FORD POSTS FIRST QUARTER 2010 NET INCOME OF $2.1 BILLION AS STRONG NEW PRODUCTS FUEL PROFITABLE GROWTH
(Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here)

Ford reports first quarter net income of $2.1 billion, or 50 cents per share . . .Ended the quarter with $25.3 billion of Automotive gross cash, with operating-related cash outflow of $100 million. Ford ended the quarter with $34.3 billion in Automotive debt. . . .Increased U.S. market share by 2.7 percentage points to 16.6 percent and a 14.1 share of the retail market . . . .

Comment: Better news than expected. But there’s still a lot of debt on the books. And energy prices, a jobless U.S. economic recovery, 2016's 35.5 m.p.g. Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard as well as the Greek Financial crisis are all clouds on the horizon. Still it’s fun to celebrate a little good news.

Ford is clearly getting some base hits on the product side, as well as benefitting from Toyota’s recall headaches.

NOT FOR AMERICA: UK’S NEW FIESTA S1600



Comment: The S1600 looks like a fine basis for a Fiesta GT in America. But alas, it’s mostly a decal performance car, with a modest 20 h.p. boost over stock. Put those stripes on an EcoBoost or twincharged Fiesta and FoMoCo might have something.

On the other hand . . .

ANNALISTS SPECULATE U.S. FIESTA MAY BE TOO “PRICEY”

"My concern about the car is that it is priced too high for the Ford nameplate. A fully loaded Fiesta costs more than a fully loaded Focus right now," said Jim Hall, managing director of 2953 Analytics.

George Peterson, president of AutoPacific called the Fiesta "a little bit pricey but it has an excellent presence and driving dynamics."

Comment: Ford cannot afford to build a cut-rate B-Car. It would be better to err on the quality side than to chase the import invaders on price.

CIRCLE TRACK ACTION! ROCKIN' FORD DEALER AD FROM TEXAS



Comment: Although the editing could be a bit tighter, this spot is much better than standard local dealer fare. Well done!

FORD'S SOCIAL MEDIA ACTIVITIES AT THE 2010 BEIJING AUTO SHOW



Comment: Ford certainly is pumping up the social media arm of its outreach. Somebody in the Glass House thought this video was important, but we’re not sure why.

DYNO ACTION! 712-H.P. SHELBY GT500




ROUSH-FENWAY AT TALLADEGA



Comment: Roush-Fenway may not have won Talladega . . . Okay, they weren’t really even very close, new FR9 engines notwhithstanding. But at least their videographer shot some cool tape for the company scrapbook.

IN-CAR ACTION! CATERHAM SEVEN "ALL OUT" ON A ROAD COURSE



Comment: While a four-cylinder Caterham might not have much appeal to afficionados of 800-h.p. Mustangs or NASCAR fans, there’s some big fun happening here. Maybe the Eco-Boost four-popper future isn’t so bad after all. Of course it would be even better with a V8 sound-track!

WHO NEEDS PAVEMENT? HOT RALLYCROSS ACTION FROM ESTERING



Comment: We need more rallycross in America!

TRAIN ‘EM UP IN THE WAY THEY SHOULD GO . . . .



Comment: Muscle car fever in Grevenbroich? At least the goof in the Camaro finally got out of the way . . . and the kid spun some tire!

“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.

IS IT CONSERVATIVE TO HELP THE DETROIT 3?

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

It is not just the half of American consumers who buy imported vehicles who hate the Detroit 3.

Nope. It seems that a fair number of Republican pundits and politicians are anticipating the end of General Motors, Chrysler and maybe even Ford Motor Company.

The echo chamber of last Sunday’s news television was a hostile environment for any talk of helping the Detroit 3 deal with “double whammy” of economic downturn and $100 Billion Dollars in new fuel economy/greenhouse gas regulations.

“Let’em die” was almost the universal sentiment among those who claim to be “conservative.”

Adam Smith be praised and millions of auto-related jobs be damned.

For example, “Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), a member of the Senate Banking, Housing, & Urban Affairs Committee, said: ‘The financial straits that the Big Three find themselves is not the product of our current economic downturn, but instead is the legacy of the uncompetitive structure of its manufacturing and labor force. . . . I do not support the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to reward the mismanagement of Detroit-based auto manufacturers in such a way that allows them to continue and compound their ongoing mistakes.’"

Of course Alabama’s Shelby (not to be confused with Carroll Shelby) is merely doing the bidding of a host of import invaders.

