Drew Dowdell

I would look at the weight differences there too. I know they're the same platform, but I would assume the MKC weighs a good bit more.

I don't mind the heat pump being optional at the low end of the trim range. For my parents, a heat pump is entirely unneeded, so there is no point in making people pay for it who don't need it. The EV9 gets that 258 lb-ft of torque at zero RPM. The Telluride doesn't get to 262 lb-ft until 5,200 rpm, which, while a decent RPM for a DOHC V6, is still a higher RPM than is typically used in everyday traffic driving. Horsepower numbers are nearly pointless for EVs, and the sooner we can drop them as a point of comparison, the better.

A Bronco Sport with the 2.3T would probably only be sold as a Bronco Sport Raptor..... which could be fun, but expect to pay Raptor prices.

But that's base for base. A base EV9 has more standard features than a Telluride on top of more power. That's where making direct comparisons becomes difficult. The 4-series v. I4 is the most glaring of this. They are super close in price but the I4 has a lot more vigorous acceleration and that disparity only grows as you get to the higher spec units. The Mach-E v. Ford Edge is no comparison in terms of power and a base Edge isn't anything special while a base Mach-E is quite nice. When the Edge was still around, it was only a couple grand difference out the door to get a Mach-E instead.

Unfortunately, that's the direction the manufacturers are trying to go, a subscription model for the whole car.

Sparkasse is a type of bank. It literally translates to Savings Bank. Hamburger is because you were in Hamburg. There are Sparkassen in most (all?) major cities. All Sparkassen are part of a national network of regional government-controlled banks, though they operate independently of each other. It's almost like all of the "First National Bank of (City name)" banks we have here, except for the government involvement. The regional governments do not own the banks, but they do oversee how the banks are run. You can't go into a Hamburger Sparkasse and withdraw from your Frankfurter Sparkasse account, for example. However, they all share the same visual branding with the red logo. They are considered very conservative and safe, unlike Deutchebank, which is known to loan a certain U.S. politician significant amounts of money without appropriate collateral. I find the language very easy to learn. I used to follow Nate Silver closely, but he has since sold out to Peter Theil, so I no longer consider him reliable, even when he's suggesting an outcome I favor.

Eh, they're getting much closer these days. A Model-Y and BMW X3/5 overlap in price quite a bit. Even inside BMW, an i4 beats the performance of the 4-series sedan for just about the same money. There should be a third option. Third-party companies like ChargePoint or IONNA should partner with these developers to manage the charging station installs.

Right on all counts. However, GM made the right move with its engine downsizing by providing a more powerful alternative to the V6. A relatively weak 2.0-liter trying to power something as large as the QX60 is not going to go well. Condo complexes in Florida have much bigger fish to fry... like having enough financial reserves to keep them from falling down.

Happy Birthday @smk4565!! Sorry @surreal1272 I have some ongoing health issues that are keeping me away. After a year of tests, I finally might have an explanation and path for treatment.

Yeah, it appears that the Hummer VINs are in the Tesla system and if you use the Tesla App to charge by saying it’s a Rivian, it will work, but this was a premature leak on the GMC website at the time I posted the article.

You sent me down a calculator rabbit hole on this one. Givens: 5.3 Peak Torque = 383 lb-ft 4100 rpm 5.3 Peak HP = 355 hp 5600 rpm 2.7T Peak Torque = 420 lb-ft 3000 rpm 2.7T Peak HP = 310 hp 5600 rpm We can clearly see that the 5.3 has more horsepower than the 2.7T at the same peak RPM. But when you start calculating horsepower at the respective torque peaks, things get a little interesting. At the 5.3's torque peak, it is generating 298 horsepower. But at the RPM torque peak of the 2.7T (3,000), it is generating, at most, 218 horsepower. However, that number is going to be lower since naturally aspirated engines produce torque at a steady climb. So at 3000 rpm, it's more likely going to be producing around 360 lb-ft, which means the horsepower is only 205 at 3000 rpm. Meanwhile, the 2.7T generating 420 lb-ft at 3,000 rpm produces 239 horsepower at the same RPM the 5.3 is making 205. The torque curve of the 2.7T is very flat. While the peak is at 3,000, the slope on either side is so gentle that it would better be expressed as a range from ~1500 - ~4000 rpm. That translates to a lot more torque over a broad RPM range than the 5.3 can provide, even at peak. I haven't gotten to drive a Canyon with this engine yet, but looking into this has made me curious and I think I might take a test drive. Also, it looks like GM has quietly made nearly all versions of its trucks get the H.O. version of this engine, with only the base small trucks getting the lesser-powered version. When it originally came out, it was rated for 310hp / 348 lb-ft, basically the same spec as my 2013 5.3.

