Flying68

The Deere debacle is a right to repair issue that is being pursued by consumers through their legislatures. I think Ford is looking at more of a what could we monetize from a data and connected services standpoint. I don't think you will see much on the consumer side other than not having to pay for the Ford Pass / Lincoln Way access, but your driving habits, maintenance data, GPS data could all end up in some big anonymous data set that they sell to 3rd parties for marketing purposes. Commercial/fleet services is the big revenue stream to go after.

Biweekly update request. I saw the production scheduling was being done for the final 4 weeks of the model life, so hopefully it should be scheduled now. Order: M00S-L9N Sales: L55452 Dealer: Korf Lincoln Thank you.

At 4:58 and 5:09 of that video you can see two different Aviators with the front bracket installed. I remember looking into this or reading about it on another forum once. I think the determination was that in states that require front plates by law, Ford is required to deliver the vehicle to the dealer with it installed. In states where it isn't required, the dealer can order it either way. BTW, States that require a front plate are (https://www.autolist.com/guides/front-license-plate): Alaska Idaho Massachusetts Nevada Oregon Vermont Washington D.C. California Illinois Minnesota New Hampshire Rhode Island Virginia Colorado Iowa Missouri New Jersey South Dakota Washington Connecticut Maine Montana New York Texas Wisconsin Hawaii Maryland Nebraska North Dakota Utah Wyoming *Ohio repealed the requirement effective July 2020* So 30 out of 50 is no longer just a few.

Pretty sure it has the modular hybrid 10R80 where the 80 supposedly stands for 800 N-m for the input shaft torque rating, but I have also heard that is not actually the torque limit, more of a class. The super duty's get the 10R140. I think the regular Explorer and Aviator get the 10R60.

Actually the Aviator's nano electric motor is a 75 kW maximum output which is ~100.6 Hp. It has ~234.7 lb-ft @ 2250 rpm. Max power drops to 94 hp at 5500 rpm. EM's are constant torque until they hit their max power output then are constant power until they hit their current limit, so some quick math says using the 3.5 H.O. motor plus the 75 kW nano EM, you could end up with ~550 hp@5000 rpm and at least 660 ft-lb@3500 rpm, but would likely be around 700 lb-ft@2250 rpm depending on the torque curve of the H.O. The Ford GT engine's peak numbers are at such high RPM the EM wouldn't necessarily add any additional power, but it would make for a super flat torque curve and gobs of lower RPM power.

Appreciate the kind reminder on the wait time, I missed that part or didn't remember. Order: M00S-L9N Sales: L55452 Dealer: Korf Lincoln Thank you.

Looks like according to the weekly production scheduling, the Conti's are in clean-up scheduling, so hoping to see if there is an update. Thanks, Order: M00S-L9N Sales: L55452 Dealer: Korf Lincoln

Well I could understand that completely, if the $1 billion profit target is from the total plant production and not just off of the Bronco alone. From this article I found from April 2019, it pretty clearly shows that at that time they expected $5,000 average improvement in operating margins by switching, which is a bit different from net profit. Operating earnings improvements are a good indicator of overall profit improvements (you always have one time and other special charges that can affect overall profitability), but are not a direct indicator of actual gross or net profit. If the Focus and C-Max were generating operating losses, the improvement could be just shifting from a net loss to break even or just a smaller loss (I don't know what the margins were in 2017). As an investor though, it is a good to see companies ditch loss leaders for more profitable products. We will have to see how this actually materializes into Q3 and Q4 2021 when the plant is in full production for both vehicles, with time to see sales impact.

I hope I am just missing the sarcasm in that statement.

The math there doesn't work. That would be $750 million in gross profit if they sold 100,000 units at a $7500 gross margin. Then you have to add in amortization of development expenses, tooling, and SG&A to that. Even if they included those expenses to come up with $7500 in net profit, you would still need 33% more production to get to $1 billion.

Thank you.

