jpd80

What is absolutely hilarious is that Ford markets telematics and tracking systems to its commercial customers while it does a terrible job of organising and tracking orders and supply of its own vehicles. Maybe Ford should get its own house in order first before telling others how to run their business?

So where from here. I remember back when Mulally brought manufacturing jobs back to the US and in particular, Michigan. While Ford appeared to do that for the best reasons, it also wanted the UAW to take the burden of pension liabilities. So in some ways, everyone got something from that deal. Fast forward to 2023 and the UAW unrest where many of the rank and file were expecting a catch up deal to make up for the lean years and what Fain delivered was exactly that…..but at a heck of a cost. Now, Ford is actively looking to move future projects away from the US. Everything hit Ford at once, an aggressive UAW contract with higher ongoing costs right when there is a downturn in vehicle sales but worse, Ford’s big hope of that BEV sales ramp up is not happening. So how pissed off are the Ford brass, how far would they go with production changes to risk off the next UAW contract, how many plants would they be looking to pull back production and move to Mexico? There are are loads of questions in there and perhaps looking at what’s planned to happen in this contract will show us where Ford can change things beyond the end of this term?

All bets are off, let the UAW stew on what plants they think will close after this contract ends….

This could be just my impression but a shorter hood on a compact pickup like Maverick would make it look more like it’s progenitor vehicle, the Transit Connect. After all, the reason the hood was lengthened was to make it resemble a Ranger or even an F150. Do buyers now want a stumpy nose? Im asking because I don’t know if styling preferences have changed and I’m stuck in the past with my opinions.

The skunkworks is based in Irvine and headed by Former Tesla executive Alan Clarke. That should give certain people here a hard on at the mention of an ex-Tesla chief heading up the project…. https://fordauthority.com/2024/02/low-cost-ford-ev-skunkworks-project-led-by-former-tesla-exec/ Now if this is a low cost project, the odds are good that they are developing a skateboard BEV lower to be added to existing Ford bodies. Currently, the two projects vehicles are a Utility (Bronco Sport) and a Pickup (Maverick?) that are going into Louisville after Escape and Corsair end.

Since this new Ford Transit Connect is a share with VW Caddy, the 1.5 turbo is called Ecoboost but the engine and DCT come via VW (built in a VW plant) I agree, by the time you spec a LWB compact van with high roof (if possible), it’s probably easier /costs similar to get a SWB Transit Custom with extra width.

Not sure that sharing the ICE top hats would be all that compromised as BEV buyers like the Frunk space in front, the shorter nose definitely reduces space in that area. Also not convinced that Maverick buyers want a super long bed but yes, something longer than present might be welcomed - maybe just lengthen rear wheel overhang a tad?

Apologies, I realised my mistake after posting, Puma & Tourneo Courier are made together (silly me) The widths on both are just over 70” at 71” and 70.5” but I get your point perfectly because my mistake was conflating the new Caddy based Tourneo Connect with the smaller Turner Courier. It never ceases to amaze me how much difference width makes to the feel of a vehicle and today’s compact vehicles don’t feel as small as they once did exactly because of that extra width you mentioned. just on CE1 BEVs, would love to see BEV Bronco Sport but perhaps a shade longe wheelbase to make battery fit better but also more roomier rear seat inside……maybe even a BEV Maverick as well. Done right, those two could sew up a lot of the compact BEV market by offering something different to Tesla - that’s the key I think….

Ah, now I see, I’m getting my vans mixed up…

Sounds like CE1 is a replacement for Europes Subcompact B platform used on BEV Puma and the new BEV Tourneo connect. Ford calls them its own work but a little digging reveals a lot of parts shared with VW Caddy…..

Correct, it was an attribute prototype, most likely testing out motors, controllers and batteries, body, trim and HVAC testing would come after that with prototypes. Everyone believed Farley when he said it was nothing more than a compliance vehicle but you know, that was probably the ideal vehicle for Europe at the time and heaven knows how much extra Ford spent turning Mach E into a sports version of a Utility……probably why the damn thing will be red ink for years. The aero is all about meeting battery range targets, something the original vehicles were missing significantly. I have to wonder if Ford has swapped one disadvantage for another, s vehicle looks anything like Tesla X it May suff the same fate as Mach E, consigned to the not good enough list for many buyers.

Correct, service industries are always being told by accountants to do “less” in certain areas. It s kind of an opportunity cost thing where they say stop wasting your time on this and concentrate on that instead. So I can see exactly the same thing playing out on car options.

And that’s where there’s a bit of difference between Mach E and Tesla Y not much I’ll grant you but the Mach E feels bigger than Escape and more like the Edge, hip and shoulder room are close/same. Correction, the Y is also smaller than I thought, hip and shoulder room is compact size too well ther ya go…..these modern compacts feel bigger to me than they actually are.

Exactly, Actual usage may show a different result and leads to greater accuracy without any emotional bias.

The issue with the Edison team is not bureaucracy but what is it they are actually designing. The problem is that Ford keeps shuttling between developing BEVs to replace ICE vehicles and wanting to be Tesla…the coming OAC vehicle is example of that and leads to your next point…. I think that the real issue is that Ford doesn’t really know who it’s BEV buyers are and what they actually want. So they build two vehicles, Mach E and Lightning, early adopters go wild and reservations skyrocket… Through a series of unfortunate delays, any chance of sales momentum is lost and enthusiasm evaporates. Let me be clear here, Mach E is on the original GE architecture and is basically midsized, Edge sized but longer wheelbase. GE2 is a heavy evolution of GE with a lot of new and different motors, controllers and batteries but importantly wider to make larger BEVs. Conversely, CE1 is to cover compact vehicles like Escape/Bronco Sport sized vehicles that are narrower than Mach E. (None of them are subcompacts) Remember that developments are also being tailored around incentive requirements including size, price and whether a particular price/size also requires two row or three row. So that’s why some decisions look a bit odd until we dig deeper

Correct, Hackett inherited a mess from Mark Fields and the VW deal answered a lot of instant problems like having a ready to go architecture, supply chain and most importantly, battery supply. It answered all of Ford’s problems by providing affordable BEVs with 90% of the work done. Problem was that Ford then realised how much money VW stood to make supplying everything.

