Leaderboard

We was told at the plant to expect full production starting this Monday. Hopefully we can get this production going.

Would this sound better? ELECTRIFIED VEHICLE PERFORMANCE MODE WITH INTENTIONAL WHEEL SPIN FOR DRIFTING

Not exactly a "cargo van" though.... https://electrek.co/2023/03/09/ford-reveals-electric-school-bus-based-e-transit-van/

It would actually benefit Ford to be the only player in the game. Ford actually shot themselves in the foot by rebadging the Caddy in Europe, thus sacrificing the shared costs for a NA model. Also , the Mexican plant can't keep up with demand with the Maverick and BS, so there is no room.

Drift mode sounds cooler lol

I owned a Ranger for 13 years and never towed a trailer. I used the bed on a regular basis. Since I don’t currently have a truck, I borrow one from my brother when I need one. Never towed with one of his trucks either. I just put stuff in the bed.

One has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. They shouldn’t be celebrating women’s contributions because they have quality problems???

Tavares’ point is valid and correct if viewed objectively, or pragmatic if you prefer. Remember that just like investing for retirement, the earlier you start, the more you accomplish long-term. The same goes for CO2 reduction. Reductions over the next five years will have more value than the five years after that, or in 10 or 15 years, etc. His point is that an affordable hybrid option today is far better than an expensive BEV that if not affordable, will lead buyer to purchase a 100% ICE instead, which will produce more CO2 in long run. He seems more focused on real CO2 reduction, where others only care about replacing ICE with BEV regardless of whether it solves anything. Stepping back and looking at the big picture like Tavares appears to be doing is beneficial, particularly if it leads to frank discussions. We can still disagree with him, but let’s at least consider his point. If nothing else, he has access to a lot more information than we do.

The flaw in that theory is that every car buyer will be able to afford and operate a BEV within the next 10 - 15 years and I highly doubt we’ll be close to that. In the meantime you could be saving a lot of fuel with new hybrids that are both affordable and available now with no restrictions. It’s not going to slow down BEV development. What happens in 15 years if BEVs are only 50% of the market and we’ve wasted 15 years of gains from more efficient hybrids? Why can’t we look at all options and see which ones contribute the most reductions using realistic adoption rates that take into account realistic technology and infrastructure limitations? Why not a two prong approach to improve ICE as much as possible while also transitioning to BEVs? Saying that takes money away from BEVs and delays BEV adoption is just rationalization.