On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 22:00:38 -0500, FrozenNorth
wrote:

On 2017-01-21 9:45 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 21:32:58 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 1/21/2017 8:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

Well those engines, normally aspirated iron block, are disappearing fast
and I have not seen any 3 cylinder 45 cid engines that you are talking
about.

Ford ecoboost. I exaggerate a bit but they're
getting 123 HP out of a 60 cubic inch turbo 3 in
the Focus.


My last Sonata was a 2.0 turbo. Shocked a Camero driver that I stayed
right beside him no matter how hard he pushed the pedal. I have no idea
how well it would be at 150,000 or more miles though compared to a big
V-8.

Most pony cars aren't very fast. Standard
engine in a Camaro is a 275 HP 2 liter turbo 4.
"Big" engine is a 455 HP 6.2 V8. But there's
also a separate "ZL1" model which has the 6.2
with a blower for 650 HP. That one costs more
than an entry-level Corvette though.

The standard engine for a Mustang is a 6cyl 227CID 300HP. It isn't
particularly fast but it's not a slug, either. The car is pretty
heavy, though (partularly the convertible).

The other options are an "EcoBoost" 4-cylinder 75CID 310HP, and a
302CID 425HP, and 315CID 526HP, eight. They should move.

The 6 is being discontinued, just 4 and 8 cylinder variants for next year.

That's a definite bummer. I don't trust the eco-boost engine. I've
had my fill of turbos.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 22:10:54 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article t_CdnWV2jYcRixnFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 1/21/2017 7:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

I simply indicated that vehicles do have problems past the emission
warranty. You stated that if they make it past that point they are
probably good to go.

That is not what I stated. What I stated was
that if the engine was good enough to make it to
that point without having a wrench turned on it
it has to be a pretty decent design.

As the ****ing contest goes on,,,

this is exactly what you said,

Since just
about everything in the engine is emissions
related they pretty much are forced to make them
reliable over that period. If they can stay
tuned for 50,000 miles they're going to be
pretty durable.


Now I am going to say in a slightly different way,
Fowled plugs and or clogged injectors do not result in a tuned engine.
This can happen at any point in an engines life.

Perhaps we are saying the same but in a
different way.

At this point you're just being argumentative to
be argumentative, a habit that you don't seem
aware of.

I don't want a powerful fast car, I want a
car
that isn't going to give me trouble for 20
years. I know from long experience that
normally aspirated iron block engines will do
that. I have no evidence that turbocharged
aluminum block engins of 1/10 the displacement
but producing the same power will last nearly as
long.

Well those engines, normally aspirated iron block, are disappearing fast
and I have not seen any 3 cylinder 45 cid engines that you are talking
about.

Ford ecoboost. I exaggerate a bit but they're
getting 123 HP out of a 60 cubic inch turbo 3 in
the Focus.

Yes you did exaggerate a bit and that is the problem with some of your
comments.
I'll take your word that your numbers about size and power are correct
on the Ecoboost.

But consider that a 2.3 liter aluminum block Chevy engine, in 1972
produced 93 HP And failed miserably.
Today triple that HP out of an aluminum block engine only 50% larger,
3.5 liter, and get 20% better gas mileage in town and on the highway.

So? Smaller engines get better mileage--that's
physics.

How long does that engine last though?

Most Toyotas are driven 150K miles before being traded for the first
time. that is 3~4 longer than most of those 2.3 liter engines Chevrolet
produced in the early 70's.
The Japanese have been turbo charging aluminum block engines for decades.

Yeah, I had a non-turbo aluminum block Toyota
that went through three engines in 30,000 miles.
Sorry, but Toyota isn't any paragon of
durability.

However lasting longer than a Vega engine which
had an iron head on an aluminum block, a recipe
for failure, isn't anything to brag about.

And FWIW the vast majority of pistons are aluminum, even in cast iron
block engines.

So what?

Technology in metallurgy has come a very long way.

And maybe it's come a long enough way that the
tiny little high-revving turbowonders that the
government is forcing automakers to use today
will last the same 300+ thousand miles as the
ironblocks. When they've been around long
enough to accumulate 300,000 miles get back to
me.

You seem to have a childlike faith in engineers.
I am one, and I know that we are not gods, our
**** stinks, and we can't walk on water.
Physics places limits on what engineers can do.
When you make something smaller and lighter for
the same power output with the same
thermodynamic cycle, something has to give.
Either the cost goes through the roof or
durability suffers.

Right. At least half of engineering is economics. It not only has to
work but it also has to be affordable/marketable.

