Flying68

We ordered ours, a Reserve 203A Hybrid, on March 11th. My dealer said it was scheduled to the week of 5/27. Based on the fact that they have 4 "in Transit" with build dates of 2/2, I don't anticipate actually having ours arrive until late July or early August.

The bigger tire size on your Corsair results in a 3% speedo and odometer error. Going from a 40 to a 50 on the same width on an Aviator would be 7% error. So when your actual speedo reads 60mph you are at 62mph in the corsair, but would be at 64mph in the aviator. My suggestion, if you want taller sidewalls, would be to find a downsize wheel, 19's (245/50R19) or 18's (245/55R18) on the Corsair and 20's (275/50R20) or 18's (275/60R18, +1%) on the Aviator. Or you can take them to the dealership to have the speedo recalibrated for the larger tire size. To check if you are going to have clearance issues, you would need to measure your clearance lock to lock from the tread surface to the nearest contact point with the suspension fully compressed. The biggest tire you could put on would be just less than 2x the smallest clearance. So the stock tires are 31" you would need 1" minimum of clearance to fit a 33" tire (the new one you are looking at) and get it to just barely clear.

I don't think gross efficiency is the goal. The goal is to increase usable power and torque without increasing emissions. Diesel emissions are the big target and currently technology and scrubbing is pretty well maxed out. The logical next step would be hybridization where your diesel engine can be set to run at its min emissions level and you make up the peak torque with a hybrid setup. The other option that may be promising and might make its way into heavy trucking would be diesel-electric systems where you use high torque EM's as your only direct drive (much like a train) and you utilize a much small diesel generator and battery pack (to act as a buffer and capture regen energy). The diesel could then be sized to deliver only the power required during constant load highway power resulting in much more efficient operation (constant power). A diesel-electric train doesn't use a battery, instead driving the electric motors directly from the diesel engine, however the torque control is much more precise with the electric drive and you eliminate failure points on the drive train. A series hybrid gas truck could also replace a diesel setup, providing much better emissions with similar power and torque, while having much lower emissions and maintenance costs.

N/M

What does a CVT have to do with hybrid applications in large vehicles (trucks)? The F-150 hybrid is most definitely not a CVT, and I wouldn't expect a CVT in any other large truck application. I would expect a similar setup to the F-150 hybrid with an EM inline between the ICE and the transmission.

You can't connect your trucks batteries in series, so your only option would be to get a DC to DC converter to step up the voltage from 12V to either 24V or 48V. I would personally just install a 12V to 48V step up converter (can find these on amazon for golf carts or other items) and then wire a 48V charger into that. I am not familiar with the input available for 48V solar systems though.

The bolded is very true, then again I wouldn't be buying an F-150 if I wanted great gas mileage and high efficiency. The large engine hybrids gain a lot of efficiency though when compared to an equivalent power level ICE only system, and that there is the benefit. I get more low end torque, a peak horsepower bump, and an onboard generator, while burning a bit less fuel. I only wish Ford would get a hybrid F-250 package that would pair a slightly more torquey EM (as compared to the F-150) and a 2 to 3 kWh battery to the 7.3l to get gas engine emissions, maintenance, and power with diesel levels of torque. I did notice in the EU document that they will be examining the factors used in the WLTP test and regulations for PHEVs. I wish they would also examine how far off the WLTP is from real world usage on BEV's as well. It is widely understood that the WLTP range numbers for BEV's is pure fantasy, they are even more optimistic than EPA range numbers. All these regulatory testing protocols would benefit from an update that reflects real world driving cycles.

Amazing that so many people want 2 row mid-size SUVs/cross-overs, almost like there are some people that don't need an unusable 3rd row and prefer a more spacious 2nd row instead. Go figure.

So the articles make it sound like PHEV's are bad for the environment, when in reality what the data actually shows is that the regulatory testing for PHEV's is flawed and the real world implementation of the plug-in doesn't match what expectations are. This all goes back to a fundamentally flawed emissions cycle that also affects range publication for BEV's. The testing cycle has too much low speed, low acceleration in it, where as real world city driving is faster acceleration to higher speeds with greater deceleration, mixed with periods of long idling and some highway driving. The highway test still uses lower acceleration to 60 mph where most commonly people are using 75% of throttle to accelerate to 70 mph with 75 mph being a common interstate highway speed. PHEV's are just like regular HEV's in terms of CO2 emissions when people don't plug them in, and may be worse depending on the extra weight being carried around from the larger PHEV battery vs a normal HEV battery. I wish our '24 Nautilus that is on order would have been a PHEV, but am satisfied with it being just a HEV.

Probably because they have some in dealer inventory still sitting around that no one will touch. Likely the -1 on the 200 was the last one left and the factory just took it back. I bet the Viper was carrying an insane dealer markup sitting as a "showpiece" until someone with enough cash decided to finally buy it.

Easier fix would be for Ford to bring back the venting rear side windows and the roll down rear hatch window. I mean if an old 79 Bronco can have a roll down rear window, why can't my 2019 Expedition. The old mini-vans all had manual or power venting rear side windows. Simple solutions to problems that didn't use to exist until we made big boxy SUV's with no venting in the rear.

Application Program Interface Module

Lincoln needs a pickup! 🤣

Prices on Facebook marketplace are still insane. Everyone is pricing their 12 year old vehicle with 200k+ miles and a rebuilt title for $5k or more. Add another thousand if the interior doesn't look like someone died in there and another thousand if the title is clean. Yet my relatively low mile MkC is only worth $11k on trade.

