Jump to content

Flying68

Member
  • Posts

    496
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Flying68

  1. 7 minutes ago, Andrew L said:

    I've seen other articles where people are taking out insanely long loans too which doesn't help as well.

     

    Used car prices were insane for a while.  I posted about it before but when I was shopping for my beater (04 Aviator) I saw a early 90s Camry Wagon that they wanted 7k for because "ThEy LaSt FoReVeR".

    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.

    • Like 1
  2. 18 hours ago, akirby said:


    But those are external.  I don’t think I’ve heard of water pump failures on I4 ecoboosts before.  Interesting.  Did you change the coolant?

    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).

    • Like 4
  3. 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.

  4. 1 hour ago, Deanh said:

    lol...keeping the battery and recycling it is like demoing a $450000 condo and keeping just the refrigerator...

    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.

  5. 2 hours ago, Deanh said:

    its about risk factor and potential losses...on a purchase the Buyer takes it inthe shorts if resale sucks...on a Lease if Ford sets a residual of say 35k after 3 yerars and the resale number when the car is returned at lease end is 25k, thats a net loss no matter how you look at it...Ford owns the car on a lease, THEY take the risk...which, as stated takes the Consumer out of the fledging resale market regarding BEVs. 

    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.

  6. 7 hours ago, Deanh said:

    tell that to the people 25k in the hole after 3 years of ownership.....the buying public doesnt care how it effects the OEM in the slightest....

    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.

  7. 13 minutes ago, Deanh said:

    issue with Ford if everyone leases, THEY are on the hook for potential lease end losses....whichbased on BEV resales, and technology gains year over year...is an extremely  scary prospect.. 

    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.

  8. 2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

    P.S. — My mention of Maverick Hybrid was taken out of context.  I was not comparing Nautilus to Maverick, but rather the relative improvement different hybrid designs make, per original post subject matter.

     

    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+%.

    • Like 3
  9. 13 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

    What I find most interesting is that Hybrid Nautilus “City” rating improvement from 21 to 30 MPG is considerably less than Hybrid Maverick from 23 to 42 MPG.   I know Ford is going after a different market with Nautilus, but results of “unique” set-up are interesting to compare nonetheless.

     

    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.

    • Like 3
  10. 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.

  11. 21 minutes ago, grbeck said:

    The challenge for us is that our teens want more room in the back seat, and my wife wants a vehicle with three rows of seats. The new Escape is nice, but not big enough in that regard.

     

     

    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.

  12. 37 minutes ago, akirby said:


    They don’t update the ones already produced.  They usually just add rebates for those.

    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.

  13. 18 hours ago, jpd80 said:

    Mind you, the E-CVT was developed before automatic began mid gear lockup,

    so part of me wonders if like RWD hybrid transmissions, Ford could use a 6AT

    but with an electric motor in place of the torque converter…..

    ^^^^^ It’s probably not worth the effort to change now, the E-CVT is mature 

    tech and works well.

     

    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.

     

    Ford-Modular-Hybrid-Transmission-1.jpg

    • Like 1
  14. 20 hours ago, Captainp4 said:


    Tesla is a bad word around here, even if you quote Farley saying they're going to follow Tesla's lead because they're more efficient in every aspect, from design to manufacturing to the end product.

    I've seen some people claiming Mercedes did it first, but pretty sure most people are confusing mild hybrids that still step down to 12v for all the inside functions.

     

    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.

    • Like 1
  15. 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.

    • Like 3
  16. On 1/31/2024 at 6:18 PM, Gurgeh said:

    I test drove a BL Nautilus a couple of days ago. I have a 2019 Nautilus and can assure you that the new 2024 has a great amount of rear leg room. Noticeably more than in my 2019. It easily passed my threshold test of needing to have enough floor space in front of the rear seats to fit our decent-sized cooler for long road trips. The rear seats can also be slid forward or backward, depending on where you want the extra space.

     

    That's just one thing about the new Nautilus. It is a few inches longer, taller and wider (ok, one of those dimensions is 1", but can't remember which), but the amount of increased usable interior space -- in the front, in the rear seats, in the rear storage space -- is considerably more than the raw exterior dimensions indicate. During my test drive, for instance, I was surprised how roomier it felt in the front relative to my 2019 Nautilus. The seats are wider and more comfortable and it feels like there is more shoulder and head room as well. 

    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.

    • Like 2
  17. 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.

×
×
  • Create New...