Jump to content

slemke

Member
  • Content Count

    495
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

slemke last won the day on March 28

slemke had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. First thing…come up with an evil acronym “sore” for the problem. Small off road equipment. Then compare emissions from 2020 when CA shut down the state to make sore a bigger problem than it is. Next add loopholes so the big boys are exempt (only applies to engines under 25hp). Top it off with a dose of the technology already exists. By the way, 2024 is the earliest it can take effect. The wording was 2024 or the earliest it is feasible whichever is later. How much commercial landscaping equipment is available using battery? Has it grown beyond a few small manufacturers? Toro hasn’t even brought out a battery powered version of the time cutter 30” wide area mower for consumers. Largest is a 22”. Seems premature to me. But, I don’t follow the industry so there might be a lot coming to market in the next couple of years.
  2. HR will have a field day with that order guide. Unless the order guide has a typo and calls it a winch.
  3. Correct. There is a point of diminishing returns on screen size. Whether it be phones, tablets, cars. Putting a large screen in a car gives a premium illusion for not much cost. What matters more once you get to a 10” screen or so is the resolution, brightness, color quality, etc. There could be differences in screen specifications between the Navigator screen and what is used in the Focus other than size. The aviator screen is just fine.
  4. slemke

    Maverick Test Drives

    It comes down to using the right tool for the job. If the Maverick isn’t suitable for the task, use a different truck. There will be plenty of buyers whose needs are met by the Maverick. Ford will gladly point the customer to the other trucks in the lineup.
  5. slemke

    2022 Lexus LX600 Revealed

    Ouch. The back showed promise, but the front is unexplainable.
  6. Looks more similar to the Maverick than f150 to me. Makes sense for the Ranger to bridge the styling of the two. Looks like an improvement and ties the truck lineup together styling wise.
  7. Bronco sport is off to a strong start. Outsold Escape by a couple hundred units. October numbers for the Maverick will be more interesting. The f150 powerboost was only ~3500 units. I expected it to be higher than that. Lightning reservations over 150000 is a good sign.
  8. E-series actually had a 4% increase. Seems in line or slightly better than the 40% drop expected due to chip shortage. Hopefully the chip situation will rapidly improve with the Renesas plant coming back online after the fire. According to Renesas’ press release full shipping capacity should have been reached in late July.
  9. Tesla’s market valuation is/was equally nuts. At least Tesla is actually making a profit now.
  10. C. 6.8L V8 when it becomes available
  11. With the Aviator GT just under 500hp, I would expect a similar or better power number for the flagship Navigator. There was speculation about a high output 3.5L powerboost, but I haven’t seen anything on it lately.
  12. slemke

    The new 6.8 V8 thread

    If you want to move goal posts, sure a heavier truck with a larger frontal area will get worse mpg. That and the 6.2 is only available in 4wd. put the 6.2 in a lighter truck and it will get better mpg. The 6.6 doesn’t have cylinder deactivation. 6.6 might get better mpg in the heavier truck/suv as it wouldn’t have to work as hard. Wasn’t that part of the reason Ford went with the larger 7.3L Godzilla over the 6.8L v10? It wouldn’t work as hard under heavy loads and return better fuel efficiency for customers that towed and hauled. That was GMs philosophy for using the 350 in the large cars and performance cars instead of the 305 or 6 cylinder engines. The 350 and later 6.2 got some impressive mpg for the power it produced in the corvette. On the epa cycle, The 6.6 would likely fare worse than the 6.2 since the duty cycle is so light. Who knows, though…the 4.3 v6 gets the same 20 mpg in 4wd as the 6.2l. CAFE uses the old 1979 standard, not the adjusted and updated numbers shown on the window sticker. It is also a single combined mpg, not highway or city. It will be higher than the 70 mph cruising mpg. More like 55 or 60 mph. Need to factor in that gas is really E10 here and not the E0 used in cafe testing, the really slow speeds and lethargic acceleration of the test. The old epa estimates were really wild compared to what vehicles actually got and the window stickers and procedures subsequently revised to give a more realistic estimate. A 1983 F150 with a 300 I6 and 4 speed is epa listed at 23 mpg…that’s the cafe number. I would think a modern 6.8 with cylinder deactivation and a 10 speed could equal that if not surpass it. I read somewhere that the 6.2 ran the original test on only 4 cyl…might have been the corvette, though. Bottom line, a 6.8 will not help Ford’s CAFE numbers, but won’t be abysmal either. I wasn’t successful in finding Ford’s current cafe numbers for individual trucks to confirm.
  13. slemke

    The new 6.8 V8 thread

    Please explain how you arrived at your numbers. As a point of reference, the GM 2.7 I4 turbo gets 23 mpg hwy, and the 5.3 v8 with dynamic cylinder deactivation also achieves 23 mpg….24 with the fuel economy package. 4wd numbers are the same for both at 22mpg. The 5.3 is 2-3 mpg worse on the city cycle, though. The 6.8L is not quite 2x the displacement of the 3.5 EB just like the GM 5.3 and 2.7 turbo. Therefore, I would expect similar results for hwy mpg and probably 15% less in the city for the 6.8L vs the 3.5EB. Gear ratios, tires, and equipment levels will play a role in the final numbers. I don’t see Ford dropping the 3.5L ecoboost in favor of a 6.8L due to city mpg, but the difference seems manageable to offer it on select models and not kill the cafe numbers.
  14. slemke

    The new 6.8 V8 thread

    They could just call it a 429 and give Car and Driver something to write about. How many people do you think would actually do the math and figure it out? And if they did, even care? I thought the same thing on the 3.5 EB running no boost vs 6.8L running on 4 cyl. The fuel efficiency numbers are probably pretty close.
  15. slemke

    Autoextremist om Ford

    40-50k seems to be the sweet spot right now. Which limits the sales volume. Below that and the battery cost to total cost becomes too much and you don’t get much beyond the electric drivetrain. That’s the bolts issue….along with the battery fires. The hummer won’t sell in large numbers either. If it does take government action to force BEVs on the public, the profitability of those sales will be minimal and we will see a big shakeout of manufacturers. I think Akirbys 20-25% figure is about right, but even that might be on the high side. One thing I am sure of is Pete having a rant about how Ford did the wrong thing when it comes to EVs (spent to much developing them for a non existent market or didn’t develop enough of them).
×