Flying68
-
Posts
517 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Flying68
-
-
1 hour ago, Joe771476 said:
Replacing a battery costs $12,000. Insurance companies won't insure you if you park the vehicle in your garage. They're catching on fire every day. You can't reduce the carbon footprint of a carbon based planet! Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature of the Earth would be 0 degrees F! With it, it's 59 degrees F. I prefer that! These so-called expert scientists said Pluto was a planet, now it's not. They say milk and eggs are good one year, next year not, third year good again! When there's an impending hurricane, they draw 10 possible paths because they really don't know where it's going! But let's believe them for a moment. They say we've had climate change events (cooling and warming) for millions of years, right? Well there were no cars and industrial plants back then! And they say storms are getting worse. The reason they SEEM worse is because there are more people to be injured and killed and more building to be destroyed. The INTENSITY of the storms is not getting worse!
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.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:
Speaking of preorder issues, apparently a dealership (In PA) had 25 lightnings on order, and no one actually bought them. This is according to someone that works for them...
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.
-
51 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:
First, a lockout will backfire because besides increased unemployment insurance rates, though expired the contract is still in force including guarantees of wages if a plant closes, especially if the layoffs are due to a lockout which is a mass discharge without cause.
Second, where are all these scabs going to come from? Reality is that the plants would sit empty and eating capital for months because new workers simply aren't available.
Finally, one can easily see the framework of a settlement, but some leaders on both sides enjoy listening to their own orations too much to put it down on paper and hopefully approved- It looks like UAW and the automakers will settle for 30% raise and eliminating tiers so that is pretty much settled. Union representation at future plants is largely in the hands of the yet to be hired workers, the most the companies can guarantee is union recognition by a simple majority of workers signing membership cards without an election. That leaves the issue of defined benefit pensions to be settled, and given that few companies can saddle their balance sheets with such an obligation, a solution will probably require setting up an independent company to handle pensions and absorb the liability or transferring the responsibility to the federal government, where it ends up if pensions become insolvent anyways.
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.
-
5
-
-
19 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:
UAWs lawyers would love a lockout, would put Ford on the hook for millions in pay. As for hiring scabs, noticed the help wanted signs everywhere?
54 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:How would a lock out put Ford on the hook for millions in pay.? Does put a huge hurt on Fain's strike fund though.
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.
-
28 minutes ago, Willwll313wll said:
Without speculating, I am not sure how far are they are from what the UAW is demanding. I also wonder what these increases will ACTUALLY cost Ford, taking into account Ford having $24 billion in profits last year. By comparison (Not that I think it's a completely fair one), Tesla's profit was half that over the same time period.
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.
-
1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:
Speaking of the Mach E being profitable-thought this was interesting
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.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, rperez817 said:
Here are the numbers from 2022. Nvidia, Lucid top 2022 CEO compensation survey | Automotive News (autonews.com)
General Motors CEO, Mary Barra
- Base salary: $2.1 million
- Bonus and incentive plan compensation: $6,258,000
- Stock option gains: $0
- Stock award gains: $24,627,264
- Other compensation: $1,121,560
- Accumulated pension benefits: $2,160,068
- Total compensation: $34,106,824
Ford CEO, Jim Farley
- Base salary: $1.7 million
- Bonus and incentive plan compensation: $2,754,000
- Stock option gains: $1,869,342
- Stock award gains: $10,620,588
- Other compensation: $1,396,765
- Accumulated pension benefits: $0
- Total compensation: $18,340,695
Tesla CEO, Elon Musk
- Base salary: $0
- Bonus and incentive plan compensation: $0
- Stock option gains: $0
- Stock award gains: $0
- Other compensation: $0
- Accumulated pension benefits: $0
- Total compensation: $0
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.
-
2
-
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.
-
20 hours ago, tbone said:
Well stated. There is 22 MME AWD extended range near me with 17000 miles that originally stickered for $65k that is listed for $45k. That’s a substantial drop after one year, which would certainly give me pause on buying a new one from a depreciation perspective. I personally think the BEV market is troubled right now, which is putting all manufacturers between a rock and a hard place, and I don’t see it improving in the near term.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.
-
18 hours ago, Gurgeh said:
Dang paywall. But thanks for the extensive subject line which, I suppose, does a good job summarizing the article.
Non-paywalled version.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, Chrisgb said:
Is this "Front Mid-Engine," like the RX-7 &-8?
It has the exact same engine mount location as the GT500.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, akirby said:
10% plus 3% a year is 19%.It is actually 20.2%. 1.10*1.03*1.03*1.03=1.201999
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:
The way I understand the situation is that would be legally considered part time work so the company would be under no legal obligation to continue to provide benefits which opens up a whole different can of worms.
Either way I want no part of a 32 hour work week, I would go stir crazy with that much time off. These 16 hour weeks I’m on now are bad enough.
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.
-
3
-
-
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?
-
13 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:
I believe you and I, along with many others, discussed the pros and cons of a 6.8 hybrid setup in length when we were discussing what engine ford should use in the raptor r. You were arguing a 6.8 hybrid would be superior to the 5.2 if I'm not mistaken.
The issue is the 6.8 has a few key advantages over the 6.7 power stroke:
Cost
Complexity/ease of maintenance
Lighter weight
Hybridizing this powerplant would negate these benefits. I believe it's also been said that while EVs/Hybrids are perfectly capable for light duty use cases, the insane rigors of super duty truck use would cause major durability issues amongst other things. Hybrid/EV tech is generally very reliable now, but not quite at the point where those components can handle towing 30k lbs for 500k miles without a single major issue.
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.
-
13 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:
I believe you and I, along with many others, discussed the pros and cons of a 6.8 hybrid setup in length when we were discussing what engine ford should use in the raptor r. You were arguing a 6.8 hybrid would be superior to the 5.2 if I'm not mistaken.
The issue is the 6.8 has a few key advantages over the 6.7 power stroke:
Cost
Complexity/ease of maintenance
Lighter weight
Hybridizing this powerplant would negate these benefits. I believe it's also been said that while EVs/Hybrids are perfectly capable for light duty use cases, the insane rigors of super duty truck use would cause major durability issues amongst other things. Hybrid/EV tech is generally very reliable now, but not quite at the point where those components can handle towing 30k lbs for 500k miles without a single major issue.
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.
-
1
-
4th gen 2.0EB + PowerSplit eCVT transmission
in Lincoln Nautilus / MKX Forum
Posted
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.