"CONSUMER DISTORTS" DUMPS ON FORD & DETROIT AGAIN

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter here]

THE FOLLOWING IS OPINION COMMENTARY BASED ON MEDIA REPORTS.

The most useless magazine in American automotive publishing . . . the "Tokyo Rose" of the automobile press . . . the shameless purveyors of snooty, self-selected, Asian import bias . . . Consumer Reports (R) has done it again.

Apparently subscribing to the "kick'em when they're up, kick'em when they're down" philosophy, the probably tie-dyed, Left-Coast wingnuts at Consumer Reports (R) have reportedly produced about a billion dollars worth of freebee shilling for Team Japan disguised as "journalism" in the fetid "Auto issue" of the Consumer Union's worthless rag.

(Because Consumer Reports (R) arrogantly disdains all advertising, its decades of evangelism for Asian cars cannot be fairly described as "advertising." However, if the Japanese invaders had to buy the same amount of influence among the automotively-ignorant, "appliance motorist" set, it would cost probably a billion dollars in "Truth With Speedzzter's" OPINION.)

Detroit's one category win came in the area of full sized pickup trucks, with the Chevrolet Avalanche edging out the redesigned Ford F150.

Of course, the "appliance motorists" at "Consumer Distorts" apparently gushed again like school-aged fanboys over a host of America-killing, trade-deficit-increasing, Japanese invader cars.

What else is new?

Too bad Obama forgot to put these "geniuses" on the Car Czar team . . . .

Possibly to maintain some illusion among the terminally weak-minded that they're not lock, stock and barrel "in the tank" for Asian imports, "Consumer Distorts" crackerjack Director of Automotive Testing David Champion [sic] had to admit that "Detroit's three auto makers have made 'substantial, incremental improvements in the reliability of their products.'"

Old "Champ" then had to admit that "Ford has made the most progress, especially in their new models" but he then nitpicked FoMoCo, saying it needs to "jazz up their products which now suffer from "so-so styling."

Does "Champ" need a seeing-eye dog? Does he even look at the brain-numbingly boring, "blandtastic" sleds that the Japanese automakers push and dump like baby-boomer crack cocaine onto the American market?

IN THE OPINION OF "TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER," Consumer Reports (R) is an embarrassment as a source for automotive data. It is a disgrace to America. Consequently, it will be read like "the Bible" by thousands of car-hating, Detroit-loathing Obama voters. Many of these same blind-eyed, bleeding-heart hypocrites will mouth fealty to the organized labor movement and maybe even weap for the decaying ruin that that four decades of federal meddling and predatory trade practices have created in MOTOWN, as they motor along in their non-union Japanese invader "wondercars."

Some of the rest of us will spend the inflated cost of the wretched "auto issue" on a ticket for the film "Gran Torino."


DISCLAIMER FOR CONSUMER REPORTS' (R) LAWYERS: Consumer Reports (R) is a registered trademark of Consumers Union (or whomever holds it -- and it should be obvious to everyone who reads English, "Truth With Speedzzter" does not hold it and would use it for toilet paper if it did). Ergo, it's likely the Legal Services Department of the so-called Consumers Union will get their all-natural-fiber, union-made, eco-friendly, designer panties in a bunch over the mere appearance of the words "Consumer Reports (R)" herein. However, any reference to that reeking waste of paper "Truth With Speedzzter" OPINES is more properly described by knowledgeable automobile enthusiasts, hot rodders, and muscle car lovers as "Consumer Distorts" is used herein under the FAIR USE DOCTRINE of U.S. Copyright law.

The comments herein are OPINION (just like the broadsides that Consumer Reports (R) prints against American vehicles) and as such they are protected by the FIRST AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution.

"Truth With Speedzzter" will afford equal time to any rebuttal from Mr. Champion or any of the alleged "automotive journalists" at Consumer Reports (R) to respond to any comment made herein. In other words, waste your time and your we-don't-accept-any-filthy-advertising money suing someone else.

FEBRUARY SLUMP DEMONSTRATES FORD’S WEAKNESS IN CARS

It could have been worse.

General Motors (GM) took a 12.9% dive in February 2008, down to 268,737 units sold in the United States of America market(But GM is only down 6% for calendar 2008 to date in the U.S.A.).

Cerberus’ Chrysler L.L.C. plummeted 14%, to 150,093 and the MoPar brands have fallen 13.1% in calendar 2008 in the U.S. market.

According to Business Week:

“Ford Motor [Company](F) sales, including Jaguar, Land Rover, and Volvo, dropped 6.6% from the year-ago month, to 196,060 [in the U.S. market]. Year to date, Ford dropped 5.4%, to 355,336. Ford, like GM, has been intentionally cutting back on low-margin sales to daily rental fleets; that business was down 20% in February, accounting for about 60% of the company's decline. But the result wasn't much different for retail sales: Not counting fleets, sales were down 6%, the company said.

"What we're seeing today is definitely the downside of a business cycle, whether or not it's ultimately designated a recession," says Emily Kolinski Morris, Ford senior economist for North America.

However, Toyota, which has a better mix of small cars than FoMoCo, only fell 2.8% in the U.S. market.

All of the blame cannot be laid on the faltering U.S. economy.

Nor can all of the blame be placed on the assumed nexus between the liberal environmental/consumer movement (e.g. Consumer Reports obvious anti-Detroit bias) and the Asian auto makers.

A large chunk of blame rests in FoMoCo’s failure to update and diversify its automobile line-up.

Based on strong sales of the Civic and Fit (both of which are arguably fresher designs than Ford’s Focus), Honda actually increased sales in February by 4.9% and is up 1.5% for calendar 2008.

FoMoCo’s gross neglect is demonstrated in Four critical market segments:

1. The Youth Market: While the Mustang certainly is an iconic car that millions of young drivers lust after, the vast majority of youths will never be able to swing the huge insurance/fuel/monthly payment burden of purchasing a new one.

And even if they could, a whole generation of parents brought up on the “Consumer Reports” mythology (which constantly and consistently dogs rear-wheel-drive sports models) would never sign off on one.

Instead, car buying youth end up in Civics or a variety of more “sensible” Asian cars.

Ford’s problem is that it hasn’t developed a sporty, affordable Sub-Mustang model which mixes practicality with style and panache. Recent small Fords (excluding the underpowered SVT Focus) have had all the youth market appeal of a hair shirt.

Some would say this die was cast back in the 1970s when virtually all of the Detroit automakers conceded the majority of the entry-level car market to the more diversified imports.

But with 35 m.p.g. Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards looming (even if the NHTSA “attribute” regulations eventually soften the blow a bit for FoMoCo), and the graying of FoMoCo’s loyal customer base, Ford must figure out how to build a desirable and affordable youth market model so as to offset enough high-performance V8 Mustangs to satisfy the adult market.

Of course, the Mustang should not be compromised as it was during the infamous Mustang II era (1974-1978) or during the pre-Fox body Mustang GT “daze” (1979-1981) just to chase a few more youth market sales.

Instead, FoMoCo needs to develop a “Sub-Mustang” that is more affordable, practical, fuel efficient, sporting and grassroots “tunable” than the late Mercury Cougar or Ford Probe. Obviously, the halo version of such a youth model should master Mitsubishi’s EVO and Subaru’s WRX STI. But the grassroots “mainstream” model should offer a high level of insurable performance potential at a value price.

Ford also needs to be the first to bridge the import tuner and hybrid worlds with a VW-style twin-charged gas-electric hybrid version of the “Sub-Mustang.” Such an out-of-the-box model would surely generate a wave of youth market enthusiasm.

The “Sub-Mustang” is not a replacement for more “mainstream” models such as the Focus. But as Toyota demonstrated long ago (while Ford was wasting time and money on the Pinto), the small car market is highly segmented and diverse. As fuel prices and environmental pressures increase, more diversity in small cars and more sporting models are essential.

2. Large Sedans: It’s clear that renaming the prosaic Five Hundred as the Taurus didn’t fool anyone. GM’s Chevrolet Impala and Toyota’s Camry still handily outsell Ford’s oversized FWD lump. FoMoCo is reportedly cutting back to only one shift at the Chicago Assembly Plant to cut supplies of the slow selling Tauri/Sable models.

Ford must find a way to build a sedan that generates some sort of mass-market excitement. Impala has achieved a modicum of success in spite of its lackluster FWD specifications because it doesn’t appear be an automotive equivalent to a corrective shoe. Instead, Impala offers an “SS” model with a somewhat fuel-efficient V8, as well as a number of lesser models.

Curiously, Carl Edward’s second 2008 NASCAR Sprint Cup win (at Las Vegas on March 2, 2008) in his Roush-Fenway “common template” Ford Fusion funnycar was paced by a Dodge Charger in police livery. This reminded FoMoCo viewers that Dodge is making serious inroads into FoMoCo’s Police Interceptor market share and of FoMoCo’s general neglect of the Panther lines.

Of course, no Police Interceptor can run with a Hemi-Cop Dodge because FoMoCo has withheld Hemi-killing 4-Valve/DOHC Modular V8s from the Panther line (save the nearly forgotten and underdeveloped Mercury Marauder). And FoMoCo hasn’t significantly updated the specs of the Panthers for five years (and has held onto the styling for ten model years).

To be sure, FoMoCo needs two large sedans.

It needs both an anvil-tough body-on-frame Panther-based RWD model for fleet and traditional sedan buyers and a smaller Impala/Camry fighter. And it needs to leverage its V8 heritage with superior DOHC 4-valve direct injected eights as halo models in both lines. (The V8s don’t have to be huge, but optional eight cylinder power (combined with cylinder deactivation and other fuel saving technologies) offer an important psychological link with Ford’s glorious past.

