DRIVING: that's what it's ALL ABOUT! A blog and website for automotive driving enthusiasts, featuring my interests as I see them: news and opinion about manufacturers of interest, significant enthusiast cars, and driving them hard and well.
Inside Line reports what most of us have known for a year: SVT is dead.
While Steven Cole Smith waxes poetic about the glory days of SVT, as I also have in the past...
But, finally getting out from under SVT has been an eye-opening experience for me. I feel like I'm waking up after a coma. I'm glad SVT is dead... because the SVT that made the glory days has been gone for about 5 years. The more recent SVT was only a poseur, focusing more on loud noises and bluff for the straight-liners and latching onto ole 'Shel for all the glory they could leech off his poor ole tired hide.
For the first roughly 6 years, '93 to about '99, everything was great: the Mustang Cobra made major strides, the SVT Contour was a great car in its time, and the Lightning made history. All of these products were mature well-balanced vehicles that you could drive hard. Although the quality and engineering testing were extremely poor.
But even in these glory years there were major issues behind the scenes. SVT marketing boss Tom Scarpello had the nerve to tell enthusiasts they didn't need a calibrated temperature gauge - only one that reads either "off", "normal", or "red hot". This in response to over-heating Mustangs - a problem that went from bad (94/95), to recall (96), to nuclear meltdown (03/04). And lest anybody think the 2000 Cobra R solved all these problems, take a look at its oil temperatures after a hard racetrack run and you'll be scared (and the special water pump and radiator designed for the Cobra R never made it into the much needier '03/04 Cobra). Around this same time I had an hour long talk in person with Tom and he told me a Lincoln LS-based Mustang mule had been built with a strut front end (I later saw it in Dearborn in person). I knew the end was upon us. And Tom didn't last much longer anyway.
Jac Nasser gave us the independent rear suspension for the Cobra. A modern touch, one that was badly needed, replacing a rear suspension that was worse than obsolete. A great idea, but poor engineering, even worse testing standards, and taking 2 years to straighten out (this was a major problem of SVT – engineering major changes after the fact (initial design of the car, making everything a band-aid, and then getting them into the production line successfully). When the IRS worked, it was far superior to ye olde solid axle and the car as a whole was a far better experience. It should have been made an option across the entire Mustang line (and that was considered, even for the SN95. It was the plan for the S197 before the budget got slashed.). The handling and the livability aspects of the CObra IRS set our expectations for the next Mustang.
Then came the SVT Focus, a nice effort, but one that was outdated before it was even released. A clone of the European Focus ST170, but not benefitting one iota from their own much faster RS. Any number of Hondas did any number of things better.
And then the GT - indeed "the pace car for the entire company" (as the advertising put it, before somebody realized it was all too true) in terms of quality and recalls. The GT debacle was the final nail in the coffin. http://www.DrivingEnthusiast.net/sec-blog/2005/03/31.html#a458 And take note of a Car & Driver editorial, very similar to my own words: http://www.DrivingEnthusiast.net/sec-blog/2005/06/01.html At this point John Coletti suddenly departed, "retired", some say because of this.
In its place, we have the GT500, a poseur car if there ever was one, which has turned it's back on what balanced and responsive handling potential the new platform made possible (58.5% front weight balance, just under 4000 pounds for the coupe and just over for the convertible). An engine that is barely improved from the last one, a heat generator in an engine compartment made too small to cool properly. This car is as obese as most Americans are.
So I’m glad SVT has finally gone out of its misery. And in case anybody wonders what my ownership credentials are with SVT, I’ve owned 4 SVT Cobras, all driven very hard on road race tracks, and all experiencing problems to varying degrees (proportional to the farther away from the base platform SVT had “re-engineered” them). The first three faithfully served their purpose and provided track cars for me (after re-tuning the suspensions on all three). The last was by far the worst (and many owners of those had it much worse than I) example.
MPH and several other sources have reports on the "new" Ford Ranger in Thailand. Some attempt to suggest some sort of sort of parallel to the horrendously dated North American Ranger.
I've got a few things to say about that, as well as one of my trademark tirades (I sometimes feel like the lead doctor in the television show "House" - there is a patient to be saved here).
