Jump to content

slemke

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    741

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Everything posted by slemke

  1. slemke
    GM only offers the larger 28 gal tank on regular cabs. Ford starts out with an extra 2 gallons (6 if you get powerboost) and provides a 36 gal option on the 2.7, 5.0, and 3.5eb. Ford has a significant range advantage when towing.
  2. slemke
    Some observations: Towing with a travel trailer uses lots of energy whether gas or electric. The limited range of the lightning makes it practical for short trips under 75 miles and even then requires charging at the destination. Charging takes a long time just to get to 75%. Cost wasn’t that much different. $94 in premium gas vs $75 plus chicken dinner. $4 per gallon and gas comes out ahead. Also, why is GM putting a 24 gallon tank on their ultimate pickup with a 6.2L V8? It should be at least 30 gallons, 36 like the F150 extended range would be better. A larger tank would really drive home the difference in range between gas and electric.
  3. slemke
    Yes, but it shouldn’t be only for BEV. The way we buy goods has changed over the years, but the franchise laws and car buying experience hasn’t caught up. Saving $2000 per vehicle is a huge cost savings. Not getting that scale of savings by removing some lighting and chrome trim. I’m all for it.
  4. slemke
    What? Batteries better last more than 3 years. I could see recycling batteries and materials if these were 10-15 year old cars, but not 39 month returns. I call BS on that one. Ford’s betting the value at trade in will be greater than the residual and wants to capture that profit.
  5. slemke
    Continuous revenue stream. That’s the latest trend.
  6. slemke
    Ford and Lincoln finished above Honda and Toyota. Honda was even below average. With the big spread between Hyundai and Kia, what’s the margin of error? Not that it really matters as almost every brand on the list has 1-2 problems per vehicle. Buy what you want and enjoy it.
  7. slemke
    Aren’t they locked in to the price for existing orders? Rivian tried to increase the price on vehicles that had been ordered and took a beating with bad publicity and threats of cancelled orders.
  8. slemke
    It was mentioned in the Ford Authority article quoted in the original thread:https://fordauthority.com/2022/06/ford-bronco-2-7l-v6-ecoboost-engine-failures-explained-exclusive “As some are already aware, part of the problem with these 2.7L powerplants is that they utilize cheaper, sub-optimal valves that were acquired from a new supplier that apparently didn’t properly validate those particular components” He may have been given bad information. I do recall him setting better quality/fewer recalls/lower warranty costs as a priority and a way to reduce expenses. Besides, I doubt he signs off on each purchasing decision. This was likely made at a lower level and rolled up in some presentation with other cost reductions. It will be those decisions that he should question.
  9. slemke
    Ford did a similar thing with spinning off Visteon. They had a few rough years, but I don’t think they filed for bankruptcy. Once the profits of Ford Blue are sucked dry, I suspect it will follow in the Visteon path and be jettisoned. Somewhere between 2035 and 2040 would be my guess. Maybe sooner. Then again, the whole company may go under if costs and quality don’t get under control. This market allows some inefficient producers to exist.
  10. slemke
    Not sure it works anymore on the Aviator or I’ve just gotten used to it. Either way, I don’t notice it anymore.
  11. slemke
    Yeah, the bad valves in the 2.7 ecoboost that has been on the market for 8 years, contactors on the Mach E coming in at the low end of spec and failing, gear sensor on mustang, the roll away recall expansion. I’ve still got a recall or two outstanding on the Aviator for the rear camera and screen. Seems like excessive cost cutting coming back to bite them. Hopefully someone is keeping track of how much the recalls are costing and determining whether there was any actual cost savings. As a consumer, this is ridiculous. I understand a few things will slip through the cracks, but there is more slipping through than there should be for the supposed focus on quality and reducing recalls. How much would Ford have saved on the 2.7 valves?
  12. slemke
