This is RoadWhale™'s Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following RoadWhale™'s activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Has anyone thought that one of the reasons the Tacoma is being kept so long is because it is also SMALLER than the current ones? Sure, the size difference may not be huge... only 5% or so, but the newer ones are bigger...only 10% smaller than full sized.
I can honestly say I like the looks of the red one over all the others. (But it's still much too big.)
While headlights are a bit off-topic for this thread, I have to point out one of today's trucks' biggest problems is that they're mounted WAY too high! Even if you're driving one of those jacked-up bubbles called a CUV, the modern full-size headlight is still in the back window and as such either right in your side-view or rear-view mirror, blinding drivers ahead of you. Also, by being placed so high, they put light so far down the road that you simply can't see anything between them and your fog lights (assuming A: that you have fog lights and B: that you use them as driving lights.) 18-wheelers learned long ago that the lower those headlights are with respect to the driver's line of sight, the more effective they are. Those headlights need to be mounted in or just above the bumper, not way up at the top of the grill. Driver vision would be notably improved by that one, small, change.
The Ranger won't be out until this fall at the earliest (fy '19 starts in October '18.) Same is true for the new Wrangler-based pickup, reportedly named the Scrambler. So at the absolute soonest, a new truck would come at the end of this year. However, my wife and I have made plans and are starting to work reservations for a 'bucket list' vacation next year which includes renting an RV. Said rental would cement or destroy the thought of purchasing an RV of one sort or another for ourselves, at which point the specific TYPE of pickup would come into play. If toad, then the Ranger is the minimum size; if not, then something smaller, like the Santa Cruz, is still on the table.
"Roadwhale: Nice analysis. I think shorthand for it would be an Exponential function:" ---- Posted by: Angelo Like I said, Angelo, I was simplifying. The simple statement is that as speed doubles, drag increases four times as much. The larger the face of the vehicle, the more power it takes to push that vehicle at the same speed.
"You must make an important calculation, namely, how often is my pickup traveling through the sea-level atmosphere at speeds exceeding, say, 55 mph? "If your vehicle spends a lot of time driving at interstate speeds, aero becomes a consideration, but just don't forget that two vehicles idling in traffic at a dead stop have exactly the same aero considerations (none). One can be a Corvette and the other a school bus, but the aero is the same until they're underway." ---- Posted by: papajim Believe it or not, again I agree with you, PJ. It really does depend on intended use. I will say that I spend more time than you would expect at highway speeds. Where possible, I travel at 50 - 60mph for the vast majority of my travel, using state, US or Interstate highways. I live in a so-called "bedroom community" where most of my shopping is more than 5 miles away and the nearest shopping mall is 12 miles away by freeway. Speed limits for most roads I take are no less than 45mph with a surprising number at 50mph or higher. The state freeway limits are 65mph. As such, aerodynamics are a factor for me, plus the ability to get into the highest gear I can to lower my revs as much as possible while maintaining speed. I also do what I can to avoid coming to a complete stop, though that doesn't mean I go crawling up to a traffic light as I've seen other but rather let off the gas much earlier and only lightly apply the brakes until I get closer. A stale red will usually change before I get there and I'm not really holding anyone back in the process. I've had people pass me to get to the light more quickly but then fall behind again...often on a permanent basis, as I'm able to simply keep rolling and time myself to the lights more effectively. I will also note that even against those who drive as fast as they can rarely get to their destinations more than a minute or two ahead of me, despite their hare-like scampering against my "tortoise." More than once I've parked and am walking into the location when I see that 'hare' hunting for a parking space, all because I watch ahead and plan my maneuvers instead of simply reacting to what's in front of me.
"you might want to take a class in physics. Just sayin" ---- Posted by: papajim I was simplifying, ok?
"The Ranger wins hands down in a comparo with the Jeep, unless Jeep offers the 3.6 engine with the E-Torque mild hybrid found in the 2019 RAM, in which case the Jeep wins." ---- Posted by: papajim I'm tempted to agree with you, papajim. But as I've said before, I buy based on need over desire and we've apparently got a couple new players coming onto the market in the next couple of years. I admit I like the looks of the Ranger, even if I'm not a fan of its size but I'll also admit that having owned a Wrangler, it's hard to ignore its capabilities as both a utility vehicle and a fun vehicle, despite its much worse aerodynamics. Personally, (and this, too, may change) it may come down to which one offers an extended cab version (we know the Ranger will.)
