slemke

There is no way Ford would inadvertently announce a Ranger raptor while introducing the bronco raptor. The article was simply stating the Bronco raptor would join the other 2 raptors already available and not replace either one. Nothing about future raptors.

Also need to remember that many of these incentives and tax breaks don’t materialize until the jobs do. If the company doesn’t fulfill the contract, they could be on the hook to pay back the money. It all depends on how the deal was structured. Spending more on education doesn’t necessarily improve the community. If there are no employment opportunities for the newly educated, they will take their degree and leave. This happens in many rural areas.

It worked for IBM when they created the Rochester, MN site. That was mixed use and contained both manufacturing and engineering. I believe the manufacturing portion has now been shut down. They did it again in RTP, NC. But, it was difficult attracting talent to the area. People don’t want to work in a one horse town. They want options for better opportunities without relocating. Many of the pharma companies have both knowledge and manufacturing jobs in NC. Lower taxes, cost of living, and weather being a major draw to NC. It doesn’t hurt having large universities and a critical mass of talent available.

He might be onto something, though, with CAFE requirements. A longer wheelbase and wider track would ease the mpg requirements. I’m sure Ford thought of that and has done the math to figure out if changing the wheelbase and or track is worth the cost. Some extra legroom isn’t going to adversely affect sales. A wider track should help handling. Both would help differentiate it from the current version. Throw in the lower CAFE requirements and increasing the footprint becomes more likely. We have seen it from other manufacturers.

Last summer Ford production was cut in half. It isn’t nearly as bad now. Don’t underestimate an executive making the most out of a non-ideal situation. As long as they can continue convincing customers there is a shortage, the customers will continue buying at high prices all while they try to increase production as much as possible. It isn’t just chips that are in short supply. With the new round of lockdowns in China, there will be plenty of supply chain disruptions.

And it will continue as long as governments use incentives to lure businesses to their jurisdictions. Very similar to customers addiction to rebates and incentives on vehicles. After Ford chose TN for BOC, Michigan upped the incentives to attract investment from GM. NC gained an investment from Toyota after years of trying to lure in an auto manufacturer. California wasn’t competitive and lost Tesla’s new factory to Tesla. The list can go on and on.

Thanks for the research on this. Ford was impacted greatly by the Renesas plant fire. That has been up and running for 6 months now, so Ford’s supply woes should be easing. A 17% increase isn’t that great considering the industry is accustomed to double digit annual growth. It should be manageable. crypto currency mining popularity is another contributor to demand. Autonomous driving features and EVs are driving increased automotive chip usage. Everyone wants a piece of the pie and is scrambling to bring new chips and IP to market and capture more revenue from the automotive sector.

Just wait until the warranty claims come in from those folks when the gas nozzle doesn’t fit the charge port. I won’t be surprised when someone rents a Tesla from Hertz and tries to fill it up at a gas station.

Ev tax credits kinda bad for those Americans that pay taxes so someone else can pay an ADM on a BEV. At this point, just drop the tax credits for EVs and focus the investment on tax credits for research and development and infrastructure improvements.

It isn’t solely about the best numbers on paper (unless you live in your parent’s basement and will never buy, just bench racing), but about the experience. A naturally aspirated 5.0L V8 and manual transmission are still offered for that reason. The 10 speed auto is faster, gets better gas milage, and easier to drive…but enough still want the manual transmission. I don’t see any reason this wouldn’t apply when a BEV version is offered, provided it isn’t outright outlawed. My prediction is the last ice passenger vehicle produced will be a v8 with a manual transmission.

Chinese companies are believed to be stock piling chips. Thus the US government request for 2 years worth of customer data from fabs. Other than that (if it is true, since it hasn’t been proven), it is a head scratcher as to what is going on.

It is a concept, so who knows how much makes it to the finished product. There is also a Mercedes sprinter RV with 200 miles of range. What caught my attention was it had a gas cooktop. Everything was designed to save weight to extend the battery range. For gas or diesel powered RVs it is all about getting the maximum GVWR so they can add more luxury features…like granite countertops.

How many 5.2L predators can the niche line crank out?

Is it applicable to Lincoln automotive finance also? Sounds like a good perk.

Surprised it wasn’t on the passenger side to begin with to offset the weight of the driver. Certainly looks feasible unless there is something else in that location not shown in the diagram. That battery pack looks much smaller than the 1.5kwh pack in the f150 powerboost. Maybe Ford will release a PIH F150.

Maverick offers hybrid as standard, 2.0 ecoboost optional. I can see those becoming the only powertrain options for escape and bronco sport. 2.0 turbo could morph into a powerboost configuration. Depending on battery cost, hybrids could be around for some time after 2030.

Same here. The transit is already limited in GVWR. Adding an 86kwh battery isn’t going to leave much payload. A powerboost hybrid would be a better choice. Less impact to GVWR, long range, and plenty of electric power for accessories.

That’s really good, considering the epa estimate is 28mpg. Maybe Ford has enough cafe credits that they can get conservative with the mpg estimates…under promise and over deliver. It will be interesting to see if the Maverick can beat epa estimates. The C&D 75 mph sustained fuel economy numbers looked pretty good and the 26.4mpg on the cluster picture was even better. The F150 powerboost numbers were reduced by a mpg for ‘22. Not sure why, though.

What part of I went to a different dealership that treated me better did you not understand? That’s how I say no to the nonsense. I’ve got better things to do than hang out in a dealership saying no to a bunch of crap. Give me an upfront out the door price. If it is reasonable, I’ll take it. It’s why I like x-plan. Sure you could negotiate a better deal, but it may take considerable effort to do so, which negates the savings. All my new vehicle purchases have been either plan pricing or internet “give me your best price” deals. Dealers that try to add additional markups and add-ons I avoid and walk away. There are plenty of dealers who don’t resort to those tactics.

It isn’t the profit margin, it is the amount customers are willing to pay that leads to the addendums. The profit margin comes from adding the various doc fees, financing, dealer prep, and dealer options such as fabric protection and rust proofing. The couple purchasing a car in the movie “Fargo” comes to mind. The customer experience was much better at the Lincoln dealership, even though it was under the same corporate parent as the Ford dealer. Worst customer experience I had was at a Mazda dealership that wanted to add an addendum to the price of a car that didn’t even have the options I wanted. I went across town to another Mazda dealership that did have the car I wanted in stock and sold it for s-plan pricing. It was a week or two later…. The original dealer was miffed that I didn’t buy from them.

As of Tuesday’s close, Ford’s market cap ($83b) exceeded that of GM’s ($82.9) for the first time since 2016. GM pulled back ahead on Wednesday.

That’s likely true for most executives. It was tongue in cheek about how much motor trend charged those on the short list to win the award. The car/truck/suv of the year comes down to how much publicity MT can extract from the winner they choose. With Maverick sold out/turning over in 5 days, Ford didn’t need the award. The choice of Rivian will get motor trend’s name out in the press as if they still have some relevance in the market.

Debatable whether 2 vehicles per day constitutes “mass production “. I couldn’t find numbers for November, only through October, so production may have ramped up considerably. They supposedly have 2 versions of the van and suv starting production this month. Lots of complexity to add new vehicles while ramping up the first.

Any guesses how much this award costs? Remind me to check the shareholders report in spring to see if Farley got a bonus for winning the award.

Good luck. Growing up in rural MN with propane heat, filling up the propane tank was a big deal. Didn’t want to run out during a cold snap in January and have to pay a premium.