    Too early to put the nails in the Ford Blue coffin, but the writing seems to be on the wall for it with government mandates. Never know what happens. But I too see it spun off saddled with insurmountable debt from the EV transition that this separate entity is then forced into bankruptcy leaving Ford and the model E without legacy baggage or startup costs.
  13. slemke
    That’s the big question…how will Ford cut costs. If part of it is restricted development dollars, the vehicles could quickly become uncompetitive and profits will suffer. It is a delicate balancing act and Ford doesn’t have a good history of pulling it off. The Jac Nasser/Bill Ford/Mark Fields trio of the late 90’s early 2000’s comes to mind. Just spend enough on product development to not be dead last and hope customers still want to buy your product. But, they didn’t. Customers went elsewhere or held off purchases until the product development ramped back up to deliver compelling products. Maybe like Jpd, I’m too cynical about it. Place your bets and we’ll see in a decade.
  14. slemke
    Someone removed the covering on the box to leak info to the press….builds excitement for what is upcoming.
  15. slemke
    Replace them under warranty. Software “fix” will only prevent new cases. The fix limiting DC fast charge current and or time along with the WOT limitations is likely to bring some class action lawsuits out of the woodwork. Ford just doesn’t seem to have much goodwill from the legal community or consumers. Let’s hope this was found and fixed in the lightning.
  16. slemke
    I wasn’t aware of it. Not offering full power for a reasonable amount of time seems like Ford is asking for a lawsuit similar to one brought forth on the ‘99 cobra that was short on power and early GT350s that had some overheating issues when raced. With overboost, Ford at least mentioned the base power and the overboost power along with the duration. It should be the same for BEV.
  17. slemke
    About 1/2 the weight for Awd. Maybe Awd with a larger battery pack. If Awd is provided by electric only assist, that could explain the weight difference along with a slightly larger battery. Another option might be Ford switching to LFP to save cost. Since it isn’t as energy dense, a larger heavier battery is needed.
  18. slemke
    What approach might that be and why couldn’t it be applied to ice vehicles also? Weren’t you one of the folks convinced Ford needed to get into BEVs since they would be more profitable? Seems to me that people are only willing to spend so much on a vehicle whether electric or conventional and the cost of batteries is still too high to compete in the volume consumer market. The premium market is a different story. The battery cost can be hidden easier as those vehicles had higher margins and premium powertrains. Ford has some work to do on making everything more efficiently without cost cutting the consumer notices. If not, Ford will be one of the companies facing consolidation.
  19. slemke
    Doesn’t Valencia also produce the 2.3L? Surprised they didn’t just list the exact engine. That’s why I’m thinking this is the 2.1L. Another possibility is Ford is bumping the displacement of the 2.0L slightly similar to the Coyote when they went with the plasma lining instead of iron.
  20. slemke
    Where did you find the 5 second reference? 5 seconds is enough to put up impressive 0-60 times, but the 1/4 mile will suffer.
  21. slemke
    “The company also has boosted prices on the Mach-E this year, he said, without giving specifics. But the model, which Ford is recalling for a defect that could cause it to stop running, now costs $25,000 more to produce than an equivalent gas-powered Edge SUV, he said.“ wow. 25k buys a lot of gas. My understanding of what Lawler said was it was now unprofitable and there would be pressure on future EVs also. Lightning production may not ramp up very quickly if it can’t be sold at a reasonable profit. Low supply could keep prices high enough to be profitable.
  22. slemke
    Stripped for chips
  23. slemke
    Less than a tank of gas.
  24. slemke
    In Ford’s recent plant investment plans, a 2.xL engine was listed. This could be the 2.1l found in the mule.
  25. slemke
    At $5 per gallon, the cost of the I6 option could be recouped in 4 or 5 years. Not bad considering it has additional horsepower and torque. Missing that V8 hemi rumble, though. Something larger, say 3.5L, may get better milage, though as it doesn’t need as much boost and fuel enrichment. They probably want to use it globally where keeping displacement under 3L has tax advantages
×
×
  • Create New...