“In Alabama, Asian and European auto companies have set up manufacturing in recent years. Once decimated by the loss of textile jobs, Alabama has attracted assembly plants from Mercedes-Benz (DAI), Hyundai, and Honda, as well as a roster of supplier companies feeding those plants. Foreign auto companies are attracted to the Southeast, where the United Auto Workers have no presence, rather than acquiring empty plants in the North that were organized by the union.”

Senator Shelby is reflecting the quasi-laissez faire “consensus” among elite conservatives (most of which have never deigned to even change a spark plug, much less understand the complexities of automaking) and a universal hatred for unionization in conservative circles.

To be sure, the United Auto Workers Union is a central player in the demise of the Detroit 3.

FDR-era union organizing laws forced unions on the Detroit 3 in the 1930s. By the 1980s, when the Japanese invader assembly plants started locating in “right to work” states, such as Senator Shelby’s “Sweet Home Alabama,” federal labor policy created a stalemate.

In other words, GM, Ford, Chrysler, American Motors and their various “rust-belt” suppliers were virtually powerless to shed themselves of unions, while their foreign invader competitors received a panoply of tools to avoid unionization. This resulted in a huge cost imbalance that only the gamble of bankruptcy or drastic federal intervention could possibly remedy.

The UAW’s abject failure to unionize the “invader plants” is one of the factors which know-nothings like Senator Shelby attribute to the fault of the Detroit 3.

FDR and an earlier generations of liberals saddled GM, Ford and Chrysler with expensive unions and then empowered them to hold the Detroit 3 hostage with “pattern bargaining” that was wholly divorced from the international auto labor market. This labor structure absolutely prevented and still prevents the Detroit 3 from being able to assemble small cars cheaply enough to compete with lower-wage foreign and non-unionized parts making and assembly operation.

Potential profit margins in small cars are, of course, small. Spotting the products of a Japanese invader auto plant a $1,500-$2,000 cost advantage up front is fatal.

Only a few strategies were available to the Detroit 3 that were short of destroying their businesses in bankruptcy in order to reject the UAW contracts and start from “ground zero” with new, non-union “scab” workers (which as we know didn’t work out for Firestone and directly lead to the horrible Firestone/Ford Explorer mess).

Senator Shelby, here's the options that the Detroit 3 realistically had:

First, the Detroit 3 could drastically cut costs.

They tried this and we received a generation of uncompetitive “cheap” small cars, such as the Chevrolet Vega, Ford Pinto, and AMC Gremlin. The quality of these UAW-built cars and their tepid successors (Chrysler K-Car, GM’s FWD X-Car and Ford’s Tempo/Topaz) virtually killed the Detroit 3's ability to successfully market to at least two generations of young consumers.

Second, they could move production off-shore to non-union locales.

However, the threat of strikes and “pattern bargaining” severely limited this option. Moreover, off-shoring hurts what should be one of the Detroit 3's unique marketing advantages – that their products help the American economy far more than an imported vehicle or one that’s designed and engineered overseas and merely assembled in the non-union parts of America out of mostly imported parts.

Third, they could shed themselves of parts operations and off-shore more of the subassemblies.

They did this, but the UAW’s strike threats forced them to continue to eat billions in costs from the “spin-off” parts operations.

Fourth, they could cut costs by extending design cycles and amortizing the millions in tooling costs on small cars.

They did this and got eaten alive by the Japanese four-year design cycle.

Fifth, they could comply with federal government-imposed Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards by building just enough money-losing small cars to offset more profitable larger vehicles, and dramatically raise the prices of the larger vehicles to reflect the inherent supply limitations that such an “offset” scheme would produce.

This was the Detroit 3 business model for most of the 1980s and 1990s. CAFE produces a massive distortion in the free market for vehicles. The types of automobiles at which the Detroit 3 led the world in the 1960s were virtually outlawed. As a direct result, Ford was forced to lose money on two or three Escorts or Tempos for every fuel economy-compromised, downsized V8 car it built. But in a true free market, Ford would have been free to pump up the volume on the types of profitable cars it was best at building. CAFE prevented this.

What is worse about CAFE is that it forced the Detroit 3 to market trucks, vans and SUVs to survive. For twenty years, an overwhelming plurality of Americans rejected the sorts of small FWD cars that the federal government sought to force Detroit to build. Literally to stay in business in the sorts of volumes necessary for any chance of profitability and to meet the UAW health care, job bank, and pension obligations, the Detroit 3 had no choice but to build the large vehicles that the market was demanding. They simply could not be automobiles because of CAFE standards.

