03 LS

The nano engine family has (had) an I5 (2.2L?) version that did not go into production. I would think making a 2.7 I6 shouldn't be that difficult, if the needs are there. BTW, the 2.2 I5 (NA and EB) would have been perfect for the new Ranger.

There is a common definition of plant capacity (100% capacity). I seem to remember it's the plant's normal output on 2 shifts/day and 5 days/week. They can easily go above 100% by adding overtime (hours, weekends), increasing line speed, and/or adding a 3rd shift.A plant is considered underutilized when it's below 80% (or 85%?) capacity.

First of all, this is death rate, not injury or death/injury combined. It's safe to say, this offset test that Explorer and Grand Cherokee both failed, had/will have zero impact on the death rate. Pass, Fail, Fixed, whatever, ZERO impact. Back to the numbers. If we assume Explorer and GC have roughly 50-50 take rate on 4WD vs. 2WD, the avf. death rate would be 15 and 13 respectively, both below their class average. These show you how useless some (most) of IIHS tests are, in terms of reducing fatality. They will (may) reduce repair costs and medical expenses, which will improve their industry bottom line. But they'll never come out and say it.

What he didn't say, implied but did not want to admit, Farley is currently winning - the top brass, Bill, Jim and the board, view him as a success, thus leaning on him more and more. PDL resentfully acknowledged the fact but doesn't want to give him any credit.Whether he (Farley) is an a--hole or not, whether the "getting out of car business" idea was his or not (or it's right or wrong), he's winning and the other faction(s) are worried. PDL is either part of that faction, or his main inside sources are.

It's not cars don't sell overall, but Ford loses money on the car side. Check out their presentation for wall street, slide 4. https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America/US/2018/04/25/1q-review-deck.pdf

Another way to do the math:At 38miles/hour, the car travels ~56feet/second (38*5280/3600). 1s, 56 feet 1.5s, 84 feet 2s, 112 feet ...

That video clearly showed the technology had failed, be it sensors, software, or both. For my eyes, the woman became visible at just past 0:03s mark, where her white shoes can be seen. About 2 seconds later, just before 0:05s mark, she was struck. The vehicle did NOT do anything! As if it did not see any object in its path. For a human driver who pays attention, he/she may not be able to avoid the hit, but he/she would have definitely tried something, braking, jerking the steering wheel, something. But the autonomous system did NOTHING. EDIT: Just watched it again, the hit was before 0:05", then the replay "paused". So it had about 1.5 seconds to react.

The 4th new nameplate? 1st: Aviator 2nd: "Baby Bronco" (Short C C/SUV) 3rd: BEV CUV 4th: ?? (from the hint, it should be a car)

Mitsubishi? They made the cars, do they own the name? You mention Colt(s), the only thing people remember will be the football team.

Yes, the numbers game.T-bird and Lincstang = 2 new nameplates.

Does FCA still own the Colt name? If not, that's your baby Bronco right there.

I mentioned it in the context of 1 of the 4 new nameplates is a car. So... If you want T-bird, then no Lincstang.

On the slide that titled "FORD READIES INDUSTRYS FRESHEST LINEUP BY 2020", it said "4 new nameplates" along with stick figures of 2 c/suv and 2 cars (or 1 car, 1 coupe like cuv). So at least 1 new car, Lincstang?

Why would they do that? Lincoln's stated goal is to reach 300k a year by 2021 - and that's 200k from NA, 100k RoW. They'll need every single copy they can sell, and then some, to get there.

Speaking of GM retail dumping, over the weekend I saw GM ads that "employee pricing for everybody" is back for December! Wonder if this is a MI local thing, or a nationwide campaign.