jpd80
-
Posts
31,265 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
173
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by jpd80
-
-
First of May inventory numbers for Ford will tell us the actual days supply for each vehicle type.
If combined F Series inventory remains below 200,000 I think that will help supply rather than
hinder. We all know how much Ford has jacked up MSRPs over the past few years or even
encouraged XLT buyers to buy higher trim levels so this is where incentives and discounting
gets interesting…..remember those XLT that used to have lux PACs? All I’m saying is that Ford
may take a different route….
-
1 hour ago, ausrutherford said:
Website says coming soon...
Yeah and it’s been saying that for the past six months….
-
Why is Farley still receiving a bonus for being such a terrible manager?
The board should be cutting his and all the Senior VPs’ bonuses until KPIs are met.
-
3 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:
Wasn't there a 5.0 hybrid in development as well? I recall someone who claimed to be a Ford engineer either on this site or elsewhere who said it was so powerful that it was hard to drive.
Yes, that one has been getting around for a few years now.
Everyone got excited when a patent was leaked regarding electric FWD, particularly when people noticed
splines on S550 front hubs but I think that was because they were a borrow from C2 or that supplier…
Internationally, the V8 Mustang is the default chosen by buyers because if you’re already paying a premium
you may as well get the upper model V8s. Even though GT500 was not available to Australia, Ford commissioned
Harrop Engineering to deliver a limited number of supercharged Mustangs with similar specs to the GT500.
Ford has not built a single S650 in RHD, and boy are those (return) buyers pissed….
-
The less obvious elephant in the room,
It’s engrained in most US buyers that they purchase a vehicle with more capability than they actually need.That is a huge personal preference/bias to overcome especially when both sales staff and manufacturers
reinforce that belief with upselling, the customer perceives value in that as well as better resale value.
No disrespect intended to people wondering why so many folks would choose a less efficient vehicle choice
but the reality is there and by golly, manufacturers have used it for decades to cash in on customer impulse
purchases and even just wants and needs
Conversely, places like Europe are more programmed into smaller more efficient vehicles exactly because of
decades of higher vehicles prices, fuel and registration costs, narrower streets and now things like ZEV zones
where non electrified vehicles are taxed for entering.
My own country, Australia is completely different again, similar size to USA but a population of only 26 million,
85% of which lives within 100 miles of the coast. All six state capitals are located on the coast and account for
roughly 15.5 million people. So we are a weird mix of situation where hybrids and BEVs probably make sense
in coastal areas but ICEs mostly diesels ar required the further inland you go. Maybe this colors my judgement
when discussing other regions and if so I apologise in advance.
-
6 hours ago, Gurgeh said:
EU authorities are also reacting to the many billions of dollars in Chinese government subsidies that have gone into BYD and every other part of the Chinese EV industry. They only like that sort of thing when it is Airbus.
Correct, the EU is very protective of its own market, this is turning into a giant mess..
-
6 hours ago, akirby said:
Huh?Yeah, Isorry I screwed that up.
Mustang was supposed to be the launch of the 2.3 EB PHEV -
I dunno, the original 2.3 BEV drivetrain was supposed to debut in the Mustang
but then was cancelled (maybe Ford not wanting to interfere with BEV sales).
If indeed a hybrid or PHEV Mustang is being planned, I don’t think that it will
do what people in the snow states want/expect, particularly if still just RWD.
-
Mostly at European ports, looks like a mixture of falling buyer interest in them possibly
exacerbated by reductions in subsidies. The other looming issue here is that the EU
takes a dim view of manufacturers that seem to be “dumping” vehicles into its market,
something that could be made worse if Chinese EVs have discounted prices to move them
-
In other news, entitled billionaire wonders why Tesla buyers don't like him anymore after he started calling them woke…
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:
What we're seeing is Ford retreating to a high volume North American product, and a case can be made that Ford could survive at half it's current size on the F series alone. But that leaves the problem of half of Ford and it's employees with nothing to do with only F series around.
Seriously, Ford has been down/right sizing to market need ever since Mulally,
all of that is just code for building less and charging more and banking profit
from not expending as much labor and resources to get it. Like it or hate it,
that’s what Ford has become in its pursuit of %return on revenue.
