "Coyote" and "Road Runner" V8s when we need them?)

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

The Detroit Free Press is reporting that “Camaro is muscling in on top spot of Mustang” and is now less than 10,000 units behind in the annual sales race.

For the past five months, Government Motors’ pavement-pounding Camaro has been slamming the underpowered 2010 Mustang in retail deliveries. Camaro closed the gap by a whopping 3,000 units in October, according to the FREEP’s Tim Higgins and Brent Snavely.



CUSTOMIZED CAMAROS BEING PREPARED FOR DISPLAY AT THE 2009 SEMA SHOW

FoMoCo’s top sales genius George Pipas valiantly tried to spin what’s shaping up to be an epic, clearly foreseeable retailing disaster, quipping to the FREEP "I don't think Mustang sales would have been much different one way or another."

Pipas further rationalized that "What we are seeing right now is 10 years of pent-up demand ... rather than some positive indicator about the economy."

Right next to Pipas’ musings in the internet version of the FREEP’s story is graphic a showing Mustang’s sales nose-diving after March 2009. To anyone with an elementary school familiarity with charts and graphs, the data unmistakably shows Camaro and Dodge’s Challenger are tearing through Mustang’s market share like famished termites on a rotten two-by-four. Only the Mustang is trending downward. It’s not “pent-up demand” so much as a good, old-fashioned drubbing by products that seem to have a bigger “rep” and more buzz on the streets.

Some long-suffering Mustang advocates should be forgiven for thinking that Pipas must be “on the pipe” if he really believes what he’s shoveling . . . .

Pipas may be right insofar as the current Mustangs (excluding the hyper-expensive, limited-production dealer gougefest known at the Shelby GT500) are so down on advertised power in both V8 and V6 forms to their rivals that nothing short of a biblical miracle could save this sales year.

It doesn’t do much good to “Win on Sunday” if what you’re selling on Monday is going to get mercilessly whipped in countless bench racing sessions and stoplight grand prixs on the weekdays.

How anyone from the Glass House Gang could wade into any multi-brand automotive forum or chat room and be remotely pleased with current brand perceptions of the weak-sister production Mustangs is a mystery. If the Ford “suits” really believe that sales wouldn’t be “much different one way or another,” someone must be making container-load deliveries of Prozac to 1 American Road, Dearborn, Michigan.

And even if the lithe Mustangs had a better power-to-weight ratio (which in the ordinary blue-collar forms they surely don’t) than the portly Camaros and Challengers, bragging rights on the streets are based on “fan-boy” statistics like cubic inches, horsepower, and reported quarter mile times. In every one of these emotionally-charged measures, the 2010 Mustang comes up lame.

How anyone thought that Ford could sell a V8 Mustang GT that’s on virtual horsepower parity with the base Camaro’s V6 and gets slaughtered in market and aftermarket perception by GM’s antediluvian pushrod V8 is self-delusion of the highest order.

This website has been calling on Ford to quit fooling around for almost half a decade, yet Ford still hasn’t built an affordable V8 Mustang that can credibly take on even a slightly modified $4,000 LT or LS-powered USED Camaro, much less one of the smashmouth 426 horsepower new ones!

It’s almost as if a clueless bunch of Robert McNamara clones are micro-managing the storied Mustang into extinction.

Where are the swashbucklers who will not stand for Mustang to be second or third best in BOTH stock and customer-modified forms? Where are the clued-in “street rats” who understand the logical and emotional essentials to winning the Pony Car war? Where are the champions who can defeat the paralysis of Ford’s bureaucracy and actually offer a car that Mustangers want?

In virtually every important measure other than quality, fit and finish, Mustang is getting pummeled in public perception:

1. Bang for the buck – How many people would pay in the mid-30s for a “track pack” Mustang that’s 100 horsepower down on its competitively-priced rivals? Apparently not enough.

2. Power-to-weight – It’s closer than some folks think, but this arcane engineering measure is evidenced by M.P.H. in standing quarter mile testing. And the Mustangs are coming up short again.

3. The “Look”– Pony cars are a fashion-based segment. A pony car has to be tastefully and purposefully communicative of speed and power. It must be properly accessorized as well.