I see a lot of "Tesla builds it's own batteries" which is a half-truth. Tesla assembles the battery packs and modules, but they buy every cell from a primary manufacturer. Panasonic currently manufactures cells for Tesla in the Nevada production facility but otherwise they would suffer the same constraints if LG-Chem, Sony, Sanyo, and Panasonic all decided to dedicate all their other production to higher paying customers. In the end as supply is constrained, prices will rise and those willing to pay will win.

Tracking this for my Pops, appoligize if I don't have enough information, it is what I had on the order sheet he sent me. Order: M00S-L9N Sales: L55452 Dealer: Korf Lincoln Thanks! If I need more information let me know.

Full center console is reserved for Lincoln, just like in the Navigator vs Expedition, so it is in Aviator vs Explorer.

My pops just ordered a Continental Reserve AWD with the 3.0L in Burgundy Velvet with Cappuccino interior. Will be one of the last ones off the line. He decided he needed an American Luxury sedan to go with his stable of mustangs and trucks. Put the order in Friday and was told it was already pulled for scheduling.

Little disappointed with the leather color on the badlands package and lack of copilot 360 2.0 on the first edition.

According to the order guide here are the available towing packages: F-250 TRAILER TOW PACKAGE – HIGH CAPACITY (535) Availability: ● Optional on XL, XLT, and Lariat F-250 Not available with: ● 10,000 GVWR/9,900 GVWR Pkg. (68D) ● Pickup Box Delete (66D) Requires: ● 6.7L Power Stroke® Diesel engine (99T) ● Trailer Brake Controller (TBC) (52B) – XL SRW Includes: ● Increase GCW on diesel engine from 23,500 lbs. to 30,000 lbs. ● Upgraded axle ★F-250 TRAILER TOW HIGH CAPACITY W/ ULTIMATE TRAILER TOW CAMERA SYSTEM PACKAGE AND PRO TRAILER BACKUP ASSIST (53Q) Availability: ● Optional on F-250 Not available with: ● Pickup Box Delete (66D) Requires: ● 6.7L Power Stroke® Diesel engine (99T) ● Power Equipment Group (90L) – XL only ● STX Appearance Package (17S) – XL only ● SYNC® 3 (913) – XL only ● Trailer Brake Controller (52B) – XL only Includes: ● F-250 Trailer Tow Package – High Capacity (535) — Upgraded Axe — Increase GCW on diesel engine from 23,500 lbs. to 30,000 lbs. ★Pro Trailer Backup Assist – std on King Ranch®, Platinum and Limited ● Ultimate Trailer Tow Camera System (874) – std on King Ranch®, Platinum and Limited — Rear View Camera — 360 Degree Camera System — Rear CHMSL Camera — Trailer Reverse Guidance — LED Center High-Mounted Stop Lamp ★ULTIMATE TRAILER TOW CAMERA SYSTEM W/ PRO TRAILER BACKUP ASSIST PACKAGE (53R) Availability: ● Optional on XL, XLT, and Lariat ● Standard on King Ranch®, Platinum, and Limited Not available with: ● Pickup Box Delete (66D) Requires: ● Power Equipment Group (90L) – XL only ● STX Appearance Package (17S) – XL only ● SYNC® 3 (913) – XL only ● Trailer Brake Controller (52B) – XL only Includes: ★ Pro Trailer Backup Assist ● Ultimate Trailer Tow Camera System (874) — Rear View Camera — 360 Degree Camera System — Rear CHMSL Camera — Trailer Reverse Guidance — LED Center High-Mounted Stop Lamp You will note that the only thing 535 gets you is an increased GCWR to 30,000 lbs and an upgraded axle. 53Q is just 53R combined with 535. According to the towing guide the standard F-250's GCWR w/7.3 is 21,800 with a 3.55 ratio and 26,000 with a 4.30 ratio. The 6.7L gets 23,500 lbs with a 3.31 ratio and the 30,000 with the 3.55 ratio and requires 535 or 53Q. So in essence, you are asking to pay more for something Ford isn't willing to certify. Ford has determined that the 7.3L is not sufficient for a 30,000 lb GCWR, thus they don't offer it, but that is only a 4,000 lb difference from a 7.3L with a 4.30 rear end ratio.

