Truth with Speedzzter (including commentary on Ford Motor Co.)

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:50:00 +0000

2010 MUSTANG UNLEASED: RALLY AMERICA!

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Why fret over Ford Motor Company's financials?

Why lose any sleep over the clear and present danger that GMPP's new "E-Rod" crate engine program represents?

Why even worry about the 2010 Camaro's sales lead or its mid/low price point horsepower advantage?

Instead, escape with these cool videos of Mark Utecht bashing around in a brand spanking-new 2010 Ford Mustang GT on dirt and gravel somewhere in the rough Minnesota woodlands during a Rally America event!

http://www.motorator.com/videos/1019

http://www.motorator.com/videos/873

Utecht's gonzo blast was part of Ford's "2010 Mustangs Unleashed" advertising campaign. And there are no 426-horse Camaros in sight. Just the glorious sights and sounds of a Ford V8 being used in a way 99.9% of new Mustang buyers never would.

Enjoy!

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:16:00 +0000

“SUBZERO” MOPARS AT THE 2009 SEMA SHOW

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

According to a U.S. News and World Reports story on Yahoo, "the Challenger just about the only Chrysler product showing signs of life."

Working through a two-foot stack of materials from the 2009 Specialty Equipment Market Association Show, a couple of cool Dodge Challengers keep coming to mind. These Challengers are livelier than most . . . or in the gearhead vernacular of BBC's "Top Gear" "Cool Wall": "Subzero."

The first one is “The King” – a slick Challenger from “Petty’s Garage” in Randleman, North Carolina. http//www.pettys-garage.com

Petty’s Garage lays claim to building “performance vehicles since 1949.” Although Richard Petty Motorsports is in the process of transitioning back to Ford in NASCAR, much of the Petty Family history is wrapped up in speedy Mopars.

(Note: some of the NASCAR press materials suggest that the last Ford run by the Pettys was during the 1969 season. However, after Richard left the family team to drive Mike Curb’s Pontiacs, Petty Engineering fielded a Ford Thunderbird in select NASCAR events. Moreover, Kyle Petty spent significant time in the Wood Brothers’ Thunderbird.)

“The King” Challenger features Gen III Hemi, poked and stroked to the storied 426 cubic inch displacement. The lump was stacked by NASCAR engine builder Arrington Engines. Kook’s Long tube headers and 2 3/4 inch mandrel-bent exhaust tubes help evacuate the latter-day EFI Elephant.

BASF R-M formulated the trademark “Petty Blue” hue. Petty’s Garage claims credit for custom front and rear facias, rocker panels and an old-school Grand National-style blade spoiler.

“The King” is stopped by massive Brembo Gran Turismo brakes, with M6 calipers and monstrous 380 x 34 mm drilled discs in front and M4 calipers squeezing 380 x 28 mm discs in the rear.

Petty’s Garage slicked up the interior, including the obligatory “Petty’s Garage” embroidered logos on the seat backs . They also fabbed up a brace of adjustable sway bar linkages, rear toe links and a handful of body braces.

Sales of “The King” will reportedly benefit the Petty Family Foundation.

The second chili Challenger from the 2009 SEMA Show was the Heide Performance Products (HPP) “Daytona” concept. http://www.HPPCARS.com

HPP is out of Madison Heights, Michigan and is a "newly founded company that is dedicated to bringing fun, style, and a new level of individuality to the Automobile Market."

The HPP Daytona does that in spades. It’s HPP’s first “full vehicle concept.”
According to HPP’s promotional materials:

“Early in 2009, during a meeting with Mopar officials, there was discussion of the old glory and historically significant Chrysler vehicles of the past. After a lot of discussion, the question was asked – ‘Hey, can you take a Charger / Challenger and make a Superbird out of it, updated of course.’ Wild idea we all thought, but HPP was up to the challenge.”

Thus, the world’s only HPP Daytona was born. “This vehicle is the culmination of over 50 product changes, designed and produced by HPP and its partner companies.”

HPP plans to start offering aftermarket products in the first quarter of 2010 and full vehicle conversions “once we have completed our tooling and vehicle testing.

Curiously, the HPP Daytona combines design elements of the 1970 Plymouth’s Superbird with the 1969 Dodge Charger Daytona. Most notably, the HPP Daytona uses Superbird-style “racoon stripes” around the headlamp doors.

Sadly, HPP’s SEMA booth was one of the smallest, compromising photos of the wild HPP Daytona.

Truth With Speedzzter wonders what Petty’s Garage could do with an HPP Daytona . . . . Petty Blue . . . Arrington Hemi . . . . Maybe a new High Output Intercooled ProCharger Supercharger System . . . .

Intercooled centrifugal supercharger system for Dodge 5.7L Hemi-powered Challengers, producing 100+ additional horsepower, with all components needed for quick and complete installation. http://www.procharger.com

Part Number: 1DF304-SCI

Or maybe an STS REAR-MOUNTED TURBO system . . . .

Squires Turbo Systems's twin turbo Challenger

SOURCES ‘O 2009 SEMA SHOW MOPAR COOLNESS:

Petty’s Garage: 311 Branson Mill Road, Randleman, NC 27317 (336) 498-3745.
Heide Performance Products: 32430 Industrial Drive, Madison Hts., MI 48071 (248) 307-4263.
ProCharger: 14801 w 114th Terrace, Lenexa, KS, 66202, (913)338-2886.
Squires Turbo Systems, Inc.:165 N. 1330 W. Suite A-4, Orem, UT 84057, (801)224-3477.

[INTERNET NEUTRALITY DISCLOSURE: Truth With Speedzzter attended the 2009 SEMA Show as an unpaid guest of Source Interlink Magazines and Ford Motor Company. None of the companies mentioned in this story provided any compensation, inducement or gratuity of any kind for this story. Truth With Speedzzter is not affiliated with any of the companies referenced in this article.]

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:36:00 +0000

SPEEDZZTER ON THE SEMA SHOW AT CAR CRAFT.COM (And some impressions on being a SIM "Guest Editor for a Day")

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Patrick Cannon, Midwest Advertising Manager for Source Interlink Media's Consumer Automotive Group was given the unenviable task of SIM's liaison to the 25 "Guest Editors for a Day" invited to the 2009 SEMA Show.

Mr. Cannon received minimal support from the various SIM editors at SEMA, despite the fact that "Guest Editors" were supposed to be able to "discuss with Source Interlink Editors and get suggestions of some areas of interest" before attending the show.

One notable exception to the SIM editors lack of support for the "Guest Editors for a Day" program was Automobile Magazine's Jean Jennings. On Tuesday afternoon (November 3, 2009) she graced the Bloggers' lounge behind the Ford Display in the Central Hall with her wit and wisdom. She was still pumped about the Automobile Magazine's "6 versus 8" hill climb video that recently aired on Speed Channel, featuring an EcoBoost Lincoln against a slate of V8-powered European luxury cars. See the story and videos here and Ms. Jennings' blog about it here.

Notwithstanding the overwhelming lack of support from the vast majority of SIM editors, Mr. Cannon was a kind, gracious and patient host. He was even gracious when I turned in hundreds of unpublishable, out-of-focus photograph (camera & camera operator malfunctions). He is a consumate professional.

Mr. Cannon asked us to blog about "The Coolest Things at SEMA" on one of SIM's internet platforms. Unfortunately, most of the SIM websites did not seem to be configured to accept any guest blogs.

Attempting to comply with the daunting task of providing SIM and Ford a thimble of "coolness" out of the raging tempest that is the SEMA Show, "Truth With Speedzzter" posted some reflections on Car Craft's forum. It wasn't exactly what I expected, but it was still kind of fun . . . .

All in all, in the parlance of Nevada's oldest profession, the "Guest Editors for a Day" probably looked like a bunch of streetwalkers or "lot lizards" wandering around to the SIM and Ford P.R. professionals. I suspect they all had a hearty laugh at us.

Still, even with all of the confusion and stress, it was fun to "play journalist" for a day.

I met and interviewed a lot of wonderful people including Azentek's Bob Fehan (www.azentek.com), SMS Supercars' Molly Saleen (www.smsuspercars.com), Ford & Mustang performance superstar tuner Paul Svinicki (www.paulshp.com),Evade Camaro creator Tom Argue and car owner Bill Panouses (www.evadecamaro.com), the guys from Detroit Street Rods (www.DetroitStreetRods.com) and many more.

Look for more vignettes from SEMA 2009 in the coming days.

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:34:00 +0000

THE LIFTER SISTERZ DO SEMA

(A special guest column by Hydra and Cammie, the Lifter Sisterz)

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

HYDRA: Some of you may remember us . . . Speedzzter used to ask us to provide a “second opinion” on some of the gibberish that passes for advice in the syndicated Car Talk column by those two old M.I.T. brainiacs Tom and Ray Magliozzi, a/k/a “Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers . . . .

CAMMIE: Yeah, until you blew that sweet gig with your little vacation in the Indianapolis houscow . . .

HYDRA: Sweet gig? Speedzzter didn’t give us jack for all our brilliant insights! And I thought you weren’t going to bring up Indy again, Miss Wallflower! I’ve paid my debts to society. It’s time to move on.

CAMMIE: You mean like you’ve moved on with that orange pleather jumpsuit?

HYDRA: Well this cute young jailer at Indy said that orange compliments my color palate . . . .

CAMMIE: So would a costume from Circus Circus . . . . We’ve got to hurry this thing up . . . they’re charging us $25 an hour to use this computer.

HYDRA: Well, if you hadn’t left the laptop computer back home in the wrecker . . .

CAMMIE: I didn’t think there would be any place to use it at SEMA and I didn’t want some street hustler to steal it

HYDRA: Too bad you didn’t know about the free WI-FI at SEMA. How did you think all the journalists and bloggers put their stories out on the web? Pony Express? Carrier pigeon?

CAMMIE: Well Miss Rue de la Paix, too bad YOU didn’t know that the Luxor wasn’t on the monorail and we’ve spent about an hour a day getting to the Convention Center . . . not including all of your side trips for shopping.

HYDRA: I’m about spend an hour-a-day giving you a little Bugsy Siegel-style facial . . .

CAMMIE: Don’t get your Fredricks-of-Hollywood skivvies in a bunch. Besides, hobbling around on those four-inch spike heels, you’d never catch me . . . .

HYDRA: Well who knew you had to walk so much at the SEMA Show. . . and just getting to SEMA?

CAMMIE: I guess two million square feet of convention space, 10,000 booths, and all those maps showing where the monorail runs weren’t enough fair warning to leave the Manolo Blahniks at home . . . and then you had to buy some more ridiculously impractical shoes over at the Bellagio . . . .

HYDRA: I needed them for the RPM 09 Industry VIP party at The Bank nightclub Wednesday . . . it was the Premier SEMA Week event. Some of us just can’t sit around in our hotel rooms all night, Miss I-Read-A-Book-in-Vegas . . . .

