Jump to content

Rick73

Member
  • Posts

    1,424
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Rick73 last won the day on December 6 2023

Rick73 had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Rick73's Achievements

439

Reputation

  1. Yes, and in some cases the hybrid can provide additional power similar to turbo engine. When looking at newest Honda Civic it was interesting they replaced 1.5T with 2.0 hybrid as top option. The base engine remains 2.0L naturally aspirated coupled to CVT. What I like best is that a few manufacturers are offering 2.5L NA 4-cylinder engines with approximately 200 HP and 200 lb-ft as standard on compact and or mid-size vehicles. For those buyers who can’t justify hybrids it may be a good choice. To your point, perhaps Ford offering a 2.5L in base 2WD Rangers could add sales if they can get close to 200 HP. That may not seem like much (or enough), but for many years Rangers did fine with much less power. IMO Ford could use a more budget-minded powertrain for Ranger.
  2. Wasn’t the Cyclone a Comet? Not sure. I recall hearing or reading of Comet Cyclone GT which was based on Fairlane and had 390 engine.
  3. Exactly like my previous example of broken bolt costing too much to fix, owners don’t need a good or valid reason at all to avoid a brand or manufacturer. In my opinion manufacturers should think ahead on what they are designing today that could alienate buyers in the future due to high unexpected ownership costs. Start-stop as an example is not well liked by many to begin with, and if associated repairs end up costing more than it saves on gas, I can see an owner feeling they were mislead by the manufacturer. I think most owners don’t care about EPA or CAFE goals that manufacturers must meet as much as their own wallets. Honestly, I have noticed a trend lately towards greater numbers of simpler powertrains being offered even though they may not squeeze every bit of MPG out of each gallon of gas. Simpler engines also help lower initial vehicle price, which some buyers want badly. With gas so cheap and minor repairs so expensive, it doesn’t take much of a failure or repair to offset a year’s worth of gas savings.
  4. Most are fairly new and covered under warranty so wouldn’t expect “complains” anyway. The potential problem is that when shop time costs well over $100 per hour, making repairs more difficult and or time consuming can add up quickly when paying out of pocket. For example, I know one RAM owner who recently switched to a different pickup brand after having to pay over $1,000 to replace a broken bolt on exhaust manifold. It was practically all labor. I don’t know what may happen when some of the newer vehicles become 5+ years old, or over 100,000 miles, but I don’t want to find out personally. Buyers are all different, and I’d prefer an even more basic engine, not the opposite. On the other hand, I’m certain there will be plenty of buyers at other extreme willing to buy as much power as made available.
  5. Engine bay looks a bit busy compared to 4-cylinder. While the vast majority of buyers will never work on stuff themselves, they will eventually have to pay someone else to do it for them if they keep truck long enough. Given the 2.3L is reported to have plenty of power, it seems the prudent choice for most buyers; plus it saves on initial cost too. Expect there will be plenty of V6 takers though.
  6. Yes, I expect that applies to all brands and most vehicles as well. Even Tesla may lose repeat buyers over time.
  7. It will be interesting to see how the Cummins Octane engine performs in fuel economy when powering larger trucks because it relies on turbo boost for rated power and torque. In the past, turbo gas engines have not been particularly fuel efficient under heavy loads like they will see in large and heavy trucks. Granted, initial Cummins specs suggest turbo boost must be relatively limited compared to common ICE vehicles similar to EcoBoost.
  8. My 2 cents: Original Maverick car was entry level commodity and hardly iconic if I recall correctly. It was cheaper and roomier than a Mustang, but image not comparable. I suppose Maverick can be associated with Wild West much like a Mustang or Bronco, which may be why Ford recycled for new pickup. Also IIRC, Transit name was already in use in Europe (and maybe Mexico) when Transit van was first offered in US, so using the same name for the van made sense. Excursion was a popular truck/SUV the first full year, but sales declined steadily over the next four years after that before it was cancelled. It has a good following even today because it was so different, but does that make it iconic? I don’t really know, but in my opinion “brand” or “name” only goes so far. The vehicle must have substance or value, not just a notable name.
