 |
|
|
| |
Subject |
Author |
Date Posted |
Forum
|
 |
RE: Another Tesla problem
In the report you posted "Three weeks after the crash, the owner got a letter from Tesla saying that the accelerator was depressed to 48% just before the crash and 98% at the time of impact. The owner still believes the car accelerated by itself, the complaint stated."
They can tell a lot of things going on when the vehicle is operating and I have to think the investigation should not be that hard to do. Call up the vehicles report and show the investgators.Did it fail or did it do what the driver asked it to do?
But it is drive by wire. So was it pushed or did the computer just read it that way? I have no idea. Just playing devils advocate.
|
mich800
|
01/17/20 09:24pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: rough country Lift good or bad?
How big a tire are you trying to fit? And on what vehicle?
|
mich800
|
01/16/20 09:14am |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: "Death Wobble"
On RAMS the cause is worn out bushings on the track bar. Just had mine replaced under warranty.
How many miles?
|
mich800
|
01/08/20 02:36pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: My perception on real gas
If fuel is mandated to be mixed with ethanol, it creates an artificial demand that would not exist without this requirement. Perhaps direct subsidies are not going to the farmers, but a demand is still being created for them.
I have a hard time understanding the economics of farming. I see many farms working at a loss year after year and just building up debt until the farm collapses and bankruptcy clears the debt. I am not close enough to this industry to see where the disconnect is between pricing, supply and demand.
I cannot think of one fuel source that does not have subsidies in some form. So whether it is to the consumer, producer or supplier, gas, electric, or other someone is getting a kick back.
|
mich800
|
01/08/20 01:48pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: "Death Wobble"
I thought death wobble was pretty much just a thing with Jeeps and older Rams but I guess not. I'd say worn front end parts are often the culprit but that wouldn't make much sense on a 2017. Make the dealer fix it under warranty.
It is a trait in any solid front axle vehicle. I agree typically from worn parts. But seems like lately more and more new vehicles are exhibiting this trait. I know people that have had their vehicles bought back from each of the manufacturers so not isolated to one brand. And of these new ones not one was fixed by a larger damper.
|
mich800
|
01/08/20 01:44pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Tesla Semi truck unveil & test ride set for Oct 26th !
Diesetgate may turn out to be the best thing that happened to VW, it made them go all in on EV's and PHEV's. The Porsche Tacan 4S starts at 103K and supports 800V charging. 80% charge in 22 minutes.
Nice looking car too. I haven’t heard much about them building out a charging network like the Supercharger network. Maybe they’ll strike a deal with Tesla for usage rights. Can’t believe no one has done that yet.
The Porsche's EPA range is pretty bad for the money it takes to get that car. I have heard some say that it is just due to the testing methods. If so there should be real world stories by now of the Taycan exceeding the 200 mile range but I haven't seen any. Also, the short range is due to poor efficiency, not a small battery. That means that you only go 2/3 as far on a charge but it still takes just as long to charge up.
That range is surprizingly low. I wonder if they are not enabling all the battery for longevity purposes.
Anything that has a range of 200 seems to be a joke. And for a prestigious car company, the question begs, why did they even bother.
Would have been wise to have one but with another low-end sub-brand and one with the size of Smart and released in Italy, lol.
I think there is a place for sub 200 mile even sub 140 mile range EV’s. But not for 80,000 bucks. :)
100 mile range commuters for a reasonable price can be quite marketable in the right environment. Tesla is setting up a design centre in Shanghai for the Asian market. One of the expected designs is a 100 to 150 mile 20,000 commuter. My guess is it will happen by end 2020.
I am not sure that matters. Two different markets. Tesla's are marketed and tend to be more of a daily driver. The Porsche will probably be one of those garage queens typical of the high end supercar market trading hands multiple times with very low miles.
|
mich800
|
01/08/20 01:39pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Jeep Ecodiesel, vs Pentastar, vs Ram Hemi, vs Ford Godzilla
Heavy duty trucks with gas engines turn into turds when you strap on a big trailer and hit a grade. It'll only be disappointing if your expectations are unrealistic.
I was a no replacement for displacement guy... EcoBoost changed me :)
True. That initial statement should have read "naturally aspirated engines" not "gas engines".
|
mich800
|
01/07/20 04:39pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Chrysler UConnect
My issues are volume goes away to radio or anything else you are listening to as well as some function. When you turn off the vehicle and open the door it wound't shut down like as it should. You have to reset it by putting in the key and going to accessory. It was replaced by chrysler care, but now new one is doing the samething. Dealer states that there over 300 units in th Phonix area alone with Uconnect issues. I just don't want to hear a story. I thought I would get some real time answers from some folks.
They can be buggy. But two units doing the same thing would have me searching for another input that is causing the errors.
|
mich800
|
01/07/20 12:06pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Cash Vs. Finance
For all of those who think it is a good idea to carry debt that you don't need to carry, I hope you never live through a 5+ year recession. I have. I won't carry debt unless it is necessary.
As far as selling your "collateral," good luck with that when the recession hits and no one has any money. As far as withdrawing your savings from your investments when the recession hits, good luck with that when your savings are suddenly 50% of what they were.