CAMMIE: Well, I picked up lots of interesting product literature at the SEMA Show. And I’m just shocked with how grimy most things are in Vega$ . . . and how expensive everything is . . . I mean what’s a “resort fee” . . . and $60 for a three day monorail pass . . . or $90 a day for a rental car. . .or how you’ve got to tip everybody from the order taker at Fatburger on up.

Besides, I’ve been kinda low on funds ever since I took that cab ride out to Shelby Automobiles to tour where they built my 725-horse Shelby GT500.

HYDRA: You just have to work that Shelby into every column, don’t you?

CAMMIE: So? Time’s a wasting!

We – Hydra and Cammie, the Fabulous Lifter Sisters – are apparently filling in for Speedzzter today at the 2009 SEMA Show.

You DID clear this with Speedzzter, right?

HYDRA: My motto is “It’s better to ask for forgiveness than permission.” Besides, Speedy was nearly comatose, muttering about taking 600 out-of-focus photos and babbling about losing 300 New Products Showcase scans . . . I told Speedy not to buy that ridiculous wide-angle lens from that dude on the Las Vegas Strip.

CAMMIE: WAIT! SO SPEEDZZTER DOESN’T KNOW WE’RE DOING THIS? This is going to work out about like when you talked me into sneaking into SEMA’s Central Hall before the show opened . . . .

HYDRA: Yeah, well that security guard that pinched us was almost cute . . . he gave me his phone number.

CAMMIE: I’m not surprised. You even took those cards about the nudie shows that those illegal alien dudes were passing out on the street corners . . . .

HYDRA: I was hoping for a free ticket to the Chippendales or "Thunder from Down Under" . . . .

CAMMIE: And you thought those card-flipping, “no-habla” Mexican muchachos were handing them out?

Anyhow, what’s a “New Products Showcase scan?”

HYDRA: The New Products Showcase? Don’t you remember all those display cases over on the second floor of the South Hall here at SEMA? Or are the hot flash meds clouding what’s left of your brain? It’s where the buyers and the media get the scoop on all the hottest new stuff. And where I get the scoop on the hottest buyers and inksters (wink, wink) . . . .

CAMMIE: What! Is Speedzzter’s some media big shot nowadays?

HYDRA: Nah. But they still loaned Speedy a little bar code reader to scan tags on the new gear . . . they’re supposed to send the scans straight to your e-mail with a link to a product photo.

CAMMIE: I guess it didn’t work out for poor Speedzzter . . . .

HYDRA: Nope. Kinda like getting a prom date didn’t work out for you . . .

CAMMIE: Go ahead, rub it in Miss I-Dated-the-Entire-Football-Team. Other than a bunch of cheap and superficial flirting, what are you going to remember most about SEMA 2009.

HYDRA: Well, it might be kind of like what Brian Lohnes at Bangshift.com wrote – there are parts of SEMA you can’t swing a cat in without hitting a 2010 Camaro.

CAMMIE: Or some bit for the GM LS motor. But SEMA’s a lot more than the Camaro fad.

HYDRA: Yep. I’m going to remember the scads of hot rides parked outside and scattered through the Show. Widebody tuner cars, moon-jacked 4x4s, smooth customs, tons of Mustangs, the Ford Power Alley. . . .

CAMMIE: Yes, SEMA is quite the car show. I loved the historic drag car display in the lobby between the Central and North Halls: The Hawaiian, Prudhomme’s Hot Wheels “Snake” funny car and transporter, Don Garlits’ Swamp Rat V(a), the Stone, Woods and Cook Willys, the Freight Train digger . . . .

HYDRA: And there were scads of new products . . . superchargers, transmissions, nitrous, wheels, tires . . . I can see why Speedzzter had more than 300 scans

CAMMIE: And another thing I loved about SEMA was the awesome Ford display . . . they had several sweet rides.

HYDRA: And those smokin’ hunks from Galpin Auto Sports building a “new” ‘69 Mustang during the show . . .(Growl) .

CAMMIE: Back it down a notch, Coog! I also loved seeing that 1960s Indy V8 that almost never leaves Dearborn . . . and a SOHC 427!

HYDRA: You’re about to be on the losing end of a cat-fight if you don’t watch it.

Speaking of fights, I liked seeing the dueling Saleens – the new Saleen Mustang S81 from Steve’s former company and the new SMS 460 Mustang from his current gig. Too bad the organizers didn’t park’em next to each other.

CAMMIE: Now that would have been awkward.

HYDRA: You’d be the expert on “awkward,” Gangle Girl.

CAMMIE: I’m rising above your petty potshots today.

Anyhow, Agent 47's ‘69 Mustang was super-hot, too. I also liked seeing a bunch of high performance big wigs. . . Vic Edelbrock Jr., Steve Saleen, Linda Vaughn, Parnelli Jones, Brian Wolfe, Stacy David, Gene Winfield, Chip Foose . . .

HYDRA: Oh yeah, that’s another thing Speedy’s all bummed about . . . Speedy didn’t ever spot Dave Freiburger, Jeff Smith, Douglas Glad or hardly any of those other big-time Source Interlink hot rodding journalists. Speedy thought that the Source Interlink/Ford deal would guarantee at least an intro . . .

CAMMIE: There’s 100,000 people at SEMA. Spotting celebs is just the luck of the draw. And Speedzzter needs to get a grip . . . those journalists are working the show, not babysitting a horde of wannabes with seldom-read, poorly written vanity blogs.

We’ve got to wrap this up or we’ll have to shell out another $25 that we won’t ever get back from Speedzzter . . . .

HYDRA: Okay. Any advise for folks visiting future SEMA Shows?

CAMMIE: You can’t see it all, so don’t try.

HYDRA: Don’t be afraid to strike up conversations with car owners and exhibitors . . . even on the monorail

CAMMIE: Don’t be like my sister – bring some good walking shoes.

HYDRA: Stay in a hotel that’s on the monorail.

CAMMIE: Study the show materials ahead of time so that you can target your efforts.

HYDRA: Keep your camera ready and don’t buy new gear you haven’t tested (Sorry Speedy).

CAMMIE: Bring plenty of hand sanitizer because the public parts of Vega$ are becoming motley.

HYDRA: Find out what the “deals” are ahead of time, because everything in Vega$ is about “the deal.”

CAMMIE: Plan ahead on how you’re going to get 50 pounds of product catalogs, souvenirs, and swag home.

Get plenty of sleep (unlike my sleep-until-noon sister) so that you can see more at SEMA.

And if you’re stuck traveling with Hydra, bring more money “‘cause all she wants to do is dance and make romance . . . .”

HYDRA: How about I dance on your head?

[Computer time runs out]

{Internet Neutrality Notice: We -- Hydra and Cammie, the Lifter Sisterz -- don't get "nothing from nobody" to style for Truth With Speedzzter. The opinions expressed herein are our own and do not reflect the views of anybody else we know of, whether sane or insane. By the way, why are you still reading this legaleze? Wasn't the word "NOTICE" enough to put you on "notice" that what follows is just boring babble conjured up by a roomful of lawyers?)

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:41:00 +0000

ECOBOOST STREET RODS: WAVE OF THE FUTURE?

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

LAS VEGAS -- Ford Powertrain and Detroit Street Rods wowed attendees of the 2009 Specialty Equipment Market Association show with "the first rear-wheel-drive application of the 3.5-liter twin-turbo EcoBoost (tm) V6" The pre-SEMA show announcement of the 400 horsepower 1934 Ford coupe may have been controversial in theory, but the final result is "bitchin." [UPDATE: The EcoBoost '34 won a "Best in Show" award!]

Truth With Speedzzter had a couple of good conversations on the EcoBoost '34 with Dave Berry and Fred Blum of Detroit Street Rods. This car uses one of the few RWD bellhousing EcoBoost blocks available. The engine installation required relocation of the smallish stock turbos, fabrication of custom headers and little else.

While Truth With Speedzzter still contends that V8s are more in line with the storied traditions of American hot rodding . . .
Detroit Street Rods and Ford Powertrain did an excellent job of "daring to be different." Whether it catches on in the in the tidal wave of GM LS dumping remains to be seen.

[Internet Neutrality Notice: Truth With Speedzzter was an unpaid invited guest of Source Interlink Magazines and Ford Motor Company to the 2009 SEMA Show. Truth With Speedzzter is solely responsible for the content of this post. Truth With Speedzzter received no payment, gratuity, or other compensation for this post]

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:28:00 +0000

GM VERSUS FORD AT THE 2009 SEMA SHOW

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

LAS VEGAS – In some ways, GM versus Ford seems a bit like Mad Magazine’s “Spy versus Spy.” It’s often an entertaining series of moves and countermoves which seldom alter the fundamentals of the performance market niche.

On the surface, the 2009 Specialty Equipment Market Association Show was no exception. In a battle of dueling press conferences on the first day of SEMA, Ford and General Motors took divergent approaches. GM’s big news was aimed directly at mass market performance – a pre-OBD II legal 430 horsepower “E-Rod” crate engine with an expected street price under $8,000.00. This is only the first in a series of “E-Rod” crate engines, including a 315 horsepower 5.3 liter LS, a 505 horsepower 7liter LS7, and a 550 horsepower "LS8."

An hour or so later, Ford’s big announcements were decidedly more exclusive. First, Ford officially unveiled its 2011 Ford Racing Raptor XT truck.

Racing version of the Raptor

The XT will feature a 500 horsepower SOHC 6.2 liter engine and a host of race truck suspension parts. With a price tag in the $100,000 range, the market for Raptor XTs will undoubtedly be limited.

Ford’s other feature vehicle was the recently announced 2010 Cobra Jet drag car.

Ford Racing boss Brian Wolfe discussing features of the 2010 Cobra Jet with potential customers

Aimed at NHRA Super Stock A and B, the latest Cobra Jet reportedly will be NHRA legal down to 8.50 quarter mile elapsed times and will run out of the box in the ten-second e.t. bracket. Ford will offer a choice of racing transmissions, including a drag-prepped manual. For sportsmen racers who cannot afford factory assembly, Ford will offer virtually every part necessary to build a Cobra Jet at home in the Ford Racing Performance Parts catalog. Ford claims it will offer affordable production “bodies in white” that are “not seconds.”

In some ways, these moves are reminiscent of the 1960s. Back in the Total Performance era, Ford’s burned up tracks around the world, but were criticized by some for not “makin’ it” on the streets. Chevrolet, banned from overtly supporting racing, circumvented corporate edicts with hotter street cars and an unmatched factory “severe service” parts program. Thus, while Ford dominated in many professional ranks, the streets tended to belong to the much larger GM.

GM’s latest move is a CARB-legal shot across Ford’s bow. Almost immediately, internet experts were heralding the “E-Rod” program as a catalyst for more awful crossbreeding of Chevrolet engines in pre-1996 Fords. GM may be attempting to solidify its position as the “crate motor” leader before the waters are muddied by Ford’s rumored Coyote V8.

