msm859
-
Posts
393 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by msm859
-
-
9 hours ago, Deafsoundguy said:
No offense, but that combo sounds odd to me ?, or at least not very saleable. I would bet that most people who want a luxurious interior like power to go with it. At the highest levels like Bentley and Rolls, they're known for luxury coming with power - lots and lots of it. I don't think there would be any of those customers expecting a small engine, although it would of course be true if you can afford those cars you probably wouldn't care about gas prices. And if you really had a bunch of money and really want to go green you're probably going to but a Tesla anyway. Alternatively, I bet there's not a lot of people buying a Prius who are pushing their salesguy for a luxury interior.
Your statement in bold proves my point, I suggest there are a lot of people who want the luxury AND the "green". We took the Tesla X for a test drive and my wife thought it was too small and plain. She loves the Aviator. I am waiting for the real world experiences with the Aviator GT. I have already beaten the dead horse around here about my pause as to the small battery and small electric motor they are putting in it. Audi just announced their 2020 Q5 PHEV(a much smaller vehicle) has a 141 hp electric motor and 14.1 kWh battery - both larger than the Aviator. For some it has nothing to do with the price of gas.
-
21 minutes ago, Assimilator said:
I'm definitely of the belief that Black Label should be reserved for only the maxed out configurations. When you buy Black Label, the only thing you should have to select is the theme. The only thing I don't want standard is Trailer Tow, and if there are exotic powertrains like PHEV. AWD should also be standard on BL. The fact you can buy cheaper BL vehicles than Reserve makes no sense and diminishes the sub-brand while increasing costs to the dealer and diluting the value of exclusivity. I think they are starting to fix this now and scaling back BL to only certain high-end vehicles. I bought a fully-loaded BL Nautilus and love it.
I believe the "nicest" vehicle should always include the option to have the most fuel efficient engine. Go ahead and max out everything else. But why should someone who wants to limit their carbon footprint not be entitled to the most luxurious interior?
-
On 9/17/2019 at 4:58 PM, AutomotiveAddicts said:
Here she is... just before I got the windows tinted. Sorry, I know this is the wrong forum post for this.. but this is an example of a unit without those "issues". I'm thankful for that, thus far.
Looks great. Did yours come with the front license plate frame attached? I just saw another picture with a new Aviator that had it attached.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, mustangchief said:
Yes, it speeds up or slows down. Brake lights do come on when it slows. You can also bias it + or - 20mph, so if you always do 8 over, you just set it and it will go from 78 down to 68 from a 70 to 60 zone. It worked well on the one I had for a weekend.
I wish the +/- was a percentage not mph. Not sure were you would want to say + 20mph, but would probably say + 20% almost everywhere.
-
17 minutes ago, Icspres said:
You know what bugs me about this, I assumed when I was first looking into this when I started this thread that the net gain from something this intrusive would have to be in the 10-15% range, right? I mean, to be worth the trouble? Nope, 5%. The EPA estimated overall mileage gain for vehicles with stop start is 5%...at time of purchase. Plain common sense tells me that it's a net loss, no way all the tech involved and whatever modest extra wear and tear, the fact that the start/stop function is bound to be rougher over time isn't going to lead to vehicles being thrown away 5% sooner. My wife is still on track to take delivery of her Aviator though. Whatever.
In 2015 Americans consumed over 140 billion gallons of gasoline. 5% is Huge. Reset your trip odometer and mileage gauge and watch you average mpg on a highway for about 5 miles and then get into town and literally watch the mileage go down as you sit at a stop - yes it makes a difference.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, JohnLouis said:
- If as an owner of a 2020 Aviator, if I can manually turn this feature off every time I start the engine; then Lincoln should keep me as a Happy returning customer, and default it to OFF for me. Had I know about this features default state before purchase, I would have told the salesman where he could put the demo vehicle!!!!!! I still have not heard back from my service manager or Mark Fields requesting that it be changed!!!!!!!!!!!
If it can be set "off" as a default then it should be "off" while they do the EPA mileage ratings and let Lincoln suffer the consequences. The default though should be for it to be "On". I suspect 99% of the people will not care and that will add up to a lot of savings in gas not being burned unnecessarily. What you should be writing Mark Fields is if you have any complaints in the actual operation of the engine off system i.e. it not being seamless.
-
1
-
6 hours ago, Harley Lover said:
IIRC the 300 mile range batteries are supposed to take around 12 hours (I think) on a level 2 charger. That's not too bad, but if I had the choice, I'd go with a level 3 and cut that charging time down significantly. I guess the other factor to consider with the shorter charging time of a level 3 would be the presumed opportunity to take advantage of the lowest utility rates, which supposedly are somewhere between midnight and 6 am (depending on location). The longer charging time of the level 2 would negate that opportunity (for a full charge).
