Jump to content

slemke

Member
  • Posts

    741
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

slemke last won the day on May 23 2022

slemke had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

slemke's Achievements

375

Reputation

  1. Aviator Grand Touring PHEV is 70kw. The hybrid battery in the F150 is limited to 35kw. Ford would need to increase the power output of the hybrid battery to use a more powerful motor.
  2. F150 Hybrid sales still need to pick up the pace to meet Ford’s 2x target for ‘24. The ‘23s have a ~$1900 discount on the hybrid option, making it virtually no cost compared to the 3.5eb. Same with the ‘24. Propower has been made standard on the upper trims. Not sure if the pricing on Ford’s build and price website is accurate, but it was cheaper to get a hybrid with 7.2kw propower than it was a 5.0 with locking differential the last time I looked.
  3. My guess for Flat Rock is an s650 version of the Mustang GT500.
  4. Only 5000 miles between reactor swaps. Oil changes are half as often now.
  5. Might not be “massive “ but Ford is trying to close out ‘23 Lightning with $7500 incentives on xlt and lariat. Inventory of pro and platinum must be under control as those were excluded.
  6. From the pictures posted and not doing well in focus groups, more like a 1996 Taurus styling. I don’t remember how the ‘86 did in research clinics, but I do recall analysts being surprised at how well it did in the market. Maybe it would be more popular than we think. Put me down as it will be a failure based on the profile akirby posted.
  7. Ah, now your arbitration makes sense. A contract forced onto the membership by an arbitrator. One analyst was claiming the end is near and the strike at KTP was to sell the contract to members. The union leadership needed to show they did enough to get the best deal. You seem unconvinced the tactic will work.
  8. The IRS doesn’t know because the tax year isn’t over when the purchase is made. Buy an eligible vehicle in January and neither the current or previous tax year income is known. It still comes down to filing at the end of the tax year whether you are eligible for the credit or not. The credit cannot be carried over to another year. Details here: https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/credits-for-new-clean-vehicles-purchased-in-2023-or-after The thought is getting the money upfront will lead to additional sales as consumers don’t need to pay or finance the full amount and get refunded later. Not sure what prevents someone from attesting they are eligible to get a $7500 loan from the IRS and paying it back when filing or quarterly payments.
  9. Ford moved a bunch of Mach Es in August, but it looks like sales are still trailing the production increase as there is a 4 month supply at the current rate. Let’s see if the sales continue to improve. What happened to lightning sales? Plant down for retooling? Ford also disclosed a $270M charge for Explorer/Aviator cameras, so maybe they have a solution worked out and we’ll start to see Aviator and Explorer sales pick up.
  10. Careful with the generalization about 20 yr old cars. The 2004 Focus was available as a Pzev. If kept in good condition, it’s probably polluting less than the Expedition. In general, though, you are correct.
  11. Well, the fuel economy is abysmal with the Coyote in the Mustang. It didn’t get the cylinder deactivation that the f150 has. I know it is aimed at performance, but the dark horse gets hit with an added gas guzzler tax. Atkinson cycle or variable valve timing that eliminates the throttle like some manufacturers would help. Biggest gain would be from some sort of electrification. The ecoboost engines are starting to lag the competition. The standard output hurricane matches/exceeds the 3.0 nano. The HO version is in a different league. The 1.5l i3 is nothing to write home about for nvh, output, or fuel economy. Maybe it will get replaced by a 3 cylinder version of the Mustang’s 2.3L as one of the car magazines alluded to. I never said they needed new engines or transmissions. They need to keep the current lineup competitive. Class leading would be better and should be the goal. If a new engine is needed to consolidate engine families and reduce costs, seems like a win to me. But, they probably should expand their hybrid and PHEV options or at least fix the supply constraints on the current ones. I wouldn’t call the HO 6.7 diesel new either. It’s an improvement of the 6.7 that allows for an added premium to be charged. It fits the sort of improvements I envision across the lineup. Likewise, the 6.8l gas is a stretch being all new, as it is a shorter stroke 7.3.
  12. That’s the thing, they need to keep them fresh or they will loose any competitive edge and it will be like the late ‘90s early 2000’s with falling sales and profits. GM is spending money to revamp their V8 truck engines. Stellantis is continuing to roll out the hurricane I6. The list goes on. Ford needs to keep pace. We will see this fall what Ford does with the updated F150.
  13. That’s unfortunate. Usually there are a couple outlets around somewhere for maintenance. But like I said, might be difficult to access which seems to be your case. And I wouldn’t put it past Ford to save some money and not include the mobile charger as that was done on the Mach e.
  14. Did Ford remove the mobile power cord? You should be able to plug it into a standard outlet and let it charge overnight. No need for a charging station, but might still be hard to find an accessible outlet.
  15. Updated architecture. The 2.3 is a newer design that was developed for more stringent emissions standards. Why revamp an existing v6 when an I 4 designed to support multiple cylinder configurations can be used? By using the i4 and adding cylinders Ford could drop supporting an architecture and streamline any future development along with reduced cost to build. Hopefully it would allow more flexibility in switching between i3, i4, and i6 if they were all on the same architecture. At least, that was one of the reasons Mercedes gave for switching to an i6. It could be manufactured along with their now high volume 4 cyl. I think the v6 was a 90 degree design based on a v8 for manufacturing reasons. Then Mercedes switched to a 60 degree design before switching again to a i6. With more 4 and 6 cylinder engines being sold, it made sense to group them together. Ford will do whatever they think will be the most cost effective. That might be to keep 2 v6 architectures around as long as the cost to update for changing emissions is low or they’ll switch to an i6 gambling that the cost to update multiple architectures will exceed the cost of new tooling. We’ll see what happens soon enough.
×
×
  • Create New...