Sixth, the Detroit 3 could dump the unwanted, government-mandated FWD cars into fleets.

They did this for years at great harm. Cars in daily rental and fleet service are typically abused mercilessly. Then they are dumped onto the “program car” market at below-market rates. This hurts the reliability scores and resale values. The Japanese invaders typically avoided the crucible of daily rental fleet operations (in the 1990s, the Detroit 3 held captive major rental companies like Avis and Hertz to insure enough sales to keep their assembly plants operating at minimum levels of profitability). Thus, the market wasn’t flooded every year with thousands of beat-to-death fleet cars trading at half-price.

Senator Shelby and the other “let’em die” defenders of ersatz laissez faire capitalism would have been hard-pressed to do any better, given the landscape created by federal regulations and federal policies.

BUT IS “CONSERVING” WHAT’S LEFT OF THE DETROIT 3 REALLY CONSERVATIVE?

The arrogant conservative pundits suggest that “we wouldn’t bail out small businesses.” This, of course, wholly ignores all sorts of federal subsidies for small businesses, such as SBA loans, research and development spending, agriculture subsidies, government contracting assistance, and favorable tax treatments.

The paleocons and economic purists complain that Detroit got themselves into this mess and the taxpayers shouldn’t foot the bill for getting Detroit out of it. But these same paleocons and purists conveniently ignore that the liberals saddled the Detroit 3 with unions and stood by while Detroit was held hostage to them. They ignore the horrendously expensive environmental and safety regulations that consumed billions over the past forty years in unfunded compliance costs. They gloss over Japan’s decades of protectionism that stopped Detroit from adequately investing in Japan and allowed the invaders companies shelter to develop their businesses free from active competition with Detroit. They can’t see that we’re competing with foreign governments who directly and indirectly subsidize the “invasion.”

They lament that once we stray from regulating the Detroit 3 into oblivion and actually provide some financial assistance to pay for these non-market-based regulations and mandates, then where would we stop. They claim that the airlines would be next. This argument presumes that complex industrial businesses are the same as service businesses.

But putting together a service business such as an airline (especially in the age of deregulation) is comparative child's play to starting a new U.S. automaker. It has been done repeatedly since the 1970s. Buy some aircraft and ground equipment; obtain some gate rights at airports; rent a reservation system and buy some ads. Although it takes a large investment, it is nothing like starting a automaker from scratch.

The Detroit 3 are unique, core industrial entities that cannot be readily duplcated in the U.S.A.

No one has successfully started an automaker in the Western world since the hyper-regulated automobile became the norm. No one. Raising the capital and putting together the complex design, supplier, manufacturing, marketing, and national distribution systems from scratch is a daunting task. It takes years and billions of dollars to bring a new product to market. Federal and state certification costs run into the millions for even modest changes.

Therefore, once one or all of the Detroit 3 are dead, it would take a miracle of biblical proportions for anyone to ever successfully start a domestic auto company again in the U.S.A. in the current overly-regulated environment. No new generation of Henry Fords need even try for they will surely fail. An automaker cannot be successfully grown in the U.S. like Sam Walton’s Wal-Mart or other low-tech service business.

If the Detroit 3 are slaughtered by Washington hubris, we may still have some non-union “invader” assembly plants banging out foreign designs constructed out of imported parts. But we will have lost the heart and soul of America’s industrial base forever.

CONGRESS SHOULD APPLY THE POTTERY BARN RULE FOR THE DETROIT 3

General Powell posited the “Pottery Barn” rule for Iraq: “you break it, you bought it.”

In fairness, a similar rule ought to apply to the Detroit 3.

Washington D.C.’s "auto experts" broke Detroit (with the willing assistance of the greed-soaked unions, non-laissez faire governments in Asia and Europe, and millions of myopic American consumers who couldn’t see past their own selfish interests to what was good for America as a whole). Now it is up to Washington D.C.'s "auto experts" to fix it. They “broke it,” so they should be obligated to “buy it” long enough to correct the market disruptions of the past and put the Detroit 3 on an internationally-level playing field.

At the heart of conservatism is the principle of responsibility.

Certainly, if the Detroit 3 had ruined their businesses without decades of meddling by federal and state governments, the ersatz laissez faire arguments would have some validity.

