Motor Trend's Todd Lassa on Mulally

[dr511scj]

The Ford Blog linked to this analysis of the Mulally hire, President Bush's reluctance to meet with the Detroit 3, and of Rick Wagoner's "Hyundai warranty" strategy (Fun reading, although it probably DOES NOT represent the views of the frequent posters here at Blue Oval Forums, and I express NO OPINION as to whether it represents even a plurality of views among those who "follow" the U.S. auto industry)

 

Here's the pull quote:

 

"Ford Motor's top car guy is Derrick Kuzak, vice president of product development for The Americas, a position well below GM Vice Chairman Lutz. And Ford doesn't have a blog like GM's. Ford needs much more than top-ranking car guys and a blog open to customers in order to survive, but they would be good first steps."

 

See also The Ford Blog.

[RichardJensen]

And GM's car guy has done....................................................... What exactly?

 

GM's sales are down more than Ford's this year.

 

Plus, the Ford Bold Moves website totally trumps the fastlane 'fanboy' blog.

 

Ford's execs don't post to the Bold Moves blogs, but Mark Fields wants them to read the posts there.

 

Oh, yeah, and thank you, Motor Trend, for letting us all know that a guy who spent 37 years at Boeing is NOT a car guy.

 

I'll have to file that away. I have this gigantic filing cabinet in my office.

 

It has two drawers.

 

One is labeled "car guys"

 

The other is labeled "lesser humans".

 

I'll move the Alan Mulally folder out of the 'car guy' file now.

 

These people are ridiculous. Detroit is falling apart, and seemingly the biggest concern for some of these journalists, observers, and pundits, is whether or not Alan Mulally is a true car guy.

Edited September 11, 2006 by RichardJensen

[dr511scj]

And GM's car guy has done....................................................... What exactly?

 

GM's sales are down more than Ford's this year.

 

Plus, the Ford Bold Moves website totally trumps the fastlane 'fanboy' blog.

 

Ford's execs don't post to the Bold Moves blogs, but Mark Fields wants them to read the posts there.

 

Oh, yeah, and thank you, Motor Trend, for letting us all know that a guy who spent 37 years at Boeing is NOT a car guy.

 

I'll have to file that away. I have this gigantic filing cabinet in my office.

 

It has two drawers.

 

One is labeled "car guys"

 

The other is labeled "lesser humans".

 

I'll move the Alan Mulally folder out of the 'car guy' file now.

 

These people are ridiculous. Detroit is falling apart, and seemingly the biggest concern for some of these journalists, observers, and pundits, is whether or not Alan Mulally is a true car guy.

 

We all know that you don't believe in the "car guy" theory. But there ARE compelling arguments for it.

 

For example:

 

Cars! Cars! Cars! argues that "At any automaker, the product experts who really understand the fundamentals and finesse involved in developing compelling cars and trucks are a critical resource. Giving these people protection and support against the sometimes numbing influence of finance, purchasing and marketing departments is a key part of the CEO’s job. If the car guys do not receive the appropriate backing, the result is exactly the sort of bland and/or misdirected product malaise that is afflicting Ford today."

 

And another of my regular stops in the blogosphere provides a recent case study about how bona fide "car guys" can make a real, dramatic difference in product.

 

If Mulally is going to be an effective budget cutter, he's got to understand what parts of Ford are essential and he cannot do this without some "car guy" savvy (or at least strong advice from proven "car guys.")

[J-150]

We all know that you don't believe in the "car guy" theory. But there ARE compelling arguments for it.

 

For example:

 

Cars! Cars! Cars! argues that "At any automaker, the product experts who really understand the fundamentals and finesse involved in developing compelling cars and trucks are a critical resource. Giving these people protection and support against the sometimes numbing influence of finance, purchasing and marketing departments is a key part of the CEO’s job. If the car guys do not receive the appropriate backing, the result is exactly the sort of bland and/or misdirected product malaise that is afflicting Ford today."

 

And another of my regular stops in the blogosphere provides a recent case study about how bona fide "car guys" can make a real, dramatic difference in product.

 

If Mulally is going to be an effective budget cutter, he's got to understand what parts of Ford are essential and he cannot do this without some "car guy" savvy (or at least strong advice from proven "car guys.")

 

 

 

yep... just look at all the motorheads and gear heads at Toyota.

 

Nuthin' but Mullets in the boardroom.

[dr511scj]

yep... just look at all the motorheads and gear heads at Toyota.

 

Nuthin' but Mullets in the boardroom.

