Flying68
-
Posts
517 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Flying68
-
-
23 hours ago, bdegrand said:
My friend had his Maverick Lariat delivered yesterday to North Brothers Ford. When he called the dealer he was told the recently built Maverick cannot be sold until the side air bag is replaced. The replacement air bags will NOT be available until January 2023 at the earliest. They have his blue Maverick on display...but he cannot take delivery!
Does anyone have any information on this? The last posting on the air bag was August ....and his car was built in October.
4 hours ago, bdegrand said:Thanks for the official letter. I told him to NOT cancel the order. It's parked on a hill so everyone passing by the dealer will see it. That was also a concern they would be letting people test drive it...however your attached note confirms that's not allowed! So, his car will sit for months until the part arrives. It is what it is. Thanks again!
He needs to check with the dealer to confirm his is actually affected. The recall is specific to build dates through July 9th. If his was built after that date it should be good to go. He can run his VIN through the NHTSA recall website and see if it applies. Either his truck was built much earlier than the delivery (more than a couple months), or the dealer is doing something wrong (not verifying it applies to that unit or hoping he will cancel so they can sell at a markup).
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Joe771476 said:
I'd like to see the electric bill for charging 25, 50, 100-plus school buses every night!
If you think that is shocking just wait until you see how much local schools spend on gasoline and diesel to power those school busses.
A gallon of gasoline equals 33.7 kW-hrs, according to the EPA's conversion factor. A gallon of diesel becomes about 37.1 kW-hrs. So say the industrial electricity rate is $0.12/kwh you get electricity that equals $4.04 / gallon gasoline or $4.45 / gallon diesel, but EV powertrains are about 90% efficient vs 30% for gas or diesel so your net electrical cost is 1/3 that of gas or diesel.
-
There are whole swaths of the country where there is limited cell coverage and no FM radio stations. AM radio travels a lot further than FM and is sometimes possible to get reception a couple hundred miles away. There can't be that much cost savings in dumping AM radio. I can already see GM putting out commercials saying they can still get AM in their truck but you can't in your Ford, so you missed out on the latest crop report, market report, or weather alert and now your livelihood is in danger because you couldn't get reception on the only local radio station.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, HeavyAssault said:
Ford changed to the 2.5" hitch LONG ago....at least back to 2015 models (that's what I have). That's an F350 truck which would drive it to the 3" receiver, UNLESS the options selected downgraded the tow capacity, which drives a 2.5" hitch. Since it's a Limited Trim the only selection to downgrade to a 2.5" would be the GWVR selection....BUT looking at the rear leaf springs there's the overload spring so most likely it's not GVWR restricted.
I can't wait to read thru the specifications once they are published.
He wasn't referring to the size of the receiver. He was specifically referring to the configuration of the chain hoops and the hitch to frame connection which is updated for 2023.
-
2 hours ago, HeavyAssault said:
F350 trucks all come with a 3" hitch (depending on options selected). Not to mention he says "they updated the hitches". That was done LONG ago...not new even to the Alumi-Duty models.
F150 "thoughts" while covering Super Duty?? I mean these YouTube stars are supposed to be knowledgable. It's not rocket science...study the material before you talk like you are the experts.
What do you mean "LONG ago?" I believe he was specifically referring to the chain hoops, which now have a bump out to make it easier to connect to and also updated the connection to the frame.
-
First of all the Lightning in Hoovies video is a standard range, so it isn't going to have all that much range to begin with. 2nd point is towing anything cuts your range in half, just look at all the fuel mileage testing on gas pickups. The only difference between BEV and gas is the speed of the fill-up. Larger heavy duty trucks don't suffer as much as the engines tend to not be very efficient at lighter loads because they are optimized for under load conditions. So they don't suffer as much of a drop in fuel efficiency when towing. The standard range Lightning would be like having an gas F-150 with only a 13 gallon tank.
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, Flying68 said:
Moving to BEV for Class 1 (Ranger, Canyorado, Tacoma, etc..) and even 2A (F-150, Sierrado 1500, Ram 1500, Tundra) should be doable. Moving to BEV for commercial delivery vehicles / box trucks and vans should also be doable (lower range requirements, fixed duty cycle). Moving to BEV for class 2B, Class 3, and higher trucks that do a lot of towing, high load demand work, or run PTO equipment will be more problematic because the energy density is not there for batteries yet and may not be for another 10 years.
19 hours ago, bzcat said:But not all Class 3 or above trucks do long distances or tow, which is the whole point... The majority of medium duty trucks do not ever go very far. UPS's dispatch target is 80 miles a day for urban and suburban delivery vans. Meaning they should never venture more than 40 miles from their depot on average. Some do of course... but on average, that's what their dispatch center try to hit when they map out the delivery routes.
The long distance truck will continue to have ICE (Tesla's semi is going to end up doing mostly short haul - I have no doubt). If you want to see what meduim duty truck market will look like in 10 years, just look at the municipal bus market is like today. Virtually all the new orders are for electric - yes, many orders are subsidized but so was the diesel and CNG buses before. The operating cost of EV on fixed route or short haul is so low compare to diesel or CNG once you get past the initial setup cost, it is kind of a no brainer. And once the OEM starts selling from the groud up EV trucks (instead of conversions), the market is going to swing overnight to electric.
