slemke

That high demand is fueled by folks with $ to spend. Some of those $ comes from high used car prices pushing up new car prices. As I said, used car prices are softening…less demand. That in turn will lead to less demand for high priced new cars as the loss of equity in the trade needs to come from somewhere or the difference in price becomes more attractive for people to buy used. In 2020, mortgage rates were extremely low and refinancing freed up dollars to spend on other things like cars, driving up demand at a time when supplies were very limited. Mortgage rates have fallen some, but they are still much higher than before. Housing costs will start to reduce demand for other items as it takes a larger percentage of the household budget. On the supply side, the chip shortage continues to ease, although not uniformly. Commodities have stabilized. As inventories build, we will see how much downward pricing pressure there is to move it. So yes, at the root it is supply and demand. It is what’s behind the supply and demand curves that is interesting.

Wrong version of the 2.3. You’re referring to the current one. I’m asking about the new modular performance architecture one being introduced in the 2024 Mustang. It has a smaller bore and longer stroke than the duratec/Mazda one.

Nothing wrong with a little fun. Fact was they did it to have fun with it and one more example of using multiple gear ratios on an EV. I recall also, that the 2 speed was for obtaining a higher speed. It really depends on the rpm range of the motor. The Mach e with a 13.8k max rpm is limited to 111 mph. The GT is limited to 124mph A Tesla model 3 performance has a top speed of 162mph, standard is 140mph. The Tesla motor spins to 18k rpm. All use a similar 9:1 gear reduction. There must be something going on with the electrical system of the Mach E. Motor specs are similar or better to the Model 3, but actual performance is well short.

Seems like the EPA regulations need to be updated. I’ll bet that happens as we see more EVs and trying to get the lowest cost solution. Manufacturers will then have a reason to lobby for the change. I had forgotten about the Taycan and roadster using a 2 speed transmission. I recall Ford making some prototype electric Mustang with 6 speed.

As long as the extended range batteries are still an option, the smaller cheaper battery packs are great for those that only use them locally or short trips or like to stop a lot for breaks. No reason to pay extra for range that isn’t needed. The LFP batteries have more recharge cycles than NMC, so the shorter range shouldn’t matter for the lifetime of the battery. The other thing mentioned was improving aerodynamics. This will help improve range without increasing battery size. Ford needs to take a systems approach to engineering the vehicles. Improved aerodynamics will help ICE also. It was a big focus in the 80s, but as fuel got cheaper and engines and transmissions more efficient it became lower priority to style.

I thought it was 10% of gross income for auto, credit card, etc. that the banks went by. Rules may have changed. Some of the pricing is due to the high value of used cars. People with 2-3 year old vehicles getting as much or more for them than what they paid. The used car market is softening. Prices down 1.5% in January. That will make the new cars even more expensive per month to finance. Median household income is up to $78k, so that may be driving some of the higher prices also.

Particularly when they are outsourced. LGE makes the motors for the Mach e and transit. Not sure about the lighting.

So is the new 2.3L EB related to the dragon I3? I thought I read the bore was 84mm. The motor trend article I read about it said the architecture would be shared with an I3. Otherwise, it sounds like the dragon I3 isn’t long for this world if it will be part of a modular architecture with the 2.3L. I’d assume there will also be a 2.0l I4 also.

Well, Ford has already unnecessarily complicated it then. The Mach e uses a smaller front motor than rear. The GT uses the same rear motor in the front. The e Transit also uses the same rear motor, which is made by LG. Lightning might use the same rear motor also.

It is more to do about rpm range and efficiency over that range. Plenty of ice motors could get by with a single gear, but the efficiency of driving around like that would be horrendous. The rpm range is much less on an automotive engine. 9k or so max but many redline in the 6-7k range compared to an electric motor at over 20k. The Mach e is 13.8k The big advantage of an electric motor making torque as soon as it starts spinning is no need for a torque converter or clutch. The Mustang Mach e does have a reduction gear of somewhere around 9:1. There is an automotive professor from Weber St who has some interesting tear down videos of the Mach e drivetrain. He also does some on the escape hybrid transmission. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiC15Linpn9AhVSkIkEHUIrAEoQtwJ6BAgQEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dy1HulO-EZkc%26vl%3Den&usg=AOvVaw2546E9AfBGVQdbYrMS2JX3

At least they identified a real problem. Better than cutting features that people see. That updated wiring harness will save significant money and improve range. Or use the weight savings to increase efficiency and use a smaller battery pack. Efficiency gains really benefit vehicles like the Mach e. Might not be so much on the lightning as it still needs to haul and tow heavy loads, so the battery pack needs to be large enough for those tasks. But, on something like a Maverick efficiency is more important.