On 1/21/2017 9:10 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article t_CdnWV2jYcRixnFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 1/21/2017 7:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

I simply indicated that vehicles do have problems past the emission
warranty. You stated that if they make it past that point they are
probably good to go.

That is not what I stated. What I stated was
that if the engine was good enough to make it to
that point without having a wrench turned on it
it has to be a pretty decent design.

As the ****ing contest goes on,,,

this is exactly what you said,

Since just
about everything in the engine is emissions
related they pretty much are forced to make them
reliable over that period. If they can stay
tuned for 50,000 miles they're going to be
pretty durable.


Now I am going to say in a slightly different way,
Fowled plugs and or clogged injectors do not result in a tuned engine.
This can happen at any point in an engines life.

Perhaps we are saying the same but in a
different way.

At this point you're just being argumentative to
be argumentative, a habit that you don't seem
aware of.

Pot, Kettle




I don't want a powerful fast car, I want a
car
that isn't going to give me trouble for 20
years. I know from long experience that
normally aspirated iron block engines will do
that. I have no evidence that turbocharged
aluminum block engins of 1/10 the displacement
but producing the same power will last nearly as
long.

Well those engines, normally aspirated iron block, are disappearing fast
and I have not seen any 3 cylinder 45 cid engines that you are talking
about.

Ford ecoboost. I exaggerate a bit but they're
getting 123 HP out of a 60 cubic inch turbo 3 in
the Focus.

Yes you did exaggerate a bit and that is the problem with some of your
comments.
I'll take your word that your numbers about size and power are correct
on the Ecoboost.

But consider that a 2.3 liter aluminum block Chevy engine, in 1972
produced 93 HP And failed miserably.
Today triple that HP out of an aluminum block engine only 50% larger,
3.5 liter, and get 20% better gas mileage in town and on the highway.

So? Smaller engines get better mileage--that's
physics.

How long does that engine last though?

Apparently with Toyota in excess of 150K.




Most Toyotas are driven 150K miles before being traded for the first
time. that is 3~4 longer than most of those 2.3 liter engines Chevrolet
produced in the early 70's.
The Japanese have been turbo charging aluminum block engines for decades.

Yeah, I had a non-turbo aluminum block Toyota
that went through three engines in 30,000 miles.
Sorry, but Toyota isn't any paragon of
durability.

Well some people take better care of their vehicles than others, and
there is a lemon in every basket. But you would be hard pressed to find
a more reliable longer lasting vehicle than Toyota when comparing apples
to apples.




However lasting longer than a Vega engine which
had an iron head on an aluminum block, a recipe
for failure, isn't anything to brag about.

Is any one bragging?




And FWIW the vast majority of pistons are aluminum, even in cast iron
block engines.

So what?

The "aluminum", in the piston, that you are so afraid to admit to being
a good material takes more punishment than any cast iron block. It is
exposed to tremendous heat and absorbs direct hit explosions billions of
times during its life cycle.


Technology in metallurgy has come a very long way.

And maybe it's come a long enough way that the
tiny little high-revving turbowonders that the
government is forcing automakers to use today
will last the same 300+ thousand miles as the
ironblocks. When they've been around long
enough to accumulate 300,000 miles get back to
me.

Shall I get back to you now? It is already happening on a daily basis.
Commercial turbo charged diesel engines. You done see them here but
they are India.



You seem to have a childlike faith in engineers.

No, I have experience with dealing with engines as a profession.



I am one, and I know that we are not gods, our
**** stinks, and we can't walk on water.
Physics places limits on what engineers can do.
When you make something smaller and lighter for
the same power output with the same
thermodynamic cycle, something has to give.
Either the cost goes through the roof or
durability suffers.

Well that is what they have been saying for decades and the limit has
not yet been reached. Open your eyes.

To you I say, as I told my son a time or two. Can't never could do
anything.

On 1/21/2017 9:23 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article M5ednRZuFKF3ghnFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 1/21/2017 8:45 PM, wrote:


My last Sonata was a 2.0 turbo. Shocked a Camero driver that I stayed
right beside him no matter how hard he pushed the pedal. I have no idea
how well it would be at 150,000 or more miles though compared to a big
V-8.

Most pony cars aren't very fast. Standard
engine in a Camaro is a 275 HP 2 liter turbo 4.
"Big" engine is a 455 HP 6.2 V8. But there's
also a separate "ZL1" model which has the 6.2
with a blower for 650 HP. That one costs more
than an entry-level Corvette though.