The 2.7 is a 5.3 replacement, you can't just look at the horsepower numbers. It has the horsepower of the pre-direct-injection 5.3 (310 hp) and much more torque, approaching that of the 6.2 (2.7 430 lb-ft v. 5.3 383 lb-ft v. 6.2 460lb-ft) at a significantly lower rpm (3000 rpm v 4100 rpm). And in all instances, it out torques the Ford 2.7. Swapping out my 5.3 for a 2.7T would be a power upgrade with nearly 100 additional ft-lb of torque, plus the advantage of two more gears in the box. To most people, the 2.7 will feel more energetic, though the fact that the 5.3 comes with the 10-speed while the 2.7T only gets the 8-speed will negate that a bit. The only time the 5.3 has an advantage is if you're racing these. Remember, the horsepower number is calculated based on how fast you spin the engine and what torque you get at that speed. High RPMs are not desirable in most trucks, thus they aim for a higher torque number at a lower RPM which makes the peak horsepower lower.

I can't wait for the refresh into something palletable.

Ford sold out of most of their shares after the share value plummeted while Rivian was losing piles of cash. Ford had to write off a $5.4 billion loss on their books because of some accounting things I don't understand. They only put in $500 million.

GM's take on this has been better though. The 2.5 Turbo-4s have better horsepower, significantly better torque, and better fuel economy than the V6 they replace. The Infiniti 2.0T does not. I'm betting that this engine will net worse fuel economy in the real world because you need to be deep into the boost all the time to get underway, all for a measly extra 16 lb-ft of torque.

Everyone loves cash.

It'll last at least through the end of the next generation. Trucks in this class are not held to the same emissions and efficiency standards. But this new plant is just one of three that will be producing Super Duties; the others aren't yet set up for hybrid production. I expect any hybrid-powered Super Duties will be a small sliver of production for a while.

Lately, there has been a trend in the large crossover segment to replace naturally aspirated V6es with engines containing two fewer cylinders and some form of boost, either turbo or hybrid, sometimes both. The Infiniti QX60 is the latest model to join the trend. For 2025, Infiniti is switching the QX60 to its 2.0-liter Variable Compression turbo-charged engine, also found in the QX50 and QX55. The engine produces 268 horsepower and 286 lb-ft of torque. This represents a drop of 27 horsepower but an increase of 16 lb-ft of torque over a broader engine speed range. The QX60 retains its 9-speed automatic and gains a transmission fluid cooler, bringing the tow rating to 6,000 lbs for every trim. Like the V6 before it, the 2-liter VC-Turbo runs on premium fuel. The new powertrain slightly increases fuel efficiency to 22 city / 28 highway / 24 combined over last year's model specs of 20 city / 25 highway / 22 combined for front-wheel drive models. Compared to front-wheel drive, all-wheel drive models lose 1 mpg highway. The most direct competitor to the Infiniti QX60, the Buick Enclave, also moved to a 4-cylinder turbo for 2025, and we expect others in this segment to follow suit. View full article

They have lockable boxes you can mount the charger in. I agree that there's no rush to get the charger, but if you're already doing construction work inside, run at least any conduit or wiring needed now and leave it disconnected. I found out about 30 minutes ago that I didn't get the job. Back to the drawing board, I guess. I hate job hunting.

I use the Minions voice in Waze.

That'll be like $43k minimum to get the hybrid.

You say that now..... but once you've got two little ones only 1 year apart, you're gonna be rocking the man-van. And honestly, they aren't at all bad to drive. I'm quite aware it is an image thing, but they have the ride height with more utility, and they have a soft ride like a car. But that's also why I suggested keeping the MKC and finding a van for the dad duty stuff. In about 3 years, those rear screens will be useful for you to start memorizing the Bluey theme song. Have you figured out a charging situation at home yet? You don't want to be charging a Lightning on a 110v outlet. You might be able to get away with it on something with a smaller battery, but not a full-size truck. The F-150 Hybrid could potentially beat your MKC in lifetime mpg, depending on your driving patterns. You'll be in EV mode more often if you're predominantly suburban driving. Yeah, your dad is right on this one. It's a bit hypocritical of me to say not to buy a truck, but I keep mine parked as much as possible and use the 300 or bike as much as I can. There's a new job I'm going for, and if I get it, I'll be using public transit as often as I can.

If that rear skirt was removed, you ended up with an untrimmed wheel arch and it would look mismatched from the front.

Ford Super Duty production will expand to a third plant in Ford's Oakville Assembly Complex in Ontario, Canada, starting in 2026.  Ford is investing $3 billion to make the complex into a fully flexible plant capable of producing traditional ICE vehicles, hybrids, and EVs. The expansion will allow an initial additional production capacity of 100,000 units of Super Duty when brought online. That increased production will cascade to other plants in the Ford ecosystem, including Windsor, Ontario for V8 production, Sharonville, Ohio for transmissions, Rawsonville, Michigan for components, and Sterling Axle Plant in Michigan.  By building the Super Duty at the updated fully flexible plant, Ford says they will be able to introduce multi-energy technology to the lineup, offering customers more choice for their Super Duty power. Ford says they will also build a new, yet unnamed, three-row fully electric crossover here, alongside the Super Duty.  The opening of the updated Oakville Assembly Complex in 2026 comes a full year ahead of initial plans. View full article