Do what you are comfortable doing. I pray that you don't learn a hard lesson.
Where is all this cash you have that is not subject to the same market swings everyone eles diversifies for? Unless buried in coffee cans you still have risk. In fact under your scenario that coffee can money has lost significant purchasing power.
|
mich800
|
01/06/20 04:09am |
General RVing Issues
|
|
RE: Cash Vs. Finance
Financing something instead of paying cash is no different that borrowing money to invest it. In a good economy, you can get away with it. If a recession hits, you can lose, big time. If you can't afford to pay cash, that is one thing. If you CAN afford to pay cash, you are betting your financial security on the economy staying strong.
I don't see anyone recommending taking out a loan and just investing that money.
Those two scenarios are not the same. Run the numbers again and you will realize your error.
Both are owing someone money, paying interest on it, while you have money enough to pay it off, invested earning interest. Or "income" if you decide to quibble about the term "interest." How are they not the same? You are just betting that the interest you are earning is more than the interest you are paying. In a good economy, you can easily win. In a recession, you can easily lose.
No, in one you can sell the rv and payoff the loan and still have your investments. The other you have nothing at the end of the transaction. No one is suggesting taking out a big loan to invest. Just that there is an opportunity cost to liquidating your investments when relatively cheap money can be use for the purchase of another asset. (and keep your investments)
Your scenario is very risk adverse. Nothing wrong with that. Risk of principle is very low. But so are your returns (hopefully staying ahead of inflation). Which is not always the case with that strategy.
|
mich800
|
01/05/20 07:43am |
General RVing Issues
|
|
RE: Cash Vs. Finance
Financing something instead of paying cash is no different that borrowing money to invest it. In a good economy, you can get away with it. If a recession hits, you can lose, big time. If you can't afford to pay cash, that is one thing. If you CAN afford to pay cash, you are betting your financial security on the economy staying strong.
I don't see anyone recommending taking out a loan and just investing that money.
Those two scenarios are not the same. Run the numbers again and you will realize your error.
|
mich800
|
01/05/20 03:42am |
General RVing Issues
|
 |
RE: I expect a 10 cent price increase in diesel
Kind of interesting that politics is now allowed on the forum. It used to be a no no but it’s a free for all now. Also no more common courtesy or name calling restrictions. It’s gone complete romper room. Too funny. :)
I stay out of the political stuff. But you are correct, seems much more content than usual.
|
mich800
|
01/04/20 04:41pm |
General RVing Issues
|
|
RE: The TFL guys bought a 7.3L
5 Star reported at FTE today that they could have run the 7.3 truck in 7th gear and made for power but the truck would have hit the speed limiter have way through the WOT run.
They also reported some good towing performance towing 9,500-10,000. They were impressed with the low torque performance and the 10 speed transmission.
I didn't see that but that is weird. 7th is 1:1 in the ten speed. I would think that is the gear they would have used.
|
mich800
|
01/04/20 04:36pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: The TFL guys bought a 7.3L
ib516, the early Hemis were solid and reliable. The issues arose when they went to the variable cam system around 2009 which is the Hemis in question.
I think the issues are more about the cylinder deactivation process more than the cam phaser.
Yes and GM has had similar issues. From what I have read they are sensitive to oil change intervals and quality. If you stay on top of your oil changes they don't seem to have the issues.
|
mich800
|
01/04/20 09:46am |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: The TFL guys bought a 7.3L
And I answered it.
Not exactly, because while everyone has their own "rational" reasons, those reasons seam to change when it comes to certain options as justification for not getting it. Sort of like "sour grapes" syndrome.
If one places the same justification for all options like they do with the diesel option, then most people would be driving base 2wd model trucks with the lowest powered engine available that allows them to tow what they tow. However, that is not the case. People will spend $11k on the Laramie option without batting an eye and then turn around trying to justify if they need a diesel by "recouping" the money for it with fuel mileage. Or people would come on here and say they didn't need more power for what they tow when talking about a diesel and then turn around and buy a 7.3L over a 6.2L without question because they want the extra power. I am just commenting on the irony of the double standard.
Not at all. You are just conflating your rational progression to a purchase decision with that of someone completely different.
|
mich800
|
01/03/20 09:30am |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: The TFL guys bought a 7.3L
Seriously you are going to drive yourself insane. You are seeking an answer that fits neatly in a Venn diagram. A primary tennent of economics is that of the rational consumer.
"A consumer is rational if he decides for the option that maximizes his/her utility."
You have your hook into this theory that choosing gas over diesel or vise versa somehow is primarily derived from this magical ability to perform a "single" specific task. And deviating from this option in your purchasing decision for someone else makes little sense. For every normative argument you make I or anyone else can make an opposite or different argument and neither would be incorrect because it reflects "their" rational decision.
All I did is make this one comment....
Not sure why anyone cares about the 7.3L. According to the HD gas owners here, they don't need more power which is why they bought the gas engine instead of the diesel. So why would an engine with more power that you will have to pay more for matter now?