 

Ford will never beat 'Yoda by copying them.

 

On the other hand, 'Yoda is in Formula One (unlike Ford), will spend a billion taking over NASCAR, is competing in Grand Am/ALMS(see the details), has pumped huge coin into its TRD parts operation (see the details), has turned Scion into a "tuner" cult hit virtually overnight (see the details), offers a Darrell Waltrip Edition Tundra with a variable-valve-timing DOHC V8 (see the photo; read the details) . . . . So there must be some "car guys" in the house, somewhere.

[RichardJensen]

We all know that you don't believe in the "car guy" theory. But there ARE compelling arguments for it.

There is also a lack of real world experience to show that the kind of 'car guys' the chattering classes love to praise have benefited the industry as a whole.

 

You can fancy up all kinds of arguments, to suggest this about car guys or that about car guys, but when the rubber meets the road, the most recent example of 'car guys in charge' were the Eaton/Lutz Chrysler, which was on life support six years after it was 'saved', and the Zetsche/Bernard Chrysler which is trying to sustain marketshare by cramming inventory down dealership throats.

 

The problem is that the 'car guy' ethos is part of a failing system. The system needs to be replaced.

[goingincirclez]

yep... just look at all the motorheads and gear heads at Toyota.

 

Nuthin' but Mullets in the boardroom.

 

 

So THAT'S why they entered Nascar! It makes sense now!

[dr511scj]

There is also a lack of real world experience to show that the kind of 'car guys' the chattering classes love to praise have benefited the industry as a whole.

 

You can fancy up all kinds of arguments, to suggest this about car guys or that about car guys, but when the rubber meets the road, the most recent example of 'car guys in charge' were the Eaton/Lutz Chrysler, which was on life support six years after it was 'saved', and the Zetsche/Bernard Chrysler which is trying to sustain marketshare by cramming inventory down dealership throats.

 

The problem is that the 'car guy' ethos is part of a failing system. The system needs to be replaced.

 

"Lutz built the great team that saved Chrysler in the 1990s. He fought with the charismatic Lee Iacocca, and they didn't love each other, but they were a team. His last great car battle at Chrysler was to bring out the PT Cruiser, which became immensely successful. Lutz was the obvious candidate to replace Iacocca when he retired, but Iacocca delayed his retirement. Anyway, no one that Iacocca knew would ever be good enough for him. When Iacocca finally brought in Bob Eaton from GM to run Chrysler, Lutz became Eaton's loyal number two."

 

See "Maximum Bob v. Red Ink Rick"

 

"In the early 1990s, Chrysler had terrible customer service and press relations, with a history of innovation but a present of outdated products [Thanks Lee Iacocca]. Its market share was falling, and its fixed costs and losses were high. Bob Lutz, then the president, wanted Chrysler to become the technology and quality leader in cars and trucks -- a clear, globally applicable vision. A program of cultural change, Customer One, was built around it.

 

* * * *

The results were impressive: overhead was cut by $4.2 billion in under four years, the stock price has quadrupled, and the company reversed its slide into bankruptcy and became profitable. A completely new and competitive line of cars or trucks has appeared each year since. New engines produce more fuel economy and power as new cars provide more comfort, performance, and space. They did this with the same people, but working in different ways. "

 

Chrysler's 1990s revival

 

"Before the 1996 deal [takeover by Daimler-Benz], Chrysler was one of the most successful and profitable auto companies in the world. In 1994 it approached $4 billion dollars in net profit, had a climbing market share and a reputation for speed in finding the market's sweet spots."

 

"In the words of the former Chrysler chief executive Robert Eaton, Lutz was 'largely responsible for a monumental transformation in the way Chrysler develops, builds and markets its products.'"

 

"Lutz Spills His Guts--On Chrysler"

 

"Car guys" aren't infallible, but to suggest that they haven't benefitted the industry is preposterous. Maybe your complaint is more against DCX's German managers than it is against "car guys."

[dr511scj]

 

So THAT'S why they entered Nascar! It makes sense now!

 

It's just a good thing for us that they didn't understand NASCAR enough to sign cult heros like Dale Earnhardt, Incorporated's "Dale, Jr." and instead settled for hayseed losers like Michael Waltrip and disloyal chumps like car owner Bill Davis and the old has-been, Dale Jarrett.

 

(Maybe they were confused on which "Dale" they were getting . . . .)

 

But they will spend enough money to get noticed and to buy their way into the heart of American popular culture.

[RichardJensen]

dr511scj:

 

Chrysler Group was DOA 99-02ish.

