FordCosworth

Did I really read that someone " loves it "?

Thanks for that tidbit of information.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the Ford/GM working on a ten-speed automatic, could be in the Continental's future. Ford is spearheading the development on the 10R RWD Transmission and GM is heading the the work on the 9 spd FWD transverse gearbox. Ford will let GM use the 10-speed transmission as part of their joint venture agreement. In-return, General Motors will let Ford use its GM designed 9-speed transmission http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/12/exclusive-inside-look-fords-new-10-speed-transmission/ More sources out there confirm this.

As long as its solid axle, there will never be " much more independent suspension at each wheel. " And that goes for the Ram 1500 coil over suspended solid axel too.

" The available all-wheel drive system features dynamic torque vectoring, which transfers torque on demand to the appropriate rear wheel when cornering for better handling and stability. The 2017 Continental also comes with Lincoln Drive Control, which tailors the suspension and steering for the right ride and handling balance and gives the driver three modes: Comfort, Normal, and Sport. An adaptive steering system is also available and optimizes steering response to the driver’s input. " Sounds like it should be a fine driving car! http://www.motortrend.com/news/2017-lincoln-continental-debuts-first-look-review/

Love it!

No. They were not well over 400HP. And the 4.3L was not based off the LT1. The 4.3L V-6 came out in 1985. The same year as the L98 There was no LT1 in 1985 to base the 4.3L Vortec off of.

They need to focus on PHEV/EV NOW. FCA was at the bottom of the most recent Union of Concerned Scientists emissions rankings for carmakers. When it comes to fuel efficiency, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) is among the lowest of all U.S. automakers and had to buy 8.2 million megagrams of emissions credits.

FCA making profit? You might want to look a bit deeper into that into that.

Good.

" The world of carbon emissions uses some unusual units of measure. Take, for example, 8.2 million megagrams. Who needs to know how much that is? Someone at Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, that's who. FCA had to buy that many greenhouse-gas emissions credits from greener automakers, Reuters says, citing a report from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Because its vehicles' collective fuel economy continues to trail the industry average, FCA purchased the emissions credits at of the end of 2014 in order to meet US emissions regulations. About two-thirds of those credits were acquired from Toyota, while the rest were purchased from Tesla and Honda. Daimler and Ferrari, not surprisingly, were among the other automobile companies that had to acquire emissions credits in order to meet US greenhouse gas regulations. Because the price for these credits is set privately by the companies, the EPA didn't disclose how much FCA had to pay to stay on the green side. The reason for the millions FCA likely spent is because the company is making a slow progress building and selling cleaner cars. The company did increase average fuel efficiency by about one mile per gallon to almost 22 mpg for the 2015 model year, but it wasn't enough. Such a performance likely only put the automaker in a last-place tie with General Motors. " http://www.autoblog.com/2015/12/27/fiat-chrysler-buy-emissions-credits/

It just dawned on me. The Lincoln MKZ is the preview of what is to come. It makes 400 lb-ft... so the quick and dirty calculation is torque divided by displacement means 133 lb-ft per liter. In a 3.5 liter, that means 466 lb-ft. Now, I know that isn't a scientific way of doing things, and increasing displacement has diminishing returns. So we'll say that it will match the 6.2 liter's 460 lb-ft. But there's that darn asterisk..... the MKZ only gets 400 lb-ft if it is running 93 octane. If it loses torque on 87 octane at the same percentage that the Mustang does, you're looking at 435 lb-ft from a new gen 3.5 Ecoboost. Or basically, nearly right back where it started from with only a 15 lb-ft increase over the outgoing model. Torque in the Mustang EB remains unchanged when using 87 octane. " Paul Seredynski of Ford powertrain communications, objected to part of this document. While he couldn't confirm the specific losses listed for the Mustang EcoBoost, "torque remains unchanged" with lower octane gasoline, Seredynski said. He speculated this training manual page was "possibly from before the engine was certified" and therefore showed incorrect figures. Serendynski did confirm that the automaker recommends using 93 octane, and like all modern engines, the software adapts if it's lower. "Peak power would be reduced" by using a lesser grade, he confirmed. " http://www.autoblog.com/2015/01/05/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-loses-big-power-on-87-octane/ And there are more sources out there stating the same.

M F C you jerks!

Do you like it more or less than the concept? I feel the same. Peel the camo off and show it in production form ( tail light alignment etc ) and I'd have a more definite answer for you. I do do like the concepts larger wheel well cut outs and rim size more so than this mule/pre production camo car though.

I'm liking it.

I'm really liking this design!

Typically when you see one of these large one-off 1 months drops is that the same month in the prior year had some unusually high sales activity. In this case, the Sierra seems to be returning to norm after some large sale going on in November 2014 (Think both GM and RAM pulled out all the stops on incentives at the end of the year last year to kick the F-150 while it was first being released) Nov 2012 - 11,726 Nov 2013 - 14,362 Nov 2014 - 22,554 Nov 2015 - 16,527 and sales are up over 4% for the year on Sierra. The long term growth trend is still positive. Thanks for the detective work! Your " incentive " explanation makes sense.

I just noticed the GMC Sierra was down over 26% I wonder why the huge drop?

695,000 F Series YTD 114,000 Mustangs YTD Nice!

He can, like anyone else who doesn't believe, look it up too.Doesn't mean jack squat about any of my claims though. As per this article, small diesels are the way to go for eco and thrift:http://www.motortrend.com/news/2014-ram-1500-ecodiesel-outdoorsman-crew-cab-4x4-verdict-review/ It does mean jack squat when you say this; " If you're buying it because you're a tightwad then you're gonna hate buying 91 Octane. "

He can, like anyone else who doesn't believe, look it up too.

I have to beg to differ on the cost of premium fuel. Most places around me at $0.20/gal difference per grade so that's $0.40/gal differece. I've seen places as high as $0.30/gal difference per grade. For my car with a smaller 15 gallon tank(lets say it empties for argument's sake) that's 6 dollars a fillup more. I drive right around 12,000 miles per year. At 24mpg that's 500 gallons at 26mpg that's 461 gallons. Let's just say regular unleaded is $2.00/gallon(it's been hovering right around it for awhile now, here at least). So premium would be $2.40/gallon. 500x2.0= 1000 461x2.4= 1106. You're not actually saving any money using the premium fuel you're just getting better mileage. So it's useless. Exactly! It's just hype and hoopla for the most part. If you're buying the truck for the Eco, you're not doing the planet any favors because FE gains are negligible. If you're buying it because you're a tightwad then you're gonna hate buying 91 Octane. If you're buying it for any other reason then you have no reason not to look elsewhere. Based on my personal experience and circumstances, a small diesel is the best way to be cheap and eco-friendly. Once again. The F-150, with either 2.7EB or 3.5 EB, does not need premium, nor is it the recommended fuel needed.

Its just the way it is with ALL turbo motors from every mfg.

Ooooooor it could be worded that it beat a great track star and overall a badass car which won Besr Driver's Car just last year. Both of which are true. Yes.

^^^^^ And now reading this I should have thought about the Expedition when you mentioned " PCM/ Ford " and not defaulted to F-150.