4 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:It gets worse... What happens when the trend to smaller garages and high prices cuts F series sales in half and Ford hasn't kept the Ranger competitive with Tacoma et al...
Instead of worrying about what ifs that may be years to come, Ford prioritises
production of its most profitable models and costs production of other models
to make that happen (saw it with chip shortages and other parts supply issues).
Even when Ford fouls up, it makes sure that it’s poor sellers still get sold and they
just move on and try again with something else.
-
1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:
More then likely another plant will be consolidated here with its product down the road. I'm also guessing that EV versions of ICE products like the Bronco will move here next decade
1 hour ago, akirby said:That capacity can easily be reused.
Interesting……market is sluggish at the moment but won’t always be like that….
Wonder if the capacity could be used for more Super Duty Trucks, I’m probably not thinking the right way…
-
43 minutes ago, akirby said:
Again we agree just using different words.I think they did some process reengineering 2 yrs ago based on what they knew at the time and what they learned from Mach-e and Lightning but Farley thought there was more to be done including low cost EVs. So he formed the skunkworks team. But you can’t just sit back and wait 2 years to see IF they find something new that would apply to other programs.
There is risk in waiting for new processes and there is risk to moving ahead in parallel. If it only cost them 1 year on T3 then moving ahead was better than waiting 2 years to start.
We all know Oakville was the wrong products in the wrong plant at the wrong time. Period.
Yes and to reinforce your point, BEV Silverado seems to be having issues with those Ultium gel packs, am I wrong in thinking GM took a short cut with this technology that now seems to be biting them in the rear…
-
55 minutes ago, akirby said:
I don’t disagree with any of that. Were just looking at it from different angles.Thank you for being patient with me, and agree.
-
19 hours ago, akirby said:
They didn’t rush T3. They didn’t rush Mach-E or Lightning - they are good first effort vehicles and learning experiences and they’re doing ok with proper pricing. The only thing rushed was Oakville.On the contrary,
The vehicles for Oakville were transferred from Cuautitlan after being delayed two years and redesigned,
so by the time they arrive they will be delayed four years and hopefully, not only up to date but cutting edge.
Double the production cost,
Mach E was a massive redesign, so basically double the funding was thrown at it to correctnot only the styling error but also the inadequate battery and driveline which were simply
extensions of what was used in the previous E Focus. None of that was going to work.
Priority,
The need for a quickly developed Lightning meant that it went first while Ford delayed
it’s answer to the Silverado BEV. The current Lightning allowed Ford to get a BEV truckup and running faster, the lessons learned for the current Lightning are still continuing
which is why Ford is already revising T3 batteries, there much to be grateful about this
pull back as Ford was always going to struggle with battery range looking inadequate.
The biggest gift will be if the Cybertruck turns out to be a disappointment to the many
eager buyers …..hopefully Tesla plays its part and snatches defeat from the jaws of victory
Whats not mentioned anywhere is that Ford has had a good look under the hood of VW
and that MEB tool kit, deciding it didn’t need the over priced batteries, the VW controller
or the drives and motors……LOL, with the Ford top hats, there’s not much VW left in them…
Maybe I should have said this first….I probably sound critical of Ford and I apologise for the high horse attitude. I just want Ford
to be the best it can be and not settle for just good enough, get out in front and lead….
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, akirby said:
I agree with that. But I think we’re underestimating the impact of the changes from the skunkworks team. I think they are fundamentally changing the way Ford designs and builds EVs which will either give them a big cost advantage or at worst keep them on par with other industry leaders. You don’t need 100 people working for 2 years in secret just to redesign a couple of vehicles. It’s far more fundamental in my opinion especially considering the team members.And that’s exactly my point, Ford took off with large design teams developing their key vehicles but, the efficiencies from the skunkworks aren’t just this type of battery or that control system…Ford compared what was done between the developments and discovered that much of the efficiency gains comes from not doing the conventional development way that Ford did…they need someone to think outside of the box and show them where all the unnecessary, redundant steps are in the process and look at new way to do everything…..especially cutting the time to make vehicles. An ex Tesla engineering manager is the perfect person to show them how it’s done.