Moreover, both large sedans need a lot more “American swagger” and sportiness than either the Crown Victoria/PI/Grand Marquis/Town Car or the lackluster Taurus/Sable. The old Ford Interceptor concept car showed that some at FoMoCo may have understood this. But typical FoMoCo inaction has caused Ford to continue to miss this market.

Additionally, FoMoCo must take a page from the Europeans and offer torquey turbo diesel options in both of its large sedans.

3. Sports Sedans: Pontiac’s exciting new G8 and Cadillac’s CTS (along with a whole host of RWD BMW, Audi, Mercedes and Lexus models) point to a serious deficiency in FoMoCo’s line: A lack of serious sports sedans. Sports sedans are not high volume models, but are high profit and high profile ones. Sports sedans make a serious statement about the engineering acumen of an automaker.

Ford, of course, has produced serious sports sedans in Australia based on its RWD Falcon. Ford Performance Vehicles (FPV) offers more than one exciting Falcon-based grand touring sedan in the Land Down Under. But Ford’s hapless North American operation has been content for decades to bleed sales to BMW, Audi, Lexus, Cadillac and now Pontiac.

Ford has also occasionally built a flabby, overpriced sport sedan at Jaguar. But Jaguar’s impending release from the FoMoCo fold (as well as its historically poor sales performance) suggests that Ford needs something a bit more disciplined and serious in this segment to be competitive.

A serious RWD sport sedan (with optional turbo diesel and “Eco Force” twin turbo V8 and six) is an essential statement that Ford must make to be taken seriously as international automaker. Without one, Ford will continue to lose owner loyalty to GM and the luxury imports.

4. Small trucks: How old is the Ranger? Who can even remember?

Yet with huge gas prices weighing down the entire American economy, FoMoCo is not very well positioned to sell smaller, more fuel efficient trucks. An updated Ranger with more powerplant and cab/bed options is critical to leading the shift to smaller, more fuel efficient trucks and vans.

A street-going, all-wheel-drive high-performance model inspired (loosely) by Baja 1000 trophy trucks would also be a segment breakthrough.

Ford will continue to suffer -- boycott or none and regardless of the state of the American economy -- as long as it fails to provide a diverse line-up of affordable, exciting and desirable vehicles.

MARKETSHARE SLIDE WORSENS FOR FORD MOTOR COMPANY (R)

It just gets worse and worse . . . .

According to a report in Automotive News "Ford's domestic brands have lost 1.1 percentage points for the year to date." www.autonews.com

"Market share for [FoMoCo's] domestic brands was 16.8 percent at the end of August, down from 17.9 percent for the year-earlier period.

Ford sales analyst George Pipas told Automotive News "When the consumer is moving away from the segment where we have a 35 percent share and is moving toward small cars, where we have a 7 percent share, that's not very conducive to slowing the rate of decline or stabilizing or increasing market share."

Part of the problem, of course, if FoMoCo's poor selection of small cars.

Other than the "Mexican Mazda" CD3 sedan (Fusion/Milan/Zephyr/MKZ) and minor restyling of the previous generation Focus, FoMoCo doesn't offer much to match up with huge variety of small cars competing for economy-minded customers.

Ford insiders maintain that the CD3 is a modest hit. But FoMoCo's standards for a "hit" are so low these days that just not losing business is probably a "hit" in Dearborn.

FoMoCo is pinning signficant short-term hopes on the new "Edge" crossover and the underpowered 3.5 Duratec to reverse its fortunes. Yet FoMoCo apparently will continue to ignore several niches, such as cheap, yet entertaining youth market cars (Scion), factory "pocket rockets" (Civic SI, Cobalt SS, Caliber SRT-4, Volkswagen GTI), homologation-type high performance all wheel drive specials (Mitsubishi EVO, Subaru WRX), subcompacts (Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, Mini Cooper) and alternative body styles (convertibles, coupes, "box" trucks).

FoMoCo partner Mazda is, however, having some success with its quirky Mazda 3 and Mazdaspeed 3. Neither the success nor the advanced turbocharged powertrain are available in the more prosaic domestic Ford models.

FoMoCo also offers no fuel-efficient sports cars, other than the Mazda Miata.

You'd think with FoMoCo's problems in small sedans, that it would have a slate of luxurious, street-burning "gas guzzlers" at the other end.

Nope. FoMoCo's shelves are bare there, too.

While Chrysler offers perhaps the finest luxury-sports sedan available in America for less than $50,000 (Chrysler 300 C SRT-8) along with a fairly decent range of lesser models (Dodge Magnum R/T, Magnum SRT-8, Charger R/T, Charger R/T Daytona, Charger SRT-8 and Chrysler 300 C), FoMoCo offers not ONE MODEL in the power-to-weight range or performance envelope of these cars.

But that's just because FoMoCo is concentrating on fuel economy, right?

Not really.

While FoMoCo's sedans do best the most extreme examples cited above (e.g. the SRT-8s) FoMoCo's newest FWD-based sedans aren't exactly class leading at the pumps. The EPA rates FoMoCo's 4 cylinder Fusion at 24 mpg city and 32 mpg highway and the Fusion 6 at 21 mpg city and 29 mpg highway. Similarly Five Hundred is rated at 21 mpg city and 29 mpg highway. Decent numbers to be sure, but they only roughly match Camry (23 mpg city/33 mpg highway (Camry four/Automatic) and 21 mpg city/29 mpg highway (Camry six/automatic), are only slightly better than the economy versions of Chrysler's large RWD sedans (21 mpg city/28 mpg highway (Chrysler 300 2.7), 19 mpg city/27 mpg highway (Chrysler 300 3.5), 17 mpg city/25 mpg highway (340 h.p. Dodge Charger R/T) and lag behind GM (21 mpg city/31 mpg highway (Impala 3.5) and 18 mpg city/28 mpg highway (303 h.p. Impala 5.3 V8).

Of course FoMoCo offers nothing to match hot (in terms of sales), headline-grabbing economy sedans, such as the Toyota Camry hybrid, the Honda Civic Hybrid or the Honda Accord hybrid.

FoMoCo has a line-up of "competent" sedans, but nothing that really causes potential sedan buyers to lie awake at nights. And until FoMoCo can figure out how to break away from the pack of competent "transporation appliances," its results will continue to trend lower and lower.

CONSUMER REPORTS RIPS ON ETHANOL

America's favorite group of know-it-all nannies--Consumer Reports- weighs in on the ethanol debate in a cover story this month.

As could be easily predicted, the magazine takes a dim view of E85, undoubtedly recognizing that its potential as a high performance fuel conflicts with the liberal dream of forcing everyone into tiny econoboxes, mass transit and vanpools.

Of course anti-CR conspiracy theorists will note that E85 isn't much of a priority for the Japanese car makers, whose products CR typically fawns all over (CR is probably the single greatest sales gimmick of the Japanese car builders, notwithstanding serious methodological concerns over CR's survey process. See http://www.allpar.com/cr.html; http://www.truedelta.com/pieces/newdots.php )

The crux of CR's argument is that although E85 produces fewer oxides of nitrogen, it lowers fuel efficiency by 27 percent (based on CR's testing of Chevrolet Tahoe) and thus won't save drivers money, even if they can find it outside the Corn Belt.

They also look askew at government incentives aimed at boosting production of flexi-fueled vehicles:

"[T]he government credits FFVs that burn E85 with about two-thirds more fuel economy than they actually get using gasoline, even though the vast majority may never run on E85. This allows automakers to build more large, gas-guzzling vehicles than they otherwise could under Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules. As a result, these credits have increased annual U.S. gasoline consumption by about 1 percent, or 1.2 billion gallons, according to a 2005 study by the Union for Concerned Scientists." http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=71591

CR, of course, stays away from the real attraction of E85 for enthusiasts--high octane and the ability to absorbe more excess combustion heat than straight gasoline--two advantages that can be put to significantly higher and better use in properly-tuned forced induction engines.

CR apparently just can't understand why anyone would want to do such a thing . . . .

FORD MOTOR COMPANY TEAMS WITH BRANDINTEL TO FERRET OUT CONSUMER FEEDBACK.
According to Advertising Age magazine, "Ford Motor Co. wants unvarnished consumer comment. So it is monitoring Internet chatter about its brands." "Last month, Ford hired BrandIntel, a marketing analysis company in Toronto, to track what Web users are saying about the styling and performance of its cars and trucks."

To cynics familiar with the FoMoCo behemoth, the Edsel immediately comes to mind.

The Edsel was purportedly based on extensive "market research." It was hoped to help transform FoMoCo into the segment-based divisional mold of GM.

But as history shows, the plan failed on multiple levels.

Sure, external forces helped doom the Edsel. A recession and steel price jump in 1958 hurt the entire domestic auto industry. Growing interest in compact cars hurt sales of large, mid-range cars. And the GM-style brand hierarchy was collapsing as value-added smaller cars (such as the Ford Thunderbird) and high performance sport models (i.e. Pontiac Bonneville, Chevrolet Impala) were breaking the link between size and price.

But a key reason the Edsel failed is because all of the "market research" didn't produce a better car.

To be fair, Ford Motor Company and its hired gun BrandIntel would probably claim that 1950's-style market research is different from the "unvarnished" feedback Ford is now seeking.

But is it?

