Jump to content

jpd80

Member
  • Posts

    31,219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    172

Everything posted by jpd80

  1. You may be onto something there and normally at an event like that, Ford would be hyping the 3-row BEVs as a major product reveal. Lately, it’s like all the air has gone out of the room….
  2. Much of the blame for perceive or real inefficiency with the current Lighting stems from Bill Ford insisting that Jim Hackett find a way to bring a BEV F150 to market ASAP, so much of what we see is a result of top down pressure ripping $11 billion in funding from then (2018) existing ICE platforms to make his BEV dreams come true. Just stop and think about the hubris of Ford Motor thinking that it can catch up to Tesla by spending oceans of company money without the correct starting point. The reason that things like Lightning are inefficient are because Ford tries to reuse so much of its existing parts and supply chain, at the time, I’m sure that the mindset still saw BEV as a powertrain and gas tank change…….Seriously, I think Ford has to own its mistakes and learn from them and not just blame bad timing or external source or Tesla will keep running away with BEV sales growth.
  3. Your final paragraph goes to exactly why Ford North America in 2006, initially opted out of a replacement Ranger that became the global T6 vehicle. What North America wanted, a smaller, lighter, less, costly truck (sound familiar?). That vehicle simply could not fit under the projected product envelope, that kick off meeting happened during 2006 when Alan Mulally took the reigns and unfortunately, a low cost truck was way down on the priorities as was continuing the existing Ranger which was cancelled in 2011. None of that POV changed at Ford until Mulally stepped down and Fields took over, work began on securing a Ranger and Bronco for the US market but it wasn’t until Hackett/Farley term that Maverick was identified as a needed vehicle and developed at warp speed. I can only imagine what could have been if Mulally’s team developed a quick Maverick project done under C1 Transit Connect, how that would have changed the viability of Michigan AP is hard to say but I’d like tho think for the better…interesting discussion but all water under the bridge and like so many other things from that era, a missed opportunity.
  4. Ford did a really good job on the Maverick and yes, the internal dimensions are very close which is one area I was hoping would change with the wider track. I guess the concern was making the cabin so big that Ranger started poaching F150 sales. The F150 supercab with short bed is still a viable option for many folks but I’d have to check the price…..
  5. I can only imagine all the what ifs and scenarios being run behind the scenes, just seeing if restarting Edge is even possible without too many “penalties”. and that’s before we ever consider possibilities with the BEV equation…
  6. The platforms are all very close cousins and agree with what you’re saying, C2s are generally a lot lighter (300-400 lbs). The biggest tell will be continuing the demolition pointing to a big change, not keeping the old. If that changes, you know something is up… As I’ve said before, if you don’t like the current Ford plan, just wait a few months…
  7. The fact that Ford isn’t denying this rumour hints at the possibility that changes are being considered. Sure, the demo work will probably continue but I wonder if Ford is planning to hedge its bets and develop the new OAC as a multi vehicle plant - continue the 3-row BEV even if delayed but revive the canned CD4 Edge/ Nautilus evolution with modified floor pan to accept hybrid batteries….less changes than C2? (was this part of the previous plan before the BEVs were transferred to OAC?) ^^^^^^^ Oakville guys, see if you can find out anything through UNIFOR regarding the plans before for reassigned the BEVs to Oakville, just a hunch but I think the plan was evolved CD4s.
  8. I can think of one reason, fingerprints on the stainless probably requires constant attention.. While the stainless steel won’t rush, I wonder if other road contaminants and grime give a discolored look. There’s a couple of instance of CTs driven for a few days in California exhibiting rust spots on the surface https://www.wired.com/story/this-is-why-teslas-stainless-steel-cybertrucks-may-be-rusting/
  9. If Bronco sales are starting to slow a bit, maybe this is the perfect opportunity for buyers to fall in love with new Ranger and see a nice spike in sales. Ranger Raptor is great value compared to Bronco Raptor and that may be another reason that some late Bronco buyers begin to switch…..I can see this working out well for Ford.
  10. All I’ll say is that it’s a very polarising style, some color wraps look better than others but it’s not for me
  11. At the moment, Ford is compelled to move the rest of its 2023 Mach E stock, be that strong cash incentives or killer lease deals to retail customers or, loading up Ford internal fleet vehicles including dealership courtesy vehicles. No matter how Ford gets it done, it’s better to move tin and get the message out rather than sit stubborn with premium prices that few buyers are willing to pay. As costs lower on battery production, we will probably see Ford holding down prices provided lithium doesn’t spike again, maybe having a sodium battery alternative to hepl keep prices in check…
