We have one for EVs, and I don’t want to clog that one up. But most of us still drive da guzzlers, so, here is where we can discuss them as well.
First up: Ford thinking about shelving Parallel self-parking feature, cuz not enough people use it:
Yup, it is a waste of technology. Apparently, this one uses computer servers somewhere and somehow (according to another site), so shutting down the servers will save $10M/year? Looking for how this feature works, and the explanation I see is, “It works.” And I’m not sure how servers somewhere are involved, besides possibly updating software or something.
Second:
Also, I’m thinking about creating a data set of broken-down cars I see on the side of the road, and a possible cause.
Mainly, because I rarely see Toyotas. A lot of #murican vehicles and German ones.
Today, Dodge Ram Truck, hood up.
This is a strictly international mode of transportation meant to slide under the segment of the least-expensive Hilux: A truck that some 180+ countries not named Canada or the U.S. can snatch up at unheard of MSRP that’s around half the cost of the cheapest truck currently in America (Ford’s Maverick at $24,995).
I’m guessing they made the trucks such that they couldn’t be retrofit. I mean, they probably made the cab pretty small without air bags. Putting them in means one less driver.
I saw those trucks a while ago, and they seem cool with lots of practical purposes.
My problem is when I’m flying down highway 401 at 120k, fully loaded and pulling a heavy trailer and I put the hammer down on the hemi, stuff moves. I bet I’d be living in the slow lane with one of those trucks. And who’s got time for that?
I get it. I don’t have a trailer or need to haul very far. I rarely haul anything outside of a 20-minute trip so I’m fine with the size and power level. The price of new vehicles is stupid.
I have heard people with gooseneck trailers are having trouble with newer trucks as the impractical high sides don’t allow for the older trailers. Also have talked to guys in the trades missing larger easier to access truck beds. I find it ironic that American truck manufactures, using an EPA loophole for commercial vehicles, are going so hard at selling suburbanites oversized “manly” vehicles they are hurting their commercial clients.
Vehicles of all types are getting shorter to allow for less wind resistance and better mileage ratings. Headroom is reduced.
Higher end cars are getting enormous moonroofs that span not just the front seats, but also the rear (or middle if it’s a 3 row vehicle). The framing for this enormous moonroof must exist between the headliner and the top sheet metal, and the framing is thicker than for a smaller moonroof, so even more headroom is lost, doubling up on issue #1 above.
Some hybrid vehicles, like the Sequoia, have batteries that sit under the floor of the vehicle, which raises the height of the floor on the interior, tripling up on issues #1 and #2 above.
Wheels are getting stupid. Manufacturers love putting enormous wheels on cars that do not need 18", or 20" or 22" wheels. Why? because they load ENORMOUS profits into the prices of the wheels. The results is a) an expense I don’t want to pay for b) lower gas mileage c) longer stopping distances, thus compromising safety d) poorer handling and harsher driving conditions e) the higher lifetime cost of thin profile tires and f) an uglier look, but your opinion may vary.
Some cars have an all-glass roof that adds headroom since glass is thinner than steel plus the headliner.
I agree fully on the issue of wheels. Huge wheels are very popular right now and I’m not a fan, for the reasons you list. Plus potholes, having a razor thin sidewall isn’t great for those who drive on crappy streets.
well, I agree that big big wheels have a certain look that may appeal to urban youths, but are not the aesthetic I want on my suburban family hauling SUV.
My opinion is the opposite. I have been driving my F150 for decades with 17" wheels, and they are just fine. The higher probability of being off of a road (such as in a truck or SUV) then the more you want the cushoning effect of a bigger tire/smaller wheel combination.
If you look at ANY pickup or SUV that has an “off road edition” or “off road trim level” they will always be equipped with smaller wheels and thicker profile tires than their surface street bretheren.
I have spent hours researching the specs, and what I conclude is that the measurements must be self supplied by the manufacturers and so the measurement techniques and rules must not be standardized.
I can tell you that the Sequoia that I actually drove was wide but felt short. My head was literally mashed up onto the ceiling. It was uncomfortable enough that the solution had to be leaning the driver seat back into the 2nd row, which I think is a shame on a vehicle that seems big. But that’s my point. It seems really big but isn’t. TWSS
The Expeditions and Tahoes that I have tested out are much more comfortable, heighth-wise.
And, the Toyota Grand Highlander is actually a bigger vehicle on the inside that the Sequoia. Not quite as wide, but taller inside even though shorter outside. And cargo room is decidedly bigger on the GH than on the Seq.
Yeaaaaah. My truck actually does go off-road reasonably frequently. Probably would be better with 17 inch wheels, I just don’t like the look.
And it’s only been a problem once, hauling a trailer with a moose on it up a muddy trail…had to hook two ATVs to tow me. Maybe I’d have made it with smaller wheels.
And my snow tires are 17" rims but we put tires on ot to match the height of the 20 inch so that my speedometer wasn’t off.