The standard engine for a Mustang is a 6cyl 227CID 300HP. It isn't
particularly fast but it's not a slug, either. The car is pretty
heavy, though (partularly the convertible).

The other options are an "EcoBoost" 4-cylinder 75CID 310HP, and a
302CID 425HP, and 315CID 526HP, eight. They should move.


Here is one for you, I kinda got into an acceleration contest on the
freeway with my son. I was driving my wife's 2012 V6 Camrey, and she
was in the car. It went from about 45 mph getting on the freeway to
about 90.
He could not keep up. 84 Corvette 350, in pristine condition for a 30
year old vehicle.

Reasonable. They weigh about the same and the
Camry has 60 more horsepower.

Yes! plus a load more torque.




Top speed would have been another matter. He does not like to be
reminded. LOL

Might not. Mine topped out at about 145. I
understand that officially a 2012 V6 Camry was
good for 143.

I read 130, governor limited. To tell you the truth I think Toyota may
be stating a specific under rated hp much like Chevrolet did in the 60's.

On 1/21/2017 9:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article M5ednRFuFKGzvRnFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 1/21/2017 8:50 PM, Leon wrote:


The vast majority of big v8's make it to 150K with out some repair. You
hear of some that do but the ones you dont't hear about typically don't.
;~)


should have said do not make it to 150K with out some repair.

If by "repair" you mean the kind of stuff we
used to do every 3000 miles or so back in the
'60s.



No not maintenance.

In article HdadnRHZwLX9phnFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 1/21/2017 9:10 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article t_CdnWV2jYcRixnFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 1/21/2017 7:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

I simply indicated that vehicles do have problems past the emission
warranty. You stated that if they make it past that point they are
probably good to go.

That is not what I stated. What I stated was
that if the engine was good enough to make it to
that point without having a wrench turned on it
it has to be a pretty decent design.

As the ****ing contest goes on,,,

this is exactly what you said,

Since just
about everything in the engine is emissions
related they pretty much are forced to make them
reliable over that period. If they can stay
tuned for 50,000 miles they're going to be
pretty durable.


Now I am going to say in a slightly different way,
Fowled plugs and or clogged injectors do not result in a tuned engine.
This can happen at any point in an engines life.

Perhaps we are saying the same but in a
different way.

At this point you're just being argumentative to
be argumentative, a habit that you don't seem
aware of.

Pot, Kettle




I don't want a powerful fast car, I want a
car
that isn't going to give me trouble for 20
years. I know from long experience that
normally aspirated iron block engines will do
that. I have no evidence that turbocharged
aluminum block engins of 1/10 the displacement
but producing the same power will last nearly as
long.

Well those engines, normally aspirated iron block, are disappearing fast
and I have not seen any 3 cylinder 45 cid engines that you are talking
about.

Ford ecoboost. I exaggerate a bit but they're
getting 123 HP out of a 60 cubic inch turbo 3 in
the Focus.

Yes you did exaggerate a bit and that is the problem with some of your
comments.
I'll take your word that your numbers about size and power are correct
on the Ecoboost.

But consider that a 2.3 liter aluminum block Chevy engine, in 1972
produced 93 HP And failed miserably.
Today triple that HP out of an aluminum block engine only 50% larger,
3.5 liter, and get 20% better gas mileage in town and on the highway.

So? Smaller engines get better mileage--that's
physics.

How long does that engine last though?

Apparently with Toyota in excess of 150K.




Most Toyotas are driven 150K miles before being traded for the first
time. that is 3~4 longer than most of those 2.3 liter engines Chevrolet
produced in the early 70's.
The Japanese have been turbo charging aluminum block engines for decades.

Yeah, I had a non-turbo aluminum block Toyota
that went through three engines in 30,000 miles.
Sorry, but Toyota isn't any paragon of
durability.

Well some people take better care of their vehicles than others, and
there is a lemon in every basket. But you would be hard pressed to find
a more reliable longer lasting vehicle than Toyota when comparing apples
to apples.

Leon, that Toyota is the only car I've ever had
that experienced an engine failure. If it was
lack of maintenance then why didn't I get the
same results with every other car I've had?

However lasting longer than a Vega engine which
had an iron head on an aluminum block, a recipe
for failure, isn't anything to brag about.

Is any one bragging?

Are you autistic or something? Have you never
heard that expression before?

And FWIW the vast majority of pistons are
aluminum, even in cast iron
block engines.

So what?

