G. David Felt

Tesla Model Y Nov 2019 According to a story on Autoblog which talked off the record to auto suppliers, Tesla has asked for quoting on supplying parts for the Tesla Y which will go into production Nov 2019 according to the RFI. Tesla Y story Seems Musk thinks he can produce 500,000 auto's off the building in Fremont California which is currently producing the Tesla S, X and 3. Now he wants to add the Y to this when they struggle to build the 3 in sufficient quantities. This makes me wonder how much business will be stolen by SF motors and their EV CUVs that will be built at an existing Hummer assembly plant they acquired and are currently renovating to build the SF5 & SF7? If SF Motors can get pre-production versions started this summer with production in the 4th quarter of this year for auto's to be on sale in Spring 2019, this could really pinch Tesla and their attempt to raise $2 billion in additional cash as they stated to build the Tesla Y.

@oldshurst442 That Brown concept is a nice start to an updated version for the next Mad Max Movie! Concept was a Duramax Diesel! Wonder just how many of the features will really make it into the truck. At least all the Off-Road ones should, but I wonder about the bed connection stuff.

That would rock as this would be a solid competitor to Toyota TRD Pro I would hope.

Totally agree that their naming is a mess.

Nice power, but such a bland Jelly bean auto.

@Drew Dowdell Hey Drew, sorry to bother you, but today the following now shows up but when I use them, I am unable to post into the Forum. So do we or do we not have new emojis?

Interesting read, but these are the 10 most expensive auto's to maintain and repair based on data from repairpal.com based on Average Cost per year: MSN Story #10 HD Ram Pickup Truck 3500 - $1,244 #9 Full Size Ram Pickup 1500 - $863 #8 Compact / Midsize Pickup Truck GMC Canyon - $572 #7 Minivans Kia Sedona - $455 #6 Large SUVs Mercedes-Benz GLS63 AMG - $2,009 #5 Compact / Midsize SUVs Porsche Cayenne - $1,200 #4 Sports Cars Porsche 718 Cayman - $2,370 #3 Large Cars Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG - $1,843 #2 Mid size sedans Mercedes-Benz C300 - $1,094 #1 Small Cars Volkswagen Golf GTI - $760 Interesting read from Motor1.com on the 10 Cheapest Auto's to Maintain and Repair based on the same repairpal.com based on Average Cost per year: motor1 story #10 HD Pickup Trucks Nissan Titan XD - $463 #9 Full Size Pickup Trucks Ford F-150 - $482 #8 Compact / Midsize Pickup Truck Toyota Tacoma - $398 #7 Minivans Honda Odyssey - $403 #6 Large SUVs Nissan Pathfinder - $406 #5 Compact / Midsize SUVs Honda CR-V - $385 #4 Sports Cars Ford Mustang - $454 #3 Large Cars Toyota Avalon - $388 #2 Mid Size sedans Honda Accord - $351 #1 Small cars Toyota Corolla - $341 Very interesting!

Not only why but on the teaser! Just not Loving the Chevy Style right now.

So True: :Charge Panel:

We'll it is a Tesla Founder startup, Guess since they went with S, X and 3, we are pushing it to expect anything more from him than 5 & 7.

Guess in Short: "Fuel Panel"

Agree, in today's 21st century world, I like your term: "Fuel System Refill Access Panel"

Got it, cap versus door naming. True a Fuel Door on the auto. Yet thinking about this, is it really a door or a cap. I can see how younger people who have not been into auto's would see it as a lockless cap to fuel the auto. Hmm

@balthazar What do you think of this auto style design?

True, but today's modern take is where the door is also the seal to the tank, no more fuel cap. Just push down and it pops open and you fuel up. Then reseal by click it back in place. Ford Flex was the first auto that I know of that had a fuel door seal, designed by their female engineers as a better way to fuel so you did not have to touch a dirty fuel cap.

Agree with this, I understand the remote gas lid was valuable when Fuel was expensive and people would sifen your gas out, but cheap fuel and change to hybrids, I just have not heard of people stealing gas that would require the added cost of a remote fuel cover.

Oregon used to require having your gas pumped everywhere, but due to the hardship of finding people willing to work for a low wage in the rural areas of Oregon, they have changed to pump your own gas. Only in the major cities do they still pump your gas and that is to phase out in 2020. I have to wonder how long before NJ will follow the rest of the country and go to pump your own gas?

This makes sense, I am surprised it took the two families this long to clean out the upper executives and board members.

Faraday Future has actually not take possession of the building they are supposed to build auto's in. SF Motors has had since last fall the Indiana Hummer assembly plant and already have it pretty much changed over to allow them to build their auto in. Installation is going on with the new updated robots. My gut based on going through their web site is this is better bank rolled and clearly ahead for the China and US market. I am excited to see the Hummer assembly plant get put to good use building new auto's here in the US. I wonder what they will do for a sales channel or dealership. I have to think this will do everything they say as it is backed by a real auto company already building and selling auto's in China.

Yup that is the video of the FJ pulling him up, he supposedly broke something that locked up the axle. Others have posted about better ways to have done this.

