dr511scj

Furthermore, they canned the 4V engine . . . which was probably the only real reason for this sled to be of interest . . . as a source for 4V 5.4 cores (too bad you had to GUT THEM to replace the weak-sister hypereutectic pistons and powdered metal, cracked cap rods before you could hang on some MAJOR FORCED INDUCTION!) Actually, the Navigator (the old ones with the 4V--not the decontented 3V one) is about the only Lincoln (other than the dearly departed LS) that was worth looking at . . . now if you could get a 4V or an '03-'04 Cobra engine in a Town Car . . . .

Count me among them. Ford's increasingly few V8s seem to give up mpg to higher-tech competition (even low-tech pushrod engines).

Excellent points! Except that Ford seems to charge MORE for less performance (compare the cost of a 340 hp Hemi or a 300+ hp GM LSx to Ford's weaker offerings in the same segments). PUT THE '03-04 Cobra engine in the GT! Why not? They are going to be using them for anything else (such as Adrenalin or a better CV or a BWM-M-Fighting Lincoln or an OZ Falcon in the U.S.A.) BTW it's too bad the mopes running Ford can't snag a copy of Richard Holdener's new book "Building 4.6/5.4L Ford Horsepower on the Dyno" . . . Just so they can see how much better 4Vappears to the average potential Mustang customer. Apparently, they simply don't have a clue.

NO 4V? NO DOHC? NO VVT? NO SALE! How about "too little, too late?" How about "The RAINBOW WARRIOR" (Reflects both the obvious wimpiness of the product and Ford's "growing" affection for LGBTQ activism) "Here I am . . . rock you like a Rainbow Warrior . . . ." HEY FORD LAWYERS--See Dr511scj get "put in his place" (you KNOW YOU WANT TO) http://www.turbomustangs.com/smf/index.php...21832#msg621832

S-U-R-E they do . . . Some junior lawyer's reading just to make sure somebody hasn't said something actionable or that some "powerless bureaucrat" hasn't leaked a secret. Otherwise, Bill Ford and his wimpy regime doesn't care a whit about what its few remaining loyal customers want or need. Actually, if FORD did read some of this stuff, they'd probably just flip-flop on what to do (such as the way they hung out Texas dealer JERRY REYNOLDS in the boycott fiasco or ossillated on the "Hurricane") or respond in some half-way-phone-it-in-from-the-golf-course/pride-march-too-late-to-matter-response (e.g. the wimpy-can't-beat-a-$20,000-Accord Marauder) Too bad Blue Oval News has lost its objectivity about the goofballs sitting in the Glass House (the Hemp-wearer-in-chief at the head of the slouching class!)

Well said! But they need to include some 4V engines, too. 239 hp isn't enough to hang with the Charger Police model. 239 isn't enough to hang with a Honda minivan! Restyle the car every four years (like the Japanese would do). Keep it BOF. Give the Mercury its own look. Dump the 2V engines (why would anyone ever build a 2V ever again?). Make the '03 Cobra or the GT500 engine optional in the PI and Sport (And come up with a decent name (Galaxie 500?) and some STINKING BADGES for it). Fix the cop-killer fuel tank. Make sure it has a full instrument package available, including a tach. Give Lincoln a "Kennedy-styled" Panther with turbodiesel and DOHC V12 options. If that doesn't keep'em busy, they could work on fuel economy (VVT, cylinder deactivation, six-speed automatic, multituned intake manifold, hybrid, etc.)