Didn't focus group consumers just glow over the futuristic GM "Dustbuster" minivans, only to abandon them in the marketplace? Didn't the 1996 Ford Taurus team have reams of positive customer impressions about the "fishmobile" styling to offset internal concerns about the new design?

And how will BrandIntel filter the firehose of world wide web feedback? How will it find nuggets among the noise and chaos? How will it determine expertise?

A statistical approach is geared toward producing blandness. Which is apparently okay if you're Toyota. But blandness is a rut Ford cannot afford to travel at this point.

The legendary automobilists -- Henry Ford, Edsel Ford, Dr. Ferdinand Porsche, Enzo Ferrari, Carroll Shelby and many others -- didn't have "unvarnished" feedback when they created milestone automobiles. Instead they had a clear targeted vision of improving the automobile in specific, measurable ways.

But on the odd chance BrandIntel and Ford Motor Company are listening, Speedzzter will make a few "unvarnished" suggestions:

1. Regardless of what consumers say, they want it all and they don't want to pay (extra) for it.

Obviously, the first company that could build a 40 m.p.g. supercar with a huge trunk, easy access to all seats, swoopy styling with "attitude" (but not weirdness), a three second 0-60 m.p.h. time and a Corvette-beating top speed, inability to get stuck in the snow, a cushiony ride with razor-sharp reflexes and Nurburgring-quality handling on demand, a sporty-yet-commanding driver's position, bulletproof reliability, total safety, scores of electronic entertainment gadgets (i-pod plug ins, DVD/Blu-Ray players, navigation systems), sybaritic luxury, and an elegant, sporting image-- all at the price point of a new Camry-- would OWN the market . . . .

Suffice it to say, this fantasy car isn't possible under current technology. But it points to the obvious -- that consumers measure "value" on an affective, not objective, basis.

Japanese cars are selling because a large number of consumers believe them to be a better, more reliable product. These perceptions are based on the weakest of data (self-selected Consumer Reports surveys, word-of-mouth anecdotes and mostly irrelevant tactile perceptions of non-mechanical materials and assembly "quality") But as Tom Peters once observed "perception is reality."

So to beat Toyota, Ford has to keep in mind that consumers "want it all and they don't want to pay for it" by adding perceived value and then hawking the daylights out of it in comparative advertising and other "competition."

2. Opinion leaders matter.

Most consumers are lemmings.

Consequently most product loyalty these days is tied to the opinions and experiences of local "experts" (family members, co-workers, etc.) Moreover, a whole generation of "non-car guy" consumers have been inoculated against Fords and other Detroit brands by exposure to poor-performing, unreliable, ex-fleet used cars or other bland, uncompetitive small cars. Then they have heard smug criticism from their local "expert" evangelists for the imported brands, who tout import superiority ad nauseam. Mix in a healthy dose of "Car and Driver Ten Best" and "Motor Trend Car of the Year" and the "appliance motoring" customers are primed for conquest. Unfairly, they tend to compare worn-out, used Detroit cars with shiny, new imports at the new car store. Then they learn just how depressed trade-in values are for used-up American cars . . . . And another potential customer is lost.

Changing these results rests in no small part on changing the minds of the opinion leaders-- both locally and nationally.

Nationally, to win the hearts of jaded automobile writers and other opinion leaders, it's important for new vehicles in a segment to be head-and-shoulders above competitors in objective testing on memorable parameters, such as fuel economy, acceleration, braking and handling.

"Head and shoulders above" isn't just a tenth of a second here or there. It's a smashmouth blowout!

Subjective factors are important too, such as the feel of the switch gear, the quality of the interactive parts of the vehicle (door handles, shifter, the sound of the door closing, steering feedback, ergonomics, the materials in sight of the driver etc.). But bang-for-the-buck is still the benchmark among national opinion leaders.

Locally, to win the hearts of "experts," the cars have to be durable, easy to service, cheap to maintain and have a "must have" reputation on the street.

Fords have built a couple of generations of cars that weren't really any of these things. For example, until recently, Fords have developed a reputation for electrical and cooling system problems, based on poor design choices made during the halcyon days of the 1980s. And any mechanic who struggled to replace the heater core in an old air-conditioned Fox-body model (step one: remove the dashboard) isn't very likely to recommend Ford products.

The challenge for Ford Motor Company is to make all systems durable enough to last for 200,000 miles of ordinary, non-competitive driving with nothing more than routine maintenance. And the cars have to be built with sufficiently inherent quality to make a good impression on young, impressionable used car customers who will end up with them five to seven years later.

That's a tough order.

3. Show confidence in the product.

The Koreans have managed to sell a slew of inferior motorcars by slapping eye-popping warranties on them. A 100,000 mile warranty is about the minimum buy-in to register in the psyches of the consumer. But sell it, Ford would have to be frank--"we couldn't afford to offer this if we thought you'd need it."

4. Build "Transparent Performance."

It's no coincidence that many ordinary sedans perform as well or better than the average musclecar of the 1960s. Remember, most folks want it all, but without all the hassles. Transparent performance is the ability to hit milestone objective numbers without excessive noise, cost, maintenance or intrusions into functionality. Power-to-weight is the holy grail here. Even in the era of environmental "awareness" (if not hysteria), a "hot" (yet still practical) car that also gets good mileage will sell better than a slow, boring, "socially responsible"one.

5. Exploit the natural "Trickle Down" of technology.

The revolutionary trend in all of technology is in "downsizing"it and democratizing it. Computers used to fill whole rooms, now they fill your hand. DOHC and fuel injection were once the province of Formula One. Now they're in the cheapest Korean car. Thus, aiming high and pulling meaningful technology down to the masses is a time-tested formula for success. Even Henry Ford's Model T started initially with the goal of providing the "bang" (power, durability) of a more expensive car as a price ordinary farmers could afford. A couple of decades later, Ford's 1932 V8 captured the minds and hearts of a generation of enthusiasts because it put elite-class performance capability in the hands of ordinary Joes.

But the Japanese are currently doing a much better job at this now. For example, Honda's celebrated V-TEC variable cam phasing and timing has generated a huge, positive reputation for the dynamic range and fuel economy of Honda's engines among opinion leaders. Meanwhile, the accountants running Ford have mostly kept such technologies out of Fords in the same market segments. And Ford has the failed legacy of such low-tech bombs as the 2.3 pushrod Tempo still to overcome in the minds of consumers.

Even GM and Chrysler are somewhat ahead of Ford. GM and Chrysler both offer cylinder deactivation on V8s. Ford doesn't. GM and Chrysler both have high-tech turbocharged fours in some models. Ford doesn't.

The current battleground is in making efficiency technology cheaper and more accessible. For example, given current technology, there's no reason why anyone should have to buy a code scanner to diagnose their car.

Nor are there valid technical reasons why forced induction shouldn't be used to expand the dynamic range of engines (Think direct-injected VW twin-charger here). Yet Ford's record with such trickle down technologies is spotty at best. Even in premium brands, such as Jaguar, Ford hasn't consistently delivered market-leading technologies at better price points.

As AVIS's time-tested ad slogan from the 1960's pointed out, when you're behind, you have to "try harder." And trickle-down technology is one way to do this.

6. Benchmarks matter.

You beat the best by competing with the best. Picking the wrong target insures that the result will be "me-too" bland. Ford's failure to lead with "trickle down" technologies is the direct result of shooting too low. While 99.9% of customers will never use an Autobahn-rated vehicle to its potential, the qualities necessary to build one resonate in the minds of even unsophisticated consumers.

Of course most of the people who buy expensive high-performance footwear never step foot on a basketball court either. It's the affective image that sells the product.

Money spent on brakes, cooling systems, suspension tuning and active safety systems is always a good investment.

7. Practical flash.

The only things worse than a lukewarm designs are unnecessarily weird ones and unfunctionally bad ones. The latest Chrysler 300 was a modest hit because it blended practicality with a daringly different look. The 300 also played to America's thirst for updated, athletic, RWD V8-available vehicles.

The original Taurus did some of the same things (and it "trickled down" advanced Audi 5000 styling to the mass market). The original Taurus also contained many "ah ha" features, such as the four sunvisors, the European-style HVAC controls and a massive trunk. It paid attention how people actually used their cars and delivered more than promised (except perhaps in the areas of handling and engine performance).

The 1996 Taurus, however, had lost most of this. It substituted weirdness for innovation. Most of the "ah ha" was cut, along with the trunk space. And even in the engine room, many potential customers only experienced dated, non-Duratec power. The blandness of the rental car experience, along with damage to reliability and resale (both seemingly inherent consequences of the (non-Shelby GT) rental car market) killed demand.

(One wonders if Ford had flooded the rental market with special, regular-fuel, SHO-style Tauruses-- for rent at the regular Taurus price -- whether Ford might have induced more retail demand).

The Five Hundred appears to be an overreaction to the flaws of the 1996 Taurus. Conservative to the point of blandness. Poor objective performance numbers. No V8s or forced induction to generate objective flash or subjective thrills. Merely competent in a hyper-competitive age when competence isn't enough.

Bunkie Knudsen, for all his faults, had it correct--you can sell a young man's car to an old man but you can't sell a old man's car to a young man. Style matters, but it cannot be at the expense of functionality.

8. Diversity.

Team Japan has cleaned the clock of Dearborn because they have offered much more diversity in small cars.

Until the 1980s, Ford's U.S. operations ignored the demand for practical four-door sedans in the subcompact class. And even now, Ford has restricted small car offerings. Mitsubishi, for example, has small, cheap economy cars as well as its legendary EVO for sale in America. Although Honda offers less performance diversity than Ford, it has been aggressive with hybrids. Toyota's Scion brand sells multiple body styles. In contrast, Ford has mostly ignored these niches with its U.S. Focus franchise. And its only niche player here--the ST 170 a/k/a SVT Focus arrived a day late and a turbocharger short to capture anyone's imagination.

