jpd80

I would argue that the added weight of big batteries acts more against range than aerodynamics which come into play at highway speeds but probably a blend of the two acts against most BEVs.

Internally, there’s a strong competition going on between traditional project development of BEVs versus a more start up oriented Tesla style clean sheet approach. Love it or hate it, I think the smaller more efficient development teams are going to win out over Ford’s internal desire to keep reusing already developed modules and systems. What Ford needs is a watershed moment where it throws out 75% of the crap it thinks is needed to develop vehicles and just goes with a more minimalist approach that isnt clogged up by Ford’s big book of rules aka the book says you can’t do it that way… The biggest thing holding back Ford is its slavish devotion to multi-level bureaucracy.

Wow, high inventory levels are forcing Ford to encourage sales any way it can but resale values are gonna take a big hit, maybe leasing is safer for those who really want one…

Ford in its own statement about the skunkworks platform said that it is developing multiple vehicles. If the release date is 2027 then it no wonder why For would be unwilling to discuss which vehicles are in development apart from vague descriptions. Cannot signal too much to competitors.

Has Borg mixed up which 3-Rows are delayed, could that be the T3 SUVs delayed until 2027? There’s a lot of misinformation out there, maybe Ford is trying to find leaks? If Borg is correct, this will be the second time the Oakville 3-Rows have been delayed. Originally, these supposed to arrive in 2023, right when buyers walked away from BEVs.

From what I’ve read on some forums, the Mavericks with failed CVs get a distinctive hop or shudder in the front end under power. If you’re not experiencing those issues, you’re probably still OK. Maverick powertrain warranty is 5 years/60,000 miles, if you have any concern talk to your service department, they may have a TSB on this issue as it may never become a recall.

All I know is that the two vehicles for LAP are internally coded as a Ford branded off-road utility and pickup. Sorry if I mislead anyone here as it appears that Ford has parallel projects and it’s getting confusing when some of my source material is “deliberately vague” in order to hold back important details I now know that CE1 is a small platform with a battery chassis (skateboard). It's the platform being developed by the skunkworks for the past two years and completely unrelated to any other Ford platform. The program is being headed up by an ex Tesla engineer out in Irvine. BEVs to use the Marshall plant LFP batteries. I’m not sure what exactly the BEV Maverick and Bronco projects are that the OP article mentions but Ford clearly had intentions of having multiple BEVs arriving in that 2026-2028 timeline. Now it seems these are being spread out….

I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop, BEV Maverick and Bronco Sport to Cuautitlan, maybe a little too soon for that….

By the sound of it, there was an undisclosed issue that caused the quality checks to take longer than expected. I’m guessing that this turned out to be a non-issue but the time taken made people think there was something more sinister to it. Strange that Lightning began shipments in January but then had the same stop-sale order. But yes, absolutely nothing to do with incomplete vehicle builds.

But there’s the thing, the reason that Ford is/was going gangbusters with developing BOC and the associated battery plants is exactly because it badly misjudged the projected ramp up after getting excited over those 200k reservation that eventually evaporated into thin air.. Farley made a concerted decision to set up Model E s a separate business unit not only to insulate it from Ford bureaucracy but also to track all costs and infrastructure asset development. If you think about that $4 billion loss (financed), is it more a paper loss to claim tax deductions? We all know that it will be decades before Ford’s BEVs are able to self fund and pay for all that infrastructure, the financial heavy lifting must be carried by the other two profitable divisions making ICE retail, commercial and fleet vehicles. When you’re a CEO, “let’s just wait and see” does not play well in front of the board but I don’t see Farley having any other choice but to slow the pace of BEV manufacturing plants and battery plant capacity - maybe limit to an expandable stage 1 while Ford revisits profitable vehicles in the now. It’s easy to be dismissive of the two Hyundai battery cases but it highlights an underlying strategy, a level of added cost that has not been factored into insurance of electric vehicles and how the wider community of insured vehicles will see their premiums go up to cover this nonsense. Suppliers have worked out that it’s not in their best interest to have too many of these parts lying around. As with other parts, more profit can be had by squeezing vehicle owners nuts a bit harder…..