Absolutely correct! Mercedes has been using cylinder deactivation on some of its "cammer" engines for years. "The first Mercedes models to appear with cylinder deactivation were the European-spec 1999 CL600, S600 and CL500. These vehicles were powered by either a DOHC 6.0 litre V12 or DOHC 5.0 litre V8." Furthermore, Ford ASAP needs to take better advantage of its SOHC/DOHC designs by adding VTEC-style variable cam and valve timing/phasing across the board. This would allow broader torque curves, lower throttling losses, and higher redlines. Again, each of these technologies are available now in other brands of DOHC engines and are a primary reason why DOHC can be technically superior to a same-size 2V pushrod mill. Ford also should make much greater use of forced induction (supercharging, turbocharging, "low pressure supercharging & turbocharging" or Miller Cycle, depending on the specific outputs necessary to be best in class) and E85 multifuel capability. They should also be doing "crash" development on direct injection, variable compression and intake valve throttling. Ford is way behind on both performance and fuel economy. These technologies would help on both fronts. Sure, it would cost more. NHTSA estimates costs as follows Variable Valve Lift & Timing: Fuel economy gain: 1.0%-2.5% Cost :$150-$350 per unit. Cylinder Deactivation: Fuel economy gain: 1.0%-4.0% Cost: $150-$450 Intake Valve Throttling: Fuel economy gain: 0.5% - 3.0% Cost $110-$400 Variable Compression Ratio: Fuel economy gain: 2.0% - 6.0% Cost $260-$350 These advanced technologies should FIRST be introduced not on loss leaders or fleet cars, as is often the Detroit pattern. Instead, they should be in showcased in halo performance models and in optional performance engines for mainstream sedans and SUVs (which are less price sensitive, generally purchased by more technologically-savvy customers who appreciate such advances in imports, and provide opportunites to maximize bang-for-the-buck), then trickled down to the more cost conscious mainstream models.

Another point . . . 1967 & 1968 were the height of the first "muscle car" era. Competition was huge for cars in the same "relative" ultra high performance envelope to the 2007 GT500 (note that most wimp 4-doors today run numbers that would have placed them in the thick of the muscle car wars back then, so the new GT500's performance must be gauged relative to that of the overall automotive market). So with nearly every Detroit nameplate building at least one muscle car then (and most building more than one) competition for dollars at the Shelby's high end of the market undoubtedly held down sales. Fast forward to 2006--much less competition among ultra-high-performance cars, with virtually no meaningful competition at the GT500's alleged (without ADM) price point and years of pent-up demand to stoke sales. Thus, if the dealers are ripping people off, then it means the supply is simply too low.

The problem with your concept of "FREE F-ING ENTERPRISE" is if Ford artificially restricts supply (get'em now 'cuz we're only going to build a measly handful for a couple of years) to protect dealer ADM, when it knows that way more people would buy one, that's an abuse of "FREE F-ING ENTERPRISE!" Of course, CAFE is probably part of the reason Ford can't build enough to meet anticipated demand without ADM. However, increased supply is ALWAYS A CURE FOR insane, abusive ADMs! The simple fact is that Ford --wink, wink-- "cares" about price gouging . . . all the way to the bank . . . .

One would think Ford would value unfiltered feedback from its ultimate customers (sure, dealers are Ford's direct customers, but without individual buyers . . . .) I don't see how it should take ANY FAITH AT ALL! Ford ought to be sending those product poobahs and engineers out to every Shelby and Mustang event to hear from the troops on ALL SUBJECTS. Part of Ford's problem is that they don't seem to listen to ANYBODY and then are "shocked" when market share shrinks and their stuff is behind the competition in objective and subjective testing. Case in point: had Ford listened to their Mustang customers, the hapless 215-225 h.p. 2V 1996-1998 Mustang GT would never have happened. The customers wanted enough oats in their ponies to run with GM's lousy-but-quick F-Bodies (and with Corvettes). But instead we got stuck with a gelding that became the laughing stock of the streets. H-E-L-L-O, TEAM MUSTANG, ANYBODY AT HOME? Similarly, when SLP was cranking out street-ripping 5.7 LS Fs, Ford (and the late SVT) fumbled around until 2003 for a suitable counterpoint. Perhaps a tad bit of customer feedback could have avoided this . . . . The arrogance inherent in thinking that Ford is doing us some kind of magnanamous favor by submitting its managers for REAL Q&A is simply sickening! FORD--Talk with your customers! Find out what it's really like in the real world!

ABSOLUTE TRUTH! SVT owners are some of Ford's best salespeople. We sell a lot more "mainstream" Fords than do fickle owners of snoozer heaps like the FLACCID FIVE HUNDRED AND THE DEATHTRAP FUSION (and it's getting really hard to convince friends and family they ought to go "Ford" with sleds like that in the line-up competing against 240+ h.p. sedans, 303-425 h.p. V8s, and RWD in something designed after the Carter Administration) But sadly, when Ford "does the math" it always seems to be SUBTRACTION (cutting jobs, cutting plants, cutting production, cutting features, cutting models, cutting racing teams, cutting market share, cutting dealer profit, CUTTING SVT!!!)

