Drew Dowdell

Happy Birthday @smk4565!! Sorry @surreal1272 I have some ongoing health issues that are keeping me away. After a year of tests, I finally might have an explanation and path for treatment.

Yeah, it appears that the Hummer VINs are in the Tesla system and if you use the Tesla App to charge by saying it’s a Rivian, it will work, but this was a premature leak on the GMC website at the time I posted the article.

You sent me down a calculator rabbit hole on this one. Givens: 5.3 Peak Torque = 383 lb-ft 4100 rpm 5.3 Peak HP = 355 hp 5600 rpm 2.7T Peak Torque = 420 lb-ft 3000 rpm 2.7T Peak HP = 310 hp 5600 rpm We can clearly see that the 5.3 has more horsepower than the 2.7T at the same peak RPM. But when you start calculating horsepower at the respective torque peaks, things get a little interesting. At the 5.3's torque peak, it is generating 298 horsepower. But at the RPM torque peak of the 2.7T (3,000), it is generating, at most, 218 horsepower. However, that number is going to be lower since naturally aspirated engines produce torque at a steady climb. So at 3000 rpm, it's more likely going to be producing around 360 lb-ft, which means the horsepower is only 205 at 3000 rpm. Meanwhile, the 2.7T generating 420 lb-ft at 3,000 rpm produces 239 horsepower at the same RPM the 5.3 is making 205. The torque curve of the 2.7T is very flat. While the peak is at 3,000, the slope on either side is so gentle that it would better be expressed as a range from ~1500 - ~4000 rpm. That translates to a lot more torque over a broad RPM range than the 5.3 can provide, even at peak. I haven't gotten to drive a Canyon with this engine yet, but looking into this has made me curious and I think I might take a test drive. Also, it looks like GM has quietly made nearly all versions of its trucks get the H.O. version of this engine, with only the base small trucks getting the lesser-powered version. When it originally came out, it was rated for 310hp / 348 lb-ft, basically the same spec as my 2013 5.3.

The 2.7 is a 5.3 replacement, you can't just look at the horsepower numbers. It has the horsepower of the pre-direct-injection 5.3 (310 hp) and much more torque, approaching that of the 6.2 (2.7 430 lb-ft v. 5.3 383 lb-ft v. 6.2 460lb-ft) at a significantly lower rpm (3000 rpm v 4100 rpm). And in all instances, it out torques the Ford 2.7. Swapping out my 5.3 for a 2.7T would be a power upgrade with nearly 100 additional ft-lb of torque, plus the advantage of two more gears in the box. To most people, the 2.7 will feel more energetic, though the fact that the 5.3 comes with the 10-speed while the 2.7T only gets the 8-speed will negate that a bit. The only time the 5.3 has an advantage is if you're racing these. Remember, the horsepower number is calculated based on how fast you spin the engine and what torque you get at that speed. High RPMs are not desirable in most trucks, thus they aim for a higher torque number at a lower RPM which makes the peak horsepower lower.

I can't wait for the refresh into something palletable.

Ford sold out of most of their shares after the share value plummeted while Rivian was losing piles of cash. Ford had to write off a $5.4 billion loss on their books because of some accounting things I don't understand. They only put in $500 million.

GM's take on this has been better though. The 2.5 Turbo-4s have better horsepower, significantly better torque, and better fuel economy than the V6 they replace. The Infiniti 2.0T does not. I'm betting that this engine will net worse fuel economy in the real world because you need to be deep into the boost all the time to get underway, all for a measly extra 16 lb-ft of torque.

Everyone loves cash.

It'll last at least through the end of the next generation. Trucks in this class are not held to the same emissions and efficiency standards. But this new plant is just one of three that will be producing Super Duties; the others aren't yet set up for hybrid production. I expect any hybrid-powered Super Duties will be a small sliver of production for a while.

Lately, there has been a trend in the large crossover segment to replace naturally aspirated V6es with engines containing two fewer cylinders and some form of boost, either turbo or hybrid, sometimes both. The Infiniti QX60 is the latest model to join the trend. For 2025, Infiniti is switching the QX60 to its 2.0-liter Variable Compression turbo-charged engine, also found in the QX50 and QX55. The engine produces 268 horsepower and 286 lb-ft of torque. This represents a drop of 27 horsepower but an increase of 16 lb-ft of torque over a broader engine speed range. The QX60 retains its 9-speed automatic and gains a transmission fluid cooler, bringing the tow rating to 6,000 lbs for every trim. Like the V6 before it, the 2-liter VC-Turbo runs on premium fuel. The new powertrain slightly increases fuel efficiency to 22 city / 28 highway / 24 combined over last year's model specs of 20 city / 25 highway / 22 combined for front-wheel drive models. Compared to front-wheel drive, all-wheel drive models lose 1 mpg highway. The most direct competitor to the Infiniti QX60, the Buick Enclave, also moved to a 4-cylinder turbo for 2025, and we expect others in this segment to follow suit. View full article

They have lockable boxes you can mount the charger in. I agree that there's no rush to get the charger, but if you're already doing construction work inside, run at least any conduit or wiring needed now and leave it disconnected. I found out about 30 minutes ago that I didn't get the job. Back to the drawing board, I guess. I hate job hunting.