Truth With Speedzzter hopes that Ford will not repeat the mistakes of the 1960s by allowing GM’s dangerous provocation to go unanswered. Ford needs to move with all due speed to market more emission-legal crate engines for the repower market. FRPP’s Boss 302 and Boss 351, as well as the DOHC modulars are excellent foundations for emissions legal countermoves to GM’s “E-Rod” line . . . at least until a production wide-bore center DOHC comes along.

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:58:00 +0000

HP2G REVEALS MORE ABOUT THE 110 M.P.G. MUSTANG AT SEMA 2009

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

LAS VEGAS -- At the 2009 Specialty Equipment Market Association Show, HP2g.com released more details about its revolutionary 110 m.p.g. electric hybrid V8 Ford Mustang. Doug Pelmear’s innovative 4.8 liter V8 engine uses electronically-managed variable displacement and an integrated pulsed electric motor to vary output for conditions and power demand. The naturally-aspirated HP2g engine can produce as much as 400 horsepower and 500 lbs/ft of torque during acceleration and as little as 15 horsepower during part throttle cruise conditions. The engine is computer managed.

The revolution in HP2g’s powerplant is three-fold. First, according to HP2g’s press release, “[T]he HP2g E-85 fueled engine can transition from running on all eight cylinders down to firing on just one.” Unlike conventional variable displacement systems now in production, the HP2g’s engine rotates the single active cylinder among the eight using a proprietary process.

Second, HP2g reportedly has integrated a unique electric motor which operates “on a pulse basis, instead of what is called full saturation.” HP2g uses rapid electric cycling to conserve electric energy. The integrated motor also reportedly employs regenerative braking. The battery pack for the pulsed electric motor is reportedly two racing spiral core gel batteries.

Third, HP2g has discovered “added efficiencies because of tight tolerances and sturdy design.”

A cutaway of the HP2g engine is scheduled for public display at the 2010 Detroit International Auto Show.

During 18 months of testing, HP2g has logged 22,000 miles and reports average fuel economy of 109.7 m.p.g. In fact Doug Pelmear told Truth With Speedzter that he drove HP2g’s 1987 Mustang prototype on display from Ohio to Las Vegas, with the run from Oklahoma City to Sin City taking a only a splash more than one tank-ful of E-85 fuel.

HP2g also reports that the Pelmear engine underwent “standard EPA testing” in May 2009 and passed without a catalytic converter.

At SEMA 2009, the HP2g Mustang was parked among a diverse collection of “green” cars. Ironically, the "Green Zone" was anchored by huge display of unusual and even freakish Progressive Automotive X-Prize competitors. As reported previously, HP2g is not among the X-Prize finalists. Some internet wags have suggested that HP2g’s omission from the X-Prize “proves” Pelmear’s stock-appearing Mustang is less than what is claimed. Such judgments are irresponsible and premature.

Pelmear also told Truth With Speedzzter that the big OEMs seem to be taking a skeptical view of HP2g’s technology. Perhaps it is because of Detroit’s “not invented here” mindset. Or perhaps the skepticism is fueled by the mystery surrounding HP2g’s three prototype Mustangs. Or perhaps it is because it seems impossible that Ohio hot rodders working on a relatively shoestring budget (compared to the billions OEMs invest for modest gains) could have achieved a technological breakthrough of epic proportions.

In person, Pelmear seems like a modest and forthright entrepreneur. He appears to be a “cut-and-try,” grease-under-the-fingernails hot rodder, and not a highfalutin engineer. In our brief conversation, he gave the impression of one who is always thinking about solving the next problem or technological challenge. Clearly, his enthusiasm for his engine is boundless. And like Smokey Yunick, the legendary inventor of the hot vapor cycle engine, Pelmear is proud that his engine is “all-American.”

Mr. Pelmear is quick to give credit to God for giving him the talents and abilities necessary to develop the HP2g engine. And he seems sincere in his convictions.

Truth With Speedzzter could not help but wonder whether those journalists who interviewed early automotive legends such as Henry Ford back in the day would not have noticed some similarities in Mr. Pelmear. Like those automotive pioneers, Pelmear does not seem put off by the arduous road ahead or the hordes of naysayers. Instead, he’s got vision – which is something sorely lacking in many of the automotive elites and know-it-alls.

In this day and age when the engineering world expects “Goliath” efforts are necessary to make even incremental gains, is it still possible for an obscure, hometown “David” to come along with a fundamental "game-changer" like the HP2g engine?

After five minutes with Doug Pelmear, somehow you want to believe. You want to root for little guys like Team HP2g.

And you desperately want a peak below that mysterious Mustang’s hood . . . .

[INTERNET NEUTRALITY DISCLOSURE: The foregoing report is based on information released by HP2g.com at SEMA 2009 and an interview with Doug Pelmear. It has not been independently verified and should not be relied upon for investment or any other purpose.

HP2g or Doug Pelmear did not provide any compensation, gratuity, or other inducement to Truth With Speedzzter for this report.]

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:54:00 +0000

SPEEDZZTER -- LIVE AT SEMA 2009!

[Get the latest Truth With Speedzzter here]

LAS VEGAS--For the first time ever, Source Interlink Magazines and Ford Motor Company invited twenty-five ordinary citizens to experience the 2009 Specialty Equipment Market Association Show and blog their impressions as to the hottest new trends in the aftermarket.

Truth With Speedzzter is one of the invitees!

Covering SEMA is like taking a sip from a fire hose. Everywhere you turn, there's something new, different and hot. The SEMA Show also allows unprecidented access to industry leaders.

I'm heading back to the show floor. Check back here and at Bangshift.com more . . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:01:00 +0000

SPEEDZZTER DEBATES DOHC V8S AND ECOBOOST

[Get the latest Truth With Speedzzter here]

GM Performance Parts released a "Pre-SEMA Show teaser video" on a "Crate Engine that Changes the Industry." GM's "gamechanger" will be officially announced to the public on the first day of the 2009 SEMA Show (November 3, 2009)

But ridiculous pre-show hype prompted a debate at Bangshift.com on what a hot rod V8 engine that could REALLY change things would be like. Truth With Speedzzter was in the thick of it.

Ford also got into the pre-SEMA publicity game, with a couple of "teasers."

A bevy of tuned Ford Mustangs prompted this discussion involving Truth With Speedzzter.

But the real fireworks ensued when Truth With Speedzzter commented on an EcoBoost V6-powered 1934 Ford street rod that will be shown at the SEMA Show. The debate ranged far and wide on what sort of power a street rod ought to have and whether the EcoBoost program ought to be expanded to V8s (including pocket-sized 2-3.5 liter V8s).

Happy reading!

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:56:00 +0000

BANGSHIFT:"DOES HOLLYWOOD MISTREAT MUSCLECARS?"

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Truth with Speedzzter has been honored with another guest article at Bangshift.com:

"Speedzzter Says: Carnage or Classic, Does Hollywood Mistreat Muscle Cars?"

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:18:00 +0000

ELIMINATOR PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS' "CARBON-FREE" FORD

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions are a huge threat to high-performance motoring.

Among the companies working on a solution is Eliminator Performance Products Eliminator is mostly known around the Ford world as the aftermarket producer of virtually "bulletproof" 460 Ford blocks, heads and industrial engine parts.

But this month at the Iowa Energy Center's "Ammonia – Carbon-free Liquid Fuel Conference", Eliminator debuted a "Carbon-free" 1923 Ford "T-bucket" roadster

Eliminator's big-block Ford runs on hydrogen "cracked" on-board from anhydrous mmonia.

If successful, the process used on Eliminator's T-bucket could be used to help transition into a post-gasoline economy.

A huge barrier to the "zero-carbon" dream, however, is carbon-free production of ammonia. While anhydrous ammonia is one of the world's most commonly-produced chemicals, most production is carbon-fuel intensive.

Still, as long as the World remains gripped by the insanity of the "greenhouse gas/climate change religion," it's good to see "hot rod" ingenuity working out potential solutions.

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:57:00 +0000

IS THE RUMORED BOSS 302R A "COYOTE" PREVIEW?

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Multiple sources, including Bangshift.com, are reporting that Ford will build 50 "Boss 302R" Mustangs in 2010.

Students of recent Ford history will note that Ford has often released an "R model" Mustang or other "special" prior to selling a mass-produced street version with similar power:

300 h.p. 1995 Cobra R, which foreshadowed the 305 h.p. 1996 SVT Cobra;

390 h.p. 2000 Cobra R, which foreshadowed the 390 h.p. 2003 SVT Cobra;

540 h.p. 2008 Shelby GT500KR (as modified by Shelby in Las Vegas or Shelby mod shops) which foreshadowed the 540 h.p. 2010 Shelby GT500.

Now I'm not saying this "R" is a precursor to a street 5.0 "Coyote" Mustang, but it's something to think about . . . .

On the other hand, this move may suggest to some that Ford is going to fumble around and miss the limited window to build an affordable "ultimate" Mustang before Corporate Average Fuel Economy increases kill the party.

As it stands now, GM's 426-horsepower Camaro SS seems to be capturing all of the excitement in the below $45,000 supercar class.

Mustang's sales are reportedly being hurt by the horsepower deficit.

Ford needs to move quick in response to the GM threat. And 50 expensive, track-only cars won't cut it.

Just like the Bosses at the end of the First Supercar Era, the cars that Ford builds in the next couple of years will become legends over the next couple of decades. Let's hope that the bean-counting, appliance-motoring, "steady-Eddie" bureaucrats at Ford doesn't mess this up for all of us.

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:50:00 +0000

SPEEDZZTER DISHES ON THE MUSTANG II AT BANGSHIFT

(Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Ever wonder about "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" Ford's controversial 1974-1978 Mustang II? Get "Truth With Speedzzter's" take at http://www.bangshift.com/blog/Mustang-II-The-Good-The-Bad-and-the-Ugly.html

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:27:00 +0000

SPEEDZZTER: NOW ON BANGSHIFT.COM!

(Get the Latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here)

Truth With Speedzzter is now providing "front page" content for Bangshift.com. Speedzzter's first article is entitled "The Top 11: Never Made Special Edition Ford Mustangs."

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:01:00 +0000

FORD POISED TO LOSE A HUGE SHARE OF COP CAR MARKET

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter here]

Once there was a market dominated by Ford Motor Company. Ford’s product had anvil-like reliability. Parts were cheap. Tooling was amortized. Ford made minimal revisions as its competitors introduced newer, more powerful and stylish vehicles. Ford rationalized its stubborn hubris, claiming that it produced what its customers really needed. And as the model years rolled by, Ford lost its once-dominant place in the market.

The title of this blog entry suggests that the story above is a summary of Ford’s recent performance in the police and taxi fleet markets.

The storied Police Interceptor/Crown Victoria (PI/CV) is an icon of the fleet markets. Its rugged full-frame construction, rear wheel drive, and study beam axle are unmatched for resistance to damage, low maintenance costs, ease of repair, and dependable service.