Both Camaro and Challenger have done a better job at capturing the essence of the boulevard bruiser than the mildly redesigned 2010 Mustang. And given the lack of steam under the average Mustang’s hood, the Mustang’s mild looks have become linked with a perception of milktoast performance.

4. The “Sound” – Mustangs still sound hot . . . even more so with the new “piped-in” induction sound tube. But in the buzzin’ half-dozen segment of the Pony Car market, some say Chevy’s high-reving direct-injection DOHC has got better "pipes."

5. Image – Pony Cars need to posit a swaggering image of competition heritage, non-conformity/individuality, and adventurous spirit. This image must be wrapped up in a car that’s practical, useable and “bulletproof” reliable.

While Ford might have the edge in actual competition at the moment, the image isn’t successfully transferring down to the street.

6. Cake Mix – An apocryphal story from the early days of pre-packaged cake mixes is that millers discovered consumers wanted “mixes” that were easy to make, but required the addition of more than just water before baking. The perception was that a “just add water” cake mix didn’t allow for enough participation by the home baker.

Similarly, a successfully Pony Car has to have dominating “bang” out of the box, but it’s got to “leave enough on the table” to prompt “Day Two” or post-warranty modification. And it’s got to be easy to work on.

GM’s LS V8 is clobbering Ford’s cubic-inch limited Modular in these respects. Although Ford’s seldom-used DOHC design has much more cube-for-cube on-paper potential than an obsolete two-valve pushrod engine, GM is continuing to dominate the aftermarket – and aftermarket perceptions – with their big, crude sledgehammer of an engine.

What’s worse, Ford has seen fit to hamstring all of its “blue collar” V8 Mustangs with glass-weak hypereutectic pistons, spindly cracked-cap powdered-metal rods, cast cranks, and inadequate SOHC two-valve and three-valve heads. These light-duty cheapskate parts severely limit the “cake mix” potential of stock long-block Ford engines in the hands of opinion-leading hot rodders. Mustangers are forced to buy expensive aftermarket forged cranks, rods and pistons to withstand the necessary supercharger/turbocharger/nitrous oxide boosts just to stay competitive with the larger GM V8s. And as GM rodders also buy these heavy-duty components, the market perceptions of the “upside potential” of the bigger LS engine eclipses the Modular.

A wide-bore center DOHC modular (Coyote?) cannot arrive soon enough to stop the bleeding. And even then, Ford will be pumping against a half-century of prejudice and aftermarket investment favoring GM’s “small block.” So Ford’s DOHC engine must have significantly greater “cake mix” potential, as well as dominating showroom output. And it’s got to be priced at point where millions of ordinary wage-earning Mustangers can afford it.

[SOME INTERNET RUMORMONGERS ARE EVEN PUSHING THE THE IDEA OF A TURBOCHARGED GT500, CODE NAME "ROAD RUNNER," AS A RESPONSE TO THE LS/CAMARO PROBLEM FOR 2012 . . . . Public confirmation of the Coyote and Road Runner rumors could come as early as the 2009 Los Angeles Auto Show in December The Coyote Mustangs could be in showrooms as early as March 2010 . . . not a moment too soon]

7. Drivability – A successful Pony Car’s driveability has to be seamless and maneuverable. This is one of the few areas where the lighter Mustang shines.

Even then, the often clueless “buff books,” imported car shills, and internet “experts” repeatedly lambast Ford’s beam-style rear axle. Mustang’s rugged beam axle is clearly better for sportsman competition and serious “muscle car” use. It is highly competitive in stock-based competition as well. Too bad Ford hasn’t done a good enough job in explaining the unnecessary weight, expense and fragility of IRS for Pony Cars. Or in the alternative, offered an optional, bolt-in IRS similar to the 2003-2004 SVT Cobra’s system.

8. Practicality – The fastest, hottest-looking car in the world won't sell in sufficient numbers unless it also functions well as an automobile during the 95% of the time when looks and high-performance are irrelevant.

