SoonerLS

I paid $2.22/gal for E10/87 last night in Sapulpa. Some friends in OKC sent pictures of signs showing $1.85/gal E10/87.

CTDOT has data for the roads which are their responsibility—for US highways and Interstates, they have to report on it to the USDOT annually or they’ll lose Federal funding. How they choose to use that data is another question entirely.

Most of Norman has been a “quiet zone” for 15-20 years. By law, the railroads had to add crossing gates on all on-grade crossings in the state around that timeframe, and they made the switch to being a quiet zone about the same time, but I don’t know if either made any difference in safety. Fun fact: Norman was named after Abner Norman, who was a railroad surveyor (for the Santa Fe, IIRC) in the 19th century. He had a rail car with his name on the side parked on a siding after one of the Land Runs in 1889, when the city was founded, and the name stuck.

A few years ago, I was driving fairly slowly down a 2-lane highway late on a foggy night. The terrain was hilly, so when it dipped down I’d come out of the fog, then go back into it on the next hill. On one of these dips, I saw a buck standing on the centerline, so I slowed down even further and moved right to go around it. It was somewhere past my door when the dumb son of a buck turned and ran into the side of the bed. 180 degrees it could’ve gone and not run into anything, but the dumbass turned and ran into the big red truck. Fortunately, it didn’t do any damage to the truck, but it sure sounded like a heck of a hit.

One time is chance. Two times is coincidence. Three times is enemy action…

Deer are the living embodiment of “if you’re gonna be stupid, you’d better be tough.” Years ago, I was driving down a rural road when a buck started running parallel to me. I knew enough about them to suspect that it was going to dart out in front of me, so I let off the gas and got ready to brake. Sure as God made little green apples, it made what looked like a 90-degree turn at speed and shot across the road just feet from my front bumper. A few years before that, a friend was driving her Del Sol not far from there when a buck shot out in front of her. The speed limit there was 50, so she was probably doing around that when they met, ruining the hood and the driver-side headlight and fender. The buck went up and over the car, but by the time she got the car stopped and had a chance to look around, that sucker was long gone.

I paid $2.25/gal for E10/87 in Norman this afternoon (could’ve been $2.17 if I’d gone a little farther down the road to the Walmarts where I normally fill up). I paid $2.20/gal for E10/87 at the Murphy outside the Walmarts in Sapulpa an hour or so later.

Umm, no. Well, CT might, but most states use objective measurements of the pavement. I actually know a little bit about this subject… ETA: I should say they have the objective data; I’m sure there are political concerns that sway the actual repairs they make.

Because the F-Series sales figures show that it didn’t.

I paid $2.34/gal for E10/87 at Sam’s in east Tulsa on Friday night.

They must’ve had contingency plans for something like this, they just take time to implement. There’s no way they could tolerate that level of risk without some kind of backup plan.

Last week E10/87 was up to 2.35/gal, but it was back down to $2.28 this evening.

I paid $2.26/gal for E10/86 at that same station this evening.

I paid $2.36/gal for E10/87 in Tulsa on Friday evening.

I paid $2.41/gal for E10/87 earlier this evening at the east side Sam’s. I paid $2.36 at the Walmarts in Norman the Sunday before last.

Someone I know went to a truck show in Joplin, MO this weekend. He took a bunch of pics, but I thought these might be of interest here.

Mid- to late ’60s. In the ‘50s it was a model in the Edsel line.

I paid $2.52/gal for E10/87 earlier this evening in east Tulsa.

I paid $2.40/gal for E10/87 at Sam’s in Tulsa this afternoon.

Having been tangentially involved with the Feds in a previous life, I can 100% understand why Ford wouldn’t want to be involved with them any more than they have to. Having to give up highly profitable sales to deal with it makes passing on the deal a no-brainer.

It has been a little while since I looked, but a bunch of those recalls look worse than they are just because they’re on parts/assemblies that are used across a bunch of vehicles—f’rinstance, if it affects the 10R transmission, it hits all of the RWD/4x4 models. There were some where they only found one or two affected vehicles on the assembly line and none in the holding lots, and only issued the recall in case some of the delivered vehicles were affected.

It sounds like they’re intended for a new tactical doctrine that’s explained in this video:

FWIW, here’s the NHTSA report on the recall. It looks like a supplier used a sub-contractor who wasn’t up to the task. RCLRPT-25V455-7716.pdf

He was talking about warranty numbers and the VDS, where Ford has improved vs last year. The IQS numbers really aren’t relevant to what he was discussing unless they show up in the warranty numbers, which, apparently, they’re not. If people are bitching to high heaven about having to use a touchscreen to change the temperature or the radio station, that’s something that could be reflected in the IQS but not in the warranty numbers. Likewise with customer complaints about things where they just don’t know how to use a feature or it doesn’t work the way they expect—things that the dealer can head off before it becomes a warranty claim.

Counterintuitively, that might actually be true. Looking at the recalls, many of them are preemptive recalls over issues that Ford found, not issues that customers have reported, and they’re just issuing recalls in case some customer vehicles are affected. F’rinstance, there are 7 open recalls on the 2025 F-150, and for six of them, “Ford is not aware of any warranty claims, field or customer reports associated with [this issue].” (Heck, one is over a missing airbag sticker, which obviously makes the vehicle unsafe to drive.) The seventh was discovered by a service tech in a pre-delivery inspection, so even it didn’t make it to an actual customer. That’s not to say that they’re not bad—the Bronco has a “do not drive” warning on two of its recalls because of improperly installed bolts in the front suspension—but at least they’re catching and fixing most of the issues before they affect customers.