But Ford’s Glass House Gang have been trying its best to starve the Panther platform upon which the PI/CV is based to death for nearly a decade. No restyling since 1998. No improvements to the suspension or brakes in since the days of the sadly underpowered and conservative Mercury Marauder. Minimal improvements to address concerns about fuel tank fires. No promotion to speak of. No love.

But most importantly, no increases in power to match or beat the newer unibody Dodge Charger or the upcoming unibody GM/Holden Zeta-based RWD police vehicle (formally announced this week as the Chevrolet Caprice PPV).

Both the Hemi Dodge and the 6.0 LS Chevrolet handily outpower and out-torque the weak two-valve SOHC PI. In fact, Dodge even touts that its standard six beats FoMoCo’s neglected and underdeveloped V8! Despite having a modestly deep shelf of better V8s to offer in the Panther, the stubborn hubris of the Panther-haters in the Glass House has kept the PI standing pat with less power and torque than even a 1996 “Shamu” 9C1 Caprice!

Gravely myopic sorts approved the Volvo-derived D3 platform, despite its inability to accept the FWD-compromised Modular V8. It flopped, of course. These same folks now seem to believe that the company who brought Americans the low-cost V8 can survive without them – blinded by a haze of EcoBoost promises and rationalizations.

They’ve undoubtedly deluded themselves to believe that some sort of cheap, unitized AWD six-cylinder “Police Interceptor” will fill in for the legendary Panther when the expensive Canadians who assemble Town Cars, Mercury Grand Marquises, and “the last of the [real] Interceptors” are canned as “centrally-planned” in the next couple of years.

These are the sorts of “steady Eddie” bureaucrats and bean-counters who, armed with charts and reams of “market research,” convinced everyone that the lack-luster Edsel would succeed. They are the know-it-all “no” brigade. They perennially seem to think that “just good enough” to snag some “market share” (thereby justifying their continued employment)is the only goal.

They're the “appliance motorists” who cannot see the folly in sending a Mustang GT to market that’s down 100 horsepower to its competitors.

They’re the ones who have no understanding of the aftermarket.

They’re the ones who are willfully ignorant about how underpowered Fords are perceived in the marketplace.

They’re the ones who don’t understand the powerful psychology behind V8 power and traditional RWD automobiles.

Ford doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel here. No uni-body cop car will ever match the reliability, durability, and easy maintenance of the strapping, full-frame Panther. Merely pumping up the optional propellant to SVT Cobra levels would go a long way to fending off the charge of the Chargers and the coming invasion of the U.S. Government-backed Australians.

The bureaucrats and bean-counters, however, have too much invested in the death of the Panther to listen to common sense or customer desire.

Deep down, they don’t really care about beating Dodge or GM. They don’t care about building milestone vehicles. They don’t care about Ford’s bulletproof reputation in the fleet markets. All they worry about is being proven “correct” on page 500 of some cost report. All they dream of is forcing fleet customers into some too-small, too-weak, too-slow, lackluster FWD civilian sedan that most of the cops on the beat do not want as a means to slash parts inventories and assembly complexity.

In short, Ford is poised to lose a huge share of the police market because it has chosen to neglect the legendary Panther, instead of building on its herculean strengths.

As for the introductory story, historians recognize that it is about Ford’s Model T. The T once commanded half of the U.S. new car market. Yet Henry Ford’s stubbornness kept FoMoCo from keeping up with the competition. Ex-Ford executive William S. Knudsen used the opportunity to build Chevrolet from an also ran into a juggernaut which outsold Ford.

Ford never really recovered from the time Henry wasted in the mid-20s.

Ford is on the brink of the same disaster today in its police and taxi fleet market. Ford is blowing yet another lead.

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:00:00 +0000

SPEEDZZTER DEBATES A NASCAR FAN (WHO STYLES LIKE e.e. cummings)

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter here]

Mention NASCAR’s malaise, its move away from actual “stock car” racing to a “common everything” spec racer series, and NASCAR’s glacial pace of technological change in comparison to OEM production cars, and you’ll often trigger a spirited debate.

The following are excerpts from just such a debate over at www.bangshift.com.

Speedzzter.blogspot (September 23, 2009): [Joined in progress]

If they went back to racing ACTUAL PRODUCTION-BASED STOCK CARS under a reasonable rule package, it wouldn't cost $40,000,000 a year to field a team.

NASCAR could learn plenty from V8 Supercar racing down under.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SpiderGearsMan (September 23, 2009):

yeah road racing is really packin them in here , the last grand american race on tv loooked like it was in an abandoned parking lot
aussie racing ? yeah , the run the LS motor down there , but road racing is not major league in the USA
dirt tracks get bigger crowds , which sprint cup should be doing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speedzzter.blogspot (September 23, 2009):

The sort of things that NASCAR could learn from V8 Supercar racing are:

1. Production-based sedans can still put on a good, close show. And the fans can relate better to race cars that are based on what they can buy.

2. Multiple races on a weekend (think short track-style heat races) are more exciting than a bunch of boring practice (Why does Speed TV waste air time on it?), single car qualfying (Yawn. Same question) and a long, overblown "A Main" event.

3. Forcing the OEMs to stay in the homologated "production" box is the best way to control costs and tighten up competition.

4. A variety of tracks (not more cookie-cutters) is good. Very good.

5. There's no valid technical reason why the driver's door cannot open now. (It's not 1950 anymore. Better latches, cages, and safety seats can portect the drivers well enough without all the "traditional" "Dukes of Hazard" theatrics)

There are lots of reasons why the "gate" for road racing isn't what it should be. (And I wasn't suggesting that NASCAR should become a road course series) On the other hand, anyone who has been to a NASCAR road race or to a well-established tradition such as Sebring can testify that Americans will watch road course events under the right circumstances.

Attendance at Grand-Am events is hardly indicative because they have a terrible TV package, minimal tradition, poor promotion, confusing class structures (the Koni Challenge cars never run in prime time) and few, if any stars known outside of the discrete and insular world of Grand-Am followers.

One should note that NASCAR Cup attendance wasn't all that great until it became a TV phenomenon in the 1980s. They used to only have about 25,000 seats at places like Bristol and Martinsville. And places like Texas World Speedway near Houston couldn't hardly give away tickets.

Dirt doesn't work on TV very well (too "dirty," ugly pictures), but NASCAR was better back when they had a few dirt shows to spice up the schedule (Before Winston brought in the "modern era" and killed the mid-week shows)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SpiderGearsMan (September 25, 2009):

nascar should return to inline valve engines, too
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speedzzter.blogspot (September 29, 2009):

Why not just return to flatheads and 1938-40 Ford coupe bodies? That's what they ran when NASCAR first started.

A better plan than staying stuck in 1975 would be to race what's actually for sale to the general public (with proper safety upgrades that is)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SpiderGearsMan (October 30, 2009):

you forget olds and chryslerhemis were the cars to beat in the first years of grand nationals flatheads are farm implement motors that were obsolete in the post war era
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speedzzter.blogspot (September 29, 2009):

Yeah, that would explain why the flathead 6-equipped Hudson Hornet won half of the NASCAR Manufacturer's championships before 1955.

http://www.legendsofnascar.com/Hudson.htm;

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/motorsports/4303620.html?page=9

BTW, the architect of Hudson's success in NASCAR was one VINCE PIGGINS. http://www.hemmings.com/mus/stories/2005/07/01/hmn_feature8.html

Bangshifters know Piggins later went on to run Chevrolet's clandestine motorsports operations (in violation of the AMA Ban and the 1963 GM Board's insistence upon abiding by it. Much of the reason that GM had so much success after factory support for NASCAR and drag racing dried up in the 1970s was the "heavy duty" parts operation that Piggins, Zora Arkus-Duntov and their co-conspirators had already put into place to circumvent the corporate "no racing" edict.)

Actually the flathead was technically obsolete as soon as the world had seen Peugeot's DOHC during the 1913 racing season. Jules Goux won the Indianapolis 500 in 1913 with a 4-valve Peugeot. Every four-valve powerplant from that day forward, including such legends as the 1967 Ford-Cosworth DFV and the venerable Offenhauser, owes much of their basic concept to a 1913 Peugeot!

But flatheads were cheap, easy to build, and made adequate power for ordinary driving.

Henry Ford's breakthrough of a cheap monoblock flathead V8 wasn't that much technological. (Even arch competitor Chevrolet had overhead valves) It was a breakthrough in price because it made V8s available to the masses.

Nor was Chevrolet's "Motoramic" 1955 V8 much of a technological breakthrough. It was merely a cheap-to-build, elegantly-simple application of mostly decades-old ideas.

The amazing thing was that the "Motoramic" '55 Chevrolet only won a handful of NASCAR events that year. Oldsmobile won the Manufacturers Championship while Chrysler had the most series wins (27). But from the overhyped advertising of the day, Chevy made it sound like they were dominating, blowing its occassional wins all out of proportion.

Chevrolet never won a championship until 1958 (after GM had conned everyone into the infamous 1957 A.M.A. racing ban on factory sponsored motorsports -- a ban that GM cheated on like Bill Clinton at a college sorority house. (BTW, Ford won the 1956 and 1957 Manufacturers Championship. Ford also won seven straight Championships in the 1960s (1963-1969).

Sadly because Ford killed virtually all factory support of motorsports and "Muscle Parts" programs in November 1970, Chevrolet caught up and passed Ford in the number of championships in the 1970s and 1980s.

Ford's stupid decision to pull out of racing meant that it would not win another NASCAR Manufacturers Championship until 1992. Ford was basically splitting Manufacturers Championships with GM in the late '90s and early 2000s, but NASCAR's legalization of the "cheater" SB2 and RO7 engines tipped the scales too far in GM's direction.)

My point was that picking out some era of history and tying racing to it probably says more about the nostalgia and manufacturer loyalties of the proponent than the inherent technological efficacy of that era.

If we're turning back the calendar to "fix" racing from the scourge of "technology," then the flathead has just as much or more of claim than does OHV engines.

It's real simple, folks:

Production car with a factory VIN + driver's safety pod + cage + bolt-ons (factory spindles and wheels just won't take pounding of the high banks) = Real Stock Car = Fan interest = relevant to "Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday" = fixes NASCAR.

Any questions?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SpiderGearsMan:

they haven't been that way since 1965
why the problem now , buckaroo ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speedzzter.blogspot:

And that was bad.

It was some of what started us down this slippery slope that's crashed into the hideous "COT" heap. But at least the Holman-Moody "3/4 chassis" Fairlanes looked like something you could buy at your local Ford store. Too bad they were "reskinned" every year and/or ended up getting beat to death on some forgotten dirt track.

The COT looks like something that ought to be sitting out back with a recycling symbol on the side.

NASCAR, and to a lesser extent NHRA, have been horrible for automotive development in America.