-
2
-
-
16 hours ago, akirby said:
The only problem with Lightning is price. T3 is the one BEV that Ford should be all in on right now given their leadership in the truck market. And building a new plant is the right way to do i pt instead of cancelling more existing products and getting caught with your pants down.Ford spent $700 million to build the Rouge Electric Vehicle Center, it’s now back to one shift
so Ford is barely using one third of the capacity…….Not sure what is supposed to happen
to this facility once T3 takes over in a few years but it’s clear that Ford is counting on a
huge change in future demand….
-
3 hours ago, Oac98 said:
I agree but there’s no changing course anymore. They made the moves they feel is best for the company. With the Edge on the way out we will see how much sales of their other crossovers and suvs increase.
I sense that Ford is still in denial with the continuing ned for gasoline vehicles…
I have a feeling that newly discovered efficiencies in manufacturing and equipment may be behinda lot of the product delays, maybe Ford is learning so much that emerging product needs to already
be redesigned lest it be DOA to customers.
-
I’m sorry but how many times has Ford tried this same idea, they now have an new plan
that lets them compete with brand x…only to find that the competition have also moved on….
God for them trying new things but it also shows just how much Ford rushed its roll out of BEVs,
everything now is curling up the moment the economy backs off, amazing how many $$$ they burn….
-
The way Ford is back pedalling with Lightning production at its present facility,
going forward with a new, big ass BEV plant mightn’t be the smartest idea.
but if that’s the hill Ford wants to die on, then so be it… -
14 hours ago, akirby said:
I give it a year. Musk’s ego won’t let him cancel it before then no matter how bad it is.The other alternative he has is to prioritise building the higher series versions, probably already doing that…
-
14 hours ago, akirby said:
I think it’s about time for Musk to sell the car business and be a battery system supplier.
Or just go play with his rocket….
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, silvrsvt said:
the US is more or less energy independent from the rest of the world at this point.
North American crude is mostly the light sweet, low sulphur type which is also very easy to refine.
The unfortunate part is that most of the refineries are set up to process the heavier less sweet crudeoil that’s normally imported from the Middle East.
We all hope for true oil independence but I fear it’s still a ways off…..
-
2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:
That is a bit of a leap there
The market in general has many different issue, with the biggest being pricing and interest rates along with the general feeling of uncertainty with the economy. With inflation cutting into peoples buying power, people are finally making more prudent purchasing decisions.
Plunging Pickup Truck Sales Threaten Detroit’s Profit EngineThen add in the uncertainty with consumers and EVs, the early adaptors won't have an issue, but people who are on the fence are going to be harder to convince, are you going to buy something that might have a 300-400 mile range in 20 minutes 2-3 years after you buy one? The EV market needs to mature more before people become comfortable in buying them. Hopefully the charging infrastructure still grows even as EV demand softens over the next few years to help mitigate that issue.
I get that but also understand that this delay now means that this vehicle has been delayed a total of four years.
Anyone looking on would naturally wonder if a different vehicle could have been developed instead (opportunity cost)
and you know, given a decent ROI that could have been used to fund a future 3-row BEV…
Tesla stock surges as EV-maker says it will 'accelerate' the launch of cheaper cars
in E.V. Central
Posted
Tesla is being enigmatic about this, the basis of the 2 being low cost was changed construction process.
I assume that was cutting out more time consuming steps in the body shop area, the rumour was the vehicle
being gigacastings in a few major pieces that could be quickly joined…that process could be applied to the
next generation 3, Y, S and X if Tesla chose to do so.
And I suspect the deflection of the rumoured 2 to an autonomous taxi vehicle is probably an smart way
to cover what is really planned without lying in investment calls. Of course, this is speculation but you’re
right about Musk announcements ending up being inaccurate but it serves the purpose of redirection
away from disappointment over Q1 results falling short of expectation.
At some point, Tesla sales wil start to level out unless it offers a 2 sized vehicle that markets like
Europe and China crave but I doing so that will probably carve into 3/Y sales as people in those
regions probably chose a smaller vehicle for their needs.