Or you could buy a Tesla S or X and get free supercharging and 50% charge in @20 minutes
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, fordmantpw said:
I would have them run 2 while they are at it. Size the wire for 50 amp just in case, but you can put a 40 amp breaker in.
Agreed. I finished my garage and have 2 separate 50 amp circuits. I ran one to a 14-50 plug and the other to hang a charger off the ceiling. Technically I used wire large enough to use 60 amp breakers. Remember, that for a continuous load you have to deduct 20%. Thus, a 40 amp breaker can only charge at 32 amps. Level 2 should be totally fine 99% of the time. 40 amps should give you @25 miles per hour. How many miles does one typically drive every day? You are "topping" off every night so actual charging won't be that long.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, bbf2530 said:
Hi msm. I agree. "Guards Red" can cancel the existing order, if it is too late to change it. But he may lose his deposit in doing so. Would you blink if you were going to lose a $500 or $1,000 deposit (or name any amount he may have had to place)? That is why he must check with the Dealer first.
He asked if it was too late to change the order he already placed. And the correct answer is he must check with the Dealer as to whether it is too late to change the order and what options he may have otherwise. If it is too late to change the existing order, he needs to inquire as to whether he would lose his deposit (if any) if he cancels for "I changed my mind about the color".
I am not saying the Dealer would be correct in keeping a deposit. However, most order contracts give the Dealer the option to keep the deposit if the buyer cancels. They usually won't, but they have the option. So Guards Red should make sure before acting.
Hopefully it will all work out for the best. If the current order color can be changed, great. If it can't be changed, but they will cancel the contract and order a new one, great.
Hope that makes my reply clearer. Good luck.
Yes, I suppose I was being more philosophical. However, I live in California where I am pretty sure it is illegal for a dealership to keep a deposit if you have not taken possession of the vehicle. I have custom ordered 8 trucks/cars and only 1 time did a dealer actually ask for a deposit. Seems a little crazy when you are trying to buy a "popular" car unless you order some strange color combinations to ask for a deposit.
-
4 hours ago, Guards Red Car said:
I'm thinking of changing the color of my Aviator GT, is it too late?
I would not buy a car that was the "wrong" color. The questions is not whether it is too late - it's not. It is what color do you want? How important is the color to you? I would not blink at changing/cancelling an order to wait to get what I really wanted.
-
20 minutes ago, fordmantpw said:
Easy if you have an extra $5k laying around. But, as I mentioned, most home solar systems don't have that.
Plus, we were referring to the edge case where there is a catastrophe. Most solar users don't have solar for that prep, but have solar to lower their home energy costs. I'm one of those with 11.7kW of solar. If/when we get an electric car some day, I'm going to look at adding another couple kW if I can find a place to put it.
Agreed. May depend where you live. I don't really have to worry about losing power. I suspect if I lived someplace that it was a real concern, I would invest in the battery backup.
I have @11kW system and am maxed out. I have my garage wired for 2 separate 50 amp plugs for future plug in something - not if but when.
-
1 hour ago, fordmantpw said:
Most home solar installations won't work if the grid is down.
Unless you have a generator, but then again you need fuel for your generator.
Of course, some have battery storage, but those are few and far between.
So, in reality, if the grid is down, solar panels are just expensive shiny things.
That is correct. However, it is an easy fix if grid going down is a real concern - besides having a generator. Adding a Tesla wall battery or other brand I suspect, will keep your solar "live" should the power go out.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Wheeling said:
Does Start/Stop also works in the GT? It seems counter productive in the GT, when stops, the engine can recharge the battery. So why shut it off?
To save gas. Having the engine on while standing still is a waste - and only needed perhaps for heat and A/C which the battery can supply for a short time.
-
3 hours ago, akirby said:
And then there was the global climate change theory (accepted by most scientists for decades) that was completely disproved by hard data........
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190923111247.htm
Are you serious? That is your defense of climate change? Another article on that page. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181210150614.htm
Everyone should be concerned. And anyone who is not should ask themselves the question; What if I am wrong? What are the consequences? I - and everyone else can live if I am wrong. Can you say the same?
-
3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:
Completely missing the point-yes Cali generates alot of alternative power for electric, but other parts of the country aren't at that point yet and getting rid of natural gas is a non-starter for areas of the country that experience a "real" winter and need a real heating/AC unit and not a heat pump. Banning NG isn't going to happen.
I said nothing about getting rid of natural gas. I said we need to get rid of coal - today. And it makes no sense anywhere to use coal when natural gas is cheaper and cleaner.
-
3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:
But thats the problem-what works in California doesn't translate well for the rest of the country-as I've pointed out several times.
Well solar should work for at least half the country and wind all of the country. What should not work for any part of the country - or the planet- is coal. We should be offering extensive benefits to coal miners to retrain them into other jobs. There are in fact a lot of "green" jobs. Instead we have states like Wyoming that are passing laws to make it harder to stop using coal even when natural gas is cheaper. http://ieefa.org/wyoming-governor-signs-bill-to-prop-up-states-coal-plants/. Talk about being nearsighted.