The underlying local news article doesn't even mention if the driver of the Mach-e had Blue Cruise enabled at the time. The only facts were that the driver stated the CR-V was stopped in the middle lane without any lights on at approximately 9:30pm. Given highway speeds of 65 mph, he may not have seen the CR-V in time to avoid hitting it.

No. Both times the tech found seepage during routine oil changes, first was around 30k miles, 2nd was just before the powertrain warranty expired (years not miles) somewhere between 50 and 60k miles. I assume they flushed the coolant each time they replaced the water pump. The bigger point was that on the MkC, a water pump failure was no big deal and a pretty low cost event (warranty or not). The issue with the transverse 3.5L and 3.7L cyclone V6's was not so much that the water pump could fail, it was that when it did, the repair was in the thousands, and a catastrophic failure would be an engine replacement. Even a catastrophic water pump failure on the MkC would still be just a water pump (assuming you shut the engine down before it overheats).

I got rid of my 2012 Explorer at ~141k miles, before the water pump became an issue. I felt I was on borrowed time at that point. The weep hole was on the 2012's and I think was earlier, however the design of the water pump was not robust. If the failure happened at the bearing seal, the leak would not show up through the weep hole, it would just dump straight into the oil pan. Also the initial water pump design had a singular rubber seal to the block. This was later changed to a 2 seal design, not sure if they went to 3 seals or not. They also improved the bearing seal. The only reason for the water pump to be internal was packaging for the transverse mount. Just for comparison, our 2017 MkC has had the water pump replaced 2 times, both under warranty, it only has 80k miles.

R2 looks to be Edge or Bronco size (close to same wheelbase and 3 to 4 inches shorter length) while the R3 is like in the Bronco Sport and Escape class.

If the refrigerator was 30% the cost of the condo when new and the condo cost $900000 when built. BEV's the most costly component of the vehicle is the battery, next would be the motors and inverters. Battery costs are currently about 30% of the production costs of a BEV and not expected to get below 20% of the production cost until 2030. The cells themselves make up about 80% of the cost of the battery packs.

From a consumer standpoint I wouldn't buy an EV unless it was really cheap. I think we are quickly learning, even in the Tesla resale market, that BEV's just aren't holding value well. Some of that is infrastructure, some is replacement / repair cost where for a consumer the floor value is near 0 (there is scrap value) if a battery dies. Some of it is pace of technology, and some is the OEM pricing changes. Tesla hosed over their customers when they slashed prices, causing the resale/trade values to plummet. I think for an OEM (Ford, GM, Stellantis) the calculation changes. The manufacturing cost is what it is. However, they also have regulatory compliance costs, which just goes straight to the pockets of Tesla. So for Ford, if they sell below manufacturing cost, that is balanced by whatever regulatory benefit they may gain, which still may be negative. On the lease, Ford still books the same sale/loss but the ownership transfers to Ford Credit. Ford Credit in turn has options of what to do with the vehicle at lease end. If they determine the recycle value of the car is greater than "sell" value they can keep it and send those batteries and components back to Ford for remanufacturing. It will be interesting in the next couple of years when all the Mach-e's and Lightnings come off lease, pretty sure there was a clause that Ford Credit had the right to refuse buyout and take back ownership, not that anyone would want to buy it out. I wouldn't be surprised to see Ford Credit do a program to lease a used Mach-e or Lightning for 2 to 3 years to get people into them that are priced out of the new market or do commercial leases to fleets.

I don't know how that is relevant to the current discussion about subsidized leases and how Ford would be on the hook for the potential loss of on the backend of the lease. Consumers can be dumb sometimes. It isn't my fault they overspent and may have paid ADM on a vehicle they didn't fully understand. Nor is it my fault they are looking to get out. They could just hold onto there vehicle for 8 to 10 years and get there value out of the vehicle. Currently there are some consumers that are going to get great deals with zero money factor leases and residuals higher than actual depreciation. Now back to the discussion about Ford's potential losses on the backend of the leases. If they set residuals too high, there losses are limited by the recycle value of the batteries and permanent rare earth magnets. So potentially EVs have a higher floor price based on value of the sub components, even ones in a degraded or failed condition. So the loss is limited by the difference in residual minus the actual scrap value of the vehicle.

The backend value is somewhat buoyed by the recycling value of the batteries and motors. So the OEM can keep that residual somewhat higher and minimize potential losses.

Using the term "considerably less" in the context of comparing MPG change from ICE only to FHEV between the Maverick and the Nautilus implied a sense of surprise or disappointment. When one objectively looks at the configuration of the two models and the actual change between the ICE and FHEV variants, it should have been no surprise that the Nautilus FHEV didn't have as big as improvement as the Maverick did for the reasons I cited above. They are not directly comparable because the FHEV implementations are different with different goals. What is impressive is that the implementation on the Nautilus was able to improve city MPG by 9 (30% less fuel consumption) while increasing total horsepower by 20% and torque by 7+%.

No AWD on Maverick Hybrid. Also comparing a 2.0L ecoboost to a 2.5L Atkinson cycle hybrid that produces much less horsepower and torque is not the same as comparing a 2.0L ecoboost to the same 2.0L ecoboost hybrid that produces more total power and torque.

CV axles are easy to replace and not terribly expensive. They are also covered under the 5/60 powertrain warranty. A CV failure is not catastrophic and is detectable from the distinct clicking noise when turning. It sounds like the Maverick may have some specific issues related to the carrier bearings. I wouldn't expect a recall as most failures should just be covered under warranty. Almost universally, due to labor rates, it is cheaper to replace a CV shaft assembly in almost all cases. I wouldn't worry about any issue with the CV axles.