With Camaro bringing out a model with a Turbo 4, the folks over at Jalopnik decided to do a review on the worst Camaro ever. The thrid generation 1982 4 banger with the Iron Duke. https://jalopnik.com/chevrolets-first-four-cylinder-camaro-was-really-bad-1825128229 2019 has 275 HP versus 1982 has 90 HP. 2019 has 295 lb-ft versus 1982 had 132 lb-ft of Torque 1982 had a 0 to 60 MPH of 20 seconds.

OUCH This is hard to see and stupid, not sure why the guy would not let his wheels roll.

@ocnblu Thought you would like this. The rules passed by Obama actual help trucks and SUV's not hurt them. So since it looks to be more and more that the changes at EPA with Courts challenges will not happen, you can be happy in knowing you get your trucks / SUV/CUVs. https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116104_why-trucks-arent-a-cafe-problem-for-carmakers-despite-their-lobbying-claims Good read at the above link the but quote the story: "The original CAFE standards, passed in 1975, separated cars from trucks. Automakers had to hit the same average fuel economy target, divided by every vehicle they sold. The standards starting in 2012, however, divide cars and trucks into different sizes, known as "footprints" (the area bounded by the four wheels)—and it set lower targets for larger vehicles. As automakers sell more trucks (or more larger cars), the fuel economy they must deliver drops. Cars and trucks are still separated, but trucks have to meet lower standards than cars, and don't have to do it as soon. When the regulations were developed in 2012, automakers received extra time to develop fuel-saving technologies for trucks. The New York Times suggested automakers now worry Pruitt will go overboard and freeze, roll back, or even dispense altogether with the "unnecessary" emission rules—giving them a black eye when the public largely supports stronger environmental standards."

Original Tesla Founder creates new Startup with Chinese Company SF5 In the beginning you had Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning, both had founded and sold an eBook reader company. Their passion was in auto's and they started Tesla. Both left the company in 2008 but they kept their hands in the EV auto business by starting up new company's. Eberhard went to focus on density of batteries with his new company. Chinese auto company Sokon Motors bought InEVit, Eberhard's battery company and with it also bought up the old Hummer Factory in South Bend, Indiana with SF Motors headquarters in Silicon Valley. Based on a Skateboard chassis platform, you have what was introduced in March as the SF5 and SF7. SF7 SF Motors has two plants, one here in the US and one in Chongqing China. Pre-Production will begin in the start of calendar Q3 2018 with Sales across the US and China in Spring of 2019 and deliveries to begin immediately then in Q2 2019. SF Motors CEO John Zang has stated even in a growing crowded field of auto companies, his will stand out as they are almost complete bringing their two auto assembly plants online and will go through a proper pre-production run of SF5 and SF7 auto's before full production for 2019 which is based at only 200,000 cars for the first full calendar year. That is 150,000 for the China Market and 50,000 for the US market. Zhang has stated that unlike so many other EV companies that do not have productions sites ready yet, his will do what even Tesla has struggled at which is to have a fully functional assembly system in place to build their two EV auto's before selling to the public. SF Motors Web Site SF Motors Video According to their latest press announcement held at their headquarters, they confirmed that they would have 2wd and 2wd versions of both the SF5 and SF7 and that the top of the line model would be a 4 motor version producing 1,000 HP with a 0 to 60 time of less than 3 seconds and a minimum driving range of 300 US miles as based on the InEVit powertrain & Battery pack from that Acquisition. No further information was provided nor was any internal views of the auto's shown. Assumptions made by the press is that the SF5 which is smaller than the SF7 also denotes the number of people in the auto, 5 passenger SF5 and 7 passenger SF7 CUVs. Green Car Report story Auto News Story

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116176_epa-does-not-set-fuel-economy-limits-get-this-right-journalists So I like so many thought the EPA did it all but according to this story, EPA sets Emissions, NHTSA is responsible for MPG or corporate average fuel economy rules. To Quote the story: "The confusion comes because the EPA began to regulate vehicular emissions of the climate-change gas carbon dioxide in 2012, requiring the two agencies had to align those two sets of standards for the first time. Previously, the EPA regulated "criteria emissions" (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons), which it could do without directly affecting the fuel consumption of the vehicles. Following a legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the EPA was required to regulate CO2 emissions starting in 2012—and those emissions are directly proportional to the amount of fuel burned by the vehicle. That meant that the EPA and the NHTSA had to develop standards that "matched," so automakers weren't trying to meet fuel-economy rules that let them emit more CO2 than the EPA would allow. In partnership with automakers and the powerful California Air Resources Board, the two agencies did exactly that in 2010 for 2012-2017 vehicles. They repeated the process in 2012 for vehicles in model years 2018 through 2025, with a mandatory "midterm review" to look at the 2022-2025 standards before finalizing them." Interesting is that the Fed rules for changes must be based on scientific analyses and the 38 page rationale for tossing the rules now in force are primarily industry complaints especially from the oil companies and are devoid of any rigorous scientific analysis and modeling required by law. https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116107_pruitts-epa-decision-38-page-intention-vs-1217-pages-of-analysis Interesting read of the 38pg intention versus the 1,217 page analysis that showed the auto companies had in July 2016 met the standards required and at a much lower cost than they predicted almost 4 yrs ahead of schedule for the 2020 year. This also came to show that they could meet the later standards also. Looks like based on reviews from external independent groups that his rollback will fail when challenged in court due to the lack of any scientific proof. https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116165_pruitts-epa-emission-rollback-reasoning-may-well-fail-in-court