 

So much for the Lutz/Eaton revolution.

[ZanatWork]

Ford will never beat 'Yoda by copying them.

 

On the other hand, 'Yoda is in Formula One (unlike Ford), will spend a billion taking over NASCAR, is competing in Grand Am/ALMS(see the details), has pumped huge coin into its TRD parts operation (see the details), has turned Scion into a "tuner" cult hit virtually overnight (see the details), offers a Darrell Waltrip Edition Tundra with a variable-valve-timing DOHC V8 (see the photo; read the details) . . . . So there must be some "car guys" in the house, somewhere.

 

1. Toyota has yet to win a single Formula One Race, and if they don't soon...they'll bow out like they did in IndyCars and ChampCars. Ford's money is currently in too little supply to get back into a race series that does little or nothing to bolster its North American futures. Funny, Jack Roush suggested they get out even earlier than they did...and he's maybe the ULTIMATE "car guy".

 

2. Their takeover of NASCAR is far from a given. The sport has a tendency to slap those that spend their way to the front and thus ruin "the show". Ask Bill Elliott in the 80's, when the T-Birds got a number of rule changes as he stomped everyone on the speedways.

 

3. Years-earned perception advantages likely did more for Scion than the product did, and I remember (and was directly involved in) the compact tuner market long before Toyota decided they needed a "youth brand". The fact that the vehicles are quite inexpensive and have the Toyota quality halo over them explains the success. For Ford to have similar success, they would have needed to be the subject of CR and JDP affection at a similar level.

 

4. Given the deals on the hoods of Tundras for some time now, I'd hardly get excited over a "boogity" truck.

[waymondospiff]

We all know that you don't believe in the "car guy" theory. But there ARE compelling arguments for it.

 

Cars! Cars! Cars! argues that "At any automaker, the product experts who really understand the fundamentals and finesse involved in developing compelling cars and trucks are a critical resource. Giving these people protection and support against the sometimes numbing influence of finance, purchasing and marketing departments is a key part of the CEO’s job. If the car guys do not receive the appropriate backing, the result is exactly the sort of bland and/or misdirected product malaise that is afflicting Ford today."

 

If Mulally is going to be an effective budget cutter, he's got to understand what parts of Ford are essential and he cannot do this without some "car guy" savvy (or at least strong advice from proven "car guys.")

 

I probably quoted too much above, but you must remember, Mulally is NOT a finance guy. He is an engineer who led a consumer-driven manufacturer (different market, but it's MUCH more relevant than running an investment house or making plastic tubes for electrical cords...) through production hardships (the roll-out of the 737NG in 1998-99), dramatic work slowdown & restructuring (post-9/11 market - produced 600+ planes in 2000 to about 250 in 2002), union strikes (2002/3/4? Can't remember exactly when.), and development of industry leading products (777 in the early 90s, until last week the 787 & 747-8 projects.)

 

While Mulally may not be a "car guy" he understands the complexities of large, multi-national corporations with extensive supplier relationships and unionized workforces. He knows the importance of innovative, attention-grabbing products that meet customers needs. He's dealt with long lead times inherent in the development of large-scale manufactured products. In short, while he's never worked for a car company, Mulally is uniquely suited to help drive Ford through this turn around process.

 

A great catch by Bill Ford. I'm just suprised Mulally agreed to leave Boeing...he had lots to look forward to in the next three years: 747LCF flying, 787 rollout & EIS, and 747-8 rollout.

 

Scott

Edited September 11, 2006 by waymondospiff

[grbeck]

I probably quoted too much above, but you must remember, Mulally is NOT a finance guy. He is an engineer who led a consumer-driven manufacturer (different market, but it's MUCH more relevant than running an investment house or making plastic tubes for electrical cords...) through production hardships (the roll-out of the 737NG in 1998-99), dramatic work slowdown & restructuring (post-9/11 market - produced 600+ planes in 2000 to about 250 in 2002), union strikes (2002/3/4? Can't remember exactly when.), and development of industry leading products (777 in the early 90s, until last week the 787 & 747-8 projects.)

 

Scott

 

Interestingly, Honda always makes it a point to have an engineer in a leadership position.

 

Maybe a "car guy" isn't the complete answer to Ford's woes, but the company does need someone who values engineering and product integrity, and will champion those qualities from the executive suite.

 

The company also needs someone who isn't afraid to take the LEAD (product-driven mentality) as opposed to taking no risks and merely reacting to the competition (finance-driven mentality).

