Flying68

I know my kids complained about the room in the explorer when they hadn't hit the teen years. Expedition gives plenty of room to haul them and others around.

Almost every 3 row SUV (except for full size) will have less room in the 2nd row than almost all 2 row SUV/CUV's. The only way to get that 3rd row in is to reduce 2nd row leg room while making the 3rd row practically useless. Getting adults in all 3 rows comfortably is for minivans and full size SUV's.

The article was that they cut prices of 2023 models, being it is 2024 and they aren't making 2023 models anymore, would seem logical that they would want to issue new Monroney's and invoices to reflect the lower prices, especially if they want to move inventory, because the dealers are all still showing the MSRP. If they intended to issue rebates it would have said that in the article, but it specifically said prices, which indicates MSRP.

Wonder when the window stickers will reflect this price cut. The ones around here are still at the old prices, even the online window stickers haven't updated yet.

You don't have to wonder. The F-150 Powerboost hybrid and the Explorer/Aviator hybrids use an electric power unit mounted to the the 10R80 with a clutch system, but still has a locking torque converter for towing and performance purposes.

Mercedes did pioneer the 48v system, and did take advantage of it to provide mild hybrid functionality. They powered all the accessories that are normally belt driven using the 48v system and had an integrated starter/alternator that could provide low end torque at the launch (mild hybrid) as well as an electric supercharger. But yes, the interior electronics were all 12v because that is the standard that all suppliers use.

Having used the park assist in my Expedition I can say that the reason people don't use it is because it is a pain in the rear to use. It doesn't always detect open spaces, requires you to drive slowly to attempt to find them, and then once it does, it takes forever to park. It is much faster for an experienced driver to just park it themselves. It is a "Gee Whiz" feature that has had 0 development beyond getting it to do both perpendicular and parallel parking (I had the parallel parking in my '12 Explorer and used it maybe a handful of times). The concerning thing is Ford brings features, and instead of improving them to make them more useful, they just sit back and wonder why no one is using it.

Well I was hoping to get pictures Saturday when I took my Expedition in for an oil change, but they had already sold it and they were prepping the retail ordered one for delivery.

There are cubbies in the door, but nothing that I would call usable for drinks unless it is a capped water bottle. And it is pretty well covered up by the seat, not what I would consider accessible.

Well our dealer got a RIII in yesterday so the wife and I got a chance to play around in it. We didn't really drive it, except around the dealer's lot to look for a retail order that was in one of the other colors. I was impressed by the rear seat legroom. I had the front all the way back (btw, I wish that front would go back another inch or two) and I still had a couple of inches to my knees when sitting in the back behind my driving position. With the wife in her driving position, I had like 4 or 5 inches to the seat. Overall it was very comfortable, not enough cup holders in the back, really could use some door or floor mounted ones to go with the two in flip down seat cushion. I would like to test drive the hybrid before committing to an order, but I think we will go ahead and get one spec'd out.

Our dealer has had 1 BL Nautilus come in and it sold in 3 days, the are still waiting for the others. They have 2 showing as "in stock" but haven't actually arrived and 9 more "in transit" so who knows when they will get there. We need to check the rear leg room before we commit, if it isn't roomy enough, probably need to look at something else.

Our local Lincoln dealer became a Black Label dealer after buying out Long McArthur's Lincoln inventory. I presume LM's Lincoln franchise was pulled due to market size.

We are looking at a 2024 Nautilus with the hybrid powertrain. We might have gone BEV had Lincoln actually had a BEV to offer that is in that 2 row segment (we don't need a 3 row crossover or mid-sized SUV). Was really thinking about a Mach-E at the end of 2023, but decided against it due to ever dropping residual values. Perhaps once the kids are off to college and I don't need the Expedition, BEV's may be ready for prime time then, depends on what I need or want when that time comes. The only way BEV's will takeoff is for the manufacturers to start offering options in each of those segments. The only way to make that profitable is to get an adaptable platform that can scale.