  9. If I were a betting man, and I’m not, I’d wager that mandates requiring a certain percentage of BEVs will be rolled back significantly over next year or two, not just in US but Europe also. Governments represent the people, whether voters are right or not on climate change and or best solution is a different discussion, and if majority of buyers don’t want to be forced into purchasing electric vehicles, they will simply change the government. Nothing is sacred or off limits, which is what makes investing for 5+ years into future such a gamble IMO. I have thought sales mandates were the wrong approach from very beginning so I will admit being biased against their chances of success.
  10. I like it for what it is. I’m not a Honda evangelist but have owned three of them, and can relate to the following statement in article and its implied sentiment: “Unlike many EVs, the Prologue’s performance will set no one’s hair on fire, but it does feature thoughtful and elevated details of the kind Honda evangelists have come to love.“ Sometimes it seems there is a disconnect between what car designers want to design and what the majority of buyers actually want or are willing to pay for. In the case of my three Hondas (all very different from each other), they provided what I wanted at the time and not much more I didn’t want. The Prologue would work for me as a city car but I’d prefer a CR-V, Pilot or Passport for a road trip, which essentially rules the Prologue out for me. It would be interesting to compare Prologue sales volume to other Honda SUVs.
  11. in fairness, was it avoiding decisions or making the wrong ones? It’s not quite the same, though I’m not blaming Ford. Ford (and other manufacturers) invested billions on electrification that buyers are resisting, or at least not embracing at rate mandates projected. Is that solely on Ford? In part I suppose Ford is to blame by building the wrong BEVs, but IMO not entirely a Ford problem of their own making because I doubt mandate volumes could have been met profitably regardless of BEV designs. To some degree it seems governments want to force a square peg into a round hole by using mandates against auto industry instead of attacking buyers more directly; probably for fear of a voter revolt. Whatever Ford does next with ICE versus BEV balancing act still carries huge risk out of their control because mandates can just as easily be un-mandated (reversed) by a new government chosen by the same majority that still prefers ICE and HEVs. Ford taking it slow is probably smart for now in my opinion.
  12. My Spanish is a little rusty, but the Mexican BYD Website has some interesting additional information I can make out. Front power is 170 kW and torque 310 N-m. Rear motor is 150 kW and 340 N-m. Maximum combined power is shown as 430 HP, which is 320 kW. Maximum towing is listed at 2,500 kg, or 5,500 pounds. Not bad for plug-in electric mid-size pickup. I like that truck has exportable electrical power similar to Ford’s Pro Power Onboard. BYD shows it being used for camping as an example. With 29.6 kWh battery capacity, it could power an RV air conditioner all through night without pickup’s engine having to start. That could be really useful when camping where generators are not allowed except a couple of hours during day. Obviously during power outages also. I could not find what the exportable power rating is, but I’m sure it’s plenty for camping or power tools on job site. Picture says “a power station anywhere at any time” if I’m reading correctly.
  13. Interesting design for sure, especially the FWD engine part combined with RWD electric; for a truck that is. Other vehicles have used this approach but I’m not aware of any pickups to date. What is most interesting to me is that it “may” not use a “normal” transmission at all, but rather an all-electric series engine-driven layout. I would love to see more information on powertrain. Sounds like engine may be able to power front wheels directly similar to Honda hybrids. https://www.autoblog.com/features/byd-shark-phev-pickup-truck-heads-to-mexico “The truck is conventional in the sense that it has a body-on-frame chassis with a longitudinally-mounted engine; in this case a turbocharged 1.5-liter four-cylinder (though BYD doesn't explicitly state whether it's a gas or diesel engine on its consumer site). But it starts differing from there. It has double-wishbone independent suspension at all four corners. And the engine is only coupled to the front motor, with a separate motor providing drive power for the rear. It seems it operates generally like a series hybrid, though it's possible the engine can provide some direct power for the front axle if needed. Front unit output is rated at 228 horsepower, and the rear at 201 horsepower, and BYD combines those for 430 horsepower total output. BYD also estimates a run to 62 mph at 5.7 seconds.“
  14. Seriously, what era are you referring to when Ford were all-in on aerodynamics? I’m only aware of Mach-E and at Cd of 0.27 it is hardly an aerodynamic extreme. Nor is Lightning or E-Transit.
×
×
  • Create New...