Not directly attacking your point as there’s a lot of truth in that but, Farley redirected $11 billion in ICE programs to help fund Electric Vehicle development, that amount of funding is way more than just cancelling a few sedans and hatchbacks. I tend to think that he cut too deep on programs like hybrid/PHEV development and more comprehensive refreshes to products that are now needed to “carry the load”. Prhaps the current pause probably give Farley reason to revisit and dust off some of those better possibilities and strategies that were ash canned a few years ago..

Correct, the two plants already in Kentucky are unionised, Louisville and Kentucky Truck Plant. Pretty sure that Blue Oval Center is heading that way too. Mexico offers significant cost advantage and let’s not Forget that Cuautitlan used to be a Super Duty plant before converted to making Fiestas and now Mach E…..not suggesting that Ford immediately move some SD production back to Mexico but it would be a possible option to hedge against any future UAW action

And that’s probably also why it’s getting pushed back, scales of economy aren’t there and costs just keep going up. Better to watch and learn how Tesla executes the 2, it may have just as much trouble…

F150 production was paused temporarily in February due to parts shortages……

So back on the topic of this thread, It is my belief that Ford is delaying the BEV Maverick and Bronco Sport because it still hasn’t found a way to make them affordable and also, maybe the hybrid and PHEV versions are what buyers want now. It will be much quicker to bring hybrid/PHEV versions of Maverick and Bronco Sport to market in the next year or so, see if they work in a product cycle before committing to the BEVs later this decade. Ford is definitely open to doing a lot more with hybrids, maybe push harder with all available C2s?

After the revolution we will have only gas guzzling V8s…….for those with no sense of humour, that’s was a joke.

Storing F150s that are missing parts to complete is not a new thing, it’s been going on for at least the last two years. Maybe more likely a reporter has just discovered that the test track is being used for this purpose.

Either that or there already a glitch…..

I notice that Germany is removing Electric vehicle subsidies at a time when sales of BEVs appear to be collapsing. So if people were already losing interest in BEVs then this is just another nail in the coffin.

IMG_0038.webp IMG_0039.webp Ford basically took their original idea of a more conventional 3-row Utility and re-engineered the daylights out of it the way Tesla does to achieve the battery efficiency objective. Think Mach E is to Tesla Y as Ford 3-Row is to Tesla X styling is differnt but overall shape is similar, in the ballpark. I reckon the Lincoln 3-Row BEV is gonna make German luxury brands cry….

On the covered spy picture, the squared off rear of the vehicle that everyone see is actually scalloped when looking from the rear. Don’t get me wrong, the vehicle is not awful, it’s just not what the folks in the clinics were expecting, a boxy 3-row like Explorer. If people were looking for a large car hatchback crossover, then these vehicles will delight those folks, I just don’t think Ford is pitching this vehicle early enough to build up the hype, they’re gonna let it plop on the market and wonder why folks just don't respond/ say anything. IMO, it says more about Farley than any vehicle shortcoming…..

There’s only so much you can say about vehicles delayed until MY30 or later….. These are the BEV Maverick & Bronco Sport that we’ve known about on the boards for the last 12 months Ford identifies them internally as CE1 and were developed as a smaller version of GE2, replacing GE (Mach E) Originally these BEVs were to replace Escape & Corsair at Louisville beyond MY28 but thanks to the UAW, increase costs probably now mean that Ford has delayed this project and it will probably head to Mexico.

Let me explain my thoughts further, a Sport Trac built off the CD6 Explorer would have been much bigger and wider than the original Sport Track offering a superior experience by using Explorer’s IRS versus Ranger’s rather cramped second row and leaf suspension. The down side is that it would have competed with is the F150, an absolute no on in Ford’s opinion. The up side would have been that EB 2.3 and EB 3.0 combined with lighter weight than F150 would have made it easier to achieve CAFE numbers. In turn, the F150 could have graduated to ann efficient heavy half ton, perhaps avoiding CAFE completely, but would the EPA accept that?

Interestingly, when the Edge was first introduced, it’s starting price was similar to that of Explorer and in fact lived comfortably in that space battery Explorer and Escape, like an enlarged Escape. IMO, the hatchback styling is exactly why it worked.