old_fairmont_wagon

For a "recent" smaller application of the Miller cycle, take a look at one of the V6 engines that was offered in the Mazda Millenia S. The problem with "Spit-Back" is that it does make meeting environmental emissions a bit more difficult vs. the normal Otto cycle. The Nissan approach here attempts to get all of the benefit and as little of the problems as possible. It does, however, add to engine complexity.

While he's betting big, he also controls almost the entirety of his supplier stack. He's got volume production up for the S and the X. The 3 is definitely having it's problems, but the product is done and he's getting some out of the door. The Semi has had prototypes running for a good chunk of the year, and will demand a far lower rate of production. The Roadster isn't even going to start production for about a year or so. Unlike a lot of the other also ran attempts at starting new vehicles in production (Fisker, Eleo, etc), Tesla has an actual revenue stream. His products that are in volume production are more than covering their costs. His money burn isn't on actual operational fundamentals, it's on R&D. This is exactly what one would expect for a new entrant into an established market that's striving to be a technology leader. What makes people so scared of Tesla is how bullish Musk has been with them. He's pushing far harder than any of the companies that have come before him. This is a wise decision as attention spans these days are VERY short. If you don't push hard and promise the sun, moon and stars, people will forget you. It's absolutely a risk, but this is far from a scam.

I think that a lot of the talk here is kind of missing the shift that is going to be coming to first world nations over the next decade. The movement is already afoot against fossil fuels, and a big target of that movement is diesel. Once Elon Musk, Via Tesla's Electric Semi, as well as CAT, Mercedes, and several other entrants into the electric semi movement start to prove out that the technology is ready and usable, you'll see the legislatures start to set sunset dates for Diesel OTR and city tractors. Trucking companies will have to go through the pain of upgrading their freight docks with recharging facilities, and some of the big truck stop chains will have to invest in fast charging facilities themselves. This shift is going to put a terrible financial strain on a lot of the smaller freight companies, and I think that you'll see a round of consolidation in the industry because of it. But, the long term benefits will vastly outweigh the short term up front costs. It's not just fuel savings. It's reduced cost for brakes as pads will last longer than they do now. It's maintenance and upkeep as there are many fewer moving parts, including the elimination of transmissions. Municipalities will appreciate them as they are going to be much quieter and less sooty in most situations (I'm aware that modern, well kept diesels are relatively smoke free, but, they still generate some and can potentially generate a lot), and I think we'll all appreciate the absence of the jake brake. For those that say that the US will drag it's feet on making the change, I think that you are overlooking the power of two things: 1)It appears that there will be a significant backlash against the current political party that's in the majority, resulting in a legislature that is more in favor of progressive policies that apply to transportation. 2) Companies vote with their wallet. When the numbers start coming in and show that the electric semis are not only feasible to operate, but also cheaper to operate in a full lifecycle basis, you'll start to see the industry push adoption to higher levels. In this case, I'm not so concerned about Musk making his delivery promises. He's had prototypes running for over a year wearing standard sheetmetal and making deliveries for him. There is a lot of competition in this space, though not many of them are high profile. This is one area that he can and will meet expectations. How this relates to Ford? Ford seems to be pushing a lot of their larger vehicle development towards over seas projects in countries that will still be running fossil fuels for a long time due to reduced infrastructure support for electrical distribution. The above listed announcements really bear this out. Domestically, if they aren't working on Electric Class 7 and below large trucks, then they are making a serious mistake. Their lack of progress on larger engines would indicate that they are focusing their efforts on something else. I'm hoping that it's electric, or at least heavy duty hybrid.

something to keep in mind, the program was a tax credit. It wasn't just a check cut to the buyer for that whole subsidy amount. You had to have tax liabilities up to that amount to get it in full. For the segment of the population that would have most needed the subsidy, they wouldn't have gotten much from it in the first place as they wouldn't have had anywhere near that amount in tax liabilities. It was as much a hand-out for the mid to upper middle class on up to the rich to get them to buy the vehicle as it was a plan to help save the environment. While I understand the desire to get those that could afford to support the vehicles after purchase to buy them first, it was never about helping people to buy them and instead to make them attractive financially to those that could buy anything. People are saying that this would hurt Tesla, but it won't. Beyond being just about through with the program themselves, it will make the EVs from their competition less palatable as well. It's lasted just about long enough for Tesla to get to a position to make a mass market EV that can be sold at prices competitive to comparable ICE vehicles.

