Jump to content

akirby

Moderator
  • Posts

    43,295
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1,433

Posts posted by akirby

  1. 25 minutes ago, fordmantpw said:

    I believe these increases are just over the LOWERED '23 prices, not the original '23 prices.  Equipment differences exist between '23 and '24 models as well.  For instance, the GT now comes standard with the magnetic shocks, which you had to get the GTPE to get in '23 (a $5k option).  So, a $70k GT in '23 is now $54k.  At least, that's the way I'm reading it.


    You’re right.  They actually cut 2024 prices significantly.

  2. 8 minutes ago, Andrew L said:

     

    It's also strange that the Aviator got it before the Navigator.  Navigator is supposed to be the flagship.  Aviator got a few things before the Navigator like heated/cooled 2nd row seating... and the MKT had that too.  Navigator didn't get that till the most recent refresh.  Odd.


    Not strange at all.  They decided to go all in on Aviator before the new Navigator got a new version.  Just product cycle timing.

  3. 47 minutes ago, Andrew L said:

    There are a few things Lincoln does not do across the board which I find odd.  The height of the door handles on the Navigator makes sense but if the Navigator gets air suspension like the Aviator and lowers itself I could see that being a play.

     

    The other thing that is not consistant across the lineup is the placement of the power seat switches.  All of them except the Nautilus have them on the door panel while the Nautilus has it on the side of the seat.  This is however nothing new with Lincoln and it drives me crazy.  In the 80s the Town Car Continental and Mark VII all had it on the door.  In the 90s the Town Car and Continental had it on the door while the Mark VIII had it on the side of the seat.  Enter the Navigator and LS in the late 90s it's on the side of the seat too.  Enter the Aviator in 2003 and it's on the door, refreshed Navigator still on the side of the seat.

     

    I wish they would just have the entire lineup have the seat controls on the door Lincoln has done that a long time and it would be nice for some consistency. 


    The ergonomics and controls inconsistency between the full sized trucks/SUVs and other vehicles drives me nuts.  With F series being the cash (and volume) cow they pretty much get to do whatever they want and the so do the other teams.  Simple things like having the audio steering controls on the same side would help.  My F150 is on the right while the Nautilus is on the left.

    • Like 3
  4. 33 minutes ago, greg abercrombie said:

    Can't quite wrap my head around Fords order and delivery system. If half of what is being posted is to be believed Ford is really letting the ball down. What if anything could the dealer you chose to go through effect the length of time from order to delivery.....is there any correlation?? I also keep hearing that trim level is a factor, what with reading that does seem to be the case. 


    Because Ford allocates vehicles to each dealer based on their sales history.  Let’s say each dealer gets 2 vehicles per week.  If the dealer has 10 people in line ahead of you you’ll have to wait 6 weeks to get yours scheduled.  If there is only one ahead of you you’ll only wait 1 week.   The trim levels are because of parts shortages which have always happened even before Covid.  Covid just made it 1000 times worse.

    • Like 2
  5. 9 hours ago, Rick73 said:

     

     

    I will concede that Maverick is close to my Ranger in cost if adjusted for inflation.  I paid roughly $21k for a Ranger XLT in today’s dollars, but that included dealer discount.  Maverick is far nicer than my Ranger.  Just saying that if looking for basic, simple, and affordable truck that happens to be compact in size, I think there is nothing comparable to 2nd generation Ranger.


    I owned a 90 and 95 Ranger.  Maverick is light years better in every dimension except bed length.

  6. 1 hour ago, T-dubz said:

    You are comparing it to the wrong truck. You should really be asking what does the ranger provide that the maverick doesn’t? The interiors are very similar in size. I think the maverick even has more rear leg room than the ranger. Ranger can obviously tow more and has a bigger bed, but is that worth an extra 10k to most buyers? 


    For me it’s bed size since I haul 9’-10’ lumber.  For others it’s true 4wd, running larger tires, more ground clearance.  Some need the additional payload and towing.  Some want more performance.  Lots of reasons for a lot of buyers.