Nobody seems to know what residual value will be on BEV's. Tesla residuals have been cratering, especially now that the rental fleets are starting to dump them. If I buy a Mach-E today, in 3 years is it going to be worth anything? I can pretty accurately predict what a normal ICE vehicle residual will be, but BEV's aren't quite there yet.

AKA we have too much inventory and nobody is coming in to look because the MSRP and rebates are not enough discount.

Just an FYI, you can't add the EM power to the ICE power to get total system power. The EM produces its torque and power and the low end of the RPM band. They phase the power output of the EM to decline as the ICE hits its peak power. EM's are constant torque until they hit there maximum power output, then can either hold that power or start to decline as RPM is increased. Most motor controllers only allow maximum power for a short band until the total power is reduced to preserve the motor health. Also depends on the maximum battery output and how long the battery can sustain that power output.

Where did you get this information? I think you are engaging in hyperbole that isn't helpful to the discussion. Unless there is a specific recall for a specific model there is no prohibition of parking an EV in your garage with regard to insurance. Even ICE vehicles have recalls that instruct you to not park in the garage due to fire risk, like our MkC currently does due to a battery terminal connection recall, but that doesn't mean our insurance won't cover us. Pretty sure the statistics show ICE vehicles are as or more likely to catch on fire in a garage than BEV's are.

Wonder how much ADM they added to each one? Everything will sell at the right price, some dealers just don't understand this right away.

Case law in both California and Michigan holds that layoffs resulting from labor disputes are not claimable for unemployment. California had a specific case where there was a limited strike (similar situation to the UAW vs Big 3) and the employers responded by laying off all employees until the dispute was resolved. California Supreme court held that when anyone strikes, it is considered an action by all, thus any layoff arising from the labor disputes are excluded from unemployment benefits. Most states have similar laws, although I haven't seen any recent case law, I would presume most would hold the same theory. If you strike, you subject your fellow employees to layoffs that are not covered by unemployment. Lockouts would be treated similarly. UAW members are treading on thin ice right now over demands that many people consider to be unreasonable.

If there is no operating labor contract (i.e. it has expired) 3 things can happen 1. continue working under the existing agreement; 2. labor can initiate a strike; or 3. the company can lock out covered employees. There would be no back pay or penalty as the existing labor agreement is expired. Anything negotiated in the new agreement is separate. What is unusual about this is that the UAW is not fully on strike, like they decided that most employees like their jobs and want to work but realize if they did that, the agreement would never get near their demands. I basically see no alternative for the big three other than to start locking out labor, especially if the selected plant strikes bring work to a halt. The alternative is that they could layoff workers at those other plants instead and because there is no operating agreement, they wouldn't necessarily need to ever hire them back either.

They did not have $24B in profits. They had a net profit in 2021 of $17.9B in 2021 and a net loss in 2022 of $2.0B. So far in 2023 they have reported a net profit of $3.7B for the first half. Gross profit which I believe is what you are referring to was about $24B in 2022, but that is just total revenue - cost of sales and doesn't count any other expenses like corporate overhead, interest expenses, investments, etc..

So basically Bill just said that if the UAW doesn't get real, they are going to go away real fast along with all the other domestic manufacturers as the supply base collapses and they have to close plants due to inability to invest and compete.

Shows that the Rivian Van and MachE have the lowest cost per kWh at $98.50 with LFP batteries. The Caddy and Ram are next at $112.70 and $112.90 (almost identical) with NCM variants. The Model S is $120.30 with an NCA battery. Curious if that is the actual capacity though, Tesla is very non-specific about their battery capacity. Last is the ID.4 at $140.81, but with such a small battery size I wonder if there is some scaling issue there as the BMS and cooling are probably a bigger cost component. I would have assumed with a NCM variant that the cost would have been closer to the Caddy and Ram.

You know there are a lot of people that would kill to make $100k after 4 years, and potentially get 5 weeks vacation plus another 3 weeks of holidays.

Tesla enjoys significant cost advantages over the all the other manufacturers. One big component is labor rate. I don't know why the UAW hasn't aggressively pursued unionizing Tesla.