First: let's set the record straight here: this is a restyling job with engine updates. Don't get taken away by the handsome styling - there is nothing significantly changed underneath the fancy facade.
Second, we don't want this truck in the US: the suspension is seriously cheap, the rear leaf-spring suspension (pictured to the left) is outdated to the point of danger, and Ford can do (and must do) a heckuva lot better. The competition already is doing far better than Ford (which, when you've driven a Frontier/Pathfinder with the sophisticated and very able 265/270-HP 4 liter V-6, you very quickly realize).
Remember that this is the same type of suspension that made so much trouble for the old Explorer (and current SportTrac). It's as sophisticated as the suspension on your '50s Ford pickup because it's the same exact design (at least Ford doesn't put the gas tank inside the passenger compartment anymore!).
The US Ranger is the most outdated vehicle Ford produces in the United States today - rivaled only by the Crown 'Vic (and that is a very similar story). It's lineage can be traced directly back to the Bronco II, and it's rear suspension is all but identical to that. The mediocrity of that suspension (also shared with the previous-gen Explorer, and current gen Sport-Trac) has bitten Ford right in the jugular and will continue to do so until it has been removed from the face of the Earth.
And, as is so typical of Ford, the only money that has been spent in recent years on "our" Ranger is for a big new plastic grill. And on a big radio option to appeal to suburban high-schoolers with poor judgement or poorer parents.
We know there is a new Ranger afoot - sort of. There have been unrealized plans for years to replace it... prototypes have been seen.. and plans have been cancelled several times.
To be fair, the market for this type of vehicle has dried up over the past several years. Which I understand... but I still think a smaller alternative to the gargantuan F-150 would make sense in a lot of important ways. In fact, IMHO, it's chassis should be shared with the current Explorer - which offers an excellent chassis and is the right general size (and whose remaining factory needs the additional volume). But to suggest this as a product plan would invite trouble from the very well-off and politically powerful F-150 design team. It would take sales from the F-150, and of course that would hurt their pie-in-the-sky dream of reaching 1 million sales a year (a dream that has certainly been shot out of the sky in the past year).
If there is is a solution possible, it will be necessary to circumvent the political power of the F-150 team. They have been the heroes of the company (although not anymore - having 28% of all sales revolve around the F-150 has almost fatally damaged Ford). Here's one solution to a lot of Ford problems (and thanks to Nissan, who has already done it): leverage the full ability of the F-150 design team to design a family of vehicles built on the same chassis - in two "sizes":
One, a mid-sized pickup to be named "F-100" (replacing the Ranger) and a matching SUV named "Explorer".
Two, a new F-150 - sensibly sized, and a large SUV named "Expedition".
A little background:
The F-150 and the Expedition share a modular chassis already. They are in slightly different release cycles, so that's not always apparent. But, it has always been explicitly discussed as such in various industry interviews. As an example enthusiasts might remember, the stillborn Lightning was an F-150 with an Expedition IRS suspension.
The current Ranger and ye olde Explorer used to share the same chassis... the Explorer grew up and got it's own chassis in 2001 (with state-of-the-art SLA all around - dumbed down to trailing arm-type IRS in the 2006 model to save production costs). The Ranger and the current (until the Explorer-based model comes on line in the summer) Sport Trac share the same suspension with a godawful antiquated leaf spring rear design).
Back to the point. The F-150 design team would own the entire enchilada, from F-100 right up to the F-150 (and the F-250/350/etc product line - built on a past-gen and necessarily unrelated platform), as well as the Explorer and Expedition. The F-100/F-150/Explorer/Expedition could all be built on the same exact assembly line(s): economy of scale, production mix could change with the market on very short notice, and they could all be counted towards the magic million number. From a marketing standpoint, this "tiering" strengthens the relationship between the small truck and the rest of the Ford truck line - something that cannot be said about the current lineup.
Is it impossible to suggest that two different sized vehicles could be built on the same chassis? No, not at all, and it's done all the time in the industry. The basic frame would be the same, the width and length would vary as needed by the market requirements, and all other elements of the vehicles could be in common: safety, wiring, engines, transmissions, front and rear suspensions (even offering two distinct rear suspensions). And the significant costs of personnel, design, test, and production.