The "aluminum", in the piston, that you are so afraid to admit to being
a good material takes more punishment than any cast iron block. It is
exposed to tremendous heat and absorbs direct hit explosions billions of
times during its life cycle.

Leon, you are putting words in my mouth, a bad
habit. I have never said that aluminum wasn't a
"good material". But it works better for some
purposes than others, just as is true of all
other materials. Rubber is a great material for
tires but it's not so good for crankshafts.
Engineers pick the material for the job, we
don't just say "iron good, aluminum bad" and
make everything out of one or the other on
ideological grounds.

Pistons don't have tightly fitted steel rings
sliding up and down them thousands of times a
minute. Cylinder walls do. Put aluminum
pistons in an iron engine and the clearances
tighten as it warms. Put iron pistons in an
aluminum engine and they loosen as it warms.
Pistons are reciprocating mass--the lighter they
are the less stress on the system.

Your "direct exposure to explosions" is only a
tiny part of the engineering picture.

Technology in metallurgy has come a very
long way.

And maybe it's come a long enough way that the
tiny little high-revving turbowonders that the
government is forcing automakers to use today
will last the same 300+ thousand miles as the
ironblocks. When they've been around long
enough to accumulate 300,000 miles get back to
me.

Shall I get back to you now? It is already happening on a daily basis.
Commercial turbo charged diesel engines. You done see them here but
they are India.

What planet to you inhabit? Commercial turbo
charged diesel engines were in common use in the
US when I was a small child.

A 13 liter 600 horsepower engine that weighs
more than most cars is not a "tiny little high-
revving turbowonder".

You seem to have a childlike faith in
engineers.

No, I have experience with dealing with engines as a profession.

So tell us about your personal experience with
tiny high-revving turbowonders. I asked you do
do that before and you babbled about truck
engines in India. Do you live in India? If not
how do you from your personal experience know
anything about those engines?

And your personal experience clearly does not
extend to commercial truck engines in the US.

I am one, and I know that we are not gods, our
**** stinks, and we can't walk on water.
Physics places limits on what engineers can do.
When you make something smaller and lighter for
the same power output with the same
thermodynamic cycle, something has to give.
Either the cost goes through the roof or
durability suffers.

Well that is what they have been saying for decades and the limit has
not yet been reached. Open your eyes.

Nobody but you is on about "limits". Put enough
boost on it and a chainsaw engine could power
New York for about a nanosecond before it self
destructed. You don't seem to grasp the concept
that everything in engineering is a tradeoff.
You can have light, strong, or cheap. Pick two.

To you I say, as I told my son a time or two. Can't never could do
anything.

And all the "can" in the world won't stop the
tide.

But that comment clearly marks you as a pointy-
haired boss and not one of the dilberts who
actually has to do the work.

In article EMSdnQvjFfsuoRnFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 1/21/2017 9:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article M5ednRFuFKGzvRnFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 1/21/2017 8:50 PM, Leon wrote:


The vast majority of big v8's make it to 150K with out some repair. You
hear of some that do but the ones you dont't hear about typically don't.
;~)


should have said do not make it to 150K with out some repair.

If by "repair" you mean the kind of stuff we
used to do every 3000 miles or so back in the
'60s.



No not maintenance.

So what repair do you believe to be needed for
ironblocks to achieve 300,000 miles?

On 1/22/2017 6:28 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

If by "repair" you mean the kind of stuff we
used to do every 3000 miles or so back in the
'60s.



No not maintenance.

So what repair do you believe to be needed for
ironblocks to achieve 300,000 miles?




If it was a 1950 Chevy, rings and bearings about 3 or 4 times. Oh, at
least one or 2 valve jobs too.

I do know of two Toyota Celica that reached that mark. Engine ran great
but the body was pretty well rusted out. See through fenders for good
ventilation.

Then there was the Vega. I drove my brother's to California when he
moved cross country. It was never the same after that.

Never mind. This is going nowhere.

On 1/22/2017 9:15 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/22/2017 6:28 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

If by "repair" you mean the kind of stuff we
used to do every 3000 miles or so back in the
'60s.



No not maintenance.

So what repair do you believe to be needed for
ironblocks to achieve 300,000 miles?




If it was a 1950 Chevy, rings and bearings about 3 or 4 times. Oh, at
least one or 2 valve jobs too.