But we as a country killed the free market for Detroit 3 labor in the 1930s and destroyed the free market for their vehicles in the 1960s and 1970s.


We cannot get back to a level playing field and a free market without severe and decisive federal intervention. Those who cannot see this are either shilling for a special interest (i.e. Senator Shelby) or are so blinded by an ideology that they cannot appreciate or comprehend the current reality.

Regardless of the causes, to fail to act now out of some imaginary fealty to selectively-held "free market principles" would be the height of irresponsibility.

Conserve the Detroit 3!

FORD MOTOR COMPANY (tm) TO LOSE $3 BILLION IN 2006?

www.fordboldmoves.com has linked to a Bloomburg story reporting that some analysts believe Ford Motor Company (tm) will lose as much as THREE BILLION DOLLARS in 2006. See http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a9j0FqY.dQJ0

"Ford Motor Co., buffeted by declining sales, shrinking margins on its most profitable vehicles and a dire need to conserve cash, may lose $3 billion in North America this year, people familiar with the company's internal projections said. "

The latest speculation comes on the heels of FoMoCo's halving of dividends and slashing board member payments, and on huge lengthening of the basic warranties for Lincoln and Mercury vehicles to address market perceptions of lower quality (however FoMoCo hasn't taken the "Bold Move" of matching or beating the Korean carmakers on warranty terms).

Still, FoMoCo may post a small annual profit (excluding one-time accounting charges), according to the analysts interviewed for the Bloomburg article, mainly on the back of earnings from Ford Motor Credit.

FoMoCo has achieved a modest percentage gain in cars (although not near the sort of results other small car builders are gaining). But unless you're satisfied with mini-shares of the market, the Five Hundred is a bust.

Ford continues to neglect the Panther platform (where's the restyling (the Japanese do it every four years like clockwork)? where are the 3V, 4V and supercharged V8s? Where's the crash-proofed fuel tank? Where are the true sports sedan models (not just buckets & a console in an ordinary sedan model)? Where is the next Town Car?

Where are the image-leading hybrids (even if they do have to offer ZERO percent financing to get rid of them)? ).

And now with the discontinued Taurus, the flailing Freestyle, the tired, previous generation Focus, the early retirement of the underdeveloped Lincoln LS, the refusal to import the Aussie Falcon, the horrible IIHS numbers on the Mexican-built, Mazda-based Fusion and the gutting of SVT, it looks like Ford has forgotten how to build a segment-leading sedan for the U.S. market.

CASE STUDY: NICHE MARKET NEGLECT IN THE CORRAL

Moreover, FoMoCo seems to be neglecting its best niche market--the Mustang. Notwithstanding the dealer-gouging hoopla for the soon-to-be-released, hyper-expensive Shelby GT500, Ford seems to be coasting on the built-up inertia of the 2005 restyle.

Given that the aftermarket has Eaton superchargers for less than $1000, bulletproof modular shortblocks for under $5000 (without any of the economies of scale of mass production) and 4V cylinder heads that aren't that much more expensive than good 2Vs and 3Vs, FORD HAS NO REAL EXCUSE FOR FORCING US TO SETTLE FOR A WEAK, FUEL-INEFFICIENT 300 h.p. with fragile hypereutectic pistons, crappy cracked-cap rods and cast cranks. TEAM MUSTANG--give us the GOOD STUFF at prices ordinary Mustangers can afford . . . or be prepared to lose mass sales to DCX when the Hemi Challenger is on-line.

And why is it that Ford doesn't build an affordable, RWD "tuner" car that kids can insure (any kid trying to get coverage on a Mustang GT will need two jobs -- if they survive the insurance agents laughter). A "tunable" V6 (forged internals, DOHC, dual pipes, low compression) would glide under the insurance radar and become a tuner-car star.

And why is it that even the weak-sister Mustang GT mill is saddled with a couple thousand dollars worth of trim and luxury options? Whatever happened to the stripper with a big bullet under the hood? I guess it's more fun to make hot rodders pay $5000 extra for two more cylinders and another exhaust pipe.

"JUST GOOD ENOUGH" VS. "SEGMENT-LEADING"

FoMoCo seems to be focused on "just good enough" instead of benchmarking and trouncing the best in a particular segment. Such mediocrity is a prescription for more marketshare losses and lower stock prices.