A couple of notes:
The Ranger replacement, the F-100, would be larger than the Ranger. But, this is already where the market has gone - foreign competitors as well as domestic. If a smaller truck is needed for the market someday (and there is almost zero market for this as of today), then bring in a Brazilian-built example).
The value of the Ranger brand name? Not much in my estimation. It has clearly seen better days, but has sunk to near impossible lows over the past several years. And it only exists because Ford made a mistake when they eliminated the original F-100 brand name to move the F-150 upmarket, and then realized the errors of their ways a few years later.
The value of the F-100 brand name? Historically tremendous, but unrealized for many years now. The purpose of the F-100 in history was to get people to enter the brand, where they could be moved up the ladder in later years as they became more financially able or needed more space. It would be interesting to discuss doing a new F-100 with some minor retro syling elements (but not like the horrid HHR or the doomed SSR), but it's not necessary. The purpose of the F-100 would again be to establish a long line of commonality and brand identity, and to move buyers up the food chain over the years as they become more financially able. And, again, to provide a more economical entry level truck that can take full benefit of it's larger brother's technical features and economy of commonality.
I feel strongly that there needs to be a full-frame Explorer as an alternative to the excellent (and recently saved) Freestyle (which, in case you haven't noticed, are suddently moving off the lots in quantity). The only way to do this is with an economy of scale. The Freestyle is car-based and it has to be designed around a large battery pack (in 2009 or so for the upcoming 3.5 V-6 Hybrid model), and toting around a large and fragile battery pack is not suited to the rugged requirements of "real" trucking.
I don't feel so strongly about the Expedition, but again the only way to produce one is with an economy of scale and commonality.
Given multiple current product schedules and necessary lead-times, a plan like this couldn't be realized for several years. A replacement of the current F-150 is in the works already... and that has to be balanced against the necessary competition with GM. My plan is long-term, not short.
Robert Farago of the excellent The Truth About Cars discusses the many pitfalls of badge engineering as applied to the Zephyr.
I agree 100%. The car is pointless, the chrispness of the chassis was muddled up when it made the transition from Ford to Lincoln, and the overall economy-car atmosphere cheapens the Lincoln brand (which, with cars like this, we don't see much point in anyway - or maybe about as much point as Buick). It should either have been made into something very different from the Fusion, or been an even more sharpened Fusion with more power and handling.
Question: has anybody even seen a Zephyr on the road? I've seen one and only one: parked at a strip plaza with it's enormous taillights facing the street. Bizarre and awkward in appearance.
There is a potential improvement coming up... we know the Zephyr is getting the new 3.5 V-6 (producing a measly 250 HP) for 2007, along with optional AWD (a simplistic FWD-biased system, projected for a 50% take by customers).
But it's never been officially announced that the Fusion will also get the 3.5. Is this a potential means of differentiation? It certainly should not be, as the 3 liter engine is also underperforming for the Fusion and the competition already offers 3.5 liters (Altima, Camry, etc). So, the Fusion should get the 3.5. And, the Zephyr should have gotten a higher output version of the 3.5 (which Ford already has on the shelf, all the way to 300 horses).
Oh, and the 2007 Zephyr has of course been renamed to the MKZ. As so many journalists have pointed out, this rebranding move by Lincoln (first anounced as "across the board" but then retracted to exclude the Navigator and Town Car) is unbelievably pointless. I've been in a couple of troubled organizations over my years in various companies, and I know that when the marketing wonks come up with rebranding as a solution to the ills of the company, a whole more is wrong than the executive management will admit.
Styling changes for 2007:
QUICK SPECS
POWERTRAIN 3.5-liter, DOHC, 24-valve, 60-degree, V-6 • 250 hp @ 6250 rpm • 240 lb. ft. @ 4500 rpm • Standard 6-speed automatic transmission
CHASSIS
• Wheelbase: 107.4 in. • Length: 190.5 in. • Max width: 72.2 in. (excluding mirrors)
SUSPENSION
• Front -
Independent short and long arm (SLA) with rearward-facing lower control arms; 24-mm stabilizer bar
• Rear -
Multilink fully independent with coil-over shock and lower control arms; 17-mm stabilizer bar
These specifications are preliminary and subject to change.
Review of the 2006 Acura TL. The TL is getting a bit long in the tooth... and a replacement is a ways off.