-
12 hours ago, HotRunrGuy said:
Maybe for you, I don't see it working for me, today. I average 40-45K miles/year, usually have at least one 500+ mile day a week, and don't see an overabundance of charging stations at hotels that I stay at weekly.
HRG
I suspect in California it would be no problem. Tesla superchargers dot the state and a lot of hotels in fact have chargers for Ev's
-
3 hours ago, jpd80 said:
Sure we can do both but the priority should be reducing CO2 from energy production.
There's no point in switching everyone to electric cars if that in turn causes an increase
of CO2 emissions from more coal fired plants to cover the increasing power deficit.
^^^^^^^^and that's the exact problem China faces, it's racing headlong into BEVs to
fight climate change but planning a massive expansion of coal fired power plants.
effective replacement of base load power stations is what's required, so those green
alternatives have to be improved by using next gen liquid metal batteries that will leave
today's lithium Ion batteries for dead on cost and efficiency. It sounds crazy but "waiting"
with BEVs and using hybrid cars and trucks that use less fuel is actually the best solution
while we get the power industry on the right track. It also gives the Automotive industry more
time to select better battery technology for bigger long term gains.
Well I generally agree with you. I now have 11 kW solar system on my roof. Last year my electric bill was zero so I added an upstairs laundry room with an electric dryer, a heat pump water heater (and more solar panels to bring it up to what I have). I will be putting in an induction cooktop to replace a gas stove. California has very little electricity derived form coal. By 2025 is will be zero - including imported.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, CurtisH said:
No, there really isn’t. The 97% figure comes from an article by John Cook. Do some research on John Cook’s article. Several authors of the articles Cook reviewed said that he misrepresented the claims in those articles. Many of the articles he reviewed legitimately claim that man has played a large role in global warming, but the real number isn’t 97%.
Let's say you are right - it is not 97%. At what number would you be concerned? 90 -80 -70 - 60 -50 .....? If 100 meteorologist were in a room and 97 of them told you (and 3 said it was okay) do not take your child outside because there is going to be a lightning strike that will probably hit your child and kill them, would you take your child out? How about if it was only 80 out of 100? 50 out of 100? 1 out of 100? The consequences of being wrong - on the do nothing side - is catastrophic. The consequences of being wrong - on the do too much side - is probably still overall positive to mankind and planet earth.
Arguing the "97%" is a distraction. ANYONE who does not believe that the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community believes anthropogenic climate change is a serious threat to planet earth, is not paying attention or in denial.
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, jpd80 said:
I think they're a waste of money when there are much bigger problems to cure first.
Eliminate CO2 from all electrical power generation and storage first, then use that
as your source for clean and green energy , otherwise you're lying on your back
and pissing all over yourself.
Can't we do both at the same time. Solar has dropped down in price such that in any sunny place it has become a now brainer - economically - even if you don't believe in climate change.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Trader 10 said:
“97% of climate scientists” cranking out report after report funded by the green movement.
Seriously? I forgot NASA has always been known as part. of the "green movement". What exactly would it take for you to "believe" that the majority fo scientist believe in anthropogenic climate change. And unfortunately this is not a feeling or belief issue - it is science.
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, jpd80 said:
And yet the world's vehicles account for about 10% of all man made CO2
so if we electrified every vehicle tomorrow and stopped burning gasoline
and diesel, it only drops CO2 levels by a tiny fraction.
Then I guess we need to do more then just drive electric cars.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:
The one interesting thing about this (as brought up by my Father in Law who teaches earth science at a high school and College level) is that we might have done damage already to the environment 20-30 years ago that we don't know about that irreversible, so we might be in a situation that even if we do this, we aren't going to "change" it.
A lot of "mights" in there. Ronald Reagan did not believe we were burning a hole in the ozone layer with fluorocarbons. But he banned them anyways - saying it was cheap insurance in case he was wrong. The cost of being wrong on this is catastrophic. The costs of being wrong if it is not true but still acting is de minimis and actually still a lot of good things - cleaner air, water, land and not sending billions to the Middle East to fund terrorists to attack us. How much American blood have we spilled and gold taken from the treasury protecting oil in the Middle East?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, rperez817 said:
Nearly half of the U.S. states, District of Columbia, and 3 U.S. cities petitioned the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today. They are seeking to declare the Trump EPA action unlawful. Petition is attached.
Let the court battles begin!
Thanks for the link. Pretty solid Complaint.
-
1
-
FORD INTRODUCES NORTH AMERICA’S LARGEST ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING NETWORK, HELPING CUSTOMERS CONFIDENTLY SWITCH TO AN ALL-ELECTRIC LIFESTYLE
in Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum
Posted
Already the law in California. An HOA can not prevent an owner from putting in his own home charger. I suspect soon there will have to be a minimum number in all new construction - even for apartments.