Flying68

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.

Musk is not a valid comparison. He is the largest individual shareholder at almost 13% of Tesla. He also had a long term compensation plan (that is under a lawsuit by other shareholders right now) that was worth $50 billion or more. He doesn't "take" a salary because he is basically the owner and has already been compensated for future work. Make no mistake though, Tesla has paid him a lot of money.

Did the UAW even present the contract offers to the membership? The standard here in my area is that the union has to present the last and final offer to the membership for a vote before any strike can happen.

https://www.eddyslincoln.com/used/Ford/2021-Ford-Mustang+Mach-E-fcab69880a0e087f0db8dbb6a7b09b9f.htm 2021 Mach-E GT Performance Edition. MSRP was $69,200. It has 4,934 miles, one owner. Current asking price is $47,107. It has been on their lot for a long time, almost a year. I keep contemplating asking them what the best price they would give me on it just to move it off their lot. Problem is that I think the value is going to keep plummeting and I wouldn't have any trade value if we went to a Lincoln BEV in a few years.

The payload capacities are for the minimum equipped, base model trucks for a given engine, drive, cab, and wheelbase. So basically an XL. Your XLT, Lariat, KR, Platinum, and Limited trims will have decreasing capacity.

https://archive.is/https://www.autonews.com/future-product/first-lincoln-ev-coming-late-2025-gasoline-lineup-shrinks Non-paywalled version.

It has the exact same engine mount location as the GT500.

It is actually 20.2%. 1.10*1.03*1.03*1.03=1.201999

Thanks. I know some of our IAW employees are on 36 hr work weeks, but they work 3 12's on the weekends and get overtime for hours beyond that. The IAW and Spirit Aerosystems just ratified a new 4 year deal that amounts to a 21.5% increase over the 4 years of the contract plus other built in adjustments and bonuses. Good luck. I always take the philosophy that labor deals should be fair, because if it is not balanced you either end up with a pissed off workforce or a laid off workforce, and neither is good.

Maybe a silly question, but asking for a 20% increase in the hourly rate while simultaneously asking for a 20% reduction in hours worked seems counter productive if the goal is to increase compensation. Would anything over 32 then be considered overtime?

I don't remember those conversations, but I will assume they probably occurred. The premise you are coming from here is that a hybrid would have to handle 30k lbs of towing. I don't think it does. Especially in an F-250. The current diesel motors are way more torque and power than an F-250 really needs for any towing with SRW. Most F-250's see more unladen driving than anything, perhaps full payloads in the bed, but they aren't constantly towing. The 7.3 is a capable motor and can handle the constant torque demands for everything the F-250 can tow. Adding the hybrid would provide an on demand torque boost for starting, passing, and hill climbs. Combine that with a 5 to 10 kwh battery and then you have the ability to sustain that boost on a long hill climb and to have a nice ProPower setup. The extra advantage is that the hybrid setup would greatly increase the normal driving fuel efficiency. The hybrid system is not that complex as done in the F-150 and Aviator and the added weight is dependent on the size of the battery.

I don't remember those conversations, but I will assume they probably occurred. The premise you are coming from here is that a hybrid would have to handle 30k lbs of towing. I don't think it does. Especially in an F-250. The current diesel motors are way more torque and power than an F-250 really needs for any towing with SRW. Most F-250's see more unladen driving than anything, perhaps full payloads in the bed, but they aren't constantly towing. The 7.3 is a capable motor and can handle the constant torque demands for everything the F-250 can tow. Adding the hybrid would provide an on demand torque boost for starting, passing, and hill climbs. Combine that with a 5 to 10 kwh battery and then you have the ability to sustain that boost on a long hill climb and to have a nice ProPower setup. The extra advantage is that the hybrid setup would greatly increase the normal driving fuel efficiency. The hybrid system is not that complex as done in the F-150 and Aviator and the added weight is dependent on the size of the battery.

Ford needs to bring the hybrid F-250 with the full 7.2kW pro-power to market. Pair that electric motor with the 6.8 or better yet the 7.3 and you have a nice alternative to diesel for the weekend camping trip. Would make boondocking simpler.

The condenser could also be obstructed. Basically the next step is to check that you have adequate airflow over both the evaporator and condenser. Both should be free of debris in the fins. The compressor seems to be functioning based on the difference in the pressure readings. Although if the compressor is going bad, the extra friction could cause the discharge temperature to be higher than it should be. I assume that when it was evacuated it was checked for debris in the lines, if not, that could be another culprit.

You may have a leak in the ducts, drawing in warm air that isn't passing through the evaporator, or your vent door is stuck open drawing in warm outside air. Not sure if your system has a recirculation or not.