At the moment, this category may be a wash in the new Pony Car war. While the gunslit windows, tiny trunks and claustrophobic back seats of Mustang’s plus-sized domestic competitors should disadvantage them, Mustang does not seem to have any higher perceptions of practicality. Even Camaro’s weird ergonomics haven’t yet turned off customers intoxicated by the huge horsepower underfoot. All the practicality in the world doesn’t do enough if the Pony Car doesn’t deliver as a bench racing and track star as well.

GM also has an additional advantage in fuel economy perceptions. Camaro’s direct-injected V6 produces exceptional fuel economy in comparison to Ford’s lower-powered V6. And consumers believe the hulking LS V8s are more fuel-efficient than Ford’s smaller, weaker Mustang GT V8.

CONCLUSION: Ford knows better than probably anyone else that a Pony Car is a fashion statement purchased by thousands of individualistic “Walter Mittys” craving a sporting, high performance image and some tightly-coiled, objective and subjective performance to back it all up. At the moment, Mustang’s competitors are doing a better job at nurturing the dreams and expectations of these customers. And that’s why Mustang’s sales trend line is sinking like the Titanic.

THEY DON'T MAKE 'EM LIKE THEY USED TO

Strikes, that is.

Unlike the storied 67-day 1970 strike of General Motors (GM), the "general strike" of 2007 ended with a whimper after only a couple of days. Under the cover of darkness, somebody blinked, resulting in GM and the United Auto Workers reaching a tentative agreement.

It's an abbreviated denouement for negotiations that UAW prexy Ron Gettelfinger claimed merely two quick rotations of the Earth ago were "one-sided."

Ostensibly, the strike of 2007 was about guarantees of future products at U.S. plants. Yet according to press reports "GM made no specific commitments to build cars and trucks at U.S. factories, but generally agreed that with the reduced costs from the new contract, investment in the plants would work . . . ."

Still, the strike ended after only the briefest of furloughs.

Likely none of GM's striking workers (which, by the way, numbered hundreds of thousands fewer than those participating in the protracted 1970 work stoppage) missed any mortgage or car payments. No children starving on a meager $200 per week strike benefit. No product shortages or stock collapse. Virtually no pain. Except for the shifts that had to show up Monday for the dramatic "job walk-off," it was really nothing more than a long weekend.

Instead of "burning down Detroit," the mini-strike was more like "flicking a Bic at a rock concert." Sure there was the risk of a fire, but nothing meaningful was actually consumed.

Before and during the mini-strike, many industry analysts opined the strike was about conditioning the UAW rank and file to vote for give-backs. Afterward, Mr. Gettelfinger boasted "I think the strike probably helped our side more than theirs."

Yet GM reportedly wrangled a tiered wage structure, "mitigated" the effects of the ridiculous "job bank" (wherein furloughed UAW members get paid for not working), and off-loaded over FIFTY BILLION in "legacy" obligations onto the UAW for nearly a $20 Billion discount.

None of this required a strike to achieve.

The celebrated Volunteer Employee Benefit Association (VEBA), if approved by the rank and file and the government, raises a bundle of questions. Undoubtedly, if it goes poorly (i.e. the UAW cannot hand off its new obligations to a "HillaryCare" bailout, or investments go bad, or costs continue to skyrocket), the UAW will be back in four years (or sooner) for more GM money. Thus, some question whether this really changes things much. How a VEBA results in lower health care costs is unknown. But with a VEBA outsourcing the hard decisions to the union, perhaps GM counts on not facing as much of a backlash from future benefit reductions.

Whatever the result, the UAW is transforming itself into one whale of an insurance company . . . .

As a historical event, this puny strike bookends the smashmouth 1970 walkout in that both touched on the problem of retirement. The 1970 contract included a new pension plan. This one apparently results in the retirees getting a pension increase that's "offset by an equal increase in health care contributions." It's emblematic of the UAW's decline in power over the past thirty years. It is unlikely that this abbreviated "show strike" will do anything to help the UAW organize the transplants and "level the playing field" for the Detroit 3.

Thus, to some, it seems like a rearrangement of the chairs with little prospect for fundamental change. Apparently neither side had the stomach to drive a harder bargain. Whether the pattern contract of 2007 will make Detroit more competitive remains to be seen.