It's like the career that I was fortunate to retire from at 40 was a
dream. I did not really witness all the problems the these GM engines
had. Chevroley big block engines, in the 60's and early 70's, did not
really have an inherent cylinder, that was every ones imagination.
Fords recent V8 is not really blowing the spark plugs out of the heads,
that is the owners imagination. GM's v6 and v8 diesel engines did not
have lifter problems, they are supposed to run like that. I stocked 2~3
complete engines at all times. It was very common to replace complete
engines. I recall the 3.8 V6 crate engine was less than $1000 so it was
less expensive to replace than to overhaul. I could get a new engine
from GM in less than 3 days but kept them in stock for our shop.




I do know of two Toyota Celica that reached that mark. Engine ran great
but the body was pretty well rusted out. See through fenders for good
ventilation.

Then there was the Vega. I drove my brother's to California when he
moved cross country. It was never the same after that.


It's like the career that I was fortunate to retire from at 40 was a
dream. I did not really witness all the problems the these GM engines had.

In article ,
says...

On 1/22/2017 6:28 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

If by "repair" you mean the kind of stuff we
used to do every 3000 miles or so back in the
'60s.



No not maintenance.

So what repair do you believe to be needed for
ironblocks to achieve 300,000 miles?




If it was a 1950 Chevy, rings and bearings about 3 or 4 times. Oh, at
least one or 2 valve jobs too.

A '50 Chevy would have had an oil-trough spray
lube system, not fully pressurized, so one would
expect the bearings to die young. The engine
was basically a '20s design.

I'm thinking more of the many American cars sold
in the past 20 years that have gone over
300,000. I suspect that the real change there
is the lubricants--modern lubricants, especially
synthetics, are much much better than what was
available in the '50s.


I do know of two Toyota Celica that reached that mark. Engine ran great
but the body was pretty well rusted out. See through fenders for good
ventilation.

Then there was the Vega. I drove my brother's to California when he
moved cross country. It was never the same after that.

In article nbudnVZhKojjRRnFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 1/22/2017 9:15 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/22/2017 6:28 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

If by "repair" you mean the kind of stuff we
used to do every 3000 miles or so back in the
'60s.



No not maintenance.

So what repair do you believe to be needed for
ironblocks to achieve 300,000 miles?




If it was a 1950 Chevy, rings and bearings about 3 or 4 times. Oh, at
least one or 2 valve jobs too.


It's like the career that I was fortunate to retire from at 40 was a
dream. I did not really witness all the problems the these GM engines
had. Chevroley big block engines, in the 60's and early 70's, did not
really have an inherent cylinder, that was every ones imagination.

What is an "inherent cylinder"?

Fords recent V8 is not really blowing the spark plugs out of the heads,
that is the owners imagination.

Aluminum heads.

GM's v6 and v8 diesel engines did not
have lifter problems, they are supposed to run like that.

You mean the ones that were designed to be gas
engines and then modified into diesels?

I stocked 2~3
complete engines at all times. It was very common to replace complete
engines. I recall the 3.8 V6 crate engine was less than $1000 so it was
less expensive to replace than to overhaul. I could get a new engine
from GM in less than 3 days but kept them in stock for our shop.




I do know of two Toyota Celica that reached that mark. Engine ran great
but the body was pretty well rusted out. See through fenders for good
ventilation.

Then there was the Vega. I drove my brother's to California when he
moved cross country. It was never the same after that.


It's like the career that I was fortunate to retire from at 40 was a
dream. I did not really witness all the problems the these GM engines had.

Leon wrote:

It's like the career that I was fortunate to retire from at 40 was a
dream.

Was it that horrible (that you wanted to retire at 40)? Or did you
aspire to do woodworking instead? I have my own reasons for asking, and
just like I am choosing not to "put them out there", I understand if you
would rather not go into this here.

Bill

On 1/22/2017 4:21 PM, Bill wrote:
Leon wrote:

It's like the career that I was fortunate to retire from at 40 was a
dream.

Was it that horrible (that you wanted to retire at 40)? Or did you
aspire to do woodworking instead? I have my own reasons for asking, and
just like I am choosing not to "put them out there", I understand if you
would rather not go into this here.

Bill


I worked in almost every aspect of the automotive business. I managed
my first tire store/service center when I was 21. Later I loved
working for the dealership, I was hired to manage the parts department
of a new yet to exist Oldsmobile dealership on my 23rd birthday. I
moved up to Service Sales Manager and later Parts Director of the both
dealerships that we had until I left to fill the GM position of an
AC'Delco wholesale distributor 10 years later. I stayed with that until
I was 40. It was that last position that I retired from. I hated
working for the owners but put up with it the nonsense for about 5 of
the 7 years. It was a father and son business that was quite successful
on a small scale. After I joined we expanded sales greatly but the
volume of business was apparently too much for the father as he was
unable to make the changes to keep up. The son, the one that hired me,
had never really worked for any one other than his father except for
some dealership work when he was in school. They did not understand
diversifying or expanding product lines to include Ford or MoPar. When
I joined they had little to no competition. As competition came in they
were unwilling to change their business plan to adapt. I stayed with
them because of the fantastic retirement plan. They closed the doors
about 18 months after I left.