From what I remember from reading about the system, Akirby is correct. The engine essentially has two modes of operation: Traditional spark ignition which is used during cold starts and when conditions are incompatible with the compression ignition regime, and a hybrid compression ignition system. The engine has a base compression ratio that is higher than normal gasoline engines (though, from what I've seen, not quite as high as traditional diesel engines). The chamber is shaped in such a way to have an initial combustion of a small portion of the intake charge (triggered by a spark plug) that generates a rapidly expanding shock wave that is just strong enough to push the largely homogenous intake charge into compression ignition. Because of the momentary delay in combustion, it's always into the power stroke and manages the cylinder pressure optimally to keep the CI from causing damage. The main advantage that Mazda is seeing with this engine is the ability to burn leaner for the same power level while keeping emissions in check. This is something that they have been working on for quite some time. Looking at some of the briefs that were out there, the control systems for this are significant. I suspect that there will be reliability teething issues for the first few years due mainly to the number of units and design complexity in the combustion control systems that monitor the entire system. What would be quite unique is if Mazda and Nissan got together to combine this system with Nissan's variable compression ratio system. That would allow you to optimize every aspect of the combustion cycle when coupled with DOHC with fully independent valve timing.

The engine that never made much sense to me was the 3.0l Vulcan V6. It barely had more HP than the I4 offerings. It's torque wasn't especially impressive. It's weight likely offset it's extra power to a significant amount. It's fuel economy was scarcely better than the 4.0l in its various iterations. Having driven the 2.3l/auto, the 3.ol/auto and tge 4.0l/auto all in 2wd form between two different jobs, I could barely tell the difference between the 2.3l and 3.0l with my butt dyno. The 4.0l, however, was always a noticeable amount stronger. (Often times too strong with an empty bed on a slick road)

Three things killed the Caprice in the US. Price as it was priced much higher than other comparably SIZED vehicles, Availability as often, there were no dealers anywhere near me that even had one to test drive, much less sell, and advertising as I don't believe I've ever seen an ad for the vehicle in anything other than online media, and only then on a handful of websites. From a conversation that I once had with a local Chevrolet salesman, they didn't want to deal with ordering and selling them at all. This is what enthusiasts have come to expect. First, the vehicle isn't offered, then they decide to eventually offer it, but make it so difficult to buy through price and availability, then, once it flops in the market, they point and scream and shout that there are no real enthusiasts and that it was just misguided loyalty to those non-existent enthusiasts that killed the project. And, of course, this completely misses that Fiat-Chrysler continues to move the 300/charger in volume even on ancient platforms with below average dynamics. There is a market, but it does have its limits.

I see that the discussion on this one has died off a bit. Here's a minor update on the Stinger. The base model will not have the "GT" badge and will simply be "Stinger". It is expected to have a starting price around $35,000. The engine in the base is going to be an evolution of the same turbo charged 4 cylinger that's in the base Hyundai Genesis Coupe. This should give it high 200s horsepower with around 300 lbs of torque or so. This will put it in the ballpark of other smaller luxury RWD entry turbo models (Lexus IS turbo, BMW 2/3 series with the 4 cylinder turbo, etc). Being a Kia, buyers should be able to bargain down into the low $30Ks easily. For that price, this isn't a bad package. Not precisely my cup of tea, but that's much better market positioning.

I wonder what it would have been like if Ford had bothered to integrate the 10AT with the 3.3 GDI V6 from the F-150. I also can't wait for the performance numbers from the 2.3L EB/10AT combo with the overboost...

I drove a 98? Light duty 250 (reg cab, 8ft bed) for work while I owned a 99 150 super cab short bed. I honestly didn't notice a lot of difference in day to day, save for a slightly stiffer ride unloaded.

I know that I only post here when I feel that there's something that I can add to a discussion. I do find myself posting more over at Jalopnik (lots of stupid people there need correcting) and at The Drive (I'm a fan of Tyler Rogoway's work). Traffic here is noticeably down over the last year. I'm down to stopping by only a few times a week myself.

It's a marvelous design, and wonderfully straight forward in approach. My main worry is longevity. So many load bearing joints...

Subaru is very much in style right now. They have been largely production limited for a while now. For FCA and Subaru, its easier to post gains when your total sales are so low.

There were actually several different standards and trade names proposed for digital radio on the FM band. Some had longer, more descriptive names, but, regulators liked the general idea of the name HD radio in that, it COULD be better if the station wanted it to be. I don't have much of a problem with it because I understand it, but I can see where a lot of people would be a bit off-put by it.

