Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/18/2019 in all areas

  1. 8 points
    bulltrout

    Charges for test drive damage

    Finally resolved. No charge for the radiator work. I went in this morning, asked for the general manager, got his assistant to whom I described the situation. I waited in the showroom and the GM came down after about 5 minutes, said my truck was ready to go and there was no charge for the radiator. He also warned me there are rocks all over the frame and it will happen again. I suppressed the eye roll reflex but will look things over underneath to be sure. The only debris near the engine bay was a thin layer of dirt on the suspension wishbones. There is a frame cross member below the radiator but a rock would have to levitate nearly a foot to reach the fan, which would have kicked it back toward the engine anyway. I paid for the service I ordered, and drove away from Fritts Ford for the final time. There are other places in the area to get service if the need arises on a future visit. FWIW, since I never authorized the radiator work that was already completed, it seems they knew they were on the hook for it. Their various offers were just attempts to get me to OK the work so they could bill me for something that was their responsibility. I understand mistakes happen, but a conscientious business person seeks to proactively make things right for the customer when it does. Instead, Fritts Ford seemed to treat their mistake as an opportunity to make more money. If I was the typical out-of-state traveller in a hurry to get somewhere else, it might have worked. Thank you all for you feedback and support. Mom is stable for now, but her long-term prognosis isn't great. She beat terminal cancer 21 years ago but her body took a beating in the process. I've learned to not count her out, however. She's a feisty Irish/Sicilian fire cracker.
  2. 5 points
    Remember when Ford dropped out of first place when they switched over the plants for the new aluminum bodies?? Oh, yeah...thats right, they didn't....
  3. 3 points
    mackinaw

    Great Article on Jim Farley

    A very long and detailed article on Jim Farley by Phoebe Howard in today's Detroit Free Press. Even Farley haters will be impressed, https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2019/06/19/ford-executive-jim-farley-toyota/1299871001/ Ever wonder why Peter D. dislikes Farley so much? Peter used to consult with Ford and Farley cancelled the contract.
  4. 3 points
    Gotta give credit where it is due. If it weren't for old tubby over at Dodge, I don't think we would be seeing 700+ hp from this. They made 700+ the new bar.
  5. 3 points
    A certain Texas fella would be happy......
  6. 3 points
    Yes, just like Ford truck buyers since 1997.
  7. 3 points
    I am lurking all over, waiting for the first reviews. If the reviewers love it, then the threads at that other place will be massively entertaining................ and a certain .bott should get perma banned.
  8. 2 points
  9. 2 points
    Depends on what you call define as improvement. More engine output and trans cogs? Agreed 100%. But durability they aren't even on the same planet. The last of the Splitports were pretty sorted out. The Cologne was getting there by 05 but still had issues that plagued it throughout its run. The 4R70W of that era was awesome compared that to the shitshow that the 5R55W/S/N always was. To make a reliable 5R, you have to rely *heavily* on the aftermarket because Ford never improved its weakest internal points. (OD planet carrier thrust washers, solenoid pack and servo bores) On the plus side, they made a lot of house payments for me. I'm not rose coloring the 3 generations of Fox. They were cooked spaghetti as far as the chassis was concerned and the interior quality was poor. But what I am saying is that the 05 car could have been SO much more before the bean counters got ahold of it. And the bean counters would have had less input with pony rivals on the market.
  10. 2 points
    akirby

    2020 Explorer Reviews

    Did you not watch the video??
  11. 2 points
    Englmar

    Status of my Mustang GT

    Hello Cyberman, finally the pony has arrived at my place. Thanks again for your support. greetings from Germany Udo
  12. 2 points
    GM should really drop GMC and Buick and put all that money into making Chevrolet better.
  13. 2 points
    The part about how GM is deliberately sabotaging its own fleet sales on the new truck is peak-GM nonsense. This is a fullsize truck... it is SUPPOSED to have big fleet sale component that drives profit. I predict the next big thing at GM will be limiting fleets sales of its fullsize vans and medium duty trucks too so it can brag about the low fleet sale % to wall street... 😆
  14. 2 points
    jasonj80

    2020 Explorer Reviews

    Its standard on the SE Hybrid Escape.
  15. 2 points
    FFS YOU NEED FUSES NEAR THE BATTERY TOO! Unless you like electrical fires.
  16. 2 points
    Gosh, I remember Sheriff. That was a looooooooooooooong time ago. I follow Richard Jensen on Twitter (though he mostly just posts about sports as he is a writer for a blog or something I think). We got into it a couple times, but I really respect him. He backs up any argument he had with solid facts. I miss him!
  17. 2 points
    One of the good guys that passed on was NickF1011....I enjoyed his banter and quick wit.
  18. 2 points
    Matt was P71_Crownvic IIRC.
  19. 2 points
    Hmmmmm................... incentives are $500 less than Ram, but $1500 more than F150. They can't even make any inroads against the oldest truck on the market, with $1500 more of incentives?
  20. 2 points
    akirby