ABSOLUTELY ON POINT! And now that SVT's dead, will Ford ever build and develop an affordable high performance Mustang (or anything else?) Given that the aftermarket has Eaton superchargers for less than $1000, bulletproof modular shortblocks for under $5000 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 WEAK 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 Henry Ford help us if GM ever slams the LS V8 into the Pontiac Solstice or pumps out that retro Camaro! 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 agent's 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 GT mill is always 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 . . . . Why should Ford pander to kids too ignorant to know what Shelby means? It's not a gimmick to tap into about the only real asset FoMoCo has left--it's legendary "Total Performance" era history. It's amazing to me that some people think Ford has to reinvent the wheel every time it builds a new model. I'll bet the Shelby name will start "connect[ing]" with the fart-pipe "tuners" the first time they get blown away by one!

Then should they use a computer to make up some meaningless alpha-numberic jiberish? The Shelby name sounds like "Brahms" or "Bach" to those who know racing history! Given the fact that nearly any 1960s Shelby is a six-figure sled in restored condition, his Cobra is the single most reproduced car designed since 1940 and that he was a central inspiration for not only nearly all of Ford's late 1960s performance cars but also for the DCX Viper and the SVT skunkworks concept, Ford owes Shelby the honor of a car named for him. It's the least they can do. Too bad SVT won't be around to develop any more Shelbys. But then maybe the hapless goofs who designed the CV fuel tank, the deathtrap Fusion and the flaccid Five Hundred can be retasked to build "exciting & unique" "performance" vehicles . . . . I'll be you think Ferrari is a "gaudy" moniker, too.

FoMoCo has periodically turned hyperconservative with product and marketing. For example, in the '20s, it stuck with the obsolete Model T too long while Henry Ford went off on a shameful anti-Semitic jihad. In the late '30s, Ford stuck with antique beam front axles, transverse leaf springs and weak mechanical brakes, as Henry was preoccupied with stopping the UAW and toughening up his aesthete son Edsel Ford, instead of advancing the art of the affordable automobile. After betting the nearly bankrupt company on the '49 Ford, the Deuce became obsessed with copying GM, ending in the Edsel debacle, the AMA Racing Ban, and the premature deaths of the two-seat Thunderbird and the Continental Division (arguably Ford's last attempt at a truly premium luxury car until it acquired Jaguar and Aston-Martin). In 1970, after a legendary eight-year run of "Total Performance," the Deuce and Iacocca abruptly killed all racing and high performance programs, instantly turning a whole generation of hot rodders, racers and racing fans to GM. In the doldrums of the 1970s, conservative old Ford believed all U.S. subcompacts had to be cramped, poor handling two-doors (Pinto/Bobcat/Mustang II) and most other models had to be anti-aerodynamic bricks festooned with gaudy opera windows, padded tops and chromed plastic stand-up grilles. This conceded any hint of design leadership to the form-determines-function Europeans (who never gave up on motorsports). Even in the post-Taurus 1980s--when Ford was making more profits than any rival--Ford arguably coasted on its successes instead of going for the market share "kill" as Toyota appears to be doing now. In light of this cyclical history, it's not too surprising that Ford is turning its back on SVT. The problem is that Ford is too happy with taking a little slice of market share . . . with phoning it in from the golf links . . . taking the path of least resistance . . . too many squishy bureaucrats and beancounters asleep at the helm . . . not enough visionary "car guys" who fight to build segment-busting, market-leading, standard-setting milestone vehicles which advance the art and science of the automobile in objective, measurable ways. It will be their failure to compete that will lead to disaster. The death of SVT is "just another brick in the wall."

Let's hope its to test and certify them with the '03 Cobra engine!