  7. 1 hour ago, Rick73 said:


    They have, and are presently doing so as far as I know.  Chrysler Pacifica PHEV uses an Atkinson variant of 3.6L Pentastar.  That same engine is expected to power upcoming PHEV 1/2-ton RAM pickup.  The Pentastar is relatively old and not ideal geometry for Atkinson cycle operation, so we should keep that in mind.  Mercedes and others have built V6s also.  

     

    I believe you were the one who said few buyers purchasing $80k luxury vehicles will care that much about fuel economy, which I agree.  Plus it’s really difficult to install an inline-6 engine transversely in FWD vehicle, leaving 4s by default.  Manufacturers will have to want to improve fuel economy in order to meet government regulations before they invest in new engines; assuming BEV sales don’t rebound significantly and put an end to all ICE investment.

     

    An important question IMO will be whether manufacturers see enough time prior to sufficient BEV adoption to invest in development of new engines optimized for hybrid powertrains.  The Mustang’s new 2.3L makes a lot of sense to me to convert to Atkinson for vehicles no heavier than Maverick.  A 6-cylinder variant in 3.4L range perhaps could handle vehicles 1,000~1,500 pounds heavier, maybe more.


    Again, in heavier vehicles I would bet a 1.5 or 2.0 ecoboost is more fuel efficient than a 3.5-ish liter Atkinson cycle.  

  8. 59 minutes ago, Oacjay98 said:

    Unifor is trying to get information from Ford. I went the union meeting prior to this 3 row news of a potential delay broke out and the union said there is an extreme lack of information from this company. 


    Because they haven’t made a decision yet.  There is no easy answer here so the decision isn’t obvious.  Even if they want to continue the current Edge they have to negotiate that with dozens of suppliers.

    • Like 2
  9. 53 minutes ago, Rick73 said:


    Between Ford, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Kia and others, I expect there are literally millions of Atkinson engines in use, and I haven’t seen that many reports on noise.  Maybe I just missed most of them.  I did a Google search and found a thread on Maverick Hybrids sounding loud, particularly in cold weather, but it seems the issue is with throttle body getting stuck (or so some posters claimed) which also caused check engine light to come on.  This sounds more of a specific engine issue than Atkinson design issue to me.  For what it’s worth, a couple of owners with EcoBoost reported similar noise issue.  I recall at least one EB Maverick owner here mentioning engine was loud, so not limited to Atkinson.

     

    https://www.mavericktruckclub.com/forum/threads/noisy-engine-in-cold-temperature-start.25856/page-2
     


    As we all know an Atkinson engine makes less power and torque for its displacement, so a 2.5L will have to rev higher on average — as if it was a 2.0L engine (approximately).  With roughly 160 HP and 155 lb-ft of torque, I expect a 2.5L 4-cylinder will get busy (and loud) at times if installed in a heavier vehicle.

     

    Another factor that should help a lot is if Ford upgrades Atkinson engine to a much longer stroke-to-bore ratio.  This change should improve combustion and could lead to less noise.  I still believe that the “all-new” Mustang 2.3L engine with 84 mm bore and 102 mm stroke should make a superior Atkinson engine than the older 2.5L presently used in Maverick and other compact hybrids.  For larger vehicles, at least RWD, an inline-6 variant with greater displacement would be more appropriate in power and torque.

     

     


    Don’t you think if it was feasible to run a 6 cylinder atkinson cycle engine that someone would have done it already?

     

    Im guessing that a 4 cylinder turbo is just as efficient as a 6 cylinder Atkinson and provides more power when needed.

  10. On 3/23/2024 at 8:25 AM, silvrsvt said:

     

    You don't think Ford has already spent the money for tooling? Given how the past couple of years have gone with getting anything, I'd assume that they have or already committed to getting tooling that will be showing up now or with in the next 6-12 months for the rebuild. 


    I think stamping dies are done at the very end which would be late this year or early next year.  But I’m just guessing.

×
×
  • Create New...