...are boring to fight against.
Do you have any arguments against that? It's like playing tennis like RuneQuest battles where you hit a person, then he hits you, you hit him, he hits you.... and so on.
Mooks are fun, because then it's more a tactical game - "Should I shoot one or two" - and it's clear when you end a mook because your reward will be to describe how. You don't have that benefit with the named character. Sure, you can describe it, but what's the point if you have to hit that one over and over and over again? The imagination lacks after a while.
I want named characters to be a challenge, but not a boring one. I've just played a session where they blew up half a roll-on-roll-off ship and stole a car from the ship with a lifting crane. While the car was lifted from the cargo deck, one character was fighting the captain (named character) on the car that was lifted. The setting was cool, the place where the fight occured was cool, but the fight itself was boring.
One player suggested afterwards that named characters can only be taken out if the player does something cool, like dropping the car while hanging in the chain that lifted the car. I liked that idea, but how should the rules support that? To be honest, I'm thinking of having named characters to work as mooks, only that they have a higher AV. Fortune points would be a pain though. I have to think about it.
I also had an experiment where imparement adds to AV instead of reducing it, making it more dramatic. Like in Rocky or Cliffhanger where the hero gets beaten up and then makes one move to turn the battle around and finish his opponent. It worked ... ok, but it needs more testing.
And I also played with bundle up mooks, where 5 mooks that attack one character only roll one time, but gets +5 on that roll. That really speed up the game, and it also didn't make them useless when the characters got positive bonus from imparement.