slemke

And we all know how far Steve Forbes got on that one.

It is done that way in some states. Considering Texas is one of them, that will never happen at the federal level.

Funding is allocated by congress. Disaster relief isn’t glamorous so it doesn’t get much attention...it just takes away from any spending they want to do. Everyone knows Congress and the president will approve any disaster aid package. It looks good. Having the money already allocated doesn’t give any of them the photo opportunity. I should probably pay more attention to it. Just been disgusted with the coverage...newspaper and media cherry picks what they want to share so you have to do the legwork and read the actual legislation. Unless you have some source for the cliffs notes.

I think it plays into the value proposition and added utility of pro power. It was much harder to justify paying a premium for a non premium engine. With fuel prices low, the incentive just wasn’t there ( other than to consciously conserve energy). With the f150 powerboost, it is the premium engine and delivers top hp, torque, and fuel economy (ties diesel, but fuel is cheaper). So the price is justified in the pricing structure. The powerstroke diesel gets lost in the shuffle on the f150. Pricing is high, but delivers significantly less performance. if the ranger and bronco get a 2.3l powerboost with more hp and torque than the 2.7 ecoboost, it too can be marketed as the top engine and command premium pricing. The combo would even work well in the Explorer. I would like to see powerboost adapted to the f250 also using the 7.3L as a starting point. Just dropping in the 3.5L powerboost wouldn’t cut it. The performance gains wouldn’t be there to justify the cost. powerboost could become Ford’s hellcat.

Only counts if it is over 500rwhp....considering your sho is Awd it will never count. TFL did have an 800hp 3.5L that was daily driven by 5star tuning. Either ecoboost (5star had a 600hp 2.7 eco) or 5L will do. The ‘21 5.0 is much more intriguing with the cylinder deactivation, but then Ford went and added the powerboost.

Aviator is fine also. Chicago screwed a couple of them together correctly anyway.

I sense a pattern here. But, to mess with it, I’ll throw in my coworkers late 80’s accords... NC had an actual tail pipe inspection for emissions in the mid ‘90s. All the Honda owners knew the place to go for the inspection. Car would first be tuned to pass the inspection and then retuned for drivability. Honda hung on to carburetors too long. Of course, I was told my Ford would never pass and should prepare for a major expense to get it compliant. The ‘89 SHO I had passed with no problems. One year they tested it twice because the readings were so low the tech thought he measured it wrong.

King Ranch is the new Eddie Bauer edition. Marketing has to keep up with the latest trends on these special edition models or they will gather dust. Ford also had the Harley Davidson F series. The leather on the King Ranch models used to be a thicker higher quality leather, not just a specific color. Not sure if that changed with the continual cost cutting.

Yes, I’m really liking Ford’s hybrid strategy. Seems to mimic the German manufacturers. Hopefully ranger and bronco will get pro power on board also. I could see it being great on transit and e-series also.

It is similar for Home owners associations. Can’t run a surplus, but you can put as much as you want in a reserves fund for future needs. There are some additional requirements, but it has been a while since I was on an HOA board. States have rainy day funds for the purpose you described. You need to allocate the funds to a specific line item as Bzcat stated. Then it becomes good fiscal responsibility. We should have a line item for disasters in the budget. If it isn’t used, pay off on the debt. It is so easy for the fed government to borrow money they don’t even try to balance the budget anymore. Just spend as much as they can and call it stimulus.

As long as battery production includes the raw materials or at least a supply of them from a variety of friendly sources. Otherwise time to start a national stockpile similar to the strategic petroleum reserve. I’m glad it is being looked into, but it doesn’t seem much different than the previous administration other than maybe what industries are included. Microchips were already on the list anyway.

Right. Which leads to additional inefficiency and added bureaucracy.

How many more rpms should we expect with a shorter stroke design? The 7.3l already has a shorter stroke than the 5.4l mod, and that revved to over 6500. I tried to find the number last night but could only find max hp@6500 rpm. Maybe it will be some sort of Rousch Yates special and hit 8500rpm like the hoonicorn. 410cu in is not too far off from 6.8l. Twin turbos on e85. 1200hp?