In midsize cars, diversity also matters. Since 1998, Ford has ignored the small but style-leading midsize coupe market, allowing Toyota's Solara and GM's FWD coupes nearly free reign. And Ford has also ignored the midsize convertible niche, as well as cutting back on station wagons.
Except for the Mustang, the Panthers and trucks, Ford has avoided RWD--notwithstanding its driveability and prestige advantages. Even when Ford had a couple of competent RWD platforms available (DEW 98 and the OZ Falcon) Ford chose not to develop new products off of them.

9. Made in the USA still matters.

Why is it that Mazda can build Mazda 6s in Flatrock, Michigan, but Ford has to build Fusions in Mexico? With Toyota adding jobs in the U.S. at a breathtaking pace, it's poised to win the "Who's more American" battle for perceptions.

Simply put, an American car company needs to design and build (or at least assemble) cars in America. While Ford's crushing health care and legacy obligations are a tough nut to crack, the nationalistic psychology of building cars in the U.S. cannot be jetisoned without adverse consequences to loyalty.

10. Features, Features, Features.

Why can't Ford offer the following features:

a. A performance "volume" knob that lets the driver dial in the balance of fuel economy and performance (just like the volume knob on the radio).

b. Turbocharged (or twin charged) V8s with cylinder deactivation--Since 1932, no one has been more identified with V8 power than Ford. Yet Ford is falling further behind in this niche.

c. Magnetically-adjustable shock absorbers. Shocks are the most important variable in ride control. The ability to adjust on-the-fly with computer-controlled algorithms favorably exploit the balance between ride and handing. Sophisticated packages could even help actively manage some weight transfer effects on acceleration, braking and high-g cornering.

d. A restyled Panther with more power and more economy. Nine years without restyling is too long. And failing to offer a mild-hybrid and 32-valve engines (or at least 24 valve V8s) is simply market neglect.

e. The Interceptor concept. Not everyone who wants Mustang levels of performance and driveability can fit into a Mustang. As BMW proved thirty-years ago, a practical sports sedan will be popular if its practical, reasonably stylish and generates competitive hard numbers. Given that BMW has abandoned the lower-end of the sports sedan market, the pickings are ripe for a four-door "Mustang"-type car (and not half-hearted efforts like the 1985 LTD LX or the 2003-2004 Marauder).

f. A Focus-sized RWD. Sure, AWD is great. But it's complex, heavy and hard to work on. What no one has produced in years is a simple, sporty subcompact RWD sedan/coupe/wagon. A small, nimble RWD would become an instant icon because of its appeal for grassroots motorsports and to opinion leading small car enthusiasts. With RWD, FWD and AWD in small cars, Ford would potentially have the market covered.

g. Proven efficiency technologies. Cylinder deactivation, variable intake tuning (a/k/a the V6 SHO Taurus, SVT Focus and the OZ Falcon 6), variable cam lift, timing and phasing, gear-splitting overdrives (permitting eight or more forward speeds), electric power steering and air conditioning and 42-volt starter-alternators could all improve the efficiency without adversely affecting the driving experience.

f. A. U.S.-Built, SVT-badged Fusion AWD with twincharging and the efficiency technologies listed above.

g. A simple two-seat sports car. Sure the GT was awesome. But 99.9% of Ford lovers will never get to sit in one, much less drive. And the retro-Thunderbird was an expensive, disappointing poser. The Mustang is an essential icon, but it'll never have the bona fides of a true two-seater.

Ford has yielded the "America's Sports Car title to Chevrolet's Corvette for too long. A real "everyperson" sports car can build brand excitement and create technology trickledown. Why should Mazda, Pontiac, Saturn and Honda have all the fun in this segment?

A roadster style car would be the safest choice, but a Fiero/MR2-sized "Junior GT" (with all the "classic" GT-40 styling cues) and a small, transversly-mounted 60-degree turbocharged V8 (using FWD drivetrain bits, just like GM and Toyota) might really shake folks up.

h. Forced-induction ready crate engines (including modulars) in the Ford Racing Performance Parts catalog. It's ironic that Ford's leading high performance engines of this decade (the 4.6 supercharged Cobra engine, the supercharged Ford GT engine and the supercharged GT 500 engine) are not offered by FRPP. It's also ironic that Mustang builders have generally relied for the past twenty years on supercharging and turbocharging to make up the cubic inch deficit to their GM and Mopar competition, but FRPP offers no "power-adder ready" crate engines.

Encouraging more builders to use power-adder friendly FRPP power can't but help perceptions of the Ford brand and brand loyalty among these opinion leaders. As Zora Arkus-Duntov obeserved over five decades ago: hot rodders are going to build hot rods anyway, so the factory can either help them do it right or (by inaction) drive them into the waiting arms of another.

HOW TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER CELEBRATES EARTH DAY
(Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here)

Forty years ago, this Earth Day madness was thrust upon us. Of course there are better ways to celebrate 1970. . . .


Short of burning a stack of tires along with an “ecology flag” or two, Truth With Speedzzter recommends the best way for every automobile enthusiast “ to celebrate” Earth Day is with a few full-throttle blasts in your favorite high-performance vehicle.

If your taste runs more towards vintage stock cars, Bangshift's linked to some good Historic Grand National Stock Car Association action.

AAA NEW JERSEY AUTOMOBILE CLUB CELEBRATES EARTH DAY 2010 WITH THE AAA GREAT BATTERY ROUNDUP®

Comment: Aren’t most batteries recycled already?

CONSUMER REPORTS (tm) (ACTUALLY TOM TOM) BLOWS THE LID OFF OF AMERICA’S “MOST POLLUTED ROADS”

Comment: Of course among the free-range-chicken-eating, hemp-wearing, Naderites at “Consumer Distorts,” the principal component of human breath (Carbon Dioxide) is “pollution.” Thus, the “most polluted” roads are also some of the slowest. While Truth With Speedzzter is all for reducing traffic jams with better high-speed expressway designs, this “most polluted roads” angle seems a tad overblown.

SENATORS DANCE AROUND THE GAS TAX ISSUE

Comment: Those who value our motoring freedoms should love Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK). When the vast majority of Washington politicians seem willing to enrich big government with liberty-killing carbon taxes (under the guise of preventing “climate change”), Senator Inhofe has staunchly stood for a fact-based, common-sense approach to energy policy. Senator Inhofe points out again how “bait and switch” politicians try to hide their true intentions (i.e. taxing our automotive liberties out of existence to placate the liberal green lobby) with semantic shell games and misrepresentations. YOU GO, JIM!

AUTOBLOG GREEN’S GUILT GRAPHIC

[Source: Auto Insurance for Autoblog.com]

Comment: Truth With Speedzzter wonders why those who lament American exceptionalism and our First World standard of living simply don’t move to one of those idyllic places that doesn’t use as much energy per capita, such as . . . say . . . Afghanistan . . . .

WILLIE WIREDHAND, MEET REDDY KILOWATT: LARGEST GROUP OF TESLA ROADSTERS MEET IN NOR CAL

Comment: “And she’ll have fun, fun, fun when Daddy takes the battery charger away . . . .” A bunch of Bay-area computer geeks displaying their Lotus-based Autobahn golf cars next to the chilly Pacific Ocean is hardly the pinnacle of automotive fun.

EARTH DAY 2010: DETROIT

Comment: While some would argue that Detroit was already in trouble on Earth Day 1970, the ensuing four decades have brought it to the brink of ruin. 400 liquor stores and only eight grocery stores . . . acres of abandoned land . . . a city in shambles.

Liberals, see what your imports and your jihad against American-made automobiles has wrought. For a more in-depth look at how Detroit has suffered in the “Ecological Age of Aquarius”, see the Fabulous Ruins of Detroit.

WILLIAM CLAY FORD, JR. EARTH DAY HONOREE

Comment: Sure, Truth With Speedzzter has been unflinchingly hard of “Li’l Billy” at times. He’s to auto execs what the Detroit Lions are to football. Still, Ford’s current ability to capitalize on greeniac madness is attributable, at least in part, to Bill Ford’s dabbling in environmentalism. And on a day when Detroit honestly should have little to celebrate, Bill Ford is being celebrated (by some) as one of Michigan’s “green leaders” (no double entendre intended).

ROUSH-FENWAY GOES GREEN: ACTIVATES SOLAR ELECTRIC PANELS AT CONCORD, NC HANGAR

Comment: Although the Roush-Fenway's solar install probably makes no sense from an economic standpoint, it's probably great public relations. Still, the hard-core auto racing haters won't be happy until the race cars and aircraft are parked and Ol' Jack is worshiping a tree somewhere.

WARRANTY WAR: GM ONE-UPS FORD, BUT STILL TRAILS THE KOREANS

Yesterday, September 6, 2006, General Motors announced a new Five Year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty for all 2007 model vehicles sold in the United States and Canada, according to the Automotive News. www.autonews.com See also www.gm.com/warranty.

The new warranty replaced GM's standard three year/36,000 mile warranty and is fully transferrable and free of deductibles.

"The move is a bid by GM to counter successful marketing of long-term warranties by competitors such as Hyundai and Kia." www.autonews.com

Of course, GM's warranty volley is also in the context of Ford Motor Company's own escalation of the burgeoning "warranty war." FoMoCo jacked up the powertrain coverage on 2007 Fords and Mercurys to five years or 60,000 miles and on Lincolns to six years or 70,000 miles.

