New dimmer switch and boot seal, the boot is now very fun to close. Bled the brakes as well, no more air in the left front and no more gunk and weird shit in all the lines, also cleaned the brake booster
drums work perfectly fine, so long as you're not thrashing them around on a racetrack and overheating them. you can also pack a larger brake surface area under a smaller diameter wheel, which is why a vast majority of modern trucks still use them.
this bugger welded itself to the crank, that was the end. Distributor was over advancing so much it was blowing holes in the pistons and ALL the rings were obliterated, oh and now i need to recore the radiator, another thousand... Great
But why most modern econoboxes have disc brakes? --- Post updated --- This might because the rear brakes are rarely used, during most braking the rear motor regen while front disc brakes engage.
>so long as you're not thrashing them around on a racetrack and overheating them >vRS What's wrong with this picture?
So has anyone bought a car were a previous owner has died in/on/under it? And you know... uuh.. experienced anything? Call me crazy but uh yeah the Valiant has been... Interesting
I highly doubt the sportiness about the so-called vRS. There are two reasons that I discovered, and you may discover other reasons that I don't know about. 1. Drum brakes. Although rear brakes are rarely used thanks to it's rear motor regen, the vRS still has drum brakes, which can easily overheat during a race. 2. Doubtful power/performance rating. As I already explained here. Let's elaborate how it works in the 300hp Enyaq vRS. According to its specification, the Enyaq vRS' motors has 225kW output, assume the efficiency is 90%, the battery drain is 250kW. The vRS has a 82kWh battery pack installed and the usable capacty is 77kWh. Thus, the C-rating(the Tesla Model S' 4.51C rating is highly skeptical as Tesla is known to use Panasonic laptop batteries and laptop batteries simply cannot deliver more than 3C discharge)in Enyaq vRS is about 3C. However there's a problem is that batteries have internal resistance, the higher the current, the lower the usable energy. Here are examples. Panasonic NCR18650G(the 3600mAh is overrated by the dealer, the actual capacity written in the datasheet is 3450mAh) laptop battery, it cannot discharge at 3C safely. Samsung INR18650-20R, capable of doing 10C discharge, the fourth curve shows the energy loss vs. current, the available Wh is about 90% when discharged at 3C. Keep in mind that EV manufactures rarely use high-current batteries. In conclusion, there's no way for the battery pack to still have 77kWh usable. Either the continuous power is less than 225kW, or the actual usable energy is less than 77kWh.
Do you have a more detailed explanation? I'm trying to start a car blog and would leave to feature a detailed expose of all the ways EVs aren't as good as people say they are. Looking for moderators for an associated (completely dead) subreddit as well. (I also wanted to do features on underappreciated driver's cars, but it seems like there is no formula for determining what is or isn't overpriced, which will make it very difficult to introduce impartiality to the process.)
This is one of the coolest products from SVT that never saw the Thunder. This is the SVT Thunder, and it's what a Lightning-powered Ford Expedition would have been had SVT been allowed to build it. The story is short and sweet, but also horrendously sad. According to the head of SVT at the time, John Coletti, there wasn't really any method to deciding what car they would create an SVT version of. All they had to work with was the main-stream Ford lineup. No Mercury, no Lincoln, only Ford. At the time of its conception in 2000, Ford already had SVT versions of: F-150 (SVT Lightning) Contour (SVT Contour) Focus (SVT Focus) Mustang (SVT Cobra, SVT Cobra R) SVT had these vehicles to choose from in 2000: Escort ZX2 Windstar Ranger Explorer Expedition Super-Duty Someone brainstormed the idea of putting the SVT Lightning drivetrain into the Expedition. This would have been extremely easy as Expedition and F-150 were platform mates. So, SVT did just that. They took a run-of-the-mill Expedition and stuffed the Lightning engine, suspension, and brakes into it. This, then, created what they dubbed the SVT Thunder (Lightning and Thunder? Get it? It's cute.). Ford had a drag strip rented one day for some other showing and the SVT Thunder was brought along. This 360HP/440lb-ft RWD SUV ran a 13.86 in the quarter-mile... fully loaded with 8 people. Unladen, Thunder was only .2 seconds slower to 60 mph than Lightning: 5.6 seconds vs. 5.4 seconds. So, why didn't Ford build it? According to John Coletti, it was all about timing. The current generation Expedition at the time only had two years left before being replaced. It made no sense to build the SVT Thunder as a result. A similar story followed the Thunderbird, which would have had an SVT variant in 1996, but the project was scrapped as the Thunderbird was canceled after 1997. Had the Expedition been replaced in 2004 like its F150 counterpart, Ford would have put it into production. This would have been a pioneering vehicle had Ford decided to put it into production. There had been SUVs marketed purely on speed alone prior, namely the GMC Typhoon and the Jeep Grand Cherokee 5.9 Limited. The problem with those lay in their overall design. The Typhoon was a 2-door middle finger to convention, and the 5.9 Limited was a one model-year solute to an SUV icon before it was replaced. The SVT Thunder would have been the first high-volume fast SUV with the looks and performance to back up the tremendous speed.
It's funny because I've rode in a few normal Expeditions - both that generation and its successor are pretty much the official taxicab of Kodiak Island due to being one of the few reasonably cheap vehicles that can carry a hunting party and all their gear in one trip - and my instincts told me from the passenger seat that they're just plain horrible to drive. Like, *horrible* horrible. Granted, that may be a result of those particular ones being completely beat to death and treated as disposable by the cab company, but still. If SVT could take one of those tanks and make it actually interesting, then that's quite an achievement.