I guess it depends on how one defines "strongest automakers in the world." The last MY2006 auto show I attended featured scores of M-series BMWs, AMG Mercedes-Benzes, V-Series Cadillacs, SRT-series Dodges, Chryslers and Jeeps, Mazdaspeed Mazdas, STI Subarus, Staturn Redlines, Z06 Corvettes & SS Chevrolets, TRD Toyotas . . . . Now while the developement of each of these performance models was most certainly out of different OEM structures than SVT (e.g. GM Performance Division handling the development of most of GM's hot machinery), most of the successful programs use dedicated staffs of engineers and marketers to cut through the corporate red tape and bring exciting high performance variants to market. The problem is that once development and marketing is sent back to the bean-counting hacks who believe a tepid 203-h.p. Five Hundred is a worthwhile competitor to 240 h.p. Hondas, 260 h.p. Nissans, 303 h.p. Chevrolets and 340-425 h.p. Dodges, it's more likely than not "game over." Other than "Team Mustang," mainstream has shown only a hamfisted ability to get a handle on performance models (anyone remember the grossly underpowered Marauder debacle? Or how about the fat, slow MN-12 Thunderbird SuperCoupe? (all they had to do was just COPY the Buick Grand National and package it in an aero Ford body, but they couldn't do it!) Or the "new" geriatric boulevard poser 2-seat Thunderbird? (was it really any better than Iacocca's Maserati TC, Buick's Reatta, Cadillac's Allante? Zzzzzzz . . . . ) Or the languishing Lincoln LS (bringing a 3.9L 280-horse knife to a 400+ horsepower gunfight)) And even the venerable "Team Mustang" forces us to soldier along with glass-jawed hypereutectic pistions, cast cranks and spindly "cracked cap rods" in the 3V GT--hardly the quality of hardware that established the 5.0 legend and market leadership in the 1980s. Let's say that "Team Mustang" and the Brits (and maybe someday the Aussies and Mazdaspeed) do sufficient "tuning" to make up for SVT. Who's going to bring those products to market (and not let them die like L-M did with the Marauder and the LS)? Who's going develop other "breakout" products, such as the next Lightning or Adrenalin? I submit, it won't be the bean-counter obsessed cost cutters in Mainstream! Sure, Ford can become the 21st century Studebaker or American Motors by chasing only boring, lo-po niches. But the rabidly loyal Ford fans who are pumping up the brand word-of-mouth are overwhelmingly performance enthusiasts. If Ford neglects them, a vast, unpaid sales force will gradually dissipate to other brands. Ford's commitment has been dwindling for several years now . . . . Formula One--Gone. Cosworth--sold. NASCAR--cut to the minimum (Ford had 2/3s of the starting field in 1992. Now less than 1/3). SVT--no product for two years, then killed. Performance sedans--Only Jaguar left in the U.S. Anybody see a pattern here? "Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday" only works when you have something exciting to sell. It works a lot better when the products raced have some reasonable tie-in to the products sold. As to the Old Chrysler Corporations 1970s brush with the brink--it wasn't just a lack of economy cars that killed them (although they wasted time developing the Omni/Horizon). Among the reasons was Chrysler's use of sales banks to absorb unordered units and their inability to track market demand. Certainly the modern DCX has the engineering expertise and resources to identify, develop and build anything the market demands -- from Smart microcars, to Unimogs, turbodiesel sedans and Class 8 Freightliners. And even Chrysler's current "big cars" are available with a 2.7L V6 for the penny-pinching geldings in their customer base. Therefore, I doubt history will repeat itself as a result of Hemi-mania.

The LSE is a weak, weak, weak attempt. Furthermore, the Marauder debacle proves that L-M dealers have no clue how to sell to anyone but aging repeat customers. (Not that the Marauder was all that marketable in its overpriced, underpowered, underoptioned form) The LSE should at least have the old Marauder specs (actually an Eaton-blown 4V with a deep-overdrive 6-speed auto, full variable valve timing, cylinder deactivation, flexi-fuel capability, 13" front PBR/Brembo brakes and STANDARD TRACTION-LOK is really what it needs) along with a full range of paint/interior color choices (not just black/silver/red) and chrome trim options. And dump the stupid alpha model designation--the Merc storehouse has a plethora of exciting names for a legitimate Panther sports sedan at the LSE's price point. And why would Ford still be putting a 2V engine in ANYTHING? A lowly Honda Accord has more power than the 4.6 2V . . . .