Philosophically, most people want it all (value, performance, reliability, fuel economy, low maintenance costs, smoothness, tractability, quality, striking looks, decent ride quality, plenty of helpful gadgets) at the cheapest possible price (that's basic microeconomics). The people I know who buy 156 m.p.h. German luxury sedans or cheaper Japanese knockoffs want the image, prestige and panache of them. The AMG and M cars are rarely driven anywhere near their performance potential (just like most people who buy $200 athletic shoes don't play ANY sport in them).

A major constant in the 100+ year evolution of the automobile is that reliable, operationally transparent higher performance always sells when it's priced within the same range as more ordinary competition. If it's too expensive or causes maintenance, economy or reliability hassles, then it only sells to the fanatics and early adopters.

Revolutions and huge market shifts occur when breakthroughs reach the popular consciousness and require no special sacrifices.

For example. Kettering high compression V8s revolutionized the market and made flathead technology completely obsolete within 10 years (less than five years in premium segments). Why? Because they offered more bang (and efficiency) for almost the same buck. In 1946, nobody expected 0-60 in less than 18 seconds. By 1964, even the cheapest full-size V8 could run 0-60 in 10 seconds, and the legendary times had fallen to around 5-7 seconds. Furthermore, even as expectations and technical capability increased, the consumers' actual use of the technology didn't (e.g. occasions of full throttle acceleration were undoubtedly more common in a V12 Continental than they were in a 430-powered Mark III/IV/V of the late '50s).

Of course, as higher technology (fuel injection, multivalve engines, variable cam timing, overhead cams, forced induction etc.) began to outstrip the hidebound Detroit "barge" luxury motif, Detroit fell further and further behind.

A significant factor in this was that market conditions in Europe caused many of their vehicles to develop to higher standards while Americans just kept working on the basic formulas and expectations established in 1948-1950. The emissions and CAFE crackdowns in the 1970s interrupted the natural development of market expectations and played into the efficiency strengths of the imports. However, as pressures eased, electronics, multivalve technology (hardly a new development) and reliable forced induction began to accelerate consumer expectations beyond the old cubes & carbs era.

Now, an ordinary Honda Accord V6 has as much performance as many "high performance" and "exotic" cars of twenty years earlier. The milestone vehicles in the sedan segments now outperform most legendary sports cars. Even a prosaic Honda minivan can whip many, if not most old sports cars (with the AC blasting and a DVD playing to entertain the kids).

TRANSPARENT PERFORMANCE AS A COMPONENT OF THE "NEW QUALITY"

Thus, to stand out takes even higher levels of refinement, fuel efficiency and objective performance. A 4.0 0-60 is probably the low limit under today's technology for transparent, no hassle, relatively cheap performance in a sedan. Furthermore, premium market expectations probably set the performance bogie in a 6-4 second range. Current fuel price concerns also require that fuel economy not be neglected in the pursuit of luxury, power and performance.

Carlos Ghosn told CNBC yesterday (13 Jul 06) that "Now, the [definition of quality] is going through a shift away from 'things gone wrong,' which is what people are now fixing. You've got to get more things you like. Do you like the materials, the colors, the fit, the sound? You've got to take the good cars apart. In the past, [the quality question] was: ‘Is the car reliable? Is the car durable?' Now, we're shifting…to the question: Did I get the right colors, features, material, sound, into the car?"

To get image conscious customers to look again, FoMoCo has to dramatically beat its competition. That doesn't mean victories which are apparent only to bookish technophiles, magazine editors or auto engineers. Cadillac has partially done this in its on-going quest to shed its poor image.

But FoMoCo should be benchmarking and beating the best on objective performance numbers (including fuel efficiency) at price points that drastically undercutting their European and Japanese "mainstream" competition. I've never taken anyone for a ride in a high performance car who said "I wouldn't want one of these even if I could afford it."

However, if a vehicle is too hard to live with or costs significantly more than other functional choices in the market, it will become a more narrow niche-oriented product.

HISTORY PROVES ADDING MORE PERFORMANCE IS CHEAP

Finally, as the 1960s U.S. muscle car era proved, it really doesn't cost that much more to add performance. In fact, it's probably cheaper now than it was 40 years ago. Fuel economy is manageable with the right balance of technologies and insurance costs can be managed through driver aids and decontented "economy" models (it's always better to engineer the platform & powertrains for the premium versions then to decontent/detune them to hit economy niches than trying to reinvent a lo-po heap into a superstar).