....based on past comments I have seen here and other forums and it stirred a beehive. I just don't get the logic that one has to need the added power or has to recoup the cost when upgrading to a diesel, but not with any other gas engine option or even any other option like a Tradesman/XL to a Laramie/Lariat. Why is the diesel engine option the only one that has to be justified by needing it and recouping money, but the others don't?
And I answered it.
|
mich800
|
01/03/20 08:19am |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: The TFL guys bought a 7.3L
How about I put it this way. I tow a 9500# TT. For my lifestyle I don't need a diesel anymore. My truck sits for weeks at a time. I would like about 50 more HP and 75 lbs more of TQ. That would be about perfect for my camping style. What I don't need to do is spend $10,495 for a diesel that's overkill for my situation.
I think you're missing the point of gas owners. Maybe I'm wrong but my guess is that most just want a decent amount of an HP/TQ increase and don't need the massive power output of a diesel at the cost of the option when it's not something thats being used enough to validate.
Why do one have to "need" the power of a diesel in their justification for it, but would turn around and buy a more powerful and expensive gas engine even though the base gas engine will do just fine? You don't need a 7.3L or an addition 50 hp or 754 lb-ft to pull a 9,500 lb trailer. Heck, you don't even need an SD to do that. But I bet you want it just like you want more power. No need to justify things by saying you don't need it if you end up buying something you don't need in the first place. You don't need a 9,500 lb RV, but I bet you spent more than what a diesel upgrade costs because you wanted one.
I just don't get why needs and recouping your money always comes up when talking about a diesel engine upgrade, but never does when talking about a gas engine upgrade.
How do you know what I need or don't need?
So a half ton F150 will not pull your 9,500 trailer? If not, wouldn't a 6.2L SD? If so, then you don't need the power of a 7.3L. However, you would spend the money to get one because you want one just like most diesel engine owners do.
Seriously you are going to drive yourself insane. You are seeking an answer that fits neatly in a Venn diagram. A primary tennent of economics is that of the rational consumer.
"A consumer is rational if he decides for the option that maximizes his/her utility."
You have your hook into this theory that choosing gas over diesel or vise versa somehow is primarily derived from this magical ability to perform a "single" specific task. And deviating from this option in your purchasing decision for someone else makes little sense. For every normative argument you make I or anyone else can make an opposite or different argument and neither would be incorrect because it reflects "their" rational decision.
|
mich800
|
01/03/20 08:01am |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
RE: Cash Vs. Finance
I would first talk to the bank. We have some bankers on this site might give you good advice. If the bank loans you the money, I would expect a hefty pre-payment penalty. They don't like to go to all that work for nothing. I would just go to a well established dealer, make a deal on the rig. Tell them that's the out the door price so they on't stack fee's on top.Buy it off the lot is what I mean. Then come back with a cashiers check and you'll have your RV. If it's a long standing reputable dealer, there shouldn't be a problem.
"Shouldn't"
I agree. I shouldn't have a problem. In the unlikely event that I give them $30,000, $40,000, or more, and oops, they file bankruptcy or decide to take early retirement with my funds, who here will reimburse me? It suddenly got quiet.
Maybe what I need to do is investigate some kind of escrow agent (a bank or lawyer) and I pay that fee to have my peace of mind.
In what scenario would you hand over $30-40k or something other than a deposit without driving off the lot concurrently to the transaction?
|
mich800
|
01/02/20 06:27pm |
General RVing Issues
|
|
RE: Cash Vs. Finance
The only one with skin in the game after the loan if funded is you. There are reasons to finance but I would not use the bank aiding you in the transaction as one of them.
|
mich800
|
01/02/20 05:04pm |
General RVing Issues
|
|
RE: The TFL guys bought a 7.3L
How about I put it this way. I tow a 9500# TT. For my lifestyle I don't need a diesel anymore. My truck sits for weeks at a time. I would like about 50 more HP and 75 lbs more of TQ. That would be about perfect for my camping style. What I don't need to do is spend $10,495 for a diesel that's overkill for my situation.
I think you're missing the point of gas owners. Maybe I'm wrong but my guess is that most just want a decent amount of an HP/TQ increase and don't need the massive power output of a diesel at the cost of the option when it's not something thats being used enough to validate.
Why do one have to "need" the power of a diesel in their justification for it, but would turn around and buy a more powerful and expensive gas engine even though the base gas engine will do just fine? You don't need a 7.3L or an addition 50 hp or 754 lb-ft to pull a 9,500 lb trailer. Heck, you don't even need an SD to do that. But I bet you want it just like you want more power. No need to justify things by saying you don't need it if you end up buying something you don't need in the first place. You don't need a 9,500 lb RV, but I bet you spent more than what a diesel upgrade costs because you wanted one.
I just don't get why needs and recouping your money always comes up when talking about a diesel engine upgrade, but never does when talking about a gas engine upgrade.
The error in your analysis is the assumption wanting a gas engine is somehow mutually exclusive with wanting more power. We are making this far more complicated than it really is. Some people want an gas engine. Of this subset some also want more power.
|
mich800
|
01/02/20 04:46pm |
Tow Vehicles
|
|
|
|
|
|