Thinking about what you said above, Its possible that that the broader strategy looks at various trim levels and bundled options to determine what is really needed - obligation of the various bundled features adds a lot of complication, maybe that can be rolled into trim versions to lock in defined supplier amounts and further streamline the process? Sure beats the heck out of customer surveys, lots of data that’s factual, not subjective /customer feelings.

While I agree with sum of what you’re saying, we need to separate Musk the manager from Musk who gets on late at night texting or who gets hurt because people criticise him. To the first point, Ford would kill to have someone who could make decisions and bet the farm on calculated guesses. That's what really speeds up decision making and keeps costs down by limiting the amount of cooks wanting to add their five cents worth….a big issue with a corporate like Ford where normal decisions get bogged down for weeks and months because the Ford bible says you can’t do that. To the second point, Musk’s character flaws are well known but the biggest one is his ego, surrounded by people who always agree and tell you that you’re right never ends well. Equally, working at Ford and having every decision questioned and micromanaged is also a soul killer, so many talented people just give up and do what the boss wants so as not to be yelled at for having ideas. On topic regarding an affordable compact BEV, Ford keeps circling the airport on this one and unless I miss my guess, different people within Ford want different things. Ford Europe clearly has a desire to evolve its C2 platform into affordable BEVs (E-Max). Ford brass and North America would have none of it and signed up VW MEB architecture deal, Hackett called it job done but then after he took his golden parachute Ford realised that it was paying a big price for something it should be able to engineer internally. Now we’re back to a skunkworks doing an add on development of GE2 but for smaller vehicles….Ford groundhogs day.

While it costs a lot of money to switch over completely to 48 volt system, there are big savings to be had from reducing wire size, the problem is replacing a well developed and mature industry wide 12 volt equipment supply chain make it so hard unless lots of manufacturers embrace it and make it the new standard. They (insert legacy brand) all want to but no one wants to be first.

Just briefly, it was from a forum where people who owned Ford 48 volt hybrid were having issues with the 12 volt battery going flat. What people forget is that regular ICE 12 volt batteries can go flat if they are used only for short trips where the alternator doesn’t get a chance to charge up the battery. this happened to me because I live less than ten minutes from work and don’t get much past 30 mph.

This is why it’s being discontinued, the park assist never had the wow effect on drivers that Ford had hoped for but I know that a lot of women and people unsure in todays parking lots with those tall trucks and SUVs probably could/should use it rather than grazing up against other vehicles.

I did some checking up on this and you suspected, the Puma has the 48 volt battery for the mild hybrid work only while the 12 volt battery still runs everything else, even when stopped in traffic or at lights. This is raising concerns on some Puma chat boards as the 12 volt battery can run flat in about 6 months of heavy city use, needs some open running to fully charge the battery up. From that, it looks like the charging system prioritises the 48 volt hybrid side.

The important part of that is the 48 volt electrical system, that reduces a lot of wiring size in the vehicle which is a huge cost saving while providing a more stable operating voltage supply for electronics. Ford Europe is also showing that evolving designs form existing ICE vehicles is still a viable option especially with smaller cost sensitive vehicles. Tesla of course going the different route with dedicated 2 will show us super creative ways to build small cars by substituting more body shop operations with larger gigacastings……Ford and other manufacturers could also do that if they wanted.

I waited until Oacjay98 responded because the answer was better coming from him. The last thing Ford would want to do is go to war with the UAW, crippling annual profit. I can see why Ford steered away from hurting CD6 sales but to me this is Ford continuing hedging on BEVs being range topping premium products vs replacements for existing ICE vehicles. The original three row BEVs to be built at Cuautitlan were a lot more conventional SUV shape. So I wonder if the two year delay actually gave Ford too much time to rethink the vehicles and copy Tesla X. I’m trying to keep an open mind on this, if Ford is planning to sell what is basically a “three row Tesla X”, Ford needs to get this right, if it looks shit to our eyes then maybe it’s appealing to a different buyer group. So let’s hope that Ford has picked right….. Random thought, had the Mach E been sold as sedan/hatchback/coupe combo, it would have capture more of the Mustang’s spirit and really given Tesla a run for its money. Better aero and battery efficiency.

I’ll give you a possible example, Copilot 360+ option on a 2022 F150 cost $995 but, it required a package including heated steering wheel, remote start, LED fog lamps, power seats and keyless entry which totals around $4,535 (March 2023). I can see the opportunity in there for Ford to selectively remove some options without dropping the price….. https://www.capitalone.com/cars/learn/finding-the-right-car/what-is-ford-copilot360/2186 To be fair here, I’m not so impassioned about this, it just strikes me as more marketing, compelling buyers to purchase more than they need to improve profits and then take some of that feature package away in the future….its bound to happen. Equally, people used to think that Ford was falling on its sword offering $8,000 cash incentives for end of model year run out. So what if say, $2,000 cash is already built into the MSRP of every vehicle in that vehicle’s year model, no doubt that Ford has some sort of contingency like that but, if it then reduces builds to inventory, it saves on fewer resources making vehicles that return less profit…I get that.