slemke

Was this something Ford caught in periodic/random inspections or something customers brought to Ford’s attention? If the former, then Ford’s processes are working and folks are being overly negative. Mistakes happen. At least they are being caught early. It seems more telling of the suppliers Ford chose to work with. Push suppliers too much on price and quality suffers.

Or it will just quietly show up on dealer lots....what’s this? We didn’t order any of those.

2.3 sticks to the original 4cyl formula. If going v6, my choice would be between the 3.0 and 3.5 ecoboost. Could also go Coyote as that generation featured a 302.

E85 gives a higher effective octane rating with direct injection, but I don’t know if it is enough to go from 108 of E85 to the 116 or more of the Cxx fuels. Racers are going for any edge they can get. I run E15 when I can find it for my ecoboost vehicles. Slightly cheaper, better knock resistance, and fuel economy. Premium has gotten crazy here. Up to 60 cents per gallon markup over regular. I’d like to see the higher octane fuels replaced with additional ethanol content to boost the octane. Large decrease in greenhouse gas emissions too. But, it seems to have fallen out of favor. That naturally aspirated 327 cu in coyote sure sounded good. 8500 rpm redline. 850hp@7800 rpm. The mod motor has come a long way from its 4.6l 190hp beginnings and being shunned by the racing crowd. Blew right by the “411 hp is all you will ever see out of it”.

The 9th generation “aero bird” thunderbird turbo coupes were my favorites. One of those would be a good candidate for a 2.3L ecoboost transplant.

The 6.8L will likely have a stroke shorter than the 7.3L, which is already shorter than the 5.4L stroke. The 5.4L and 5.8L trinity engines peak hp was rated at 6500rpm, with the trinity having an 8 second over rev limit of 7000. That’s a factory high performance engine. No excuse for the 6.8L to be any less if it is indeed a high performance engine for Mustang and Raptor. If the specific output is to meet or exceed the LT2, it will need to rev similarly high. The lt2 max power is at 6450rpm. The stroke is probably shorter, though. The 410cu in hoonicorn engine is a purpose built engine from Rousch Yates racing. Just wishful thinking of getting a factory motor with racing specs.

I think you are correct about the sub $50k pricing. Significant enough volume and allows for better materials and features to be appealing. The leaf and bolt come in on the low price side and don’t offer enough besides being battery powered. Not much demand for a $35k economy car. Those were all about getting the lowest priced vehicle with x amount of range. Something like the Mach-e on the other hand has much more appeal for the added cost. The big question mark is the supply chain. How much battery making capacity is out there and at what price?

First, define “a few more years”. They will be around at least 10 years. I haven’t followed mining, so I don’t know if there is the pipeline of raw materials to produce all these electric cars that are right around the corner. Then there needs to be solid customer demand. It is increasing, but I still see it being in the early adopter phase. Until they switch from appealing to early adopters to mainstream and have substantial volume, I’ll refrain from predicting their imminent demise. I recall hearing similar things about internal combustion engines being on their way out in the ‘70s when emissions controls were first imposed. Then in the 80’s it was fear that cars with computers couldn’t be worked on and v8s were done. In the 2000’s it was diesel that would take over. The ICE keeps evolving and staying relevant.

Woohoo...could be a replacement for the SHO. Coyote with a 6speed manual. Be better if it was offered in powerboost form. Sounds like the rumblings of a HO powerboost are also taking shape. What if the 6.8L is powerboost only? Designed for electrification from the start like the Mercedes I6. Could be very interesting. Farley is much more aggressive than Fields when it comes to new product. Fields should have been put out to pasture in 2006 when Mullally took over instead of given a second chance.

Let’s see some more data. The article didn’t say anything about Tesla sales declining. Any additional volume from new entrants will decrease market share if the existing players are at capacity. Market share of BEVs was up substantially. Likely due to Mach-e sales. Ford’s Feb sales data should be out soon and we will have a better picture of what is going on. I have a feeling this article was intended to influence the Tesla stock price so some major investors could get a price break.

Not for the low priced entry model. I would expect to see the 2.0 eco same as in the Escape and Bronco sport. 2.5L would be the replacement for the 1.5L eco. Whether it gets a 2.3L eco, would depend on how much power the chassis can handle. Keeping the power low would keep chassis cost down.

200” would still be 10” longer than a lwb transit connect. Somewhere between 190” and 200” is likely where it will end up. We’ll find out soon.