Well, honestly, HD FM and Satellite radio both sound the same to me, clean and tonally full. I'm not an audio connoisseur though, so I'm a poor judge of that. Also, there are standards for HD Radio in so much as there are only a few defined bit-rates and power levels available to transmit on. FM HD formats are up to an individual station to decide with the constraints being the encoding method, and the bandwidth allotted to each digital stream and the analog stream. A station may elect to be digital only, and transmit just one stream at 300 Kbps. This can accommodate CD quality audio in 5.1 channel surround sound, or higher quality with fewer channels. That can be subdivided into an analog channel, an HD simulcast of equivalent or better quality (HD1) and additional channels that can have quality that ranges from better than analog down to barely as good as AM Motorola stereo. AM Hd is much more restricted, it can support a single pure digital stream at 60 Kbps, or a more robust 20Kbps mode. Conflating the TV HD standards with FM HD or AM HD is not appropriate. The HD is a trade name and not an indication of fidelity as it is in the TV world. Though, I have to agree, it is disappointing when a station doesn't use the higher quality modes.

While true that "AM HD" is indeed digital radio transmission on the AM band, in a similar fashion to FM; it is not utter crap. Due to the nature of AM radio transmission, it has a lower bandwidth for data transmission than FM. This means that it can only manage to move a portion of the data per unit of time that can be fit in an FM signal. While digital radio transmission allows for data compression and naturally sends a bit more usable information than old analog AM, it can't achieve the same effective signal quality as FM HD. This results in sound quality that is roughly similar to FM analog, and in stereo, for AM HD. So, as compared to analog AM, AM HD is indeed a higher definition signal. I tealize that some of you know this well, I felt that it would be helpful for the general audience to know more of the details. There are other limitations for AM HD as opposed to FM HD, but they aten't relevant to this discussion.

Biker, did you just use GM and Toyota as an example of two companies that keep their products fresh?!?! "I'll agree JLR and Volve have fewer vehicles, but can you explain how GM and Toyota with far more vehicles than ford are better at keeping their cars fresh." You sometimes make some interesting points, but my head just about exploded when I saw that line. I think that, maybe, you might just want to take a long, hard look at both of those manufacturers and the absolute crap that they have foisted upon the buying public over the last two decades. The GM W-Body started life in 19 freaking 88! It was just taken out back and shot, putting it out of it's misery in MAY of this year! That's 28 years of the same platform with only one significant remodel during that entire time. The Toyota Camry platform hasn't seen a significant re-engineering since the XV30 was introduced in the 2001 model year, making it it 16 years old now with no major revamp in sight. The Corolla has also had 10+ year cycles on a singular platform, and, when it did get a significant platform redo, they made an almost exact copy of the previous generation in the process, being almost impossible for customers to differentiate on the lots. Both of those manufacturers may be the worst two possible choices out of all of the manufacturers out there as examples of how to redo your products on a regular, quick turn around. The saddest thing about that comparison is how Toyota has managed to maintain solid sales volumes on both the Camry and Corolla IN SPITE OF dragging along platforms that have almost as much age on them as some of their purchasers. How soon we forget that the VAST majority of the car market (not the Truck market, it has very different buying behaviors) is just looking for an automotive appliance that just has to tick off a few desired features and not be featured on the news as suddenly exploding in a nuclear bomb scale conflagration when tapped on the rear bumper with a feather.

I have a lot of seat time in a T-350 3.7L Ti-VCT powered 15 passenger model with 10 big bodies and a big pile of bags and equipment in the middle of the back row. It does just fine on flat land and with mild grades. Given that that configuration will be used in most cases to run around town, it should do just fine.

To add to this, I've got a long term rental on a 2016 Chevrolet Cruze 2LT while my 2011 Corolla is in a storage lot at my local Toyota dealership waiting for a new airbag due to the recall. I've driven a friend's recent Focus a few times and the difference is palpable between the vehicles. The Cruze is better at fitting my 6 foot almost 300 pound whale of a body comfortably without feeling confining around my legs. The 1.4L turbo and 6AT combo is a solid powertrain with plenty of mid range grunt and a decent shifting schedule without feeling like it wants to jump out of the engine bay from time to time. The gas mileage on a recent road trip with three other occupants and two days worth of luggage in the trunk was absolutely phenomenal. The Chevy MyLink infotainment system isn't the greatest in the world, but as compared to recent sync systems I've used, it's not appreciably subpar either. It has all the functions that you need it to. Also, while I'm a Ford fan, I feel that the ergonomics of the Chevy setup, excluding the control stalks on the steering column (which I really just don't like), are better than the Focus. If I was in the market to replace my Corolla, I'd absolutely give the Cruze a solid consideration, and it's scheduled to be replaced again next year. I'm not going to sit here and bash the Focus. It's not a bad car by any stretch. It's just getting eclipsed by other entrants in that market segment. Save for the ST and RS, I don't see any compelling reason to purchase the Focus over most of it's competition. I might be singing a slightly different tune if they had done an MCE that replaced the DSG with a modern, compact 6AT or another DSG that is a significant improvement over the current one. (I was not exceptionally happy with my friend's and his was "reprogrammed at the dealership" last year). There are other minor issues that I have with it, and I realize that some of them are due to my rather large ass and not really major faults with the car.