No, I didn’t miss your point. Just because infrastructure is built out around you doesn’t mean it is built out everywhere else. That’s my point. Heck, there are still locations with poor cell service. It’s going to take time, especially in sparsely populated rural areas to be built out. If manufacturers rush to phase out ice before the infrastructure is fully built out there will be problems. I don’t know the future. Neither do manufacturers as they are trying different things, hoping to find the next big thing. Tesla found a formula that worked for them. Why if a use case doesn’t match what you think is it extreme? The whole point I’m trying to make is that Bev isn’t the best solution for everyone now or in the foreseeable future. Battery technology isn’t there yet. Maybe in 10 years, nobody knows. You seem to admit that above, but indicate it is a bad thing by saying they complain about it. There is nothing wrong with saying vehicle X or a type of vehicle doesn’t meet your needs. If people didn’t state that a product didn’t meet their needs, products wouldn’t get better. We wouldn’t have manufactures working to add range, decrease charging times, and build out charging infrastructure because people wouldn’t pay extra for it. Tesla’s super charger network is a big draw for many people. Especially now that some of the other networks are getting older and are not maintained.

Still needed for the Mustang until Ford manages to make a high performance version of the 6.8/7.3L. Might as well amortize development cost across additional volume in the F150. From what I have read, the Coyote will be around for a while. We might see more pieces of the puzzle closer to the launch of the updated ‘24 F150. Other than speculation on this board, I haven’t read anything about an I6 off of the new modular power architecture as the new 2.3L is dubbed. Only that it will spawn an I3. I concur that an I6 would be a good replacement for the nano and cyclone v6 engines. It would be cheaper to build, have greater appeal, and reduce engineering cost to keep multiple engine architectures emissions compliant in the future.. That would consolidate North American engines somewhat if the turbo 3, 4, and 6 cylinder engines all used the same architecture.

I agree the Mach e and lightning have their own strengths. I think it is more the demographics of the area I live in that leads to the large number of Teslas. If you want people to know you drive an EV, you drive a Tesla. My kids know a Tesla is an electric car, even with me pointing out the Mach E s and I’d.4s, they still aren’t convinced those are electric cars. Then again, many around me have no clue what a Lincoln is either. I don’t know what to say about the model Y, other than it is the ugliest Tesla currently on the market. The proportions are just off. The X is a little better, but not much. The best looking is the Model S. The few ID.4s I see driving around are pretty sharp looking. To me the Mach e needs a smaller nose. Both are better looking than the Y.

You sure those aren’t model Ys? I’ve seen fewer Xs than Ss. I have gas stations going up around me. Kinda weird with all the Teslas driving around. The target got level 2 chargers quite some time ago. Some of the public parking decks have added them, but they aren’t used much. I suspect that most are charged at home in the garage with no need to pay extra for public charging. I do see many requests for solar panels to be installed in my neighborhood and those homes often have an electric car or buy one shortly after. I lost track that Rivian increased production faster than Ford. Last time I looked in fall, Ford was claiming to be the EV truck leader…that was probably 3rd quarter. Ford still claims to be the EV truck leader after sales increased in December. The 20k Rivians include the Amazon vans and R1S suv. Seems to be a close race. Doesn’t change the fact that I haven’t spotted a Lightning, but have seen several R1T and an R1S.

Thanks…I’ll look it up that was before I was born and my Dad never mentioned it.

I think you are living in a bubble. The infrastructure may be built out around you, but it isn’t everywhere. “Range anxiety” is real for those that drive lots of miles in a day or in locations poorly served by public charging or haul/tow heavy loads, or extremely cold temps.

Wasn’t aware of that. When was it?

Seems to fit what I see around here. Many fewer 3 series and lots of Teslas. It went from look at me I drive a luxury car to look at me I drive an electric car. I haven’t seen a Lightning on the road, but I have seen a couple Rivian trucks and an occasional Mach-e and Id.4 My guess is the lightning and Mach e don’t have the cachet of a Tesla or Rivian.

Automotive news had a blurb about Ford having 25% more engineers than competitors. It will be interesting to see how Ford+ plays out. GM had record earnings and Ford lost $2B. Autoweek mentioned inventory is up, so supply shouldn’t be as much of an issue. The article did indicate that Ford was paying a premium for some parts.

You don’t have to shout. He didn’t mention the year, and I forgot Mulally had the name changed along with the refresh for ‘08 as a stop gap until the ‘10 arrived. It did get the 3.5L. The 3 bar grille and headlights didn’t fit with the rest of the design. Something many Ford refreshes feature. Change for the sake of change, but disrupts the cohesiveness of the design.

We don’t. The current ones were an improvement over the old ones, but never should have been approved. That’s all I’m going to say on it, since it is all politics.

It was significantly better looking than the 500 it replaced. Unfortunately, it did give up some of the room the 500 had.

I think it goes back to CAFE and treating trucks/suvs differently than cars. I can see having a higher cap on trucks and 3 row suv/vans that need larger batteries for acceptable range to have a higher cap. I’m not in favor of subsidizing rich peoples toys (Taycan, model S, lucid, Rivian, hummer, etc). But, if we want Lightnings with extended range, to be subsidized, a separate cap is needed, otherwise the toys would encroach on the higher cap. The lower cap had actually succeeded in making the model Y and Mach e more affordable without costing taxpayers money.

The evening news wasn’t the same after Walter Cronkite left. The cars and trucks after the first oil crisis were only memorable for how bad they were. It took until the late 80s for things to turn around. Now that we’ve got great powertrains again, it is time to reset and go with an immature Bev. Are we in for a second malaise era? Let’s hope not.