Let's see

["Mahoney, John" <jmahoney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'd like to write something that starts like this:

"80 years ago today, Charles Nash was re-equipping the Mitchell plant in
Racine that he'd bought one year earlier: he was readying it to start up
production of an entirely new vehicle.  Raw materials were already being
delivered (as at his other plants then, almost all components required for
his cars (save their Seaman bodies) were made right where his vehicles were
assembled; just-in-time was a fact of life, not a new-age philosophy), while
his skilled "leaders and trainers" had come from Kenosha to bring the new
workforce up to speed.  All visitors were prohibited and every employee had
signed a secrecy document.  No one was to divulge any details about his
all-new Nash.  The first car would roll out on May 25, 1925.  Nineteen days
and counting.  Wonder what it'll look like?"

But I have nineteen days, so I'll procrastinate.  (No one likes to read
about the old times anyway, right?)  So let's look at some current events
instead.

Dodge unleashes Charger (hopefully not beside a Mitsubishi Galant), AMC
unleashes Bart (hopefully not inside a HEMI Charger) and DaimlerChrysler
unleashes Mercedes-Benz (hopefully not in sight of a Lexus LS430) from
striving to be tops in quality.  Old is new; new is old; the automotive
world always turns.  

S&P gave GM and Ford bonds "junk" status; JFP gave DC products future status
in junkyards, B&M gave Europeans this wake-up call from parts Asian,

http://www.supplierbusiness.com/home/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1
89&Itemid=2

and while more of my money was lost on GM (one has to own XOM stock to
compensate), my "goody" point was lost on BM (I had put "laugh" in the
title, in the assumption that AMC fans -smile- while laughing) so readers
would know that Grease-n-Spuds was tangential to a "Where is the 'American
Center' now?" inquiry, and my "Laugh/Cry" conclusion ("We look back as we
move ahead") was as lost as the target of my "Perception" piece.  Which
eventually was supposed to discuss how the early-fifties failures of
cash-strapped Nash (failure to keep up in styling and failure to match its
competition in technology), might have remained among the perceptions that
brought AMC to its knees in the early-mid-late seventies.  Hopefully, I will
do that someday; luckily, no one will suffer (or care) if I don't.   

Luckily also, I don't own shares of Ford (my father said, "Don't buy stock
in a family-named company unless it's -your- family's name!" [he then, of
course, broke his own rule --- repeatedly]) and luckily, 2500 AMC people
gather somewhere to discuss something.  If that somewhere had an "easy"
format [for time-challenged old/new then/now buy/hold AMC independents], I'd
be luckier.  'Til then, the only AMC I see is this AM sea.   Time for one,
see.
 
You'll soon see something new at Ford: their fifth "theft" from another
firm's styling studios in recent months.  Trevor Creed returns to Ford; the
ninth designer Chrysler (but there's "no problem with morale") has now lost.

Hopefully, he'll help J Mays (whose real name is neither "John" nor "J."

http://www.designmuseum.org/design/index.php?id=50

but just "J" [he's named for his grandfather, who was named just "SJ"]...)

better both design and perception of the next "better ideas" from Ford

http://mclellansautomotive.com/photos/B31199.jpg

from wherever they happen to be begged, borrowed or stolen,
 
http://www.discountpartcenter.com/photos/05-27-04-01-Ford-Five-Hundred.jpg

http://forums.autoweek.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/208-11877-236224-353
9/AUDI%20A8L.jpg

even if they, too, incorporate the kind of cost-cutting techniques so
obvious on the new Mustang --- of which its buyer herd is obviously
oblivious.  Not that it's not a fun new American car.  As much an anomaly as
some by AMC.

But, cheap ponies from Asia get remote gas-door releases; new Mustangs from
Dearborn get cheap protruding thumb tabs.  Sporty Fords show how cheap their
design is when heavy-handed black plastic window-reveal molding doesn't
align with fixed quarter glass; cheap sporty Toyotas show how well they're
designed when their side paneld still fit like this

http://www.wreckedscions.com/gallery/SciontC/img12_php

when their front clip looks like this.

http://www.wreckedscions.com/gallery/SciontC/img14_php

There's no reason a new Ford Mustang need look like it was built in an
old-time, politically incorrect "south-of-the-border" cheap sort of way,
when a VW New Beetle that is both cheap and built "south-of-the-border" (in
a new-time but still politically questionable sort of way) can look
well-designed and well-assembled.  And its interiors can look even better.

http://media.vw.com/digital_index.cfm?action=curr_model&model_id=1241  

For the 2005 Mustang, one of Ford's suppliers developed a new method to form
interior plastic: the better idea was to create two different "types" of
faux finishes (in two different colors and in pseudo metallics), with a
single money-saving press-squirt-peel.  The supplier had nothing to lose if
this proved a failure (an unsuccessful piece could be used by adding a
contrasting overlay), but success would mean savings for both itself and the
blue oval.  Therefore, a cheaper interior that -looks- good enough for
Mustang Sally and Sam is what resulted.  How it'll look when their new
Mustang is as old as the old '60s Mustang that inspired it (and them to buy
it) is a lesser concern.   

Sadly, such "competing" may prove as shortsighted as building big SUVs. 

Why, if Detroit learned nothing from AMC, did it not learn from Ford?

http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/timeline/64-66/65/65MustangFastback02-hr.jpg

Is there a clumsier design detail than those original headlight doors?

They, and the exposed fasteners, recall yesterday's tone: "Can there -BE-
any shoddier car building than America's beloved icons show?"

We know why Mustang's stamped-steel flare profiles don't match (look, then
measure body width and arch height at centerline of both wheels: it's
physically impossible for them to have the same appearance [even though they
look like the "terrible tack-ons" {an RAT term, I'm only the reporter} from
the '79-'80 AMX by AMC] and we realize that cheapo matte black mirrors will
give way to body-color housings some facelift model year.  We even
understand why the hood bulge looks too, um, "bulgy" as it heads for the
cowl (euuw; more exposed black plastic?) on America's newest sweetheart
(yes, her moribund -competitor- was the pony born to baseball, apple pie and
Chevrolet...)  She is bred to meet European pedestrian-safety standards.
Pinch an inch (or four, or measure engine clearance metrically) and save a
life.  That's the new auto-world way.      

But what's with a cheap fake keyway badge?  Tuner versions, too. 

http://www.seanhylandmotorsport.com/online/images/555-0220.jpg 

And why should an aftermarket deck lid look slicker than Ford's?

http://www.allfordmustangs.com/artman/uploads/reardeckspoiler.jpg

http://www.thespoilerfactory.com/images/display/05mustang-lg.jpg

Especially since it's been done better, seen now

http://www.mustangspecs.com/carpics/68gt35021.jpg

or, with only dark-age technology, way back when.
 
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-1960-1969/1968-Shelby-Mustang-KR500-BW-Ad-
1280x960.jpg

Wake up, America, the 1960s are over.  Trucks have left the building and
your best-sellers still need to become better (your 300/Magnum stylists need
to summer in Italy learning how to draw more than cartoon cars); if your
manufacturing quality can't be brought up to Asian-transplant-in-America
standards, your "sell-by-rebate" cars can look better than they really are.
Even if you'd really rather have a Buick.  In a perfect storm.  

http://www.buick.com/lacrosse/photogallery/       

Otherwise, our fantasy world (of living beyond our means) could end.


(Just as abruptly as this post, perhaps...)