Hopefully if this idiot actually works in the Glass House, he's slated among the 30,000 to be fired. Perhaps Lee Iacocca is "revenge" posting to this thread . . . . The kill-off-the-old-names mentality is pure marketing hogwash generated by ignorant "deck chair rearrangers" who contribute nothing of value to the product or production side of the business. But, let's examine their erudite marketing "logic" futher: Mustang is an "old name" . . . why not kill it off, too? Why even "Explorer" was used on some trucks in the late '60s (that makes it almost as "old" as Ranger--which incidentally was an Edsel nameplate before its revival on trucks) and it was even tainted further in the Firestone debacle . . . why not kill it off as well? That "F-Series" sobriquet is more than half a century old. How can that possibly "compete" against new, hot and "fresh" handles, such as Titan[ic], Silverado (only 30 years old), Tacoma (long known as a seedy suburb of trendy Seattle)? And those crazy Aussies have been toiling under that "Falcon" name for over 40 years . . . . WHY EVEN "FORD" AS A BRAND IS OVER 100 YEARS OLD! How could such a baggage-laden moniker be "relevant" to all the ignorant skulls full of mush shopping for the latest "deal?" HOWEVER, HERITAGE AND CONTINUITY ARE WHAT MAKES FORD DIFFERENT FROM MOST OF ITS INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION. THUS, INVESTMENT IN ITS HISTORIC NAMEPLATES IS ESSENTIAL TO MAXIMIZING ITS "BRAND EQUITY." Sure, the current Ranger hasn't improved with the state of the art (no turbodiesel, no DOHC V8, no crewcab, dated styling, no six-speeds, dated ergonomics, No SVT model, etc.). The managers who haven't invested in it should be immediately fired (and the contents of their underutilized offices burned on the lawn at Fairlane)! But for the company to turn its back on nearly a twenty-year heritage of market leadership because a couple of bad years with an obsolete product is simply a triumph of meaningless, mindless change for change's sake. Fix the Ranger, CV and Town Car! And a build a REAL Continental worth of that name. Then market each of them as improved products. Most consumers are smart enough to tell that a 2006 F-250 is materially improved over a 1965 F-250, or even a 1995 F-250, and a fairly meaningful number appreciate the continuity and inherent acknowledgement in paying tribute to Ford's rich heritage by retaining such a historic nameplate. They will be intelligent enough to discern a improvements in Ranger, CV and Town Car as well (even if Ivy-league-trained "marketers" are too dense to appreciate it) However, to put out an uncompetitive product with a "new" name (e.g. the injury-producing, underpowered "Fusion" (you may be likely to NEED SPINAL FUSION if you crash one) or the wimpy Five Hundred or the hapless "Probe" or the poorly-executed, obsolete-engined, bland-handling Tempo/Topaz) is merely a cynical attempt to con the customers with steakless "sizzle." These are the same saps who think that every vehicle needs some souless alpha-numeric tag to compete with the Europeans and Japanese. To paraphrase Carroll Shelby: If the vehicle is bad, the name won't help it, but if its good, it won't matter. Fix the vehicles (see the Classic Ford post above) and leave the venerable names alone!

Too bad that Ford just gave this market segment to the resurgent Cadillac, the DCX Hemis and the RWD Japanese luxury cars. Oh what could have been if Ford would have modified the LS for the DOHC 4.6 and the '03-'04 SVT Cobra 4.6 . . . . What if Lincoln would have built an LS in the performance envelope of the V-Series Cadillacs or the M5 BMW or the AMGs? What if Lincoln would occassionally consider styling updates of the LS? . . . . I feel sorry for the hard-working WIXOM employees who relied on Ford to engineer and market competitive products but were completely abandoned by those "managers" who wouldn't know a decent RWD sports sedan if it hit 'em on the golf course . . . .