They drive like a body-on-frame SUV, tbh. I've driven a couple of the first gen, a second gen, and I learned to drive in a 3rd gen. They're fine. Easy enough to drive and easy to see out of. Good power in the 5.4 versions. The 4.6's are gutless turds, so same as the 4.6 F-150. That engine is too small for something that big. Those and the Tahoe/Suburban drive almost exactly the same in my experience. It's an SUV. The Tahoe's I've driven were mainly 5.3's but one 4.8. Same story as their Ford counterparts. You want the 5.3, the 4.8 is a gutless turd.
I'm not an electrical engineer so my conclusion can be inaccurate, I learned about EV only because I'm an RC model enthusiast. Well, where should I begin? There are several topics like battery, motor, vehicle controller, self-driving hype, reliability & performance. Let's start with Electric Motor. You can read this post first(note: my English is terrible), to get a basic understanding the characteristics and how motor speed control works. As you can see, an unregulated motor's best power and best efficiency bands are very narrow, just like an ICE in classic vehicles. The electric vehicle boom in 21st century is not because of battery, but because of the advancement of solid-state power electronics, keep that in mind. In the 80's, cell phone's charging is very slow and the charger is heavy, bulky and underpowered. At that time, electric motor controller has very few functions, motors run at a constant speed all day long(in factories) or very inefficient and noisy(in electric trams). To control the speed, either change the connection (such as Δ-Y)that only have a few speeds to choose, or use a rheostat(very inefficient, in DC motor) or an autotransformer(very large, in AC motor). Modern EV almost always have some sort of variable frequency drive (VFD or VVVF), VFD is more complex than VVT or VVL in an ICE, here's the explanation. Modern EV use either induction motor or synchronous motor, DC motors are rarely used due to commutator brush wear. Induction motor, also know as asynchronous motor, in order to output torque, the power frequency must not be the same as the motor RPM, best efficiency is achieved when the drive frequency is slightly higher than motor RPM. Thus, the motor RPM have to be monitored constantly and precisely. Today more and more EV manufactures use synchronous motors as they are more efficient than induction motors. The use of synchronous motor in applications where speed is changing rapidly and frequently like EV, as you may expect, is not easy at all. To make it work, the drive frequency must be exact the same as the motor, all the time, and the drive current phase must be very close to 90 degree ahead of the motor rotating magnetic field phase(similar to ignition timing at the end of compression stroke in ICE). Given the fact that EV motor often runs at 10,000 r/min, the controller's processing speed must be fast enough to handle it. To make matters worse, electric motor is an inductive load, unlike resistive load like a light bulb, the current phase lags behind the voltage phase. Since the driver controls the voltage phase via PWM, the controller must be able to "lead" the voltage ahead of the current to make the motor runs smoothly. As you can see, vector control is much more complex than VVT. Without vector control to use efficient(less heat per power output) synchronous motor in EV, EV simply cannot exceed 100kW power. Even with vector control, the main reason of overrating is still overheating. Without advanced solid-state power electronics or powerful computer, there would be no modern EV. Unfortunately, computer is less reliable than mechanical parts, a failure of phase detection(caused by software bug or electromagnetic interference) often leads to total destruction of motor and/or power distribution system. An example Note: This news doesn't explain the nature of the failure Spoiler: Explanation The user, after unplugged from the charger started the vehicle. During the initial acceleration, the car jerked forward and backward several time followed by a total loss of power, even the windows cannot be closed. Tesla stuff said it was an inverter failure. My understanding is the inverter failed to recognized the correct phase of the motor at the exact time, which lead to sending the incorrect current to the motor, which caused a short circuit and burned out the electronics. Spoiler: Sound familiar? Failure to detect the motor phase when using vector control in electric motor is as destructive as doing this to an ICE Electric motor's constant torque & constant power band is the result of vector control. With wide-range VVT, VVL and wastegate control. Modern ICE can also achieve that characteristics, simply watch the torque curve of turbocharged engine in the ETK800 or the Vivace.
I borrowed a jellybean F-150 crew cab before. Drove like a Crown Vic with a higher seating position. Astonishingly easy and car like compared to even my dad's 2010 Ram. Was it fun to drive? No. But it drove better than expected and was a nice vehicle to just go places with.
Yup, I own a jellybean F-150. Extended cab with the 7700 5/8 ton payload package. It's pretty bouncy but it's really easy to drive. I love the thing, best $1,500 I ever spent.
just relocating this out of Dean Wang's Gavril Citra thread: plenty of chonky japanese offroaders existed at this point (in fact most of these are marginally larger than the TJ/YJ sized hopper) Nissan had the "TD42" 4.2L Diesel I6, and the petrol "TB" I6 which ranged from 4.1L to 4.8L, and Toyota had the 3F/1FZ petrol, and 2H/1HD/1HZ diesel I6s, all ranging from 4.0 to 4.2. the hopper's AMC-inspired engines are perfectly reasonable, I think they just need some diesels to go along with them. people here seem to get really tied up in nationalism with cars, and seem to forget that often they're made primarily for export, which is apparently also the case for the hopper since it's LHD and got imperial gauges. the land rover was made after the end of WWII, solely as an agricultural vehicle, and it gained mass popularity, it was only in 1949 that the british army purchased their first land rovers for general military use. as for Toyoda's AK10, it was only a prototype during WWII, it was in the korean war that they made the first actual military BJ/FJs, The land cruiser's reputation really took off when they started replacing land rovers in places like Africa, central Australia, and south America, and people saw how much more reliable they were than the land rovers. and while it's not as dependent upon the wartime-image as the jeep wrangler, toyota still makes the J70 land cruiser now with barely any mechanical upgrades since the 80s, and it's certainly held onto that reputation of robustness.