[dr511scj]

dr511scj:

 

Chrysler Group was DOA 99-02ish.

 

So much for the Lutz/Eaton revolution.

 

Long after the Germans took over . . . read my post CAREFULLY. Better yet, read Lutz's book.

[ZanatWork]

Donald Petersen didn't design cars for Ford, but he made fantastic use of what was available and some extremely brave calls...the original Taurus and the MN12 chassis among them.

 

That's the sort of work we need from the new CEO...bold decisions, an interest not just in what's happening but what WILL happen in the market, and the moxie to pull off a new paradigm or two along the way.

[dr511scj]

1. Toyota has yet to win a single Formula One Race, and if they don't soon...they'll bow out like they did in IndyCars and ChampCars. Ford's money is currently in too little supply to get back into a race series that does little or nothing to bolster its North American futures. Funny, Jack Roush suggested they get out even earlier than they did...and he's maybe the ULTIMATE "car guy".

 

Jack's opinion is hardly universal. I'm sure Jack hated the poor way "Jaguar" was running Ford's F1 tradition into the ground against the Schumacher juggernaut. And regardless of whether F1 is a good value or not anymore, it was partially responsible for Ford being about the second most recognized brand in the world. Still, the only point in mentioning F1 was to rebut the inferrence that Toyota lacked any "car guys" with power.

 

2. Their takeover of NASCAR is far from a given. The sport has a tendency to slap those that spend their way to the front and thus ruin "the show". Ask Bill Elliott in the 80's, when the T-Birds got a number of rule changes as he stomped everyone on the speedways.

To be fair, Elliott's Thunderbird also benefitted "for the sake of the show" from some rules changes BEFORE he started winning. Moreover, now that we have common templates and, soon, the Car of Tomorrow, brand specific rules adjustments seem to be less frequent. And don't forget that Toyota's NASCAR V8 benefits from everything NASCAR gave Ford, GM and DCX previously, so even in the hands of the losers Toyota managed to sign, given Toyota's huge financial resources, they should have their share of success almost from day one. (I'm not even going to be too surprised if Toyota pulls off a win at Daytona in their first Cup season--NASCAR certainly seems to want them to win quickly)

 

3. Years-earned perception advantages likely did more for Scion than the product did, and I remember (and was directly involved in) the compact tuner market long before Toyota decided they needed a "youth brand". The fact that the vehicles are quite inexpensive and have the Toyota quality halo over them explains the success. For Ford to have similar success, they would have needed to be the subject of CR and JDP affection at a similar level.

 

Tuners don't give a crap about CR or JDP. I've never talked to one that mentioned CR or JDP as a reason why they purchased a popular tuner model.

 

Tuners want cheap, high-tech cars (not pushrod piles like the old Tempo/Escort or even SOHCs) that can be easily and cheaply insured, can be tuned toward big results, and which have a huge wellspring of available parts, body kits, JDM bits, etc. These cars tend to develop positive reputations on the sport compact scene.

 

And the whole point of Scion was to allow 'Yoda to expand downmarket without any ill effects on the Mother brand. Scion has probably spent about 1000 times what Ford does in pursuit of the tuner market (and to wean kids off of Honda). Still, the point of bringing it up was to illustrate that somebody at Toyota believes the tuner market is essential to "youth market" success, not to evaluate the campaign's effectiveness. Still it seems a lot more tuners are building Scions than Foci.

 

4. Given the deals on the hoods of Tundras for some time now, I'd hardly get excited over a "boogity" truck.

 

The Waltrip truck is completely stupid as a marketing gimmick. But it does point out that somebody at Toyota is making an effort to lure American racing fans, and that it isn't the province of politically-correct, hemp & Earth-shoe-wearing, "sensible," "sustainable," anti-high-performance enviromentalists in its executive boardroom (think Japanese clones of Bill Ford . . . .).

 

Remember, the point of the post wasn't to say Toyota's outreach to the "car guys" was optimal. It was to rebut the suggestion that Toyota simply ignores those "mullet heads."

[dr511scj]

Donald Petersen didn't design cars for Ford, but he made fantastic use of what was available and some extremely brave calls...the original Taurus and the MN12 chassis among them.

 

That's the sort of work we need from the new CEO...bold decisions, an interest not just in what's happening but what WILL happen in the market, and the moxie to pull off a new paradigm or two along the way.

 

Petersen went to the Bob Bondurant School of High Performance Driving: "A dedicated car buff, he startled fellow executives two years ago by taking a performance-driving course from Grand Prix Driver Bob Bondurant. More than 100 of his colleagues have since followed that lead to improve their knowledge of car handling. " That fact alone ought to be enough to establish his "car guy" cred.

