Forums

Even the first gen SHO was a larger car...not exactly nimble either. 

Modern diesel with low Sulfur levels is hard on the high pressure pumps and makes them susceptible to contaminants in the fuel, meaning they can and do fail without warning. It’s now becoming standard practice to life parts like the HP an LP fuel pumps before they start sending metal debris through the  whole fuel system including injectors.

Yes, thank you for that explanation, should be required reading IMO. Jim Farley recently shared that one particular Ford vehicle has 150 modules controlled by software and to save $500/vehicle, Ford let out the contracts to various suppliers but not all of the modules talk to each other. He further shared that in order to make changes to seat control, Ford has to get permission from Bosch.   Not singling out Ford here but yes, this is how outsourcing to suppliers has now contorted vehicle design into a piecemeal mixture of what the cheapest supplier can deliver…….so there goes any control over a supposedly wholly integrated package.   One day, Ford, GM, Toyota and others will realise how much money they are bleeding away by ceding control of software control fo essential parts of their vehicles, software defined vehicles is a way of addressing that but the road to freedom is long and hard and means turning their back on what is now industry standard practice.

Manuals only really make sense for light, nibble, tossable enthusiasts cars. From what I've heard, the most recent SHO wasn't terrible handling, but it wasn't a canyon carver either. it was kinda like Ford's take on a Chrysler 300, both in terms of appearance, and the demographic it was trying to appeal to. A stick shift would have been out of place.    For a mustang, yes, or some small, agile hatchback should that sort of car ever return, but for a boat like a modern Tarus, it wouldn't really work. 

IMO Manual transmissions are one of the most overrated things that people bring up in a new car (at least in the North American market)-the sales numbers point this out-yeah the Bronco was at one point 15-25% of the orders when it first launched, but I think the number has dropped quite a bit since the 2021 Launch.    my 2013 SHO was my first car I DIDN"T have a manual in...and to be perfectly honest the 6F and now the 8/10F are perfectly fine automatic transmissions-your not talking about seriously/dangerously underpowered Escorts with an Automatic transmission from the early 1980s.  

The whole point of this vehicle is for Ranger to go after the LandCruiser pickup  that has smallish  but very lucrative  commercial sales to companies wanting “service trucks”.   The LC has a heavier GVM and GCM that excludes the majority of small pickups. An upgraded Ranger makes sense because it far less costly than importing  and RHD conversion of F150. Makes sense in smaller ROW markets, not North America.

You continue to misread my concerns.  I never said anything about issues with reliability nor did I ever say those two brands are more reliable.  My Explorer has been one of the more reliable vehicles I currently own.    Once more my concern is that all they do is put a part number in a system and go by what it says.  I am aware that 99% of owners would just accept that, but I did not and even after concierge said they couldn’t do anything I kept on the CPO plan and finally they agreed based on my explanation that it was an electrical motor breakdown not a headrest issue.     I do not have these issues in my CPO warranties with my other vehicles.  I used to not have these issues with my other Ford/Lincoln vehicles but things changed during Covid on how they are approving covered parts.     So once again my comment of it making me consider a different brand when the Navigator is ready to be replaced is completely valid.     You seem to be one of those guys that just likes to hang out in forums and be a part of any topic you can, even if you don’t own the vehicle you are responding to.  Maybe ask yourself why you keep responding to this thread?   

Title of article in WSJ, Dec 31st.  Covers CSX CEO Joe Hinrichs approach to negotiating new labor contracts with the various rail unions.  In the past, the major freight railroad contracts were done by a collective that spoke on behalf of the 12 major unions that cover the industry employees.  Hinrichs has broken with that collective and is negotiating directly with the unions.  Union Pacific has also broken with the national effort.   Seems to me this is a good move on his part as he will be free to pursue settlements without being hamstrung by settlements that might be acceptable to his competitors but not favorable to CSX interests.   I always had the impression he was a solid guy but that he took the heat for the Explorer fiasco when it went to the new platform.

Never happen here. Regular cabs are on their way out except for fleet use. When I bought my '24 F 150 back in August nearest dealer that had one was 45 miles away. Nearby dealers kept telling me I needed a supercrew.  

The major distinction is for SDV is that all of the functions are on the same operating system instead of 20+ separate software systems that operate independently in non-SDV.   The easiest way to visualize this is SDV is top-down driven logic while conventional vehicles are bottoms up driven logic. In a top-down logic, all the functions follows the code from central electronic control unit (ECU). In bottoms up logic, the native codes are written at the function level and you have silos.    Another way to think about this is to understand who actually makes all the components of the car. A traditional car will have seats made by an external supplier who will program its ECU using its own software code. And the HVAC system is supplied by a different company who programs its ECU in a different way. And a 3rd company supplies the mirror and guess what, it also has embedded ECU that is also different than the seats and HVAC system. So the car company then spend all its time integrating it so the two subsystems talk to each other. Now when you press the heated seat button on the HVAC panel, the HVAC system knows how to turn on your heated seat; and when you press the memory button, it know how to adjust the seats AND the mirrors.  One drawback of this approach is anytime you want to make a change to the HVAC system, you also need the supplier for the seats and mirrors to be onboard, even though you are not changing those things. You have to coordinate a lot of different moving parts and this all takes a lot of time and cost money.   In a SDV, seat controls, HVAC, and door mirrors will be controlled by the same set of ECU that controls that zone so there is no integration required. If you want to change how the HVAC works, it won't impact its integration with seats or mirrors. It can be done in a simple over the air update.    This article shed some light on how Rivian has advanced the art of SDV and why VW paid $5 billion to try to get it    https://www.popsci.com/technology/rivian-zonal-electrical-architecture/   The bottom line: SDV requires car companies to take control of the design decision on all the component rather than relying on Tier 1 suppliers to make the decision for them. This is why legacy car companies are struggling with SDV - it is fundamentally incompatible with how they've built cars in the last 30 years since the advent of computers in cars. A lot of the major car technology breakthrough in the last 20 or 30 years have been developed by Tier 1 suppliers like Bosch, Denso, or ZF. They have a vested interest to keep the silos so the car companies have to keep coming back to them for integration and licensing.