"First time I heard of coefficient of drag was when I bought my '89 M3. I still have the car and brochure. Brochure says CD = 0.33. I think Chevy said their truck was 0.345? Which I know is quite good for a truck. Clearly they'll eventually improve that in yet the next gen." ---- Posted by: Angelo Pietroforte Most of us here, by now, understand that the CoD is only one variable in the aerodynamics equation, another is the measured Frontal Area while, of course, a third would be velocity (or speed.) Each is multiplied by the next with the speed squaring the total drag with each doubling. (Confusing, I know, but I'll try to give a rough example that would explain your M3 experience.) That CoD of 0.33 for instance, has to be multiplied by the frontal area of the vehicle. Aerodynamic shaping can reduce that area but never totally eliminate it. Looking at your M3, you have a nose roughly six feet wide (just under two meters) by about two feet high (counting windshield and aerodynamic rake.) So, 0.33 * (6'* 2' or 12square feet) comes out to an approximate aerodynamic drag value of 4. This gets multiplied by the speed of the vehicle to represent how much resistance the engine must overcome to maintain that speed. At 10mph, the number would be approximately still 4, meaning very little horsepower is needed. At 20mph, you've doubled the speed but now the resistance is 16, still fairly low. At 40mph you've doubled the speed again but now your resistance is 256. Your engine is starting to feel it. Go to 80mph and you're now pushing a drag of 65536... the air is really beginning to feel thick and it is much harder to push against it. Doubling one more time to 160mph (just over your top speed) shoves that drag up to over 4.2 BILLION units. Sure, that little 2.0T had some horses but it's simply run out of power to accelerate the car any more. Now, let's look at the truck's CoD and see how it compares. The number seems small, right? 0.345 vs 0.33? But don't forget, you're pushing a much bigger face. Still 6'wide but now over 4' tall (being generous since there is some slight concession to aerodynamics in rounded corners and windshield rake.) 6' * 4' = 24 square feet, more than double the face of that M3 of yours. 0.345 * 24 = 8.28 or more than double the drag of your M3 from the outset, despite that seemingly low CoD. 10mph - 8.28 units 20mph - 68.56 units 40mph - 4700.25 units 80mph - 22.1 Million 160mph - 488 Billion! You wonder why these guys want such massive horsepower and torque? That truck is pushing over 400 times as much air at 160mph as your little M3. And that's not counting any load which would reduce the power to weight ratio or a trailer which would multiply that drag even more.
"Active aerodynamics: grille shutters, air dam and air suspension. ... Air suspension is good for dropping height, but friend had to replace all four pumps on his Land Rover because one went bad.... My other friend has a Lamborghini who's air dam goes up about 2in for those parking lot speed bumps.... So I see an electric motor for the grill and one for air dam. Electric motors burn out. I had to replace the door lock one in my M3, and when I took it apart, I saw one of the two internal motors, burned out. One for pushing the lock up, one for pulling it down. ...." ---- Posted by: Angelo Pietroforte First off, electric motors don't exactly "burn out" unless they've been fed too much juice and not allowed to move. Your door lock in particular wasn't a motor but rather a solenoid, which is a bit different and CAN burn out, especially when not permitted to move (perhaps due to freezing or something holding the button down too long (electronics glitches do happen, usually due to either short circuits (wires bridged, for instance) or cold solder joints (intermittent breaks in connections.) Depending on how the circuit is designed, it could leave the solenoid powered long enough to overheat. Takes a lot more to burn out a motor than it does to burn out a solenoid. Now, that doesn't necessarily refute your argument about all those different powered circuits, it really depends on how they're designed. Those grill shutters could be powered by solenoids or motors, though considering the potential for them freezing during the winter, I would expect some other method of activation that would add more torque to help them free themselves or a defrost mode while the engine is heating up, again to free themselves before they're activated. If they fail, I'd expect a computer failure before motor/solenoid failure. Now, personally I like the idea of an active air dam able to move itself out of the way under certain circumstances. Imagine your 4x4 with a proper air dam for road driving yet automatically retracts up behind the bumper when you select 4x4 mode. In a car, the EBS could detect a ground obstacle and automatically retract the air dam as you approach a curb... though depending on programming might forget and let it back down once parked (it seems some Teslas ran into this with their air suspension and their nose parked over a relatively high curbing.) No, most of the motors you discuss have very little risk of burning out; your door lock had to have an extenuating circumstance to cause that burnout of the solenoid.
Rather than address each response to my earlier statement separately, let me just say I'm betting the new Ranger blows away all the other mid-sizers... and it's much more curvy than the Chevy or the Ram (and very probably the GMC as well. Ford may end up losing some full-sized sales to it though. With a discussion I had with my wife today, I'm down to two possible vehicles for my next truck... though I admit I never wanted to go this way: The Jeep Scrambler or the Ford Ranger Supercab. Turns out I'll need roughly 5K towing capacity, which is a bit much for the others I was wanting.