There will always be a subset of medium duty that will require more distance or more capability and PHEV will solve some of the need. CARB's rules allow PHEV since most of them will behave like EV during in-town or urban operation where people live.
Um, isn't that what I said??? Fixed duty cycle vehicles with known energy demands should be easily doable now (even accounting for a 30 to 40% range loss in cold temperatures). It will be more problematic for vehicles that don't have fixed duty cycles, or those whose duty cycles exceed what current battery technology can reasonably deliver. Boom trucks, tree trimmers, power line trucks, where their isn't a fixed route and where there is often towed equipment or constant operation of external equipment are where you will run into issues.
Class 2B, and class 3 to 5 vehicles that are intended to tow long distance (rv's, hot shots, farm and ranch) will be much further out.
-
1 hour ago, rperez817 said:
CARB's ACF ZEV Phase-In Schedule for Truck Milestone Group 1, which includes Class 1-3 pickup trucks, targets 50% ZEV by 2031 and 100% by 2035. However, for pickup trucks the extremely rapid customer adoption for F-150 Lightning and Rivian R1T nowadays combined with similar predicted uptake for future BEV pickups from Tesla, Ford, GM, Stellantis, and others suggest that "all-electric fleet of new vehicles by 2030" is quite achievable. As bzcat said, the CARB milestones are behind actual market trends.
Moving to BEV for Class 1 (Ranger, Canyorado, Tacoma, etc..) and even 2A (F-150, Sierrado 1500, Ram 1500, Tundra) should be doable. Moving to BEV for commercial delivery vehicles / box trucks and vans should also be doable (lower range requirements, fixed duty cycle). Moving to BEV for class 2B, Class 3, and higher trucks that do a lot of towing, high load demand work, or run PTO equipment will be more problematic because the energy density is not there for batteries yet and may not be for another 10 years.
-
2
-
-
Disappointed that they aren't offering a hybrid version. A 7.3 or 6.8 mated to an electric motor would provided diesel like torque with the benefits of gas, plus add the killer feature of the powerboost onboard power system, which would be awesome for campers and smaller rv's when boondocking. Put in a large enough battery that would provide the needed capacity to pull up the mountains and you have a great daily driver that would easily handle the rigors of towing a 10k lb trailer.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ice-capades said:
I was at the dealership earlier and they had this 2019 Mustang Bullitt on the showroom floor. Only 1,436 Miles! Original MSRP = $49,790. Selling at $52,988 in today's market.
Nice. My Dad's Bullitt has a blend date 4 days later, strangely the VIN though is a lower number though. His was an order though, not stock, plus has the magne-ride. Also has a few more miles on it. He used to use it as his daily until he got his Continental, now he drives that or the F-250 mostly. Although he did pick up a '79 Ranchero that he was driving a bit this summer.
-
1
-
-
So is the dealer filling them with nitrogen, because I highly doubt the factory would. Also most nitrogen filled tires aren't 100% pure nitrogen, close, but I doubt they are getting 100% pure. The main benefit is that it is dry and doesn't leak as much, so if you have a dryer filter on a home air compressor, you are probably better off. Or you can do like most people and just check the tires every month or watch the pressure monitor.
Here is what the experts at Tirerack say: SHOULD I USE NITROGEN IN MY TIRES?
-
1
-
-
I think it also needs to be pointed out that the southwest (Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California) cool substantially at night due to low humidity levels, so electrical demand for to run A/C units falls dramatically from the loads experienced in the afternoon until the sun goes down. This is unlike the rest of the country where humidity levels keep temperatures high well past sunset and the only reduction in electrical demand for A/C is due to office buildings being empty. With that said, the southwest has much more capacity at night for BEV charging, but already suffers for over-capacity demand during the day. It has always been that way because the generation capacity never kept pace with population growth which has been a much bigger contributor to peak power demand than BEV's. So basically, adding BEV's will increase demand, but only marginally during the day and during peak times. Population growth and increasing use / need for A/C is a much bigger driver that is straining capacity in the desert southwest.
-
2
-
2
-
-
My one time buying on x-plan, the dealer charged me the normal doc fee allowed in Kansas, then sent me a check for the difference between it and the plan allowance about 2 weeks later. They told me that was their procedure, so that the paperwork the state gets shows the same fee.
-
7 hours ago, Footballfan said:
Awesome move! Ford is making the cost of these trucks well beyond the means of the average customer and these are supposed to be the future? Good luck with Blue Oval City if you are going to charge these prices.
I would like to know who this average customer is. Based on the fact that people are paying enormous ADM's to get a vehicle off the lot or paying near MSRP for USED vehicles, I think the "average" customer is able to afford a lot more than you think. YOU may not be willing to pay that much, but it doesn't mean that the average customer isn't.
-
3
-
-
Between my sisters Escape with the 2.0 at 240hp/270lbft and my wifes MkC with the 2.3 at 285hp/305lbft, the MkC is much more responsive to the throttle. I don't know how anyone could say that their isn't a difference. I guess if all you do is baby it around the city or do nothing but drive the highway at constant speed, you won't know the difference, but I sure do.