"'What we’ve found is that two-thirds of customers trade or dispose of the vehicle before five years and 100,000 miles,' said Mark LaNeve, GM's vice president of vehicle sales, service and marketing. 'This really matches the way customers buy cars.'"

The truth is that these enhanced warranties are simply a disguised sales incentive. However, they provide long-lasting psychological effects not available from one-time hits, such as rebates, employee pricing or zero-percent financing.

From a business perspective, long warranties are simply bundled repair insurance. For aftermarket service warranties, the warranty company's bet is that the premiums they collect from warranty sales will exceed their repair and administration costs.

But in the minds of consumers, a long warranty is a "guarantee" of reliablity. The consumers's logic is that the manufacturer wouldn't (and couldn't) "guarantee" a vehicle for so long if they thought it was going to break down. Thus, these enhanced warranties create "peace of mind" in consumers and, correspondingly, higher quality perceptions for the brand. This feeling is further extended by "roadside assistance" benefits that are copied from aftermarket "extended warranty" plans.

At least that's what the manufacturers hope.

It's not the first time we've been down this road. In the early 1960s, Lincoln shocked the automotive world by offering an unprecedented 24,000 mile warranty on its new "Kennedy" Continental. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,894536,00.html Lincoln's problem then, as now, was that it badly trailed Cadillac in sales and perceptions of the brand's quality were not the best. The "long" warranty sought to garner attention for the "all new" Continental and to "one-up" Cadillac.

Chrysler played a similar game years later with its "5/50" protection plan.

FoMoCo boosted warranties on Ford Focus a few years back to offset a spate of negative publicty surrounding a number of recalls.

Of course, the Koreans have been the most aggressive in using warranties to assuage consumer angst about quality. In the 1980s -- when Consumer Reports was really emerging as a de facto promotional vehicle of the Japanese automakers (albeit with no "smoking gun" ever uncovered linking any coordination or collusion) -- Korean cars reportedly lagged in the quality cellar. Perhaps only the Yugo and maybe Jaguar had a worse reputation for quality back then.

To combat the widespread public perception that Korean cars were cheap, flimsy and of minimal quality, Korean manufacturers began offering dramatically extended warranties "for free" (e.g. warranty cost was burried in the sales price). Now Korean warranties extend as long as 10 years/100,000 miles.

Some would argue that the Koreans' aggressive promotion of warranties has saved their businesses in the U.S. and permitted them to move up-market more rapidly than would ordinarily be possible.

GM and FoMoCo dealers probably have mixed emotions about the escalating "warranty war." Undoubtedly they see the warranties as better than simply putting more "cash on the hood" with rebates and other discounts. Moreover, they probably expect these moves to counteract some of the misperceptions about "Detroit" quality signficantly lagging behind the Japanese. And undoubtedly they welcome the increased opportunities for service work under the warranties, although compensated by the factories at controversial "warranty flat rates."

But the dealers will miss some of the profits from the "F&I" department that the combination of short factory warranties and generous aftermarket "extended warranties" provided. Extended warranties have a 50% or better (sometimes MUCH better) gross profit margin. And in many states, sales are relatively unregulated, so dealers can keep all the difference from the transaction price (which the dealer generally sets) and the cost to "buy" the warranty from the service warranty company. (However, some warranty companies have a "charge back" provision if a dealer's warranty claims become excessive) And although the new, longer "powertrain protection" warranties do still preserve room for aftermarket "bumper-to-bumper" warranties, selling them to skeptical customers will be more of a challenge.

Similarly, these moves may also deprive some revenue from GMAC and Ford Motor Credit, both of which offer extended warranty products. But the manufacturers also realize that warranties are a deferred, contingent cost (excluding any reserves for such repairs and promotional costs), unlike rebates and discounts which always hit the bottom line immediately. And they recognize that warranties add perceived value without cheapening transaction prices, thus benefiting residual values and, thus, improving perceptions of brand's lasting value.

It's unlikely that GM's move is the final shot in the current "warranty war." FoMoCo may be unable to stay at less than 100,000 miles. And market pressures will likely force the Detroit 3 to move closer and closer to complete "bumper-to-bumper" coverage.

New FoMoCo CEO Alan Mulally is probably now wondering what sort of business he's got himself into. After all, Boeing usually sold its aircraft to sophisticated business customers with their own staffs of highly-trained mechanics, operating under the scrutiny of the FAA or other aviation authorities. This business about dealers, warranty repair rates, public perceptions and the "warranty war" is fresh ground for him.

TOYOTA’S TRUCKIN’ JIHAD TO DESTROY DESTROY DETROIT TAKES A MUSCULAR TURN.

Sure, Ford Motor Company’s F-Series trucks are still number one in sales (albeit at around 30,000 fewer units sold so far as compared to last year).

So why worry?

TOYOTA.

Toyota is now three months into the launch of the new full-size Tundra – which is the final assault on the American market. While Toyota claims to only be seeking "10 percent share," it is clear Toyota won’t be satisfied until it wrecks any chance of survival for the Detroit 3.

Accordingly, Toyota’s Tundra advertising is aggressive.

They’re not jibber-jabbering any feel-good "Bold Moves" clap-trap.

They’re not banking on reputation or heritage or "thirty years" of doing anything.

They’re selling the objective performance superiority of their Japanese truck (assembled, of course, in non-UAW "Trojan horse" American factories as a ruse to diffuse fears about the imminent collapse of America’s biggest industry and to circumvent the only meaningful American vehicle tariff remaining).

Bigger brakes, stronger axles and more muscle under the hood are the central themes of the comparative ads.

When was the last time you saw a "Built Ford Tough" commercial that actually touted the starting and stopping superiority of Ford’s F-Series?

All of this must be confusing to the elite, hyper-intellectual "appliance motorists" (such as Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers, and the Japanese-loving Consumer Reports crowd) -- who undoubtedly can’t understand why their guiding light "‘Yoda" is irresponsibly hawking "gas guzzling" V8-powered heavy-iron as fuel prices begin their annual seasonal spike.

(See comments from these sorts of paternalistic "automobile experts" at http://speedzzter.blogspot.com/2006/09/click-clack-and-500-horsepower-ford.html )

The effete and genteel among us continue to "misunderestimate" the enemy.

Yet an item in the Automotive News (www.autonews.com) is bound to cause even more confusion: Jim Farley, Toyota Division vice president of marketing, said that demand for the super-sized CrewMax and the "top-dog 5.7-liter V-8" is "outstripping supply."

Apparently, only mistakes about supply mix are holding down Toyota’s impending conquest of Detroit’s last refuge.

Ernest Bastien, Toyota's vice president of vehicle operations said "We didn't come to the prizefight with all our tools.""The 5.7 has been 70 to 80 percent of our mix, and we thought it would be 50 or 60 percent," according to Jim Farley. "The 4.7 (V-8) and V-6 are not as popular."

At least Toyota's American operatives understand this IS a no-holds barred "prizefight!"

WHERE IS FORD’S RESPONSE?

Ford claims to be the leader, but does it actually lead?

Where’s the next-generation Lightning? A third-gen ‘bolt could have really schooled the Japanese invaders about real high-performance pickups.

But Ford aborted it. And then mostly disbanded SVT for good measure.

Where’s are the DOHC Modular V-8 options, which would have at least given Ford a better match-up on paper to the h-o-t Vortecs and Hemis . . . and now the muscular Tundra 5.7?

Nowhere to be seen. (Bean counters still rule in Dearborn)

Where’s the big-cube Boss/Hurricane engine?

Ford’s on-off-on-off dance has put this program too far behind to fight the invasion.

Where’s the turbo-diesel F-150?

Where’s the mild hybrid?

Without a doubt, Toyota will probably beat Ford in these niches, too.

Ford fiddles while the SUN RISES and Dearborn burns.

A WORD ON VIRGINIA TECH

Speedzzter’s thoughts and prayers go out to the victims of this horrible crime.

Yet had even one of the occupants of the massacre site been armed and had minimal tactical training, many lives would have been saved.

If the Second-Amendment-hating liberals insist that our schools be "gun-free zones" (denying the occupants of their fundamental right to self-protection), then they absolutely must be able to provide security. Virginia Tech clearly failed to meet this obligation.

COULD “CLICK AND CLACK” (tm) BE PARTLY RIGHT ABOUT THE SHELBY GT500KR?

[GET THE LATEST "TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER" HERE]

Tom and Ray Magliozzi – NPR’s “Click and Clack (tm), the Tappet Brothers (tm) -- absolutely HATE the new 550 horsepower Shelby GT500KR.

They say that anyone who’d buy one is a “whacko.” They claim that Ford and Shelby’s most recent collaboration is “Absolutely ridiculous and stupid.”

As "Truth With Speedzzter" has previously pointed out, Click and Clack (tm) are paternalistic, pencil-necked poltroons who seemingly can't stand automotive liberty or apparently ANYTHING that smacks of "E-V-I-L" high performance!

BUT, could they be partly right?

A post on Autoblog entitled “Ford Mustang GT500KR priced at $79,995" douses a gas-guzzler-sized load of fuel on that debate.

Ford will be producing 1,000 GT500KR Mustangs this year, with another 700 in 2009, so FoMoCo is pricing the ultimate 'Stang accordingly. For $79,995 (including destination and gas-guzzler tax), you get everything included in the "standard" GT500, plus Ford Racing's Power Upgrade Package. . . .