Ok, I was wrong; I didn't think anybody could make a truck any uglier. Yeesh! First off, why did they 'borrow' the Ford headlights? Oh, sure, they went low profile on them compared to Ford's more prominent style, but that same center notch that really serves no purpose? And come on, now! That nose is even more of a brick than the previous one! That is one flat slab of plastic the engine has to shove through the wind. Textured, perhaps, but by no means aerodynamic in the least. And if anything, even taller than those fake Big Rig grills by raising the fenders to the height of the hood. It looks like a child's cardboard box concept with painted grillwork... or maybe one of those very early Soapbox Derby beasts with a wood-work copy of a '50s grill design made out of plywood. I sure as heck don't see any Coefficient of Drag improvement out of that. It may be there, but it shore don't look like it. I can't say they're going backwards; at least those old '50s trucks had SOME curves to them. This thing is clearly a three-box truck that they didn't even bother to TRY and round any corners!
"The 2.7 is the new kid on the block and it will take more time to know if the 2.7 will endure as well as the 2.3" ----Posted by: papajim If it has twice the horsepower of the old NA 2.3, I'll be happy. That 10-speed will be a big help too.
Supercab looks interesting, but there's that damned solid seat plinth again, cluttering up the floor; just like the GM twins. Surely they can do better than that!
Handsome, but I'm betting on too big and too heavy, just like the other American mid-sizers. Oh, 300 hp is nice, don't get me wrong, but you'll be in the turbo more often than not just to get the weight moving. If they want to avoid the Ranger taking sales from the Fs, they need to ensure the Ranger is much, MUCH smaller than the F; not just in power, but in physical size.
Not surprised. Cheapest and most efficient fix would be to simply disable all of those now in recall status. Anything more is a waste of OEM money and owner time.
The Amarok could conceivably be built in the Chattanooga, TN plant, where a couple of its other big CUVs are built, either through a changeup of its existing assembly lines or the addition of a new line just for the truck. The property still has a fair amount of room available, if unimproved at this time.
@Jeff S: Hmmm... it seems I did make that mistake in my original posting. Thanks for spotting it.
@Jeff S: "Most people who buy crossovers are not going to use them for off roading" ---- On the rest of that statement, I'll take your word for it. Even on the sentence above, you are undoubtedly correct. But there are those who WILL take the Jeep places they would fear to take the others, whether they be Ford, Nissan or whomever. Maybe you have heard of ToasterJeep dot com, where a JK owner (in fact, a Jeep collector with something like 11 different Jeeps in his garage) has 'crawled' his Renegade Trailhawk and been surprised and just where it was able to go--surprising even a large number of his JK buddies who expected to be winching the Renegade more than they did. No, the Renegade, Compass and most of the others may not be dedicated off-road vehicles but they do seem to have a remarkable ability to handle themselves where their pedestrian counterparts fear to tread. And yes, I probably did get some of those other CUV models mis-matched. I was sure the Traverse was smaller than the Equinox, for instance, but I really don't care because I don't like them. The Renegade is just a tiny bit too small to carry everything I want when I take my annual trip to my mother's (1500-mile round trip) but it has managed that trip twice now with no difficulties and carried us through some dicey weather with aplomb. Of course, knowing how to drive in that dicey weather in the first place is a big help, but the Renegade's AWD certainly gives you the sense of a better grip on the road than most under those conditions.
@JeffS: "Durango and Grand Cherokee are more suv but as for crossovers FCA does not have an Explorer, Equinox, CRV, Rav 4, Traverse, or Enclave competitor." ---- Explorer/Traverse : Cherokee ---- Equinox : Grand Cherokee ---- CRV/Rav4 : Wrangler ---- Enclave : Renegade/Compass And I would expect the Jeep versions to be more capable off-road and on snowy/icy roads than those other brands. (They've proven so for me, anyway.)
Good to see RAM coming down with a much more svelt grill treatment instead of that fake Big Rig look.
"MORE efficient than any electric truck" ---- Posted by: Ecoboost Rules Patently false statement. Approximately one-quarter as efficient as any BEV truck its same size and roughly equal to a BEV Class VIII tractor.
Those of you claiming these are unreliable don't know what you're talking about. I had one for 9 years (the JK version) and never had any engine/drivetrain problems, though I admit to an ongoing brake problem (factory warranty extended) and a relatively minor electrical problem made worse by a dishonest dealership. Thing is, it never once left me stranded. I can't say the same for any Ford I've owned (though my '97 Ranger is holding up... at a mere 25K miles on the clock) or GM. Too many people are harping on a reputation that's grossly obsolete.
"Even if you can hold your breath for that long, the vehicle is likely to target government fleet buyers long before consumers can see one at a Tesla store." I find this statement to be the least believable of them all. Tesla is going to want retail buyers, not fleet buyers. But certainly expect these to go into the hands of those who would drive Class 6 SUVs, hmmm?
Just got back from Tennessee and saw a bunch of these and their Mazda equivalents on the road to still make me wonder why Ford ever dropped them in the first place. Even the neighbor across the street from where I was visiting had a Mazda pickup. As such, it seems this is a bigger recall in numbers than some here might want to believe. Personally though, just disabling the circuit entirely is a far less expensive solution; these airbags may have saved some lives but it's been the unsecured whose lives have been saved more than those wearing seat belts.