UH . . . the last time I noticed, neither Honda nor Toyota have passed away and both are spending millions on racing and high performance projects internationally. Honda is the "Small block Chevy" or rather the "Ford Flathead" of grassroots import performance (even if the "tuner" kids are lusting after expensive EVOs, twin-turbo Supras, and WRXs). This produces a synergy of market and aftermarket interest in Hondas. While Honda often loses its way with product, it just about has the affordable "tuner" market cornered, because its high quality Civics are amenable to aftermarket modification. Furthermore, Honda's relatively powerful Accords (at least in comparison to competing Ford products) enhances Honda's low-key performance image (a V6 Accord is more powerful than a legendary Buick Grand National or 5.0 Mustang!) Honda's low-key approach (excluding its high-profile F1 and IRL adventures) is somewhat similar to Chevrolet's approach during Ford's disastrous 1970-1981 US "Racing Ban." (Note that Focus hasn't come close to unseating Honda because it's not a significantly better out-of-the-box platform for tuning modifications and Ford's USA mainstream managers haven't successfully tied any street car models to the model's WRC or other competition successes. Remember, to take marketshare (or sometimes to even hold it), your product has got to be perceived as being better and/or a better value to overtake the inertia and brand equity of the market leader) Toyota is probably going to take over NASCAR & IRL in the next 10 years (maybe even F1, too), has invested billions in making Scions a valid threat in the cheap "tuner" and youth markets, and builds a full line of luxury-performance cars (Lexus) which spank Ford's luxury marques in the showroom . . . and often in objective performance measures, too. TRD is aggressively courting the performance market for each of TMs brands.

TRUE! Mark my words: This is shaping up to be a debacle on the scale of Ford's disasterous November 1970 retreat from all racing, "Muscle Parts" and high performance products. If Bill Ford and his increasingly hapless cronies make the same mistakes as Iacocca and the Deuce did back then in order to placate the never-satisfied environmentalists, regulators and the Naderistas, it really will be all over for Ford. EVERY AUTO MARQUE THAT'S PASSED AWAY SINCE WWII HAS TURNED ITS BACK ON RACING AND COMPETITIVE HIGH PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS FIRST! The vast majority of Ford's absolutely loyal, hard-core enthusiast customer base (not to be confused with the shoppers who have to be resold on every purchase) are interested racing, street performance or both. (In contrast, how many folks cared about the Oldsmobile or Buick Centennials?) If Ford abandons them AGAIN, millions of "automobile experts" will quit talking up the Ford brands! One wonders whether Edsel II would have produced more competitive results . . . . Ford's mainstream product development track record give us NO COMFORT that the mainstream bureaucracy can develop or market a remotely competitive or interesting car, much less one that has the "street cred," statistics and performance necessary to dominate any high performance or "halo" segment.

" I think Ford should of made an effort to control the ADM's a bit on these types of cars. Toyota forces all dealers to sell Scions at sticker price consistantly." The problem is that price fixing laws prevent Ford (or any OEM) from directly controlling sale prices. The only meaningful short term remedy is for Ford to build a sufficient number of GT500s for the market to set prices without obscene ADMs. That probably won't happen due to several factors: (1) Ford's CAFE average limits the number of lower mpg V8s (flexi-fuel could help this, though); (2) Any company that would kill off SVT really doesn't understand the high performance market; (3) per-unit profit margins stay higher with overly restricted production; (4) fear of cannibalizing sales from lesser Mustangs; (5) No perceivedl competitive pressures in the segment on supply or prices (Ford apparently doesn't see the legion of sports car competitors which will compete in the $40,000-$55,000 segment, or if it does, Ford is satisfied with a tiny, fleeting share of the market). High ADMs on GT500 are certain until novelty wears off and demand comes inline with supply. At least they are still building the GT500--which is more than you can say for other obvious performance models (e.g. SVT Lightning, SVT Adrenalin, Falcon in the USA, Focus RS in the USA, SVT Explorer, Galaxie 500, SVT Fusion, SVT Five Hundred V8 . . . . )