  12. I stand corrected, the uptake rate may have slowed but people are still most definitely buying BEVs. Ford won’t be slowing BEV production until April so there’s a week and a bit of overproduction still to go. Ford is right to offer its ‘23 Mach E with cash incentives, it’s a great way to promote without hurting the ‘24 price. Good old fashioned end of model year selling.
  13. Actions have consequences and for this CEO to go so hard, so quickly with adopting BEVs is seen as reckless. I know the intention was to cater to renters asking to hire Teslas and raising the profile of Hertz as a company thats changing with the times but sadly, that’s all come crashing down…….too much too quick.
  14. Given the premium pricing of the ICE Puma models, I’d say no it’s not. Europe and UK are railing at BYD literally dumping large volume of cars in those markets, watch for tariffs limiting the number to be sold as well as taxes to stop inundating those markets. The only way around that is to build in Europe. Puma BEV and companion BEV Tourneo Courier a nice looking vehicle but allow us to think of the possibilities of smaller electrics and batteries, basically returning to a better designed plan that the afterthought E Focus, this looks ot be well executed.
  15. Agree and Ford has basically failed on that from the moment Mulally left the building, the appeal of saving money at every turn was too great, that’s why Ford dropped the ball. Whether poor/inadequate design or poor oversight of supplier quality, it all adds up to the same thing.
  16. It’s pretty hard to push the million dollar upgrades required for selling BEVs when there’s over 40,000 unsold ones. I would love to be a fly in the wall at the dealer meeting, pretty sure that Farley will go home with his tail between his legs…..
  17. Seriously Ford, just do your jobs properly and increase quality monitoring and don’t be asleep at the switch for the next quality problem because you’re too cheap.
  18. You’re talking attribute prototypes, we saw the wider GE2 drivetrain under a current Mach E top hat, that was last year. Unlike ICE field reliability trials, there much less to do with a BEV, save for checking HVAC systems and general driving…. Oakville is a big complex and probably capable of building multiple vehicle types possibly build hybrids, PHEVs and a true BEV in the one complex. It’s also a valuable export hub to USA, Europe and ROW markets like they did with Edge a few years ago. When Ford does a major reevaluation of its plans, it always goes through everything, runs multiple what ifs and whether delays are better for business. I see them pushing back or slowing down a lot of BEV projects, they’re just not needed as quickly as previously forecast. Ford knows it needs to press harder with hybrids but not at the expense of its BEV future so there’s a complex dynamic going on. In the ned it’s all comes down to ROI in the short term paying for the future.
  19. Wow… By your own admission, your wants needs, desires are different to many other people and I’d put it to you that it’s those very thing that are exactly why there’s no car that fits the desired efficiency envelope that you crave so much. Will this change in the future? Possibly so but knowing the inherent greed of the automotive industry to upsell and convince buyers into things they really don’t need…I suspect the feature you want to see are actually way down the list on what will be offered to buyers.. Im trying to go easy here because it’s clear to me that you project passion in your thoughts and yeah, we all do that from time to time, it’s a great way to blow off some steam and get positive feedback so I’ve been dismissive of your suggestions and in hindsight I’d like to see a few super efficient vehicles if only to disrupt the rest of the industry….sometimes OEMs need a good kick in the ass LOL.
  20. I like to keep an open mind on this and if demolition begins at Oakville in the next few months, it’s safe to say that Ford is proceeding with a new product for there….. Could there be a change of products that could be built in the same time frame? Sure but Ford would want to be well convinced that another change is warranted. Ford is still selling a decent amount of BEVs, just not the steeping amounts it thought twelve or eighteen months ago. That pull back may be convincing to delay the start of those next Gen BEVs while Lightning and Mach E continue to be the advanced guard for Ford’s BEVs. 40,000 in inventory, so it’s time for Ford to show that it can keep sales going, even when the market wants to slow up.
  21. Correct, Instead of beating up on the source we should wait for confirmation.
  22. I’m beginning to wonder, maybe do your own digging, if planned demolition is still on track, that’s probably a good sign..
  23. Currently, Ford sells over 600,000 F Series trucks annually, the majority of those are straight ICE 10-speed autos, that gearbox design is mow heavily amortised so what seems expensive to you and I in adding an electric motor to deliver a hybrid transmission is actually a comparably low cost, minimal change to the 10R design. Having said that, if comes the day where every ICE Truck has to become a hybrid to survive, it may then be feasible to consider a simpler gearbox design with just one planet carrier and two electric motors and a small battery to deliver a continuously variable ratio transmission.
×
×
  • Create New...