Has Ford got the chips it needs to build these or will it get delayed due to parts shortages? Still a month away and many things can change.

Yes. Takes lots of money to get elected. Compromise is seen as failure and won’t bring in the big bucks for the next campaign. So they tow the extreme edges of the party line to keep the money flowing from the passionate big donors. Campaign finance reform is long overdue, but the fox is guarding the hen house. I sense a tan gent making an appearance...

A rational decision is a reasonable, logical, and sensible decision. Since government is supposed to look out for and represent the constituents, looking out for their own self interest is not reasonable or sensible to the constituents, only the government official. If they are looking out for themselves, they aren’t doing their jobs,

That’s a pretty big rub, though. The Volkswagen diesel scandal was the tipping point. VW had figured out how to cheat the system. After that, the trust was lost and something had to be done. Diesel could no longer be used to meet CO2 targets. I don’t know about Europe, but the US many locations (primarily metro areas) required tailpipe emissions checks or at a minimum that the on board control systems weren’t detecting a fault. This at least kept the gross polluters in line once a year. So saying they were uncontrolled is a bit of a stretch. I agree that monitoring and regulating a few large entities is much easier than the 10’s of millions of vehicles. They can keep a much closer eye on the power plants. It also allows the pollution to be relocated from densely populated areas to less populated areas where people are far enough away for it to diffuse and be tolerated.

Current policy doesn’t favor fossil fuel over anything else. If anything, it favors electric. No argument about government interference. It’s there and won’t go away. I’ll make rational decisions based on the situation. My old truck is cheap to operate because it is paid for and fully depreciated, not government subsidies. 22 years ago you still wouldn’t have a point as I still would have bought a gas vehicle. Gas was under a buck a gallon and half of that was tax. RTP was zoned with no close by residential, so driving was the only rational choice. The bus took several hours...could bike it in that amount of time but way to dangerous in the dark with no shoulders. So I picked a vehicle that met my needs. It was a rational choice at the time. Even when gas was over $4 a gallon it was still a rational choice to keep it. Buying a more fuel efficient vehicle still didn’t come out ahead. I did the math. It’s the cost of any replacement vehicle that throws the numbers out of whack whether it be gas or electric or public transportation. So I might as well drive it into the ground and not impact the planet by building another vehicle. A major repair would change the numbers. Until then, it is cheaper to operate an old less efficient vehicle. Government didn’t pay for anything. They used taxpayer money. I pay property taxes, income taxes, and sales taxes into that government. I’d need to look up the exact numbers, but in NC, I recall the transportation fund being raided for other purposes. And I’m not including the money used to prop up Amtrak and public transportation from the taxes raised on vehicles and fuel. I think you are over estimating the amount of funding from the general fund...up until 2008 the highway trust fund kept up. Since then $140B was added from the general fund. In 2020, $43 billion in revenue was collected. A few cents per gallon is predicted to cover the shortfall. Hardly enough to drastically change anything. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-highway-trust-fund-and-how-it-financed. At the state and local level there are additional gas taxes, personal property taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and income taxes. These all fund government services, one of which are roads so the bus can take my kids to school (school board rezoned me so they can’t walk or ride their bikes), fire and ambulance protection, etc. How would driving an electric vehicle change any of that? I have no way of easily figuring out the oil subsidies. Numbers get exaggerated on both sides of that one. Same with ethanol production. We need oil and natural gas production for more than just transportation. It’s complex. We could argue about it forever. Many of those rural roads serve multiple purposes, including getting the wealthy to their vacation homes, food to market, etc. They are also much cheaper per mile to build. The funding formulas are complex and politically driven. Everyone claims they are getting short changed. When I lived in rural MN people there were convinced their $ were subsidizing roads in MPLS/St Paul. In NC, folks in Raleigh, Charlotte, etc. are convinced an unfair share is being spent on rural highways. Yet they don’t complain about that road getting them to the beach faster. Folks like to complain. Driving a Tesla around a parking lot for an hour waiting to pick up your kids is efficient or leaving the a/c on (and not in the Tesla) while watching your kids soccer game isn’t wasteful? Energy is relatively cheap no matter what. So people waste it. CAFE contributes to it. Make a vehicle cheaper to operate and folks drive more. Whether it is gas or electric. I’m stingy, so I don’t drive much and that contributes to keeping my old truck. Plant some trees to offset the carbon. Fruit or nut are the best as they provide food and clean air. I pay more for heating than I do air conditioning. A warmer climate will lower my costs. Extend the growing season and I can raise more vegetables for my family lowering my cost. It isn’t as clear cut as the climate crisis folks want you to believe. Some things will be more expensive others less. Depends on your market basket of goods you consume and whether you are willing to accept substitutes that become cheaper. You’re going to need to provide some hard facts on how much global climate change is hurting me financially for me to take you seriously. But, the government funding isn’t leading to independence, just dependence on something else. That battery technology government is subsidizing isn’t great for the environment either. Remember the studies where a Suburban had a lower impact on the environment than a Prius? Then you factor in where the raw materials, assembly of those batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, and rare earth magnets come from. Certainly no independence there. Thus the current administration is looking into what it takes to get some of it done here. More subsidies to fix problems caused by government in the first place. In the meantime we can continue using affordable petroleum products and enjoy energy independence. Phase out the subsidies for oil exploration. No need to have them in the current environment. They did what they needed to do and can be raised in the future if needed.