Examples: Supercharger and fuel injection ban (don't even think about a turbo), 7 liter displacement limit of the 1960s, rules against multiple values and overhead cams, rules against more than five speeds, IRS ban & the antique "truck arm" suspension. All of these things have hurt technology "trickle down" and market pressure for advancing the state-of-the-art in production cars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SpiderGearsMan:

we as gearheads worship 1969 tech

does efi - irs -bigger tires make the racing better ? hell no
too much aero tech and downforce have ruined the racing
your favorite barge - the mustang - eschews weak ass IRS in favor of a live axle
we love live axles - we love . . . holley double pumpers
every short track car runs ft v8 - 4 speed - rwd
hell , a lot of oval track cars run quick change rears featuring 1938 ford gears and wide 5 hubs on the 37 ford bolt pattern
tradition is huge in this sport
the people attached to it
like ron sperry designs the chev heads
that the double pumper was designed by ralph johnson in smokey's shop
that the super t 10 came in my new trans am
that ed cole and harry barr designed the sbc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speedzzter.blogspot:
Spidey, I'll agree with you that IRS is of limited value for sedan racing as long as the track is smooth. I can see no value for IRS in drag racing. Thus, Mustang's beam axle give it an advantage over Camaro for street/strip duty.

But circle track racing has ossified and mostly lost its relevance to the streets because the rule packages limit technical advancement.

BTW, I love sprint cars and watch several sprint car shows live every year at my local track.

But, it makes no sense to me that a kid who loves dirt can't go pull a EFI V8 out of a salvage, rebuild it, and run in the Bomber or Factory Stock class. It makes no sense that only two-valve pushrod engines are "stock legal" when Detroit has built millions of OHC engines during the past twenty years.

As for keeping costs low with "1969 tech" -- it doesn't. Most competitors running a carb'd SBC have spent thouands on aftermarket parts. Every "wide-five" you see at the speedway is an aftermarket reproduction. Most all of those four-speeds still running are pro-built racing transmissions from Tex or Jerico or someone else.

And I place most of the blame on the leadership of NASCAR. A leadership which over the decades lost their grip on what made "stock car" racing attractive to the general public. The local tracks follow NASCAR's lead. And NASCAR's focus on purpose-built, non-production "common" spec everything has lead us into a black hole.

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:52:00 +0000

RANDOM THOUGHTS ON THE RENAULT FORMULA ONE CHEATING SCANDAL

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

Nelson Piquet, Jr.’s vindictive admission of an intentional crash in last year’s Singapore Grand Prix has imperiled Renault’s Formula One effort and sidelined former team manager Flavio Briatore and former engineering director Pat Symonds.

Although “Truth With Speedzzter” usually doesn’t think much of the haggard, liberal “Old Grey Lady” (the New York Times), it published a thought-provoking analysis of the cheating fiasco by Brad Spurgeon. (Special thanks to Brian Lohnes at Bangshift for linking to the NYT story)

Truth With Speedzzter has the following random thoughts based on the NYT story:

1. Except for the obvious safety risk, is Renault’s scheme really any different than some of the manufactured cautions in NASCAR? Or "team orders?" Or campaigning for rules packages and franchising -- which protect the "stars" and the "haves" against the unheralded and the "have nots?"

(Where one comes down on this probably is a fairly decent indicator of one's level and stage of moral reasoning)

2. Nearly anybody with a thinking brain suspected the crash was orchestrated long before Piquet talked.

3. It may not be fair, but this is probably a career-ending move for Piquet (unless he wants to work as a Hollywood stunt driver or as a stand-in for "Top Gear's" "The Stig.")

Why? (a) because he succumbed to real or imagined pressure and did it in the first place ;(b) he talked about doing it; (c) he talked about it to retaliate against his co-conspirators.

4. The NYT piece contains the following quote:

"Criminality is not a perverted disposition to do evil rather than good," [Colin] Wilson wrote in "A Criminal History of Mankind." "It is merely a childish tendency to take shortcuts. All crime has the nature of a smash and grab raid; it is an attempt to get something for nothing. The thief steals instead of working for what he wants."

While this may describe some property crimes (and most cheating in motorsports . . . and the NYT's Jason Blair), it seems inadequate to explain evil and/or selfish acts motivated by rationales other than greed, covetousness, and self-aggrandizement.

Was the sadistic bully who popped you in the mouth on the playground "taking a shortcut?" (To where? The WWE?)

Were the September 11th highjackers "taking a shortcut?" (To what? Converting America into a fundamentalist Muslim police state? “Scoring” with 72 mindless, nubile bimbos in Mohammed’s heretical, egocentric, and ersatz version of “heaven?”)

Is the graffiti vandal "taking a shortcut" to The Louve?

More fundamentally, why isn't taking "something for nothing" evil?
Of course Jesus Christ would not agree with Colin Wilson’s new-age soft pedaling of criminality: “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” Matthew 15:19

Of course, in the erudite, urban, pink-tinted, fellow-traveling world of the NYT, about the only “evil” left after deconstructionism and political correctness is: (a) the Bush Administration; (b) conservative talk radio and blogs; (c) Fox News; (d) serious, traditional, conservative Christians.

Another Bangshift discussion on an aesthetically hideous, formerly Chevy-powered Mustang II being hawked on eBay prompts these observations:

1. There is simply no justification for putting a BBC in a Ford. Any Ford.

BBFs (FEs, Cammers, 429/460, Boss) can make all the power you'll ever get to the pavement on the street.

Perhaps this is another place where that quote from the NYT story on Renault/Piquet fits: Installing a Chevy in a Ford is "a childish tendency to take shortcuts."

2. As for the nose (which Brian Lohnes asked for discussion of). . . who knew that Michael Jackson's plastic surgeon did auto body? . . .

I suspect N.Y. Governor David Patterson could have done better, even after a couple of hits off of a crack pipe and with another "floozie" in his arms (See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23785969/)

Is that thing made out of the box that a Mustang II came in?

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:07:00 +0000

“THE JAY LENO SHOW” IS NO “TOP GEAR”

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

NBC’s first airing of the "new" prime-time comedy talker, "The Jay Leno Show," was juxtaposed between two episodes of “Top Gear” on BBC America.

Undoubtedly more than a few American gearheads watched all three programs in sequence. After all, “Top Gear” brings approximately 350 million views worldwide, airing in more than 100 countries. And Jay Leno’s move to prime time has been one of this season’s most hyped gambles. Moreover, Leno is perhaps the most famous automobile collector and enthusiast in America.

Given his automotive passion, some probably expected Leno’s new prime-time program – freed from the traditions of “The Tonight Show” – to take his comedic talents more in the direction of motoring. Some perhaps even hoped that Leno would “drive” in the direction of “Top Gear.”

On the other hand, “Top Gear’s” politically-incorrect Jeremy Clarkson is supposed to have once said that Americans “don’t get it” when plans for a lame U.S. copy of “Top Gear” were shelved.

(And more than a year ago, Leno rejected being part of an Americanized "Top Gear" knockoff: "I have such respect for the original show, I feel if they asked me to do it I would be a pale imitation of Jeremy [Clarkson]. . . . Cars are my hobby. Television is my job. . . .I don’t want it to be my job.")

Now that the first episode of Leno's prime time show has aired, it’s clear that NBC and Leno took Clarkson’s commentary to heart. They traveled a relatively safe, time-worn route, aping not “Top Gear,” but Leno’s old “Tonight Show.” They aimed not for “Top Gear’s” erudite and sophisticated motoring enthusiasts, but at the boring, Toyota Camry-driving, know-nothing mass of middle America.

It’s as if all NBC really wanted to do by transplanting Leno to prime time was to compensate for the emerging likelihood of earlier bedtimes of Leno’s aging baby boomer audience. (Of course NBC’s other objective was to fill the “Ten O’Clock” time slot with a program that costs about one-tenth as much as a scripted drama)

Not that the first episode of “The Jay Leno Show” didn’t try to court the “coveted” 18-49 demographic.

A cringe inducing send-up of the horrible hidden camera adultery investigation show “Cheaters” was clearly aimed at a younger audience. And Leno had the good fortune of having booked Kanye West to appear almost imediately after his incident with Taylor Swift (which some skeptics assume was staged) at the otherwise forgettable MTV Video Music Awards.

But Leno’s supposedly impromptu interview of West took on the overtones of a visit to the school principal’s office, with West avoiding eye contact with the camera and Leno’s silencing query about what would West’s mother think about his actions. It was also clear West had memorized one fake “mea culpa” answer, which he seemed to repeat in response to every question.

Yet the fakeness of the interview was underscored when the just-laconic West donned his sunglasses and recaptured his defiant hip-hop swagger when he performed “Run This Town” with Jay-Z and Rihanna. (Rihanna's strange costume looked like one of the infamous Lady GaGa's rejects)

Perhaps the worst segment of the show was a pre-taped “car wash entertainer” bit that was both risque and creepy at the same time.

The balance of the show was merely vintage Leno “Tonight Show” chestnuts, albeit presented on an oversized stage. Leno's main guest was Jerry Seinfeld, with a cheesy video pop-in by Oprah Winfrey. While this “shot” at the fading, shrill David Letterman (who often whines that Oprah won’t appear on “Late Night With David Letterman”) was mildly entertaining, booking Seinfeld was obviously calculated to appeal to Leno’s baby boomer fans. Even Seinfeld made fun of the booking, pointing out that he’s been out of the NBC line-up for over a decade.

Of course, one could hardly blame NBC and Leno for taking the safe route. Leno’s massive fortune and huge collection of antique automobiles and motorcycles was paid for by the success of Leno’s “Tonight Show” performances. And NBC is taking a significant gamble that the late night talk format will garner sufficient “quality” ratings every night in prime time.

Yet the result seemed as bland and stale as a designed-by-committee Chevrolet Celebrity from the 1980s. Or perhaps one of the old Rovers that Jeremy Clarkson loves to lambaste.

The real problem with the accidental sandwiching of Leno between episodes of “Top Gear” is that it made Leno’s show seem to drag by in comparison. While the hours of “Top Gear” blasted by faster than “The Stig” in an Italian supercar, Leno’s show had the pace and energy of an “Old School” lowrider “bomb” scraping “low-n-slow” down the boulevard.

Even comparison of the theme songs echoed Leno’s blandness. For years, “Top Gear” has used (inexplicably for an otherwise distinctly British show) incredible riffs sampled from the Allman Brothers’ 1970s Southern Rock classic “Jessica” (albeit Dickey Betts’ timeless tune has been updated with a splash of techno). It’s a catchy theme that sticks with viewers and seems to capture the irrelevant zeitgeist and “sub zero” coolness of Jeremy Clarkson, Richard “Hamster” Hammond, “Captain Slow” James May, and the mysterious “Stig.”

It’s doubtful that anyone’s humming the musical mishmash that Kevin Eubanks and the “Prime Time Band” offered up to start the first prime time Leno show. (Perhaps Eubanks should have spent more time on the theme and less time on the icky “Cheaters” segment)

In short, Leno’s new/old show was a “misfire.” A missed opportunity. Perhaps not a total "spinout" or "shunt," but a disappointing "slow lap" nonetheless.