Roughly $40,000 more for 40 horsepower and a few styling parts?

KR must now stand for "King of the Ripoffs!"

Apparently Ford (R) and Shelby (R)couldn't stand by and let the Ford Dealers alone rip off the customers.

Too bad FoMoCo can't build a cheap V8 performance car anymore.

For $80,000.00, customers should at least get:

1. An EcoBoost (tm) (or EcoBoost "twincharged" DOHC V8 [NOT A V6 or an I4! A glorious DOHC VEE-EIGHT!];

2. An EBS-style direct ethanol injection system;

3. A John Coletti "SuperCooler" intercooler(More on the "SuperCooler");

4. Variable cam lift and phasing on the intake and exhaust cams;

5. A variable geometry intake manifold (not that lousy, “no-runner length” power-loser that's stock on the GT500 and which costs 70+ horsepower at certain engine speeds due to an obvious lack of inertia “ram” tuning);

6. Cylinder deactivation (a/k/a "Displacement on Demand" (tm) or "Active Fuel Management (tm);" and

7. Probably even a 50+kw parallel hybrid electric "booster" motor!

Now that would truly be an “ultimate ‘Stang!”

Moreover, it would help establish the sort of technological leadership that Speedzzter’s been advocating for FoMoCo to show in the EcoBoost era.

Too bad FoMoCo's just "phoning it in" these days.

And too bad the Shelby brand is once more associated with an overpriced gouge-mobile.

And at that price, "Click and Clack" (tm) apparently don't have to fear too many "whacko" Shelby GT500KRs will be sharing the highways with the their rabid "CAR TALK" & Consumer Reports (tm) fans driving psychedelic VW microbuses, three-popper GEO Metros, "greener-than-thou" Toyota Prius[es], "phonebooths-on-wheels" Smart ForTwos or other staid, imported, low-performance motoring appliances preferred by the "sensible" paternalistic set.

[Note: the trademarks herein are the property of their various owners and are used here solely for commentary purposes under the "Fair Use Doctrine" of U.S. Copyright law.]

Copyright 2008 Truth With Speedzzter. All Rights Reserved.

THREE MYTHS SPREAD BY HATERS OF THE DETROIT 3.

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

As prospects for a "Save GM" deal between the Bush Administration and Congress dim, the GM haters are out in force.

Analyst James West opines that

"The reason GM should be allowed to fail is because in its current state, its production overcapacity, if maintained by government money, can only churn out even more cars that nobody wants or can afford to buy. In other words, it would only prolong the inevitable."

An astute respondent (usanowGMelect)to West's claim pointed out the vicious "hate Detroit" myths behind West's attack on GM:

Myth No. 1: Nobody buys big 3 vehicles.

Reality

General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC sold 8.5 million vehicles in the United States last year and millions more around the world. GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles in the United States last year and holds a U.S. lead over Toyota of about 560,000 so far this year. Globally, GM in 2007 remained the world's largest automaker, selling 9,369,524 vehicles worldwide -- about 3,000 more than Toyota.

Ford outsold Honda by about 850,000 and Nissan by more than 1.3 million vehicles in the United States last year.

Chrysler sold more vehicles here than Nissan and Hyundai combined in 2007 and so far this year.

Myth No. 2: They build unreliable junk.
Reality

The creaky, leaky vehicles of the 1980s and '90s are long gone. Consumer Reports recently found that "Ford's reliability is now on par with good Japanese automakers." The independent J.D. Power Initial Quality Study scored Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Mercury, Pontiac and Lincoln brands' overall quality as high or higher than that of Acura, Audi, BMW, Honda, Nissan, Scion, Volkswagen and Volvo.

Power rated the Chevrolet Malibu the highest-quality midsize sedan. Both the Malibu and Ford Fusion scored better than the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry.

Myth No. 3: They build gas-guzzlers.

Reality

All of the Detroit Three build midsize sedans the Environmental Protection Agency rates at 29-33 miles per gallon on the highway. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Malibu gets 33 m.p.g. on the highway, 2 m.p.g. better than the best Honda Accord. The most fuel-efficient Ford Focus has the same highway fuel economy ratings as the most efficient Toyota Corolla. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Cobalt has the same city fuel economy and better highway fuel economy than the most efficient non-hybrid Honda Civic. A recent study by Edmunds.com found that the Chevrolet Aveo subcompact is the least expensive car to buy and operate.

The problem, of course, will be finding enough money to stay in business long enough for these myths to be fully debunked.

Given the current partisan approach to the Detroit 3 crisis, sadly that may be a long shot indeed.

68 PERCENT INCREASE IN PONY CAR SALES IN OCTOBER 2009

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Bangshift.com has linked to a Wall Street Journal Article by Jonathan Welsh entitled "A Varoom of One's Own: Muscle Cars Return."

The premise of the article is that Ford's Mustang, Chevrolet's Camaro and Dodge's Challenger are performing contrary to the general automotive market.

Welch's piece quotes several new Pony Car owners about why they've switched from formerly trendy vehicles such as trucks, SUVs, imported sports cars, and Euro sedans to the latest automotive fad.

Among the grease-stained "true believers" and muscle car fundamentalists at Bangshift, these casual owner comments have raised no small level of irritation. For example, one commenter lamented:

"Musclecar sales are up 68% this Oct. as compared to Oct. last year...let's see, would that be the Oct. '08 when the handful of Challengers available were only yours at between list and $10,000 over, and you couldn't find a Camaro? Remarkable point the writer makes there. Then he couldn't finish the piece without making a jab at the Mustang and championing his probable favorite car, the BMW...which the article is not about. . . .

He should be working for Csaba Csere somewhere. Anyhow, if the WSJ can't get it right at something you know about, don't figure they do much better at things you don't."

The WSJ article is not a bad piece of journalism. The reporter merely quoted the Pony Car buyers he interviewed.

Of course the "midsize sporty" sales category is ridiculous -- a brain-dead snoozefest FWD wimp car like a Toyota Camary Solara is hardly in the same niche as a Shelby GT500 or a Challenger SRT-8 (anywhere other than in the editorial offices of Consumer Reports, and among some bean-counting auto company bureaucrats who need to justify ripping off the motoring public).

Certainly an increase in supply (Challenger, Camaro) has rallied nostalgic brand partisans and increased demand. And the basic premise of the article is correct insofar as there are certainly some faddish customers who would likely be buying something bigger and/or more expensive if the economy and energy markets were better.

But the following factors cannot be discounted:

1. Gasoline: Fuel prices have stabilized in a range which favors the current crop of Pony Cars.

2. Last Call: Dread over future CAFE increases and environmental regulations likely motivates some buyers to go for one last automotive party before the 35 m.p.g. wussmobiles become the order of the day. In many ways we're at about the "1969-1970" phase of the "Second Supercar Era."http://speedzzter.blogspot.com/2007/04/missing-second-supercar-era-its-old.html

3. Rebellion: These cars are the essence of socially-acceptible, middle-class, "Red State/Suburban" rebellion against the "system" of government-controlled, sealed-for-your-protection motoring. Pony Cars are a "look at me" way of "showing off" and rejecting the current "PC" orthodoxy (Just as much as Prius-styled electric hybrids are "the other side's" banner for "showing off" and rejecting "selfish" consumerism).

4. Macho: The Pony Cars are among the few "masculine" automobiles produced in America (hence the attractiveness to former image-conscious light truck consumers)

5. Another Fad: With the Pony Cars being about the only new thing appealing to casual automotive enthusiasts (not Bangshifters) that's being produced by the bankrupt Detroit automakers, it's not surprising that these niche vehicles would counter the declines in other sectors. Moreover, both the Challenger and the Camaro are still perceived as new and fresh (a sporty coupe typically has about a 3-4 year lifespan before the style becomes dated among the trend chasers).

6. The visceral appeal: As we know, these cars have an emotional swagger that's missing in inoffensive, Japanese-style transportation appliances. That still resonates in a fairly large sector of the American motoring public.

7. Power-to-Weight: There's a tipping point at ~ 13 pounds per horsepower. At that point, a car accelerates fast enough to make 95% of the public believe it's "hot." Virtually all of the current Pony Cars are now in this range. Combind that with the fact that none of these cars require any special "futzing" or hassles and are reasonably practical as daily drivers. If the price point is low enough and the styling fits the vehicle's persona, then you've probably got a guaranteed winning combination (at least until insurance costs, fuel prices, social pressures or some other external squelches demand).

8. Empty nests: The current generation of Pony Cars are selling predominantly to folks who do not need minivans, SUVs or sedans to ferry around kids. The prices are still too high to appeal to the youth market (insurance price must be factored in here).

Bunkie Knudsen famously said, "you can't sell an old man's car to a young man, but you can sell a young man's car to an old man." In other words, practical, hassle-free high performance combined with attractive style will likely always outperform the "commodity market" for vehicles.

That being said, a 2% share means that 98% of the market needs, wants or is settling for something else (which ought to alarm high-performance enthusiasts). For example, Ford's low-performance Fusion garnered record sales during the same time period. Most certainly the Mustang-hating bean counters in the Glass House will be championing that fact as they push for more "cost synergies" and "eco-responsible" FWD product.

THE G.O.P. LOADED THE GUN BUT THE U.A.W. PULLED THE TRIGGER

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” Here]

The “Car Czar” loan bill is dead. And the official General Motors death watch begins.

Why did this have to happen?

Perhaps because Alabama Senator Richard Shelby and the United Auto Workers’ Ron Gettelfinger are in a pitched contest for the title “Dumbest Man in America.”