Yup. Might as well grease the skids. Too bad there is a stigma associated with working with one party or the other. Barra got roasted for talking to Trump. She was just doing what was in the best interest of GM.

Same interior color on our Aviator. Anyone looking at a high end Explorer should do themselves a favor and check out the Aviator. At least Ford is differentiating the two.

Maybe the 90s Honda’s. The 80s Hondas had all sorts of issues....at least up in the Dakotas and MN. They were simpler machines back then.

Apparently “extreme cold” is relative. Growing up in MN and ND, I considered Iowa down south and warm. Rochester, MN was warm to me. -20F was where things started to get interesting, but real cold wasn’t until it hit 40 below or your alcohol based thermometer froze. When my kids tell me it is cold, I threaten to send them to Fargo. Yes, I want to see how an electric car performs when it is -40 or -50 below. Take it to the point where it breaks in the name of science.

Commercial jets don’t operate in freezing rain either. There is only so much de icing can do. The temperature limit I quoted was not due to icing. But rather the properties of the blades themselves at those temps.

Not ice buildup at those temps, but the blades themselves become brittle and can shatter. But, yes blades out of balance isn’t good for the bearings either. A shattered blade is going to create a substantial imbalance.

An answer is to continue to let individuals make their own decisions as to what works best for them. My old truck costs me very little to operate since it isn’t driven much. Not worth investing in a newer more efficient model to save fuel. There is no way I would recover the cost savings of using electricity vs what I currently pay for gas. We still make purchasing decisions based on ownership costs. Government regulations interfere with that rational decision making and introduce additional societal costs. It isn’t that our fuel is directly subsidized (or vehicles with large engines), but the fuel tax is primarily to maintain the infrastructure associated with operating those vehicles and not other pet projects of government. Even so, funds are still siphoned off for other things and leads to folks resenting higher fuel taxes. Drilling for oil is subsidized as energy independence was deemed a plus to society. To me, Europe doesn’t want private vehicle ownership by the masses and sets up a tax structure to ensure that. The US is also different in how the population is spread over large areas. What might be appropriate on the more densely populated coasts doesn’t work well for the wide open spaces of the Great Plains. Private vehicle ownership is much more cost effective in rural areas and they will resent paying more to subsidize the wealthy cities on the coasts.