According to media reports, subsequent airings of “Leno” will attempt some “Top Gear” style hijinks, such as an “advertiser-friendly ‘Green Car Challenge.’” “ Two to three times each week, celebrities will drive an electric Ford Focus and try to set records on a compact 1,100-foot outdoor track.” This segment is clearly inspired by “Top Gear’s” entertaining “Star in a Reasonably-Priced Car” segment, albeit obviously compromised for political correctness.

And it’s unfair to compare Leno’s low-budget, somewhat "low-brow" comedy show with a near-legendary filmed program of “epic” proportions. But gearheads will nonetheless. And many of us will lament that Leno has failed to put more “Top Gear” excitement into his new venture.

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:42:00 +0000

ROUSH FENWAY RACING: NO “BRAWN” OR “FORCE” (BUT AT LEAST IT’S NOT RICHARD PETTY MOTORSPORTS)

[Get the latest Truth With Speedzzter here]

Roush Fenway Racing (RFR) is limping into the made-for-television “Chase” to NASCAR's Sprint Cup. (Or at least 2/5ths of RFR is)

And the odds of a common-template “Ford Fusion” winning the 2009 Sprint Cup must be astronomical. While a paltry 1/6th of the “Chasers” will have “Ford” decals on their look-alike “NASCARs,” Roushkateers “Cousin” Carl Edwards and Greg Biffle both hobbled their RFR funnyCar-of-Tomorrow “Fords” into the tail end of the Chase with sagging momentum and slim win prospects.

(Ford plans to introduce its new “common-specification,” non-production NASCAR engine at the Chase race in Charlotte, but whether it will make any impact on the title hopes of the Biff or Cousin Carl is unknown.)

The real heartbreaker was the failure of the only Ford driver ever to make all of the prior “Chases” – 2009 Daytona 500 winner and 2003 Cup Champion Matt Kenseth – to make the cut. Kenseth floundered in the “regular season”-ending race at Richmond, while a pair of “Toyotas” provided the only drama for the twelfth-place Chase “bump-spot.”

Contrast RFR’s apparent lack of performance and “strategery” with some of September’s headliners in motorsports:

1. Ford’s favorite drag racing organization, John Force Racing, stepped up and not only put a phalanx of fuel funny cars into NHRA’s version of the “Chase,” the wily John Force knocked rival Cruz Pedregon out. Critics (mostly the Pedregons) claim that Force manipulated the results of his match-up with teammate Robert Hight at the U.S. Nationals to get Hight’s“fuel coupe” into the “Countdown.” The NHRA found no evidence. But even if Force did “dump” at the “Big Go”, he “dumped” with style, timing, and strategy.

(In thanks for all the controversy, the NHRA fined Force $10,000 (ostensibly for shoving an NHRA official who stepped into an argument between Force and one of the whining Pedragon brothers). Actually, the NHRA probably ought to be paying Force $100,000 for all of the free publicity that the NHRA has reaped from the brouhaha).

In contrast to the strategic success of John Force Racing, RFR had more than one-in-ten cars in the field at Richmond, but lacked the tactics or performance to get Matt Kenseth into the Chase.

2. The real masters of strategy in September have been the Brawn GP team in Formula One. Leading the Constructors and Drivers championships based on early season success, Brawn slumped during the summer months. Some wags questioned whether Jensen Button and Rubens Barrichello could put their Brawns into the winners circle after the “Big Teams” seemed to regain their form. The early dominance of Brawn looked like a distant anomaly.

Rubens Barrichello, who is the only driver remaining in the series to have matched up against Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost (and one who suffered through three frustrating, winless seasons in Jackie Stewart’s Fords), managed to overcome the Brawn slump with a surprising victory in the European Grand Prix. It was Barrichello’s first win in five seasons.

Still, many thought Barrichello’s win as a fluke and believed Brawn’s storybook season was still going to come crashing down.

Yet Brawn – down 80 brake horsepower to the better-funded KERS-equipped teams – used an impeccable one-stop strategy to take another one-two finish at the historic Grand Prix of Italy (only a day after Kenseth’s flop at Richmond).

Any doubts that the Brawn GP cars are among the best handling and easiest on the soft “option” tires were erased at Monza.

Again, brilliant driving and a well-executed strategy produced spectacular results.

Also it appears that the Mercedes 2.4-liter V8 is emerging as the engine to have in Formula One. That’s a bitter pill for those who remember the domination of the Cosworth Ford V8s before the 1980s Turbo Era. One wonders what if Ford would have taken better care of Cosworth’s customer engine business in the 1980s and 1990s . . . .

Back in the homogenized “common-template” spec-racer world of NASCAR . . . among the more interesting news to come out of the Richmond weekend was the announcement of a merger in 2010 between Ford-aligned Yates Racing and the Dodge-aligned Richard Petty Motorsports (formerly Gillett Evernham Motorsports).

Although many expected RPM to dump bankrupt Dodge for cash-flush Toyota, the new Petty-Yates superteam will be “Powered by Ford” in 2010. “Yates driver Paul Menard will join RPM's three-car team of Kasey Kahne, Elliott Sadler and AJ Allmendinger.”

This isn’t Richard Petty’s first flirtation with Fords. Petty wheeled a Ford Torino in the 1969 season. And the defunct Petty Engineering team ran a Ford Thunderbird after “The King” took his Pontiacs to Mike Curb’s team in the early 1980s.

Perhaps if Richard Petty had aligned with Ford back in the days when Iacocca’s Dodge Division was abandoning NASCAR (at the time of the first bailout in the 1970s) or even later when the Daimler-Benz owned “DaimlerChrysler” was cribbing from Ford’s NASCARs to return to “Cup,” this news would be a little more exciting. But after decades of weak performance, the name “Richard Petty” is arguably synonymous with both failure and everything that’s wrong with the modern, corporate marketing-driven, common-template mess that is today’s NASCAR.

At least the new RPM should help the Ford car count in 2010. Whether the new Ford-powered RPM will challenge Roush Fenway (or more importantly the Toyotas and the Hendrick Chevrolets) remains to be seen.

Perhaps the slogan for Ford Racing ought to be “there’s always next year . . . .”

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:21:00 +0000

TWENTY YEARS OF MANDATORY AIR BAGS . . . AND A FEW C4C “AIRBAGS” FROM CALIFORNIA

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

On September 1, 1989, driver side air bags became mandatory in all new cars built for sale in the United States.

While the safety record for air bags is mixed (and thankfully Speedzzter has never deployed an air bag), most certainly some owe their lives to them.

Our larger problem, however, is a different kind of “air bag.”

The sort of air bag that deploys every time we exercise our automotive liberties in ways they don’t approve of. These “air bags” are “green” and are working to outlaw or regulate out of existence virtually all of the automotive hobbies and most grassroots motorsports.

The Greeniac "air bags" view almost all hot rodding as "tampering." They see all antique vehicles as "gross polluters." And they provide no alternatives or incentives to help vintage automobile enthusiasts enjoy their passion while minimizing and mitigating the environmental effects.

These Green "air bags" see car-crushing “buy backs” such as the CARS Act as a potentially potent tool in their attack on automotive liberty. Although the CARS Act has now thankfully wheezed off into history, the propaganda war for the next round of vehicle scrappage has already begun.

They are the new "mandatory air bags." Hopefully they won't stay in power for the next twenty years . . . .

Chad Lohnes over at Bangshift.com and Daniel Strohl over at Hemmings Motor News spotted a recent Los Angeles Times story by a couple of apparent "green air bags" (Ralph Vartabedian and Ken Bensinger) which trashed the Specialty Equipment Market Association’s effort to limit the horrific damage done by “Cash for Clunkers” to vehicles built after 1984.

The story, entitled “Why 'clunkers' program won't take some of the most polluting cars” amounted to a thinly-veiled call to expand the “War against V8s” and vintage vehicles to vandalize and destroy the 3-5% of the vehicle fleet that was built before 1984.

See, Truth With Speedzzter told you so!

Here's part of what I sent to one of the alleged journos via e-mail and posted over at Bangshift: (feel free to copy, modify and e-mail to them if you like)

I found your article to be highly one-sided and biased toward the state-sponsored vandalism of low-priced vintage vehicles. The free market, not some taxpayer-funded welfare program ought to decide which vehicles survive and which do not. Short-sighted schemes such as “Cash for Clunkers” corrode the free market. They also breed welfare sucklings who depend of borrowed-tax-money funded handouts. This dampens personal industry and self-reliance.

Of course the real intent of these programs is to drive people out of the automotive hobbies. As General Phillip Sheridan proposed in 1866, “Kill the buffalo and you will kill the Indians.” [see the “Buffalo” post link in the “Best of Speedzzter” sidebar]

It’s the same with vintage automobile interests. Basic economics teaches that as costs and barriers to participation rise, fewer chose to participate. If the power-mad environmental lobby can deplete the supply of affordable “vintage” donor and potential collector cars, the price of used replacement parts will necessarily skyrocket. In some situation, this could cause severe damage to the aftermarket. These state-sponsored vandalism plans also hurt vehicle resale markets and many small businesses who depend on servicing vintage vehicle market niches.

Nor do public relations “puff pieces” supporting vehicle scrappage like yours take into account the entire “life-cycle” cost to the environment of a vintage vehicle. Virtually all of the energy and pollution costs of producing a vintage vehicle have already been “amortized” to the environment. And such vehicles have a limited impact on air pollution, notwithstanding the handwringing claims of “experts’ at [the California Air Resources Board (CARB)]. The comparison of the Malibus [A CARB hack compared a pre-emission controls Chevelle with a current Malibu in the story] is most unfair, given both the rarity of such models for regular transportation use and the infinitesimally tiny amount of “pollution” of most current new vehicles. Most chain saws, motorcycles and lawn mowers probably emit several times the “pollution” as the imaginary new Malibu -- and are much more common than a vintage 1960s collector car -- but they are not singled out for venom and slack-jawed demonization. Based on their cumulative effect (e.g. vehicle miles driven), many, if not most, of the vehicles destroyed in Cash for Clunkers plans are NOT “some of the most polluting cars.”

These wasteful plans are indiscriminate. They sweep up fairly common-place utility models as well as rare milestone vehicles which have the misfortune to be at the low ebb of the depreciation cycle and in the custody of greedy, welfare-loving “appliance motorists.” However, to true students of automotive history and design, any pointless destruction of potential collector or donor vehicles is an irreplaceable loss to future generations of motoring enthusiasts.

Much like a ban on “Saturday Night Specials,” Cash for Clunkers disproportionately attacks the lower economic classes. It is therefore elitist in effect.

Cash for Clunkers programs also disproportionately affect affordable V8 powered vehicles. Some have described them a as a “war on V8s.” Given the coming hikes in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (motivated in part to placate a minority of California enviro-socialists), fewer RWD V8s will be produced and the few that survive will become significantly less affordable. Thus, one of the apparent aims of Cash for Clunkers plans is to limit the availability of traditional V8 performance vehicles.