Advantage: Gettelfinger.

The U.S. Senate defeated the last legislative hope to save the Detroit 3 from the crisis that the Federal government mostly created because (a) Shelby’s Republicans wouldn’t agree to a short-term fix without a “short bus” full of “poison pills” (if at all) and (b) Gettelfinger’s myopic U.A.W. took the bait by refusing to concede to market-based wages and benefits before 2011.

The U.A.W.’s intractability on “givebacks” stoked the “Shelby-can’ts” argument that the Detroit 3 lack long-term viability like a steam engine on liquid oxygen.

Clearly, the U.A.W. would rather play “chicken” with a federal bankruptcy judge than do anything to help G.M. survive its 101st year.

The U.A.W.’s refusal to see reality has probably doomed thousands of American jobs and has put the U.S. economy on the brink of depression. But perhaps Gettelfinger’s troops would rather lose their jobs than take “common-sense” pay and benefit cuts that would bring the Detroit 3's costs in line with the Japanese invaders plants.

The U.A.W. failed to support their “pattern contract” level of benefits in the marketplace by failing to unionize the Japanese invader plants.

The U.A.W. failed to help the Detroit 3 become competitive when many believed that “Team Japan” was gaining the upper hand in a not-so-free trade world.

The U.A.W. resisted efforts to make the Detroit 3 plants run more like the Japanese invader plants and resisted reasonable restructuring proposals

The U.A.W. failed to make the case for buying American to the general public, allowing the Consumer Reports “appliance motoring” mentality to take hold and causing the loss of an entire generation of consumers to Japan.

The U.A.W. failed to rally a skeptical, “bailout weary” electorate to the essential defense of America’s most basic industry. Unlike banks – which take a pot of cash and a handful of elite M.B.A.- types trained in banking to replace – a complex, industrial colossus such as General Motors requires years and a massive, almost cost-prohibitive undertaking to replicate. And while Congress threw $700,000,000,000.00 to “save” the financial industry, The U.A.W. failed to persuade the political system to invest a paltry TWO PERCENT OF AS MUCH to help the Detroit 3 cope with the worst credit and sales crisis since the Great Depression.

Now the U.A.W. has failed to understand that in a “war” against the government-subsidized, predatory Japanese invaders, sacrifices are necessary. Instead they basically chose to “strike” any hope for keeping the Detroit 3 intact and alive to fight on when economic conditions improved.

To be sure, GM made plenty of other mistakes: Killing off brand autonomy . . . weak small car offerings in the 1970s and early 1980s . . . too much “badge engineering” . . . too many fleet sales . . . not enough “fight” in the entry-level and youth markets . . . not enough “continuous improvement” . . . accountant-driven cost cutting and delays in product cycles . . . not realizing soon enough the public relations benefits of the money-losing EV-1 and hybrid electrics . . . not continuing to boost efficiency even as fuel costs abated in the 1990s . . . sacrificing leadership in styling, design and technology on the altar of conservative quarterly returns . . . promoting too many bean counters and not enough “car guys” . . . not adapting well enough to the huge regulatory burdens assessed by Congress and the states.

It’s a death by a thousand cuts – some of them self-inflicted. Most of them caused by meddling Federal policies.

But GM's biggest mistake was in believing that the U.A.W. and Congress would come to their collective senses when it counted most.

Now only George W. Bush has the last clear chance to avoid the burning down of the American auto industry in Chapter 11.

Will he act in time?

REAR WHEEL DRIVE IS IN TROUBLE AT GM.

"Maximum" Bob Lutz told the Chicago Tribune on Wednesday, April 11, 2007, that General Motors (GM) "has put a hold on future rear-wheel-drive vehicles," according to the Automotive News (www.autonews.com)

"It's too late to stop Camaro, but anything after that is questionable or on the bubble," Lutz reportedly said. "We've pushed the pause button. It's no longer full speed ahead"

Does this mean "curtains" for the RWD 2009 Chevrolet Impala? What about the future RWD Pontiacs?

GM's jitters result directly from the global warming hysteria and the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard increase "bidding war" breaking out in Washington, D.C.

Even modest CAFE increase proposals, such as President Bush's 34-m.p.g. standard will add at least $5,000.00 to the sticker of the average automobile, according to Lutz. And in a flashback to the initial round of CAFE in the late 1970s, Detroit seems to be reacting first by scrapping rear wheel drive.

H-E-L-L-O (again) Chevrolet Citation . . . . (YAWN)

Anyone who has ever driven a high performance car hard enough to invoke any weight transfer immediately realizes that the rear wheels must be driven to extract maximum performance. Thus the need for RWD/AWD for sport driving ought to be self-evident. After all, how many FWD formula racing vehicles have you seen lately?

Those know-it-alls who celebrate government-dictated, uniform, "neutered" "appliance motoring" (e.g. devotes to "Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers," on NPR and readers of Consumer Reports (tm)) just have to be "Snoopy" dancing in their Birkenstocks over this sad announcement.

(See comments from these sorts of paternalistic "automobile experts" at http://speedzzter.blogspot.com/2006/09/click-clack-and-500-horsepower-ford.html )

But GM's apparent retreat from RWD performance sedans is just more evidence that the end of the second "supercar" era (if not automotive liberty in general) is upon us.

(See http://speedzzter.blogspot.com/2007/04/missing-second-supercar-era-its-old.html)

“DEATH MARCH” OR “PLANE CRASH” IN D.C. FOR THE DETROIT 3

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

The Big Bankrupt Three Detroit automakers crashed and burned in front of Congress.

The poverty pilgrimage of Ford Motor Company’s Alan Mulally, General Motors’ Rick Wagoner, Chrysler’s Bob Nardelli and the United Auto Workers’ Ron Gettelfinger was an Edsel-sized disaster. A fiasco. A flop.

In a breathtaking show of tone-deafness, the hat-in-hand witnesses reportedly breezed into town on a fleet of “luxury private jets.”

A skeptical media – the same one that couldn’t be bothered with doing real stories about President-Elect Obama before the election – noticed the irony . . or the hypocrisy.

One would have thought that somebody in the huge public relations operations would have dreamed up something better. Something more symbolic.

A bus ride.

A convoy with thousands of employees who would get fired and lose their homes when the Detroit automakers are parted-out and stripped like a stolen Corvette in bankruptcy.

On the other hand, the dwindling cadre of logical engineers as well as the myopic bean-counters who plague Detroit would recognize that flying by private jet to Washington D.C. undoubtedly saved 3-5 hours of travel time (not insignificant when your time is worth $1,000/hour or more to your employer). It allowed Mulally, Wagoner and Nardelli the option to surround themselves with advisers and staff. It permitted them to conduct rehearsals and other work in flight (not possible on a commercial flight). It was also more secure than commercial air travel.

$20,000 in travel costs is chump change when you need $25-100 Billion! When Senators junket to exotic locales on “fact-finding” forays, they often take even more expensive military aircraft. And these same Senators vote to spend billions earmarks for “landscaping,” “nature walks,” “bicycle trails”, “beautification” and a museums for arcana such as the Woodstock Music Festival.

Nonetheless, all of that logic will be lost in the battle for public perceptions. It was as tone-deaf as driving a 1960 Corvair to a Ralph Nader birthday bash. . . .

Maybe they could have call the jets “air ambulances . . . .”

As for the main event -- the scene exuded all of the foregone “drama” of a Figure-Eight Jalopy race.

As Autoextremist Peter M. DeLorenzo put it:

"The din out there in the media right now is so anti-Detroit, anti-'bailout' that I welcome the opportunity to present the other side of the debate, even if it appears with each passing day that Detroit is running out of time and unable to break through the negative media clutter that envelopes the industry at every turn. And after that death march of a hearing before the Senate Banking Committee yesterday, I’m even more pessimistic.

When Alan Mulally, Rick Wagoner, Bob Nardelli and Ron Gettelfinger sat down in front of the microphones, I knew it wasn’t going to be good . . . ."

In fact, it was a total set-up from the get-go.

Later, even the hapless Mitt Romney weighted in, reminding everybody that his Daddy was among the old-line of Detroit managers who barely kept now-defunct American Motors afloat back in the halcyon days of the 1960s with frugality.

Mitt even claimed that helping the Detroit 3 avoid certain liquidation in bankruptcy would virtually guarantee the “demise” of the Ford, GM and Chrysler! (Don’t worry, Flipper Mitty will probably flip-flop to supporting aid . . . after it is too late.)

The journalists also dredged up the example of nationalized U.K. automaker British Leyland as an example of why “bailouts” won’t work.

Of course, the bulk of British Leyland did survive into the 21st century – which it likely would not have if the ratchets of over-regulation, hyperinflation, and government coddling of labor unions had not been leavened by bridge loan funding.

The vandals and visigoths seeking to burn down what’s left of Detroit conveniently ignore any success stories. They just don't fit the narrative.

Chrysler’s resurrection in the early ‘80s is wholly discounted as “prolonging the inevitable” even though every taxpayer dollar invested was fully repaid ahead of time and with interest.

“[T]he case of Renault, which combined fresh money and new management in the 1980s, showed that government bailouts can be beneficial.”

“The French government help for Renault also came amid increasing losses for the company. . . . [U]nlike British Leyland, Renault was able to use the financing to create new car models that were ultimately successful. That, along with tough cost-cutting by a newly installed chairman, cleared the road to profitability by the time the government began privatizing Renault in the 1990s.”

Renault even picked up the dregs of the weakened American company that Mitt Romney’s frugal Mormon pappy ran!