I think we disagree with where responsibility lies. Your viewpoint is that the blame is on the publisher and not on the information provider. Mine is that because the information is coming from an internal source, the blame lies internally. Media has a job and that is to report anything newsworthy. Ford chose to punish them. That is their right. TFL also has no obligation to report on Ford news, and now won't be able to report on Ford products as easily, thus reducing the amount of coverage available to Ford and shifting that to a direct competitor. I value that lost publicity more than I value the loss that any of those pictures could have generated (at this stage). The former goes straight to a competitor, the latter does not. I would rather lose a dollar down the drain rather than hand that dollar to my chief competitor. This also doesn't account for the benefit to Ford as it did generate some publicity and excitement before the reveal, so that lost dollar down the drain may have resulted in some good. I understand everyone that works for Ford feels betrayed in some sense, but the real betrayal is on the inside. Given time, this will probably pass. Hopefully it passes before the real media events start again.

Yes, it is counter productive for any company to blacklist their industry media. There is no positive that can come from it. Preventing leaks is a you responsibility not a them responsibility.

I use 7500 because it is right in the interval for tire rotations and gives some buffer on either side if you have a long road trip and have to take it in early or wait until after. So my schedule is 7500, 15000, 22500, 30000... Keeps it even and easy to remember.

I guess I haven't seen the videos that showed they were given access to anything that other Automotive journalists weren't invited to as well or weren't part of the organized media campaign on vehicle launches. In my world we invite industry press all the time to test our product before it is publicly available. It is important to allow that independent evaluation because it builds credibility in the product. Your analogy doesn't really apply. The only way he would have had naked pictures would be if he took them without permission (illegally) or I or the wife sent them to him. Ford is well within their right to control who the give special access to, but for people outside the blue oval bubble, Ford looks petty and short sighted, especially considering the volume of leaked pictures that have been all over prior to the ones TFL was sent. And if you read some of the comments on the TFL articles, people are complaining that they are being shills for Ford products because of the amount of coverage they give. Just my opinion, but it seems that several people seem to be taking this personally like they themselves have been violated. I look at it from a shareholder and enthusiast standpoint. Those leeks won't affect the bottom line or competitive advantage and serve to keep interest up. I am sure going to miss seeing Ford compete in the Golden Hitch competition or seeing some real world comparisons. But I will keep watching regardless.

I just cant work out why everyone is pissed at TFL and yet doesn't seem to care that the pictures and information had to come from someone inside. Any news organization, including YouTube media, is allowed to publish anything they receive through legal means. Nothing they have published was covered by any written or unwritten agreement. If you want them to stop publishing leaked images, start firing employees that take those photos. FYI anonymous remailer services exist so TFL can't tell if it came from Bill Ford himself or from some random other person.

A PHEV version would have been desirable, and the 35kW motor is half of what the Aviator has. I am sure some of that is limited to compromises on the size of the battery vs payload capacity. I guess I could see the Raptor getting the Aviator's electric motor, unless they decide to go a different route with that completely. Really wish they would have had the engine lineup spec'd.

Multiple other outlets have published the images, so taking them down won't do any good. Also there is nothing illegal about them from the media's perspective. The only illegal activity would be by whoever sent them the pictures if they were taken by a Ford employee, or someone otherwise subjected to an NDA and would most likely be a civil action and not a criminal one, although their could be some criminal elements depending on the circumstances of how they were obtained. For people concerned about the leaks, the outrage should be placed on those who took the pictures or the person(s) that was negligent in protecting the vehicle.

Why would a small media outlet pay? They have very small margins and they aren't the Inquirer. They said the photos were sent anonymously, assuming through email.