Undoubtedly the most radical of the greens (and some allegedly “objective” journalists) will not be satisfied until vehicular liberty is decimated. A world of slaves to public transportation and/or electric micro-golf cars is their nirvana. I suspect that is your goal as well.

Your story did a real disservice to all readers who hold a more balanced, historically-sensitive perspective in the war against automotive liberty.

The discussion at Bangshift eventually turned to Hot Rod Magazine’s legendary “Crusher Camaro.” That was a project car from a couple of decades ago which was snatched out of line from a stupid UNOCAL “clunker” purchase program (If memory serves, UNOCAL was trying to offset the pollution of a California refining operation . . . which foreshadows what will happen on a larger scale if “Cap and Trade” ever become law).

Hot Rod Magazine honcho David Freiburger has written that the Crusher Camaro will likely return for an encore.
There’s a larger opportunity here.

The Crusher Camaro originally emphasized the point that properly-tuned vintage hot rods don’t really pollute all that much (especially when their limited use is factored in)

But Hot Rod could do more this go-around. The point that needs to be made now is this: if the environmentalists and CARB bureaucrats really weren't anti-hot rod and generally anti-car, they would make compliance easier and cheaper.

Maybe when Mr. Freiburger brings back the Crusher Camaro, he'll do some sort of home-brewed "green machine" version of it to tweak our know-it-all car-hating critics and point out the ridiculousness of the current regulatory scheme.

A reborn "Crusher" powered by a hybrid Tahoe powertrain** (turbocharged and converted to E-85***) would open a few eyes . . . . It would also be interesting to see how much CARB would hassle such a set-up. (CARB seemingly hates aftermarket turbocharging and CARB’s engine swap rules are byzantine to say the least.)

_______________________________

**Truth With Speedzzter realizes that this driveline is virtually unobtainable for 99.9% of rodders and that hybrids are dependent rare earth metals that are becoming in short supply And Truth With Speedzzter is also aware of the complexity of such a swap.

*** Truth With Speedzzter is aware that E-85 is often criticized as on environmental grounds, And it's not really available in Cali . . . But you can run so much more freakin' manifold pressure (turbo boost) with it!

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:36:00 +0000

ECOBOOST® OR “ECOBUST”: INSIDE FORD’S NEW TURBO ENGINE (And a response to the FREEP’s Mark Phelan)

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

When Ford Motor Company ® first proposed a new line of turbocharged “TwinForce” engines, many of FoMoCo’s long-suffering turbo fans had visions of 7,000+ r.p.m. redlines and “fifteen minute hop-ups” to 500 horsepower dancing in their heads.

The more idealistic turbophiles imagined that Ford would take the good parts of the late Yamaha SHO V6 design, such as the beautiful variable geometry intake manifold, and then add modern turbocharging.

Some crazies even anticipated that the Glass House Gang would tap into the Zeitgeist of Ford’s storied V8 heritage and the current 2.4-liter V8 limit in Formula One to offer a fully-modern, displacement-on-demand, VTEC-equipped (Variable Valve Timing and Lift Electronic Control) twin turbo (or even "twincharged") mini-V8.

(No matter how much high-tech "lipstick" you put on a V6, it's still a "PIG SIX" and not a V8. Moreover, cubic inch displacement, not cylinder count is the primary factor in off-boost fuel efficiency)

When news came out about Ford-ex Dr. Neil Ressler landing at Ethanol Boosting Systems, turbo lovers expected Ford’s new turbo mills to come with direct, on-demand injection of ethanol, providing a 160+ effective octane support for huge, ZR1-killing boost spikes, combined with brilliant off-boost fuel economy that cannot be matched by old-school two-valve pushrod engines.

And when Alan Mulally’s marketing crew reacted to the anti-performance political hurricane flowing from Democrat-controlled Washington D.C. by renamed the turbo engines under the silly “EcoBoost” moniker, turbo fans held their breath and kept the faith that finally Dearborn would offer state-of-the-art high performance turbo engines.

What were WE all smoking?

FoMoCo’s engine department – which often seems more conservative than Barry Goldwater and less creative than Barry Mantilow – has delivered up an underwhelming initial installment for the EcoBoost saga: The 365-horse 3.5 EcoBoost V6.

While the gory details have been known in industry circles for some time, Stephen Kim, in the October 2009 issue of Popular Hot Rodding Magazine, gives the general public the most clear insight yet into how Ford’s engineers and bean-counters slouched their way into building a V6 that’s really not that much better than what could (and should) have been offered fifteen years ago.

And as PHR's sickeningly fawning espose' on the EcoBoost 6 shows, much of this technology will not be "rodder friendly" in the initial years.

The EcoBoost 3.5 has a brace of tiny GT15 turbos that run out of breath at 200 h.p. each. The pistons and rods are not forged. The intake and exhaust manifolds are probably the worst things this side of an antique A-series BMC. The compression/boost relationship is virtually maxed out at the factory. The rev limit is a pushrod-esque 6,200 r.p.m.

There is no displacement-on-demand, or variable geometry intake, or full VTEC (just variable cam phasing), or direct ethanol injection.

Seemingly the lessons learned by the Ramchargers nearly fifty years ago on the scientific design of intake and exhaust manifolds have been lost or, more likely, ignored to placate the penny-pinchers.

To say these pedestrian specifications are tractor-like, is probably an insult to some of the high-tech tractors now available.

Moreover, the early tests report that Ford’s electronic management of the EcoBoost system manages to deprive enthusiasts of the sensations and sounds that have made turbocharging legendary. It’s as if Ford set out to engineer a clandestine, tamper-proof “black box” engine that no ordinary motorist would even suspect was turbocharged.

About the only really exciting development that probably couldn’t have been offered in the late 1980s or 1990s is direct injection. GDI allows for a stratified charge at part throttle, more targeted fuel induction events, and in-cylinder evaporative cooling. All good stuff, but an expensive, steep hill to climb for tuners and hot rodders.

Thus, turning the not-so-stunning 3.5 EcoBoost into a legitimate performance engine will take buckets of money and time. (a limp 104 horsepower per liter isn’t exactly the stuff of legends)

Also, given the fact that the underwhelming initial installment of the EcoBoost family will be implanted into a series of 4000+ pound AWD sleds, any aftermarket pressure to develop the engine may be initially limited. And the EcoBoost V6 option runs over a couple of thousand dollars – which doesn’t exactly feel like the deal of the century.

Maybe it will get better in future installments. But the first chapter of EcoBoost is decidedly less exciting than some anticipated.

That, of course, hasn’t stopped many in the legitimate media to uncritically sing Ford’s praises for offering up such tardy and expensive mediocrity. In addition to Mr. Kim (who undoubtedly has to keep his sources at Ford happy), many “buff books” have treated the EcoBoost with the reverence of the Second Coming. They only obliquely point out the inferior relationship of the EcoBoost-equipped vehicles to some of the V8-powered bruisers from GM, Chrysler and even Hyundai.

Detroit Free Press auto scribe Mark Phelan opines the EcoBoost 3.5 is “stunning” in support of his Pollyanna argument that “Muscle cars aren't slowing down” under the coming weight of the 2012-2016 increases in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. In fact he says:

Don't believe the fuel-economy fear mongers who say the fast car will be an outlaw in a future world of high-m.p.g. bore-mobiles. New systems and technologies from automakers and suppliers will maintain the upward trajectory.

As Truth With Speedzzter opined over at Bangshift.com:

The crack pipe at the FREEP must be industrial-sized.

It's going to be worse than 1975 again for new, affordable V8 muscle. Sure, a few with deep pockets will hang on, mostly with aesthetically-inferior substitutes, such as the EcoBoost/Ecotec 4 and 6s or rare, exotic-priced V8s. But all of this new technology will most certainly cause dramatic increases in the costs of a dwindling number of truly high-performance cars. Phelan simply does not have a grip on this reality.

Phelan squeals like a Detroit fanboy or someone from an OEM P.R. operation. Either that, or he sounds like someone desperately trying to convince himself that a disposable 500cc Japanese bike is as satisfying as a classic V-twin Harley. Either way, he just doesn't get it.

* * * *

Most of the bureaucrats at the OEMS would abandon high performance in a flash if it meant career advancement.

And if some super-high tech Shelby Mustang V8 with a full array of fuel saving technology and aluminum/carbon fiber body work costs $100,000.00 to buy -- and because of the 2016 CAFE averages can only be produced in tiny, dealer-gougefest numbers . . . while the masses are left to fend with some piddly EcoBoost Fiesta or tiny electrified Bill Ford dream whip -- haven't most of us been in effect "abandoned?"

In the '60s, just about any industrious young person could sign up for a new Tri-power GTO or a Cobra Jet Mustang or a Road Runner. Even the less industrious could score a "junior muscle car," such as a Ram Rod Cutlass or a 340 Swinger or a Nova SS. And on “Day Two,” these hard-working kids could start building their new muscle cars into screamin' machines.

A similarly situated young person these days usually has to settle for some horrible Korean or Japanese wusswagon. And maybe one out of 1000 has the technological savvy to get beyond adding tacky body kits, ugly stick-on "graphics", "cold air kits" and other cheap Pep Boys accessories to build any of these FWD jellybeans into some sort of legitimate "tuner" car.

I'm sorry, but I cannot see any of that as progress.

While Truth With Speedzzter recognizes the reality that higher tech is probably the only way a semblance of performance and automotive liberty are to be salvaged under the “new world order” and power-hungry greeniac religion, we shouldn’t pretend that it will come without an enormous cost and a massive chilling effect on grassroots hot rodding of new vehicles.

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:09:00 +0000

IS CASH FOR CLUNKERS REALLY ENDING ON AUGUST 24,2009?

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

According to several media reports, the Obama administration will stop dealer funding for the "Car Allowance Rebate System [sic] at 8 p.m. August 24, 2009. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood also announced that the $3,000,000,000.00 appropriated is nearly all gone.

Is this the end of "Cash for Clunkers?"

Don't bet on it.

Washington D.C. is the one place on Earth where obvious failure can guarantee a program's continued viability.

As David Freiburger's prescient editorial in the October '09 Hot Rod Magazine predicts, the Congress will whitewash the dubious environmental benefits of the "Car Allowance Rebate System" [sic]. This will provide "cover" for the next round.

There WILL likely be a NEXT ROUND.

Truth With Speedzzter predicts that then superlobbyists like the Dave McCurdy of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers will cajole Congress into renewing the "Cash for Clunkers" welfare/bailout plan as a means of: (a) furthering the recovery; (b) reducing the newly bloated inventory of FWD wimpsters that won't sell without about $10,000.00 "cash on the hood;" and (c) making sure that New GM and Chrysler can "pay back" a fraction of the billions the taxpayers have invested in them.

The OEMS have jacked up production. Dealer lots bulging with non-selling enviromobiles will play right into this scheme.