    GM Considering electric Hummer

    Have you noticed that GM never does anything "across the board" at a company level? It's always either one vehicle at a time (Volt, then Bolt e.g.) or only one brand. It's like watching a concert with 20 different 1 hit wonders.
  21. 2 points
    Exactly, I hate when Ford does this. Real styling changes are what attract people’s attention and creates desire to upgrade.
  22. 2 points
    Maybe they should have bought FCA and made Ram the new GMC.
  23. 2 points
    Ah the good 'ol GM spin machine. No, don't make a competent product that doesn't scream of blatant cost cutting, just half ass it and run constant attack ads against your competition for being "new" GM, they sure let old habits die hard
  24. 1 point
    Free on Kindle if you are a Prime member. Started it last night. https://www.amazon.com/Go-Like-Hell-Ferrari-Battle-ebook/dp/B003K16PBY/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
  25. 1 point
    Just yesterday I decided to compare how quick the plugin midsize suvs are compared with their equivalent gasoline version, so I analyzed the main tests that C&D and motortrend did (plus an european magazine that did the test of the Q7 e tron and the Q7 diesel on which the etron is based). I did a quick scheme about main performances data that i'm gonna share, I apologize if the results are kind of confusing to read: car hp torque 0-60 0-100 1/4m weight roadholding mpg weight distribution magazine: x5 35i 300hp 300lb 5.8s/5.9s 15.7s 14.5a96 4974lbs 0.79 - 47.5/52.5 C&D x5 35i 300hp 300lb 6.0s 16.3s 4911lbs 0.81 20/18/24 49/51 motortrend x5 40i 2020 335hp 330lb 5.0s 4854lbs 0.88 22/20/26 50/50 motortrend x5 40i 2020 335hp 330lb 4.9s 13.6a101 4872lbs 0.89 - - C&D x5 40e 308hp 332lb 6.2s 16.2s 14.7a95 5283lbs 0.82 24/23/25 C&D x5 40e 308hp 332lb 6.2s - 14.6a94 5263 0.81 46/54 - motortrend xc60 T6 316hp 295lb 6.1 15.7 14.6a97 4322lbs 0.87 - 23/21/27 C&D xc60 T6 316hp 295lb 5.5 14.1 14.1a100 4281lbs 0.88 22/19/27 C&D xc60 T6 316hp 295lb 6.6 15.0a90 4297lbs 0.83 55/45 - motortrend xc60 T8 400hp 472lb 5.1 13.5 13.7a101 4741lbs 0.84 26/28/26 C&D xc90 T6 316hp 295lb 6.0 15.5 14.6a97 4706lbs 0.84 52.3/47.7 22/20/25 C&D xc90 T6 316hp 295lb 6.7 15.1a90 4720lbs 0.85 52/48 - motortrend xc90 T8 400hp 472lb 5.0 13.9a97 5132lbs 0.84 52/48 27/27/28 motortrend xc90 T8 400hp 472lb 5.3 14.6 14.0a98 5159lbs 0.81 - - C&D ML550 408hp 443lb 4.9 11.8 13.4a106 5197lbs 0.85 -/15/20 C&D GLE550e 436hp 479lb 5.2 13.7a101 5522lbs 0.71 - motortrend cayenne plugin 416hp 435lb 5.4 12.9 13.7a103 5427lbs 0.83 - - C&D cayenne plugin 416hp 435lb 5.2 13.0 13.8a103 5373lbs 0.91 - - C&D cayenne gts 420hp 380lb 5.5 13.6 13.9a101 5108lbs 0.95 -/15/21 - motortrend Q7 etron 373hp 5.8 - - 5530lbs - - - autobild Q7 TDI 272hp 6.2 - - 4630lbs - - - autobild aviator 400hp 400lb 5.2* 4897lbs 21/18/26 - - aviator plugin 460hp 600lb/620lb 4.3* 5678lbs - - - I put the asterisk on the aviator performance (the plugin could be rated to 620 lbft of torque since the explorer plugin get that number) I aspect to see. Also we know few data about the new lincoln suv. And here I pointed out the main differences on kurb weight, hp, torque and 0-60 acceleration) between the plugin and the gasoline version: x5 40e vs 35i +300lbs +8hp +32lb +0.2 seconds (6.2 vs 6.0) xc60 T8 vs T6 +420lbs +84hp +177lb -1.1 (5.0 vs 6.1) xc90 T8 vs T6 +430lbs +84hp +177lb -1.3 (5.2 vs 6.5) GLE550e vs ML550 +325lbs +28hp +36lb +0.3 (5.2 vs 4.9) cayenne plugin vs gts +280lbs -4hp +55lb -0.2 (5.2 vs 5.4) q7 etron vs TDI +900lbs +100hp +73lb -0.4 (5.8 vs 6.2) aviator vs aviator plugin +781lbs +60hp +200/220lb -0.9* (4.3*vs 5.2*) Notice how the plugin is quicker than the gasoline in almost every suv, I suspect it's due to 2 main reasons: 1) instantaneous torque delivered by electric engine(s) 2) More rear-biased weight distribution of plugin suvs (just think how quick is the porsche 911 compared to rivals with the same hp) When the advantage on torque is consistent, we see bigger difference, like on the volvo and the audi. The cayenne is anomalous here, being quicker and less powerful than the GTS at the same time. So I guess that, considering the monster torque of the aviator, we should see a low 4s number on the 0-60 acceleration. That couldn't look very impressive today, since we have compact performances suvs like the stelvio quadrifoglio that can do a 3.2 seconds 0-60 mph, but just 5 years ago, the aviator plugin could have tied the macan turbo (that used to do 4.2/4.3 seconds on the 0-60 mph) as the quickest suv in the world.
×