I use the Minions voice in Waze.

That'll be like $43k minimum to get the hybrid.

You say that now..... but once you've got two little ones only 1 year apart, you're gonna be rocking the man-van. And honestly, they aren't at all bad to drive. I'm quite aware it is an image thing, but they have the ride height with more utility, and they have a soft ride like a car. But that's also why I suggested keeping the MKC and finding a van for the dad duty stuff. In about 3 years, those rear screens will be useful for you to start memorizing the Bluey theme song. Have you figured out a charging situation at home yet? You don't want to be charging a Lightning on a 110v outlet. You might be able to get away with it on something with a smaller battery, but not a full-size truck. The F-150 Hybrid could potentially beat your MKC in lifetime mpg, depending on your driving patterns. You'll be in EV mode more often if you're predominantly suburban driving. Yeah, your dad is right on this one. It's a bit hypocritical of me to say not to buy a truck, but I keep mine parked as much as possible and use the 300 or bike as much as I can. There's a new job I'm going for, and if I get it, I'll be using public transit as often as I can.

If that rear skirt was removed, you ended up with an untrimmed wheel arch and it would look mismatched from the front.

Ford Super Duty production will expand to a third plant in Ford's Oakville Assembly Complex in Ontario, Canada, starting in 2026.  Ford is investing $3 billion to make the complex into a fully flexible plant capable of producing traditional ICE vehicles, hybrids, and EVs. The expansion will allow an initial additional production capacity of 100,000 units of Super Duty when brought online. That increased production will cascade to other plants in the Ford ecosystem, including Windsor, Ontario for V8 production, Sharonville, Ohio for transmissions, Rawsonville, Michigan for components, and Sterling Axle Plant in Michigan.  By building the Super Duty at the updated fully flexible plant, Ford says they will be able to introduce multi-energy technology to the lineup, offering customers more choice for their Super Duty power. Ford says they will also build a new, yet unnamed, three-row fully electric crossover here, alongside the Super Duty.  The opening of the updated Oakville Assembly Complex in 2026 comes a full year ahead of initial plans. View full article

I was unaware of that recall, but the one I recommend was a 2022 and has a newer battery design

Win for Genesis, then? At least for now until they follow suit.

I guess you and your wife have a standing date night on the same day each year? You are sooooo on track for a minivan. Keep the MKC and eventually pick up a Pacifica Plug-In Hybrid. That way, you can still have the MKC as a daily and then the mini-van for dad duty. Plus when you take the seats out, they have so much room. The Pacifica is also easily the most comfortable riding of all of the mini-vans. The Honda is the sportiest, the Kia is the most available luxury, the Toyota is somewhere in the middle. And you can get a 2022 Pacifica Hybrid Touring-L with adaptive cruise and rear entertainment for like $25k Two options: 1. Save up your order until its big enough to make sense for Lowes to deliver it, and they deliver for like $50, no size limit, often times next day. 2. How close is your local U-Haul? I've got two very close to me and I can go get a trailer for 4-hours for like $20. I'm sure either the MKC or Rover can tow it. Set up an online account for U-haul and the process can be super quick. In either case, the final cost will be lower than $100 weekly fillups from running around in a 150/1500 size truck. They have one of the best owner retention rates of any truck, still today. People keep them forever and then go out and buy another used one. But the newest ones are 11 years old now and there were only 17k of them built in the final year, so your chances of finding a decent one are dwindling by the day. I'm speaking from the heart here when I say this. I absolutely LOVE my Avalanche, but there are times when I really wish for something smaller. I'm seriously thinking of going with an R1T instead of the EValanche for myself when the time comes. I know you are doing construction, but it's just not worth the gasoline costs and hassle of wheeling around such a big vehicle day to day. If I had the space for a fourth (6th?) vehicle, I could see myself getting a final-gen Volt or ELR to run around in most days.

I just noticed something about the Aviator. That armrest flips up to a storage container underneath, a Lincoln-specific feature that dates back to the 80s Lincolns, Continental specifically. I loved that extra bit of storage in my Continental. It was a tidy and easy to reach place for me to store fuel and turnpike receipts to turn in for reimbursement without stuffing them in the glovebox or wallet. The car didn't have a center console, but even then, mine in the Avalanche can get messy with receipts.

Eh, $23k before tax for 36 months with the truck isn't a screaming deal. Plus, that's not even the long-range one he wants. So, if you want a truck, why look at the Aviator? (Genuine question, trying to sus out the desire here) What are the desired traits?

Hmm, I'm wrong then. That sounds like a significant reengineer. I really liked the current generation Aviator in Grand Touring trim. It's heavy because it's an AWD PHEV, but mountains of torque and it just wafts over road imperfections like they aren't even there. you can take railroad crossings at speed and not spill your latte

I'm not that picky. I'd go as new as 2017. After that, they get too sporty and not cushy enough for me. I just know I'd want either bronze/tan and look like a doctor, or black on black and look like a gangsta. The only thing is that I think they have the same suspension setup as their contemporary Explorer. I don't know if they're sprung any differently. The Explorer of those years wasn't a terrific riding vehicle.