 

One wonders if successors like Red Poling even knew how to drive a car for themselves . . . .

[RichardJensen]

Long after the Germans took over . . . read my post CAREFULLY. Better yet, read Lutz's book.

1999 was 'long after' 1998?

[ZanatWork]

Tuners don't give a crap about CR or JDP. I've never talked to one that mentioned CR or JDP as a reason why they purchased a popular tuner model.

 

Tuners want cheap, high-tech cars (not pushrod piles like the old Tempo/Escort or even SOHCs) that can be easily and cheaply insured, can be tuned toward big results, and which have a huge wellspring of available parts, body kits, JDM bits, etc. These cars tend to develop positive reputations on the sport compact scene.

 

And the whole point of Scion was to allow 'Yoda to expand downmarket without any ill effects on the Mother brand. Scion has probably spent about 1000 times what Ford does in pursuit of the tuner market (and to wean kids off of Honda). Still, the point of bringing it up was to illustrate that somebody at Toyota believes the tuner market is essential to "youth market" success, not to evaluate the campaign's effectiveness. Still it seems a lot more tuners are building Scions than Foci.

 

1. While the drivers themselves don't care, an awful lot of parents-that help to foot these bills, believe me-do. I'd also slow down on selling the kids short on their appreciation for CR and JDP...Scion hardly invented the market it so happily supplies, but many other brands didn't have that same perception halo overhead and haven't done as well. When the parent brand is the media's darling, it's a big help.

 

2. Don't ever presume that you could explain anything to me about the sport ocmpact market that I don't already know, unless you show me you credentials as a founder of Jackson Racing or a similar company.

 

3. Scion having in-dealer support for the tuners was a very brave move...though I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that tuners after serious performance dismiss the Scion x-series in favor of Civics and others that have more motor potential. The xA and xB are seen by many as "poseurs", as most of their aftermarket support is aobut appearance. The TC does better, but it still takes more money and effort than the previous Celica to get real numbers...I consider axing the Celica to be a dumbass move.

 

 

I don't deny or argue that Ford isn't pushing much for the Focus, or that tuners aren't rushing to include a car that managed to lose its visual attitude in its 2005 update. The current car is exhibit A (making the D3 cars exhibit B, C, and D) in the damage that was wrought by over-conservatism in Ford's early-21st-century model management. I hope the next model fixes that, and that the upcoming B cars have enough visual and mechanical attitude to help give Ford in perceived excitement what Toyota has in perceived quality.

[SysEng]

The Waltrip truck is completely stupid as a marketing gimmick. But it does point out that somebody at Toyota is making an effort to lure American racing fans,

 

Perhaps, but what "motor head" in his right mind would spec a "rubber band" motor in a truck? :shrug:

 

Toyota has been up to this kind of crap for years and still doesn't get it.

[ZanatWork]

Petersen went to the Bob Bondurant School of High Performance Driving: "A dedicated car buff, he startled fellow executives two years ago by taking a performance-driving course from Grand Prix Driver Bob Bondurant. More than 100 of his colleagues have since followed that lead to improve their knowledge of car handling. " That fact alone ought to be enough to establish his "car guy" cred.

 

One wonders if successors like Red Poling even knew how to drive a car for themselves . . . .

 

 

Precisely. The new guy has to bolster his education in his new field, and I do hope that he allows Richard Parry-Jones to work his magic a little deeper in Ford's suspensions (the Focus drives as well as it does because of him). Mainly, though, he needs to recognize the difference between "car guys" that understand improving the whole vehicle and morons that create crap like the current Impala SS (303 hp in a front-drive car that drives like crap).

 

I think the Fusion line NEEDS something to bitch-slap SE-R Altimas, Legacy GTs, and G6 GTPs. It's my fervent hope that the turbo Fusions reportedly being tested by Roush lead to a produciton model that is the undisputed champion of its market...the chassis is certainly there, and the awd system is a very good one.

 

Similarly, other models need "halo" versions to fill out their lines. A Five Hundred "touring" worthy of the name leaps to mind, as does another hot Focus and even a Crown Vic "Sport" that would get its retail sales back over the 25% hump (as of June, 85% of CV sales were to fleets). The Panther is antiquated, but until a real successor arrives...a hot one-off to make up for the Marauder would be fine.

 

Hopefully, this guy will see the potential in both retaking a chunk or 3 of the performance market, while allowing the core vehicles to be better overall. We sadly won't know much for some time yet.