We are absolutely one of those families looking into a Transit T-150 Wagon. While I first looked at the Transit Connect wagon, it just isn't big enough to handle my family and is too underpowered to deal with the mass of three teenagers and two grade schoolers along with two grown adults and a bunch of gear. The 4 row T-150 wagon looks like it would be a great fit for us. Its much roomier than our current 2014 Grand Caravan, has higher load ratings in several key areas, on fuel mileage tracking sites, it gets very similar effective city gas mileage (where it will be used the most), and is large enough for us to carry the in-laws with us when we go somewhere and still have room for about 45+ cubic feet of bags and gear. My only reservations are that it seems impossible to get a sliding side door in the low roof model, it sits a little high for my wife to be comfortable driving around in garages and parking lots, and it is a bit longer (though, surprisingly, not by that much). One thing that it is NOT is inexpensive. They charge a dear price for it, not that far from the Metris, which is something we're also looking at. I've driven a promaster and I don't want to get trapped into owning that thing long term. Most of the Sprinter configurations that I've seen wind up being even more expensive or just too big.

This is a trend that's being picked up more and more throughout the industry. Nissan is doing it with the Rogue as well (and I think the Versa is also split). Its a way of keeping plant utilization up while being able to offer a cost-leader design to get new, price shopping buyers into your storefronts. I can't say that I agree with it, but, it is something to deal with. With Ford likely to keep the PIU and PI going unchanged for many years to come, I wouldn't be shocked for there to be a Taurus and Explorer "classic" at some point to keep that plant's volume up enough to justify the existence of a police product.

The proliferation of body armor amongst their adversaries is at the root of criminals uparming to semi-armor piercing rounds.

After reading the comparison test results, it seems to me that the Ford entry was suffering a little as compared to the competing entries in the payload and rear leaf spring strength department. Perhaps they should have sent over an F-150 with a higher payload rating? Shouldn't have made much of a difference in the mpg while offering more capabilities and perhaps better ride characteristics.

I've always viewed Tesla, and Musk's strategy, as more of someone trying to play the long-game to actually break into a market dominated by very large, vertically integrated, well established players. Tesla has had to basically build an entire vehicle company, complete with suppliers, manufacturing plant, sales and marketing, and R&D from scratch whereas his competition has had all of that in existence for most of a century. Of course his up front costs were going to be monumental. That his first vehicles were high-priced, top of the market units that could support a very high ATP to help offset all of the overhead costs that were being sunk into the business is no shocker. They filled the need of a product that could bring in large amounts of cash at lower production rates. I do think that the next 24 months are going to be make or break for Tesla though. The company is definitely at a point that it needs to get volume up much higher to better spread fixed overhead costs over many more units. Since Musk can source battery units from a battery factory that he owns, he can keep his costs more under control and not have to face open market competition there. With the combination of the model 3's volume eating up overhead costs, the higher priced Model S and X units can then realize more of profit as a function of cost of goods sold as their costs shrink due to improved factory usage amortization over the higher unit volume. I am absolutely not saying that Tesla will make it. Any investment in them is absolutely still a high risk venture. I don't view them as any great ecological savior, instead, I view them as offering something that the overall market has shown interest in at a price that the market seems willing to bear. If they can achieve the predicted volume numbers, and keep costs contained, I believe that, as an ongoing business venture, Tesla motors can survive. Going forward, I hope that Tesla motors has plans for a Model 3X crossover. We've seen how the overall market is absolutely gobbling up anything sold as a smallish SUV/CUV and I think that that's where Tesla absolutely has to go.

Umm, I hate to dispute you OldWizard, but, if my memory serves, the 2V was phased out in all applications in 2005, save for some low volume specialty stuff. I'm sure it wasn't used in the F53 Motorhome chassis after that point as I know three different people that E-450/E-550 based Class C motorhomes that have 3V 6.8L V-10s.