None of this matters to the Toyota-driving, Consumer Reports-worshiping, know-it-all Mob who want Detroit to “pay” for not eradicating the UAW forty years ago and who erroneously believe Vegas and Pintos accurately represent the quality of Detroit’s current products.

None of this matters to a hoard of finger-in-the-wind politicians who would spend billions more on pork and special interests, and anticipate heaping on billions more in unfunded mandates, but who will not lift a money-grubbing finger to save one of our most basic industries.

Romney, of course, is right when he says that the wages and benefits for UAW-represented workers must track with those of their “scab” counterparts in the right-to-work Southern and Midwestern assembly plants of the Japanese invaders. Yet, nobody in Washington D.C. has the bravado to suggest that the political branches of government have the power to make this happen. After all, it was FDR's "New Deal" that saddled the Detroit 3 with decades of labor trouble. Washington broke it and now they should fix it.

Instead, the Democrats and the GOP continue to squabble over the meaningless minutae of whether the already-appropriated $25 Billion for fuel efficient cars can or cannot be diverted to the more pressing need of avoiding a total shut-down of the industry. Stupid. Selfish. Tragic. Politics as usual.

Detroit is burning to the ground. Meanwhile all of those with fire extinguishers are acting as if they think fire is good.

CLICK, CLACK AND THE 500-HORSEPOWER FORD MUSTANG

"Upwards of 200 horsepower is practically expected today. And there are cars with 300 h.p., 400 h.p. and more. In my humble opinion, that’s crazy. There’s not a car on the road that truly needs more than 200 h.p. Most cars would be fine with a lot less."

– Tom Magliozzi, co-host of NPR’s "Car Talk."

"We’ve gone horsepower crazy." Ray Magliozzi, co-host of NPR’s "Car Talk."

These opinions appeared in a syndicated newspaper column this week in major newspapers across the U.S.A. The Magliozzis, better known as "Click and Clack–the Tappet Brothers" hold themselves out to be "expert" automobilists to millions of unsuspecting "non-car" people in print, radio and on the internet. (See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=2100834 . See also http://www.cartalk.com/)

"Click and Clack" are a couple of aging MIT graduates from the 1960s hippie generation who parlayed their "Good News Garage" and Tom Magliozzi’s flare for marketing into a long-time auto repair and comedy gig on Boston public radio. Almost ten years ago, they became nationally-known through syndication.

Only in America can virtually anyone become an "expert."

Yet the Tappet Brothers are representative of that "automobiles-as-appliances" mentality which grips much of the elitist Coastal intellectual subculture in the U.S. (and all the little satellite pockets of it spread near colleges nationwide). The average "Car Talk" listener probably takes every syllable of the automotive articles in Consumer Reports (R) as the sine qua non on motoring. Similarly, Click and Clack seldom, if ever, recommend one of the Detroit 3's vehicles to any of their customers. They often wail on the profligate wastefulness of trucks and SUVs (of course there aren’t too many opportunities to haul hay, go rock crawling or tow a race car around Beantown).

But, as the lead quotes indicate, they save their sharpest criticism for anything that smacks of high-performance.

One only wonders what sarcastic vitriol they’d produce at the thought of Ford Motor Company’s 500-horsepower 2007 Shelby GT500. Or what one full-throttle blast in a GT500 would do to Click and Clack’s undoubtedly atrophied neck muscles–which are more tuned to putting around in "sensible" sub-200 h.p. economy cars while avoiding falling chunks of Boston's "Big Dig" fiasco (if their personal lifestyles match their rhetoric, that is)

Automotive News Executive Editor Edward M. Lapham (www.autonews.com) wrote this week that:

"Who in these United States would honestly prefer a wimpy car that can't get out of its own way, no matter how great the mileage is?"

Click and Clack seem to be the obvious answers to Edward Lapham’s rhetorical question.

Lapham continued: " Face it. Horsepower is like sex. Once you've experienced it, you want more. And you can't imagine doing without it."

Of course, this probably goes a long way in explaining the Magliozzi Brothers.

But let’s evaluate their argument.

Click and Clack’s opinions are rooted in the "appliance-motoring" community’s paternalistic worry over fuel economy. Their thesis is that the "horsepower craze" has deprived everyone of all the dreamy fuel-sippers the Earth-children hallucinated about when they buried a brand-new Detroit car on the first Earth Day back in 1970 (in between "rolls" in their psychedelic VW microbuses). Thus they probably represent the thinking of many "intellectuals" and other, lesser know-it-alls who believe they understand better than you do about what sorts of vehicles should be available to the general public.

(Think of this as the same sort of argument you got from the captain of the chess club in back in high school, who proudly scooted around in a wheezing VW Beetle or Fiat 124 or Geo Metro or bone-stock Honda Civic, while all the "irresponsible" kids hung out in V8 Mustangs, Camaros, GTOs and other "bitchin’" "hot rods, "muscle cars" or "tuner whips")

Click and Clack are correct that since the 1980s, increased weight in our cars and trucks has required escalation of horsepower outputs just to keep pace. Some of the weight increase is due to increased structural stiffness and the proliferation of active safety technologies (airbags, ABS, stability control, etc.), which actually improves safety over the willowy flyweight automobiles common in the 1980s. But Click and Clack correctly observe that much of the weight increase is driven by market demand for more luxury and convenience features.

Weight, of course, is a much greater enemy to fuel economy than horsepower. Not only is weight a larger influence on economy than engine output, it’s also ever-present. Horsepower potential, on the other hand, uses little extra fuel unless the "foot feed" is mostly or fully depressed (which is only about 3-4% of the time for most motorists). This ought to be obvious to anyone who has carefully studied the specifications of a 28-m.p.g. Chevrolet Corvette.

But in the modern context, is 200 horsepower the magic number, above which lies wretched excess? Could most cars safely get by with even less?

And why even 200? The aerodynamic efficiency of most cars and trucks is such that the "road load" is only about 15-30 h.p. in a steady-state cruise at highway speeds. In gridlocked, stop-and-go traffic, a five-horsepower riding lawn tractor could keep up.

And Henry Ford’s Model T only needed about 22 horsepower to put "America on wheels." Before the high-compression Kettering-style OHV V8 took over in the 1950s, American cars commonly had only 60-150 horsepower, while often weighing as much as two tons.

Could it be that even Click and Clack are also "crazy" about horsepower, albeit at a much more modest level? Or is the problem more complex than their simple sloganeering suggests.

Assume an average curb weight of 3300 pounds for a "sensible" sedan with enough interior volume for four American adults to comfortably travel more than an hour. If equipped with a 200 horsepower engine, the power-to-weight ratio is about 16.5 pounds for every horsepower. Such a car ought to be able to run a standing-start quarter mile in the low-fifteen second range at around 90-93 m.p.h. Zero-to-sixty will probably be in the 8-10 second range, depending on a number of factors.

Respectable, but nothing that will cause one to lie awake at nights.

But add in four 200-pound adults, a couple hundred pounds of luggage and 90 or so pounds of fuel and the power-to-weight ratio plummets to 22 pounds per horsepower. Quarter mile times may drop to as low as the seventeen second range, with the car struggling to reach the 80 m.p.h. mark in a reasonable distance.

Obviously, the loaded 200 h.p. car will be driveable, as such underpowered cars were in the 1970s. But the margin for acceleration in an emergency situation will precariously small. And many highway on-ramps and cloverleafs will have far too short of an acceleration area for this car to safely merge at the prevailing speed. This could force our loaded 200 h.p. car’s driver to take unnecessary risks, such as stopping at the end of the on-ramp or forcing his way into the flow of traffic at less than prevailing speeds.

That's hardly "fine," as Tom Magliozzi implies.

Add in another thousand pounds of weight (as would be common with a number of current models) and the problem just gets worse.

To live under a "200 h.p. or less" cap, automobile engineers would either have to sacrifice performance or dramatically cut weight. Both options have potential adverse consequences for safety, durability and consumer choice.

In the hands of a properly-trained driver, a high-performance car is safer than an underpowered schlub of an appliance. That’s because more power creates more options to escape from potentially-dangerous situations. A driver of an underpowered car can only swerve, nail the brakes, and hope for the best. If someone running a stop sign is about to t-bone you while you’re in the middle of an intersection, hitting the brakes may not be your best option. The "Blessed Mother of Acceleration" gives you another meaningful choice, as millions have already discovered.

Ask an experienced motorcyclist if a reserve of power is a safety factor or not, and listen to their responses. Of course the average modern motorcycle has a much "higher" (numerically-lower) power-to-weight ratio than any but the most exotic sports cars.

Moreover, a higher power-to-weight ratio gives a car more flexibility. Instead of having to "work" to keep up with traffic or to "make time" on a challenging drive, a more powerful car can allow a driver to arrive more refreshed and less fatigued. Over the course of a long motor trip, this may substantially increase the margin of safety.

A higher-power-to-weight ratio also makes a car more forgiving to drive. Low-powered cars require maximum attention to conservation of momentum in order to avoid unforseen bottlenecks and dangerously "getting hung out" in traffic. This is even more of a factor in manual transmission cars, which depend on the driver selecting the correct gear at the correct time. Sadly, not everyone pays full attention, and even the best drivers make mistakes. A more powerful car provides a reserve for a skilled driver to "drive out" of tense situations with minimal risks.

In summary, the choice as to whether one needs 200 or even 500 horsepower shouldn’t be made by bureaucrats, paternalistic environmentalists or even self-appointed know-it-alls babbling on public radio. It ought to be a market choice left up to consumers.