Could be the suspension design. Try driving a couple others and see if they all exhibit the same problem. If so, try for a buyback. You might be stuck, though, and need to eat the depreciation or turn the radio up to drown out the sound.

nice truck. Can’t say the same for the parking. That generation looked substantially smaller than it actually was. The Maverick will look big, but will likely maintain the footprint of a transit connect. The old 80’s and early 90’s compact trucks were quite appealing for their small size, low load height and could still carry a reasonable load. Combined with a low price and they were great 1st time buyer vehicles. We’ll know shortly how the Maverick does in the market.

Not in current form. Add a 250hp electric motor to a coyote or Godzilla and we’re getting somewhere.

He may be referring to proposals to raise the top federal marginal rate back to 39%. Tax code is complicated. There is the 3.8% investment tax that gets added on top of the capital gains rate or marginal income for short term gains. Then throw in the 26 to 28% AMT. Additional Medicare tax. You asymptotically approach the marginal rate as income goes up. With all the complications of the tax code, It is no wonder the ultra rich have teams of tax accountants to take advantage of every opportunity. And they can deduct that expense. So yeah, they don’t pay that much. Its the upper middle class that gets soaked. I thought CA had some sort of additional surcharge on the wealthy above the 12.3% rate to make it around 14%. Couldn’t find it so they may have dropped it.

Looks good. If the actual truck is anywhere close to the rendering it should be a success. Looks like a baby Fseries.

Fair means different things to different people. While the low income person thinks it is fair that high income people pay a significantly higher rate, the high income earner may not think it is fair to pay that much while the person not paying anything in taxes keeps voting for more services and higher taxes on the wealthy. There is only so far you can skew the revenue generation before it breaks down and the wealthy leave (see CA,NY, et. al.). Something like 47% don’t pay anything in federal income taxes. They pay other taxes, but not income. I thought dividing the total revenue needed from income taxes by the number of tax payers would be a fair system. Really get the legislators to think on how much was spent relative to earnings of the masses. But, it would never generate much revenue and be extremely painful to low wage earners. With that as a baseline, a flat % tax becomes much more lucrative. It’s fair in that everyone pays the same percentage. Raises substantial amounts of revenue. Is easy (maybe too easy) to implement and doesn’t disincentivize earning. Sometimes hard to justify taking on additional work or responsibilities for diminishing returns. “Where did my overtime money go?” The flat tax Steve Forbes ran on was something like 17% with a large standard deduction. Not that much more for the middle class, and the bottom 20% or so paid nothing. Adding a high standard deduction makes a flat tax progressive. It’s just that there is only 1 step. Eliminating all the tax loopholes, credits, exemptions, etc. could result in some wealthy individuals paying more. Mitt Romney paid right around 15%....he would have paid more with a flat tax. The current structure puts the huge step in rates right in the middle of the middle class. It flattens out for the upper middle class before jumping again for the top < 1%.

Jag doesn’t have enough resources to do both. This is their last Hail Mary attempt to stay relevant or so I’ve read. Seemed like jag could only make enough profit to keep the lights on and needed a capital infusion any time a new platform was needed. Canceling the XJ was a head scratcher. Must have been some undisclosed issue that would have taken time and development pounds the company didn’t have.

392 and hellcat wouldn’t fit.

It does take some getting used to to actually push the button and shut it off when the engine already shut down. Although, now that I think about it, I think the engine restarts when you put it in park.

Chicken dinner for fuzzy. 3.6l pentastar v6 weighs around 325lbs. 6.4l/392cu in hemi weighs 500lbs. 6.2l hemi weighs 600lbs. Doesn’t include extra plumbing for the inter cooler. anyway, you can buy a hellcat crate engine for under $20k if anyone is interested. 392 hemi is under $9k. For comparison a coyote is 9.5k. I really expected the coyote to be significantly more expensive. I didn’t have any luck in my quick search for a HO 3.5L eco.

Maybe ram should have spent more on testing, suspension development, and weight development and less on Easter eggs ridiculing the raptor and marketing. A 392 hemi ala Jeep wrangler at 470hp may have been a better choice for durability and handling balance. But, it wouldn’t get the over the top publicity of a hellcat.

Now you need to setup a go fund me page for the campaign.

Didn’t realize the original lightning was built at MTP. Cool video, thanks for posting.