If FoMoCo were to market a 14.3 second quarter mile @100+ mph, 156 mph cruise capable, 8.5+g capable sedan with decent fuel economy, no maintenance hassles, good warranty, functional styling, and good quality (fit/finish/materials) and sell it at the same price as the competition is pushing 15.7 @ 90, 120 mph peak sedans of more or less equal quality, style and economy, it will gain marketshare.

Similar benchmarkeing approaches would work in other market segments. Just "good enough" isn't "good enough" anymore.

CNN: DETROIT AUTOMAKERS . . . "TRADING JABS LIKE JUNIOR HIGH BOYS" OVER HORSEPOWER RATINGS ON FUEL-EFFICIENT V6 PONY CARS?

(Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" Here)

Comment: You mean not everybody agrees with Joe Oldham?
Here’s our choice for who wins the "Battle of the Buzzin’ Half-Dozen" in 2011:

Here’s how most junior high schoolers (and to be totally honest, Truth With Speedzzter) would evaluate the 305-horse V6 Mustang . . .

Over at Bangshift.com, there’s more support for the V6s than you might imagine.

However, Truth With Speedzzter would rather see small DOHC V8s in the 2.0 to 4.0 liter range, not V6s, carry the banner for "entry level" pony car muscle in the future. With technology such as EcoBoost (tm), Ethanol Boosting Systems’ on-demand direct ethanol injection , start-stop, variable-geometry intake manifolds, and cylinder deactivation, V8s could achieve spectacular performance with startling fuel efficiency.

FUTURE SHOCK: FORD START CONCEPT CAR WITH 3-CYLINDER ENGINE PREVIEWS TINY FUTURE

Comment: Nobody will get "Start" confused with a Shelby GT500. A one-liter, three cylinder EcoBoost (tm) engine isn’t exactly the stuff of dreams . . . unless you live in Bangladesh. And without any traditional headlamps, Start looks half-asleep. Still, its design is cleaner than Fiesta. And although it beats a moped or riding a bus, it will be a sad day when "Ford" becomes synonymous with tiny fruit cups like Start. Now if it had a 1.0 liter EcoBoost (tm)V8 and RWD . . . .
FREEP: LET OUR TECHNOLOGY CREATE A GREENER WORLD, FORD ASKS

Comment: William Clay "Li’l Billy" Ford, Jr. accepted his green leader award from the FREEP in style.

Yet the idea that Michigan will emerge as some sort of green technology leader may be a bit wishful. Advantages similar to the catalysts that made Detroit an automotive manufacturing leader a century ago (abundant iron ore, timber, timber baron money) seem to be absent this time.

FORD’S 2011 FLEET VEHICLE LINEUP LAUNCHES WITH 100 PERCENT SUSTAINABLE POWERTRAIN TECHNOLOGY

"Ford, the industry leader in commercial and government fleet sales, will offer 100 percent of its fleet vehicles this year with fuel-efficient powertrains and other sustainable technologies – including battery electric, hybrid, natural gas, propane, E-85, biodiesel (B20) and EcoBoost – making the Blue Oval the industry’s greenest full-line fleet provider."

Comment: Too bad FoMoCo won’t ever build a EcoBoost Coyote V8-powered electric hybrid P71 Police Interceptor.

YOU’VE GOT TO KNOW WHEN TO HOLD IT: JERSEY GOV. CHRISTIE SHUTS HIGHWAY TOILETS TO SAVE MONEY

Comment: $270,000 to operate two restrooms? Of course some New Yorkers would probably quip that the whole "Garden State" is a big toilet . . . .

HOLY MOLEY, MARIA MOPAR! CHRYSLER’S MARKET SHARE MAY DROP TO SEVEN PERCENT AS DETROIT MOVES ON FROM THE BANKRUPTCIES

Comment: Not even Iacocca had to face such market-share headwinds. And that’s before they start trying to sell Americans FIATs. Who knew that when Chrysler bought American Motors that they'd virtually BECOME AMC.

COMMUNIST CHINA: NUMBER ONE IN AUTOMOBILE SALES

Comment: With a billion people and a manipulated currency, it’s not surprising that the CHI COMS have slingshot past the U.S.A. in auto sales. But sales per capita and ownership rates lag far behind the U.S.A. Despite America’s over-taxed and over-regulated auto market and a myriad of assaults on automotive liberty, the U.S.A. is still a better place to be an automotive consumer than China.