To me the 5 second cutoff indicates that they either underengineered the power delivery system, or some sort of cost cutting forced a change. I am assuming the motor is perfectly happy running at peak KW, so the issue is either with battery cooling or with overheating/melting connectors. There could have also been some problem discovered after the final design was set that necessitated the limit in order to preserve the 0-60 time without causing meltdowns.

I drive ~18k miles per year, average about 17 mpg, so I am a super user. There currently isn't an EV that will fit my needs and the infrastructure isn't their to support it. My specific case is that I regularly make a 500 mile journey that doesn't have any EV support at the destination, nor any within 30 miles. There isn't an EV available that will fit my needs to replace my current ride. However, if we replace my wife's vehicle which is driven about 9,000 miles per year with an EV and it was a larger 2 row instead of the small 2 row (which our kids don't really fit in the back of anymore), we could conceivably reduce the mileage on the big vehicle and use the EV exclusively for the routine cross city drives we make. This might cut down about 6,000 miles per year on the big SUV. Or better yet, if they had a large SUV PHEV that increased the fuel mileage to 22 mpg instead of 17 mpg, it would basically have the same effect.

Modern electronic dash displays have the actual mileage stored in multiple memory locations in the vehicle computer. This prevents rollback and serves as a backup in case the odometer or other parts of the dash fail. It would appear that 1503 km was the actual vehicle mileage, and the service writeup was nothing more than a confirmation that distance wasn't unexpected. There should be no branded title.

PHEV's are a good solution for a lot of people. The problem is education of the owners. A secondary factor is most PHEV's have a rather small range on EV only, not really enough for a 2 way commute.

The proper way to frame energy usage is in terms of minimizing the burning or usage of carbon based fuels (create less waste). We know that the use of carbon fuels can't be eliminated completely, but you can try to achieve higher efficiencies for what you do use and replace other usage with more energy efficient methods. ICE engine efficiency is probably as maxed out as it can practically get. Electric motor efficiency is much greater (+90% vs ICE's 35%-40%). So then we have to figure out what the efficiency of the grid is and of course the mineral extraction, etc.. There are a bundle of papers out their that study the total carbon emissions for both ICE and EV and they are pretty close initially, with ICE possibly having a slight advantage, but most of those studies show over the lifetime of a vehicle the EV beats the ICE vehicle on total emissions even with the current average US mix of power. Newer technology solid state batteries that use more common metals and minerals and increasing renewable energy sources in the power grid will tilt the scales even further. But as has been pointed out, BEV's aren't necessarily the solution for everyone or every application right now.

Hydrogen is clean. The problem is that the cheapest way to get hydrogen is from natural gas, but that is dirty. To dissociate water into H2 and O2 is very energy intensive, it would take a bit over 60 kw-hr to produce 1 kg of H2. Fuel cells are around 60% efficient (at most) so you lose at least 40% of your engery (better than petrol ICE though). The other problem with H2 is the storing and shipping, not easy to maintain those super cooled tanks to contain liquid H2. I think the biggest gain from H2 would be in long haul trucking where you can be more efficient with large fleets and centralized fueling. You could potentially build big rigs that wouldn't have to refuel anywhere other than there home ports or specific depots because the energy density of H2 is so high they wouldn't have to fill up as often.

From a shareholder perspective, when you lose money on each build, I question why they are increasing production only to have units sitting unsold on lots. If they have all these customer orders, they should be building those instead of stock units. I get commodity restraints, but I don't want my margins lowered just to build a bunch of cars that don't sell well. It is like they are thinking "We lose money on each unit, but we are going to make it up with volume."

No, when it is sitting at the dealership, Ford has already "sold" it, removing Ford's incentive to actively manage inventory to what customers want. It also creates a mismatch geographically if you send these builds to places where they won't be purchased. Holding at the factory allows them to ship each unit to where it needs to go. While Tesla doesn't hold at the factory, they have fewer distribution points and still control the pricing because they don't have dealers, so they are incentivized to drop prices on overstocked vehicles. Tesla has been known to contact folks and tell them you ordered this, but we have this available at the nearest distribution center and will offer it at a discounted price if you take it, plus you get it faster.

Stock orders for EV's is a mistake. Ford should be working to a Tesla style model where you order what you want and they either have it at the factory ready to ship or build it within 6 weeks. Sending stock inventory (any more than 1 or two demo units) to dealers isn't what EV buyers are used to. The other issue is that pricing is way to high and the change to the tax incentives didn't help. Tesla manages their inventory by offering steep discounts if you are willing to take something they have sitting in their holding lots instead of the specific configuration that you wanted.