"But wouldn't it be better to just build cars that you didn't have to pay someone to be excited about?" -- John Colletti -Full Story- HOW IS IT THAT THE DIMWITS IN THE GLASS HOUSE ARE SO COMPLETELY CLUELESS? Ford seem to be in a free-fall from a total lack of common sense and ability to identify the most significant niches in the marketplace. Ford was first among the Detroit 3 to adopt the SVT concept . . . and now it will be the first (and only) major manufacturer to abandon it. HOW STUPID CAN YOU GET? Ford has too many "marketing" types rearranging the nameplates and not enough product experts (such as our dearly departed SVT friends) demanding excellence. Hopefully, among the 30,000 being fired are the absolutely clueless hacks who: 1. Denied the modular DOHC from the Crown Victoria, Town Car and Grand Marquis; 2. Thought the Tempo/Topaz and the 2.3 HSC were good ideas; 3. Prevented the Aussie Falcons from coming to the U.S. market; 4. Designed the 2-seat "new" Thunderbird as a weak boulevard poser instead of a world-class Corvette beater; 5. Failed to make the DOHC 4.6 and the '03 Cobra 4.6 options for the Lincoln LS; 6. Permitted the SN-95 Mustang GT to be sold for years with only 215 horsepower (while the competition had at least 60 more); 7. Killed the SVT Focus instead of turbocharging it; 8. Killed the SVT Lightning; 9. Failed to redesign the Ranger and add V8, crew cab, and reliable turbodiesel options; 10. Allowed the 6.0 PowerStroke to market before it was ready; 11. Didn't see the potential for an SVT F-250 PowerStroke, or for SVT versions of the Explorer, Escape and Expedition, or a Shelby G.T. 350, or for a turbodiesel F-150; 12. Decided there was no need for a DOHC V8 with 4"+ bore potential, a modern 5.0/5.8, or a DOHC Modular V10; 13. Decided that cylinder deactivation, variable length intake runners, and variable cam timing were too expensive when these features are many of their competitors' vehicles; 14. Thought the Marauder would sell for over $32,000 with only 300 horsepower, fewer than a handfull of colors, insane dealer markups, and less performance than a $20,000 Camry; 15. Decided fragile hypereutectic pistons, two valves per cylinder, weak plastic manifolds, cast cranks and spindly cracked cap rods were sufficent for high performance duty (and preventing Ford from at least making the H.D. stuff optional); 16. Sent the boring Five Hundred/Montego out without a V8 or forced induction option to do battle with a score of stylish 260+ horsepower sedans (not to mention the DCX Hemis); 17. Hoarded cash during the "good times" in the 1980s and 1990s instead of developing import killers, competitive small cars and segment busters; 18. Can't see Ford's failure to build cheap, tunable, stylish and insurable subcompact performance cars prevents them from being a "playa" in the youth market; 19. Thinks a "Ford Racing" crate engine will sell in sufficient numbers with hypereutectic pistons, cast cranks and two bolt mains (failing to understand the psychology of racers and "Super Rodders"); 20. Didn't fix the "second generation" Taurus when it was obvious that Accord and Camry were killing it. 21. Spec'd the MN-12 with the odd-ball 5x4.25 wheel bolt pattern instead of the "standard" 5 x 4.5; 22. Killed the Mustang SVO instead of fixing it (ISN'T THIS A FAMILIAR PATTERN NOW); 23. Changed the bellhousing bolt pattern on the Modular V8s from the "standard" 5.0/Windsor bolt pattern; 24. Keeps approving development of wholly incompatible four cylinder engines on a regular basis (Kent, EAO, Lima OHC, CVH, HSC, Zetec, Duratec) instead of picking a "universal" set of design parameters (e.g. bore spacing, bolt patterns) and continuously improving it with new technologies; 25. Couldn't figure out how to put intercooled turbos and Eaton superchargers in vehicles with real back seats and more than two doors. There's plenty more dead wood that should go at Ford, but firing these clueless employees would be a good start! OF COURSE, NOBODY AT FORD (EXCEPT SOME DIMWITTED LAWYER LOOKING FOR ACTIONABLE MATERIAL) ACTUALLY READS ANY OF THIS! THE FORD ELITES ARE TOO BUSY MAKING THE NEXT DUMB MOVE (e.g. Fusion fails crash test--let's respond with some empty "we're committed to safety" commercials; Killing SVT, etc.) I THINK IT MAY BE TIME FOR A STOCKHOLDER RESOLUTION ON THE GROSS MISMANAGEMENT OCCURRING AT FORD . . . .