Edited September 11, 2006 by ZanatWork

[SysEng]

"Ford Motor's top car guy is Derrick Kuzak, vice president of product development for The Americas, a position well below GM Vice Chairman Lutz. And Ford doesn't have a blog like GM's. Ford needs much more than top-ranking car guys and a blog open to customers in order to survive, but they would be good first steps."

 

 

Kuzak hasn't exactly ignited anything at Ford. And Mulally isn't there to improve Fords product mix. He's there to finagle the corporate politics. And if Ford wants to know what custoemrs think, this site will answer any questions they have just fine. But like I said. I doubt product mix is the top of their agenda.

[dr511scj]

1999 was 'long after' 1998?

Still missing the point. It was the GERMANS. To wit:

"Eaton acceded to an acquisition of Chrysler by Daimler-Benz. . . .Eaton, now a lame duck, had basically surrendered Chrysler's power base. . . . From the start, the culture gap made DaimlerChrysler's post-marriage period of adjustment more difficult than that of any other merger around.. . . . No sooner was the merger announced last May than Schrempp's phalanx of strategic thinkers began issuing reams of organizational flow charts. . . . Chrysler managers thrived on spotting opportunities and going for them, if necessary chucking previous plans as if they were gum wrappers. And here they were, trapped in Stuttgart's planning hell, bristling at constantly being reminded what to do. . . . Even before the merger, Lutz and Castaing had resigned, and the camaraderie was fading. "

 

"Of course, there is that famous 'merger of equals' that turned into a coupe de main (a sudden attack in force) and resulted in a DaimlerChrysler takeover. That was turning into a disaster, too, until Daimler sent over Dieter Zetsche . . . ."

 

On the initial set of results for DCX "DaimlerChrysler's revenues rose 10% in the second quarter, to $38.5 billion, but its profits were the same $1.53 billion as the year before. The company had promised that profits would grow faster than revenues. It was an enormous, and costly, misimpression. "

 

"U.S. investors fled from the stock after Standard & Poor's Corp. banished it from the S&P 500 index because the company wasn't incorporated in America. By late March, the percentage of U.S. shareholders had fallen from 43% on Day One to 25%. High-profile defections of Chrysler execs fed the image of German control. Two vice-presidents, engineering boss Chris Theodore and manufacturing specialist Shamel T. Rushwin, quit to join Ford Motor Co."

[dr511scj]

1. While the drivers themselves don't care, an awful lot of parents-that help to foot these bills, believe me-do. I'd also slow down on selling the kids short on their appreciation for CR and JDP...Scion hardly invented the market it so happily supplies, but many other brands didn't have that same perception halo overhead and haven't done as well.

 

Which other brand has the combination of TRD support, low price and effective marketing (e.g. Scion gives the kids a 100-page free magazine packed with ideas and "lifestyle" at auto shows, while Ford and GM hand out cheap folders)

 

2. Don't ever presume that you could explain anything to me about the sport ocmpact market that I don't already know, unless you show me you credentials as a founder of Jackson Racing or a similar company.

Sorry, I didn't realize you knew "everything."

 

I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that tuners after serious performance dismiss the Scion x-series in favor of Civics and others that have more motor potential.

 

Of course, plenty of serious tuners go for Supras, JDM Skylines, DSMs and EVOs. Hondas are cheap, but they're hardly the best. Honda engines have a flimsy open deck design that requires an aftermarket insert to stabilize the cylinders for high boost. And even the S2000 suffers from poor quality valvesprings that have lead to a number of blown engines as they lose their tension.

 

The xA and xB are seen by many as "poseurs", as most of their aftermarket support is aobut appearance. The TC does better, but it still takes more money and effort than the previous Celica to get real numbers...I consider axing the Celica to be a dumbass move.

Agree, but Scion certainly has made huge waves in a short period of time as a result of Toyota's marketing efforts. Just walk around SEMA.

I don't deny or argue that Ford isn't pushing much for the Focus, or that tuners aren't rushing to include a car that managed to lose its visual attitude in its 2005 update. The current car is exhibit A (making the D3 cars exhibit B, C, and D) in the damage that was wrought by over-conservatism in Ford's early-21st-century model management.

 

I completely agree, although you know that I'd add the CD3 to the disappointment list, notwithstanding all of the little "plant-at-capacity" spin.

[Guest Sixcav]

Ford will never beat 'Yoda by copying them.

 

 

Funny, that's how Toyota beat Ford. lol