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, fuzzymoomoo said:
Not surprised. Once the PHEV came along it was only a matter of time before either the 2.0 or 2.3 was dropped. It's a shame though, the 2.3 is a fabulous engine.Not that we have any plans to replace our MkC with a Corsair anytime soon, but that definitely takes the Corsair off the list. I think it just means it will be a Mach-E for us or whatever they give Lincoln. Sadly I think it might be a while before they actually get a Lincoln BEV, which is a shame because a Mach-E in Lincoln trim with a redesigned front facia and the better Lincoln interior would kill in that market space.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, JeffSpencer said:
For those interested, here's a 2022 fully loaded Lariat Tremor with BAP for sale in North Carolina. 778 miles $96,265.
Dealership is located just outside of Wilmington, NCWas a "special order." So I wonder if they scammed the original buyer out of it or if that buyer backed out.
-
7 hours ago, Footballfan said:4 hours ago, jpd80 said:
After Ford claimed an $8.2 billion profit on Rivian in 2021 Q4
https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/ford-q4-net-income-surges-123b-rivian-investment-gain
@Footballfan Just so we are clear, this is what is called a Mark-to-Market adjustment. It is an accounting procedure that was implemented post Enron to properly value assets in each reporting period. Ford, by all accounts, had a $500 million cash investment in Rivian in 2019. I have seen other reports of ~$900mm invested in Q1 '21, but it isn't clear if that is cash or a combination of cash and technology/ip transfer. That investment translated into a fixed % of Rivian common stock, ~102mm shares. Once that happened, Ford was first forced to mark that asset at the end of Q4 '21, which at the time was way high (when I should have sold). Due to initial investor lockup agreements, they weren't allowed to sell and thus could not profit from that investment. By the end of Q1 '22, Rivian stock had cratered and Ford was forced to revalue that asset, resulting in a non-cash accounting loss. Ford has since sold off some of their holdings to recoup the cash investment, but continues to hold the majority of there stock. Their stake is now below 10% ownership in Rivian. They have sold a total of ~15mm shares and hold ~87mm shares. The first sale of 8mm shares netted ~$214mm and the second sale of 7mm netted ~$188mm. So they have recouped ~$402mm of the $500mm initial cash investment and still hold 87mm shares, which at todays price is ~$2,848mm, which is well above their total investment amount. By any method of accounting their investment is one of the best that they have ever made.
-
4
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, Footballfan said:
Sounds more like a CYA Wall Street appeasing move to me and to make up for the Rivian investment disaster.
What Rivian investment disaster? They more than recouped the cash investment they had when they sold part of the stake after the lockup ended.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, rperez817 said:
Dumb bill. Any business that wants to provide a free charger can simply show 0 on the bill. How can the state prove that the cost wasn't absorbed by the business or wrapped up into marketing costs.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, slemke said:
NC wants to take out the free public chargers. Pretty sure there was some lobbying by the service station owners that want to expand and put up their own for profit charging stations. It probably needs to be done, though, in order to attract the private investment needed for long term success.
Are these "free" public chargers government (state) owned or are they utility owned, or private NGO owned? Makes a big difference. Even cities usually have some power to provide free services even if there is a competing for profit company providing the service, e.g. trash. Service stations should be installing their own if for no other reason to drive traffic to their convenience stores.
-
20 minutes ago, River Wild said:
I have 3 trailers with access to 3 others and have zero issues with the safety chains. I don't get what the problem is.
The biggest complaint of independent reviewers is that the loop openings on Ford hitches are too small and set back too far. This makes it hard to attach chain and breakaway clips. For instance, I just got back from vacation using a 2019 F250 pulling a TT. In order to get the safety chains clipped, I had to come in from an angle so that the hitch loop would actually fit through the clip on the chain hook. Basically the base of the loop is too thick and the bottom of the opening is too high compared to other hitches.
Here is a picture of the bottom of a SD receiver I found (15,000 lb rating).
Compare to a Ram 2500 receiver (rating unknown):
GM's (20,000 lb rated) is similar to Ram in design:
The Ram and GM designs are much, much easier to attach clips to.
-
31 minutes ago, tbone said:
Frankly I have not read all the articles about it yet, but Motor1 posted a price of $109,145 to start. I don’t know if that is confirmed or not but Car and Driver says the same.
The original Raptor wasn’t a limited production vehicle, and you got the best performance it had to offer on the entry level models. This one didn’t have to be that.
TFL Truck quotes the same price near the end of the review.
-
10 hours ago, jpd80 said:
But that wasn’t the point of this test as TFL used the Lightning with a standard battery.
Actually the Lightning they own is a Lariet with the extended range battery.
And $0.45 per kW/h is ridiculous, but those charge stations and the power drops to supply them aren't cheap either, so someone has to pay for them.
2023 Motor Trend SUV of the Year
in Competing Products
Posted
How would one classify a vehicle that is 4 doors, rwd, 155 to 165 in long, 103.5 in wheelbase, 67 in wide, and 70.9 in tall, and sits on 19 in rims with low profile tires?