JALOPNIK: TOP GEAR USA: WHAT TO EXPECT

COMMENT: A show with all the essential elements of the BBC/UK’s "Top Gear" . . . except Clarkson, May and Hammond . . . A BBC-sized budget on basic cable . . . "absolutely and brutally honest" evaluations of test cars. No kowtowing to automotive sponsors.

R-I-G-H-T. What we’ll likely see is three obnoxious young frat-boys engaged in a mindless, weakly-scripted succession of demolition derbies, gratuitous burnouts, and tired, sophomoric jokes on a show with the production values of a midnight infomercial. Of course, if it’s even that good, it will be a "Fast and Furious" hit.

Fordboldmoves.com DAY 2 (Part 2)

The delay in screening comments noted below has abated somewhat.

The comments that made it through the screen do seem to balance praise and criticism of Ford.

For example, in response to a Peter Frey article rejecting the continued viability of the "American Car," one reader posted the following:

Peter Frey you are exactly 100% bang on with this. American car ideals are dead.
"World market" cars that can be sold anywhere are the present and future.
Whether or not the US auto-manufacturing sector survives depends on their
ability to lose this old outmoded thinking and over-focus on American
consumers, and get in-step with the rest of the worlds [sic] manufacturers. Stop
listening to US baby boomers who still say they want Mustangs
and Camaros. Nobody anywhere in the world wants one. Don't waste
the time, the brainpower, the money. Build world cars, export them, and sell
them here too. We'll buy. Just make them interesting, worth owning for a few
years, and good.
By:Thomas - 6/28/2006 1:27:14 PM

Such analysis is, of course, terminally shortsighted.

First, huge regulatory barriers make true "world cars" impractical. Vehicles which comply with US regs aren't also fully compliant with EU or Japanese requirements. And as GM learned with the Pontiac GTO, it can be expensive to convert a "world car" to US specifications.

Second, unique market tastes and conditions demand "localized" products. Virtually all manufacturers tailor designs for specific markets. For example, the major Japanese manufacturers have indigenous design and engineering operations in virtually all of their major markets. Why? Unique demands from local market conditions. Moreover, Toyota's, Mazda's and Mitsubishi's Japan-only model line-ups dwarf their respective US offerings. Why? Local market conditions.

Third, American market conditions still favor certain "traditional" American cars. While it's true that American pony cars have not been huge export success stories, it's also true that the American car culture will support and sustain larger, more powerful performance cars and sedans. Fuel prices, road conditions and urbanization have not foreclosed the attractiveness among many for uniquely American forms, such as larger sedans, V8 sports coupes and even SUVs. While fuel prices may affect the sales mix, vehicles sized and adapted to unique American lifestyles will remain a viable niche for the foreseeable future.

Fourth, the West wasn't won with a "world car." Attend virtually any car show or celebration, other than some import "tuner" events that virtually prohibit "American cars," and you will see the celebration and veneration of RWD, mostly V8-powered American cars. High performance and high style models are the "milestone" models which survive scrappage and which capture our imaginations. After all, how many rap videos or popular movies feature some tiny "world" hybrid as "star cars?' For Ford to turn its back on RWD and V8 power to "get in step" with foreign markets would be turning its back on the very characteristics motivating a vast army of loyal customers and enthusiasts. Both Plymouth and Oldsmobile abandoned RWD and traditional performance in favor of more "worldly" designs and look where it got them . . .

And Ford spent over FIVE BILLION DOLLARS on the Mondeo as a "World Car." How many of those have you seen in the USA lately? Simplistic "world car" mantras are no substitute for identifying viable market niches and developing exciting, best-in-class products to meet them.

That being said, Ford ought to benchmark the best possible performance sedans and sports coupes in developing "world class quality" in distinctly American forms. German cars tend to dominate among enthusiast drivers because they were engineered for the stresses of sustained, unlimited speeds on the Autobahn. Cadillac reinvigorated its reputation when it began infusing its flabby line with German-tested designs. Building flabby boulevard cruisers, such as the last generation Thunderbird, won't spark a comeback. Instead, Ford must satisfy American expectations for performance, style, size, utility, driving dynamics, quality and economy while advancing the art and science of the automobile through applying the best lessons the world's automakers have to offer.

That's a tall order. But it's not filled by abandoning uniquely "American-DNA" cars for "world cars."

When Ford kills or neuters Mustang, the end will truly be near indeed.