I was into woodworking at around age 8. Serious woodworking at around
25. And became a sole proprietorship wood working business to satisfy
the government about 20 years ago. Not a living by any stretch of the
imagination but plenty of gravy. ;~)

I would be happy to provide you with any other details privately that
you might be interested in.

wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 21:23:11 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/20/2017 7:23 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:15:55 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/20/2017 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:20:01 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/20/2017 6:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article Dr6dnXTZotxCAhzFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 1/19/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
Battery cables are not thin.

So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
just arm waving.

What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
battery cables? What percentage of the weight
of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?

It has been a long standing practice that if a car company could save
two or three cents doing something differently that works they will
reengineer to make that happen.

That's true, but will having two different
electrical systems one on 12v and the other one
48v actually save those few cents?

Only if the wiring can be down sized, that might safe a little and a
little weight to help increase MPG. It seems they will do any thing to
rig what they have to work.

That's the bottom line. If it weren't for CAFE standards, there
would be no talk of 48V systems (or aluminum F150s).


You surely have seen the Chevy commercials comparing the aluminum Ford
bed to the steel Chevy bed.

Yup. Ford made a huge mistake.

Chevy will be building the next years modes with aluminum too. GM,
always a day late and a dollar short.

Dumb. They're going to chase people to the Japanese trucks.

I wonder how they will advertise that!

Ford is comming out with a brand new F150 next year (don't know if
it's AL). This model didn't last long.

It is a refresh, I think the aluminum is going to stick.

Either way I was a GM man for years until I had to take the brunt of the
problems, Service Sales manager for a GM dealership, I went Japanese as
soon as I could. Still drivin an 07 Tundra.

The Japanese trucks were a good $15K-$20K more than I paid for my
F150. Not close to competetive.


A lot of that has to do with dealer stock. I always get pricing by
building online. I only see about 10% difference when comparing that way.
I was looking at Ford and GMC/Chevrolet in 07 and was thoroughly discussed
and ready to wait another year. We decided to check Toyota at the end of
the day and the test drive was what put me back in the mood an we bought
that day.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:21:39 -0600, Leon wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 21:23:11 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/20/2017 7:23 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:15:55 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/20/2017 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:20:01 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/20/2017 6:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article Dr6dnXTZotxCAhzFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 1/19/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
Battery cables are not thin.

So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
just arm waving.

What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
battery cables? What percentage of the weight
of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?

It has been a long standing practice that if a car company could save
two or three cents doing something differently that works they will
reengineer to make that happen.

That's true, but will having two different
electrical systems one on 12v and the other one
48v actually save those few cents?

Only if the wiring can be down sized, that might safe a little and a
little weight to help increase MPG. It seems they will do any thing to
rig what they have to work.

That's the bottom line. If it weren't for CAFE standards, there
would be no talk of 48V systems (or aluminum F150s).


You surely have seen the Chevy commercials comparing the aluminum Ford
bed to the steel Chevy bed.

Yup. Ford made a huge mistake.

Chevy will be building the next years modes with aluminum too. GM,
always a day late and a dollar short.

Dumb. They're going to chase people to the Japanese trucks.

I wonder how they will advertise that!

Ford is comming out with a brand new F150 next year (don't know if
it's AL). This model didn't last long.

It is a refresh, I think the aluminum is going to stick.

Either way I was a GM man for years until I had to take the brunt of the
problems, Service Sales manager for a GM dealership, I went Japanese as
soon as I could. Still drivin an 07 Tundra.

The Japanese trucks were a good $15K-$20K more than I paid for my
F150. Not close to competetive.


A lot of that has to do with dealer stock. I always get pricing by
building online. I only see about 10% difference when comparing that way.
I was looking at Ford and GMC/Chevrolet in 07 and was thoroughly discussed
and ready to wait another year. We decided to check Toyota at the end of
the day and the test drive was what put me back in the mood an we bought
that day.

Nope. It didn't matter. The book prices were that much different, as
close to equivalent options as possible. Acutally, the out-the-door
price difference was even bigger (special deals with the manufacturers
- "X-Plan").