The OEM, labor, dealer, and environmental lobbyists will use the declining impact of the CARS welfare plan and the horrible job that NHTSA has done in administering it to dramatically reduce the restrictions on what can be traded in during the next go-round of sodium silicate vandalism.

Moreover, if Cap and Trade somehow becomes law, utilities and big industrial concerns will likely devise "crusher plans" to "trade" as "offsets" or "credits" for their carbon emissions.

So why do they want to destroy old cars?

In the blinded minds of the radical, freedom-hating Greens, racing, hot rodding, tuning, customizing, antique car collecting and other grassroots automotive pursuits involving historic vehicles are "killing the Planet." These freedom-hating, power-grabbing, "we-know-what?s-best-for-you" environuts cannot fathom why anyone would waste their time pursuing any automotive hobby or automotive aftermarket vocation in the first place. They will never understand that participation in these automotive pursuits often define much of who we are (just as hiking in the woods, eating tasteless vegan food, and blocking the fast lane in their slow, wimpy Priuses defines who they are).

The liberal "true believer" greens see such "Car Crazy" "rebels" as an impediment to their dream of banishing internal combustion and the 20th Century "car culture" to the ashcan of history. And the only way to "kill the Car Nuts" and subjugate them to the "uniform, happy, shiny, government-designed, sanitized, tamper-proof, disposable electro-micro car 'reservation'" is to flatten the "obsolete," "dirty," "rebellious" objects of our "Car Crazy" passion. In other words, crushing our supply of historic and milestone parts cars and "project cars," and thereby destroying the businesses which depend on them is in essence the "slaughtering of our buffalo."

Just as slaughtering the buffalo didn't exterminate all of the Plains Indians, a well-heeled and resourceful remnant will survive [the] war on Automotive "choice." But our "tribes" will be much smaller, much more insular, and much less diverse. And the "entry costs" for participation will escalate dramatically.

* * * *

Make no mistake about it, "Cash For Clunkers" is still a declaration of war against the automotive aftermarket and all "old car" automotive-based hobbies. The current suspension is merely a truce, not the end of hostilities.

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:08:00 +0000

FORD FALLS BEHIND TOYOTA & NEW GM IN “C4C” WELFARE RACE

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” Here]

William Clay Ford, Jr.’s freeloading plan to cash in on the bailout bonanza through the awful “Cash for Clunkers” welfare plan hasn’t worked out so well.

According to the latest National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data, the EVIL EMPIRE (Toyota) and the New Obama Motors (the New GM) have both passed FoMoCo in the battle to sell taxpayer-subsidized wimpmobiles to welfare-guzzling appliance motorists.

The Financial Times (linked from the Drudge Report) provides the details:

Toyota has an 18.9 per cent share of vehicles bought so far, putting it ahead of General Motors with 17.6 per cent and Ford with 15.4 per cent. Chrysler is in fifth place, after Honda.

Three of the top five welfare whips are hideous FWD Toyotas.

So how’s that “hope and change” working out for you, Li’l Billy?

Meanwhile, “C4C” welfare pimp Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa. wrote a complaint letter to President Obama’s hapless NHTSA, griping that the deficit-bloating, borrowed/printed welfare handouts to dealers aren’t flowing fast enough.

“Welfare Joe” Sestak is challenging former RINO Arlen Specter (Disloyal Turncoat-Pa.) for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in 2010, so his noisy whining is undoubtedly a grandstanding ploy.

Bailout Booster Sestak alleged that the federal government had only paid out 2 percent of the welfare moocher claims submitted by the free money-hungry Auto Vandals/Dealers, while four of every five applications had been "rejected for minor oversight."

Of course anyone who has ever spent any time around a “car jacket” (auto grifter-speak for a car dealer’s file on a sales transaction) knows that paperwork compliance is usually not the strong suit of most vehicle retailers.

And as the prescient "Turbo Regal" stated over at Bangshift.com "Imagine, a government program that lots of people sign up for because they think you can get something for nothing, but in the end, fails to deliver on its promises."

Spot on, Turbo Regal!

(Isn't the dealership business model outdated anyway?)

Too bad "Welfare Joe" didn't "reject" the Ca$h for Clunker$ scam because of the "minor oversight" that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS VIRTUALLY BANKRUPT AND IS BORROWING ALL OF THIS "TOYOTATHON"/"CAR ALLOWANCE REBATE SYSTEM" [sic] GIVEAWAY MONEY FROM OUR GRANDCHILDREN!

Joe Sestak is just another wild-spending welfare-monger seeking to buy his way up the political ziggurat by "spreading the [tax-funded]'graft' around." In other words, another typical Tammany Hall-inspired Democrat . . . .

As the ranks of the potentially collectible and donor vehicles slated for senseless extermination grows, more and more anecdotes of rare, unusual and irreplaceable milestone vehicles being destroyed for another Toyota Yaris welfare voucher are coming to light.

This sordid mess is an epic disaster. (Pretty much like the "Jac-the-Knife"/Li'l Billy era at FoMoCo . . .)

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:19:00 +0000

WELFARE CASH FOR CLUNKERS & MARKET DISTORTIONS

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

According to the Automotive News, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is rejecting four out of every five "Cash for Clunkers" "deals." Thus, a lot of vintage V8s from the 1980s and 1990s are sucking down the sodium silicate "execution lube" and then dying in the metal shredder for nothing. (Most of the rejections are for inadequate or improper documentation)

Some greedy, welfare-loving customers have signed "waivers" that may leave them on the hook for the anticipated welfare money or forced return of their new FWD rice-grinder if NHTSA doesn't pay up.

In response to the incessant complaining of the selfish, me-first welfare sops (mostly dole-mongering dealers looking for a quick government handout), NHTSA has "agreed to allow dealers to submit cash-for-clunkers transactions for vehicles ordered from factories instead of just those purchased at a dealership." NHTSA is also jacking up the number of taxpayer-funded bureaucrats reviewing the "C4C" Welfare-Vandalism transactions by 1,000 (At an estimated $15 per hour per worker, NHTSA would be blowing an additional $600,000.00 in borrowed money per week on sorting out this fiasco and processing the welfare/bailout vouchers)

This is another step toward a permanent, government-funded vintage vehicle vandalism & destruction program. As Ronald Reagan once said, "the closest thing to eternal life here on earth is a government program." With every modification, the "Car Allowance Rebate System [sic] becomes further entrenched as an "entitlement."

Another reason the lazy freeloading dealers love "C4C" welfare is that it apparently distracts their appliance-motoring, FWD wimpcar buying, welfare suckling customers from negotiating toward reasonable, market-based transaction prices. The Wall Street Journal's "Smart Money" reports:

[A]uto data aggregator Edmunds.com found that shoppers have been getting less of a discount since the start of the program. For example, the average discount on a new Ford Escape after the Clunkers program began has slipped to 5.2% off the MSRP, compared with 5.7% before the program got underway. Consumers are paying an average $261 more. A new Dodge Caliber sold for an average price of $17,368 before Clunkers, 11.7% off MSRP, compared with an average $19,181 after the program’s start, a discount of just 3.8%.

In other words, the CARS Welfare/Bailout/Vandalism program is not only bloating the deficit and trashing hundreds of thousands of serviceable used cars (including scores of potential collector and donor vehicles), it is driving up the cost of both new AND used vehicles.

In the 1970s, we'd call the results of that sort of market tampering "inflation."

Auto dealers stand to endure another well-deserved lampooning starting this weekend with the box office release of "The Goods." Looking much like an update or pale derivation of the over-the-top 1980s comedy "Used Cars," "The Goods" rips on our perceptions of the preening, crude, unethical, self-centered and greed-saturated auto retailing industry. So far, most movie critics have slammed "The Goods."

Rated R, for containing all of the sorts of unnecessary and corrosive elements that mar a majority of contemporary films, "The Goods" may turn out as big of a raunchy fiasco as "Cash for Clunkers."

noreply@blogger.com (Speedzzter) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:45:00 +0000

CASH FOR CLUNKERS QUOTES OF THE WEEK

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter here"]

The wasteful idiocy of the CARS Act (a/k/a "The War Against RWD V8s") is prompting some emotional responses from gearheads. Here's one found over at Bangshift.com from "Packratdave" that was too good to remain buried in a message board:

In the last 20 years most cars I have owned/driven would have gone to the junkyard had I not saved them. I feel this is real recycling. My current driver/beater (98 Chevy) was on the truck for the yard when I bought it. Less that $400 in parts later it's a good runner. ...

While out at a local Chevy dealer yesterday, had to pass the line of recently killed car to leave. A nice looking mid 1990s GMC pick up, extended cab and all waiting to be crushed was there. Better truck that I can afford as a honest car mechanic with 2kids and a mortgage.

Last week it was a sweet looking 87 Cutlass coupe, hard to find now in the northeast, that is crushed by now. I would have even taken it with the wreaked engine, got a spare. I told my wife seeing those cars, for me would be like the humane society putting dogs that they were going to put down on the front lawn with a sign saying "we are going to kill these dogs and you can't help them." Just make me sick. My wife thinks I am kind of strange, but I bet you guys (and girls) would understand.

You can just feel the emotional torture in that post. Somehow, I'll bet the chumps who "cashed in" that vintage Cutlass have no guilt as they motor on in their wimpy FWD, partially paid for by a welfare voucher . . . .

[I wonder if Vandal-in-chief Barack Hussein Obama or "Gulfstream liberals" such as William Clay Ford, Jr. ["Li'l Billy"], Botox queen "San Fran Nan," "Dingy" Harry Reid, and the legislative "Dr. Mengle" of the Ca$h for Clunker$ bailout fiasco -- Rep. Betty Sutton -- care a whit about the pain and suffering that vandalizing and shredding hundreds of thousands of vintage vehicles causes to legions of automotive enthusiasts? You can be if we were chain-sawing old-growth forests, they'd understand . . . .]

And on the wasteful aspects of Cash for Clunkers, here's a brilliant blog entry over at "Hot Air.com" by Allahpundit that shouldn't be missed:http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/01/just-a-reminder-cash-for-clunkers-requires-destroying-perfectly-usable-cars/

On a lighter note, here's some of what Truth With Speedzzter (TWS) has been saying in the Bangshift discussion lamenting C4C:

Quote from SpiderGearsMan: "Harvard is the most expensive school -therefore it is the best"

TWS: That's sort of like what the "gold chainers" in the Ferraris and Porsches say (just before you smoke 'em in some home-built primered "heap")

Quote from antmnte: "They should give us the 2 billion I bet we can find some cars to buy, call it cash for keepers.Maybe get another going for tires and call it cash for burnouts."

TWS: Cash for Burnouts! That's almost tempts me to go for some of this welfare . . . No! Got . . . to . . . stay . . . strong . . .

BONUS:

"With social media, you can be vapid, boring and annoying with alarming frequency," Patricia Vaccarino, owner of a Seattle public relations firm, warned clients in a newsletter.

Sounds like she's been reading "Truth With Speedzzter," eh, Li'l Billy? . . . .