"But wouldn't it be better to just build cars that you didn't have to pay someone to be excited about?" -- John Colletti -Full Story- HOW IS IT THAT THE DIMWITS IN THE GLASS HOUSE ARE SO COMPLETELY CLUELESS? Ford seem to be in a free-fall from a total lack of common sense and ability to identify the most significant niches in the marketplace. Killing off SVT instead of expanding it is EXHIBIT A! Ford was first among the Detroit 3 to adopt the SVT concept . . . and now it will be the first (and only) major manufacturer to abandon it. HOW STUPID CAN YOU GET? Ford has too many "marketing" types rearranging the nameplates and not enough product experts (such as our dearly departed SVT friends) demanding excellence. Hopefully, among the 30,000 being fired are the absolutely clueless hacks who: 1. Denied the modular DOHC from the Crown Victoria, Town Car and Grand Marquis; 2. Thought the Tempo/Topaz and the 2.3 HSC were good ideas; 3. Prevented the Aussie Falcons from coming to the U.S. market; 4. Designed the 2-seat "new" Thunderbird as a weak boulevard poser instead of a world-class Corvette beater; 5. Failed to make the DOHC 4.6 and the '03 Cobra 4.6 options for the Lincoln LS; 6. Permitted the SN-95 Mustang GT to be sold for years with only 215 horsepower (while the competition had at least 60 more); 7. Killed the SVT Focus instead of turbocharging it; 8. Killed the SVT Lightning; 9. Failed to redesign the Ranger and add V8, crew cab, and reliable turbodiesel options; 10. Allowed the 6.0 PowerStroke to market before it was ready; 11. Didn't see the potential for an SVT F-250 PowerStroke, or for SVT versions of the Explorer, Escape and Expedition, or a Shelby G.T. 350, or for a turbodiesel F-150; 12. Decided there was no need for a DOHC V8 with 4"+ bore potential, a modern 5.0/5.8, or a DOHC Modular V10; 13. Decided that cylinder deactivation, variable length intake runners, and variable cam timing were too expensive when these features are many of their competitors' vehicles; 14. Thought the Marauder would sell for over $32,000 with only 300 horsepower, fewer than a handfull of colors, insane dealer markups, and less performance than a $20,000 Camry; 15. Decided fragile hypereutectic pistons, two valves per cylinder, weak plastic manifolds, cast cranks and spindly cracked cap rods were sufficent for high performance duty (and preventing Ford from at least making the H.D. stuff optional); 16. Sent the boring Five Hundred/Montego out without a V8 or forced induction option to do battle with a score of stylish 260+ horsepower sedans (not to mention the DCX Hemis); 17. Hoarded cash during the "good times" in the 1980s and 1990s instead of developing import killers, competitive small cars and segment busters; 18. Can't see Ford's failure to build cheap, tunable, stylish and insurable subcompact performance cars prevents them from being a "playa" in the youth market; 19. Thinks a "Ford Racing" crate engine will sell in sufficient numbers with hypereutectic pistons, cast cranks and two bolt mains (failing to understand the psychology of racers and "Super Rodders"); 20. Didn't fix the "second generation" Taurus when it was obvious that Accord and Camry were killing it. 21. Spec'd the MN-12 with the odd-ball 5x4.25 wheel bolt pattern instead of the "standard" 5 x 4.5; 22. Killed the Mustang SVO instead of fixing it (ISN'T THIS A FAMILIAR PATTERN NOW); 23. Changed the bellhousing bolt pattern on the Modular V8s from the "standard" 5.0/Windsor bolt pattern; 24. Keeps approving development of wholly incompatible four cylinder engines on a regular basis (Kent, EAO, Lima OHC, CVH, HSC, Zetec, Duratec) instead of picking a "universal" set of design parameters (e.g. bore spacing, bolt patterns) and continuously improving it with new technologies; 25. Couldn't figure out how to put intercooled turbos and Eaton superchargers in vehicles with real back seats and more than two doors. There's plenty more dead wood that should go at Ford, but firing these clueless employees would be a good start!

There's nothing wrong with the Panther that another 100-150 horsepower, some cheap restyling and a safer fuel tank wouldn't fix. The '03-'04 SVT Cobra engine is an off-the-shelf, common-sense "patch" that's here right now. Of course the bean counters and the idiot FWD lovers at Ford who don't get fired in the 30,000 job cuts will probably try to replace the legendary Panther with another version of the FLACCID, BORING, WIMPY FIVE HUNDRED (Cops, just imagine doing a Pitt manuver in a s-l-o-w, unibody Five Hundred . . . .)