mustang_sallad

it really says something about how incredibly valuable fossil fuels are when you see how complex engines can become just to eek out 26mpg. It's amazing to me that all of the engineering effort was deemed worthwhile.

Ha! Definitely the first time i've been called that. I'm an engineer who works in the industry (utilities, energy, EVs, policy) and I'm eager to make sure people discussing these topics are up to speed with the latest numbers, and that they appreciate that people have been giving these topics a lot of thought and have done a lot of number crunching. I would say I get angry when armchair quarterbacks think of an important consideration (e.g. - taking into account the emissions associated with charging EVs or building their components) and immediately assume that nobody's thought of this before and that it must be an absolute deal breaker. I've been on this forum for about 10 years, with a general theme of "Ford should build more EVs and hybrids". Happy to see the progress we've made since then, especially in terms of the broader support these technologies get from enthusiasts on automotive websites without any kind of a "green" focus.

Regarding China, they've already surpassed their latest 5-year plan (2016-2020) to install 105GW of solar. 35GW of that was installed this year alone. https://cleantechnica.com/2017/08/22/china-continues-massive-solar-installations-10-52-gw-july-already-exceeds-2020-target/ If you don't have a good feel for the scale of these numbers, most nuclear plants in the US are around 1-2GW. Even when you account for the capacity factor (around 25-30% for solar) that should give you an appreciation for the progress that's being made in China. Certainly the air pollution in the cities is a major driver, regardless of where the power plants are located.

Did you see my earlier post about this? http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/63800-lincoln-plans-electrified-lineup-all-models-by-2022/?p=1008933 Yes, right now, and for the foreseeable future, we'll be burning something to generate at least a portion of our electricity. But even with today's grid, EVs are still a huge improvement, and they are getting cleaner as time goes by. Wind and solar are becoming increasingly cost competitive, even when taking into account their intermittency, and natural gas plants are way cleaner and more efficient than coal. Probably even more importantly, natural gas plants are much more flexible than coal, which means they are the perfect partner to make up for variable sources. Longer term, demand response (flexible loads that can respond to the variability of renewables, EVs are a perfect example), energy storage (batteries, pumped hydro), and geographic diversity can also help deal with variable generation.

Absolutely important to consider the whole picture, and I work in the utility industry so give this a lot of thought. I first did my own "well-to-wheels" analysis during my masters around 2009, and the numbers for EVs were already at least as good as gas in the worst case back then. The numbers have only gotten better, because I can assure you that any power plant running at 35% efficiency has probably already shut down for being completely uncompetitive. It's a lot easier to optimize a massive stationary thermal engine operating at a steady state than it is to optimize an engine in a vehicle that has to rev up and down at the driver's request. The data on power plant emissions is readily available through the EPA, so you can do these calculations yourself, but the Union of Concerned Scientists has a "mpg equivalent" map for different sections of the US grid, the latest numbers are from 2014: But to get a sense of where this is headed, best to check out this post which compares this map to what it looked like in 2009: http://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/new-numbers-are-in-and-evs-are-cleaner-than-ever?_ga=2.99203865.669565143.1505074342-586829010.1425955103 This progress is largely a result of coal plants shutting down in favour of natural gas, wind and solar. Also good to keep in mind that, if you want to take this into your own hands, it's getting pretty easy and affordable to just generate your own electricity with rooftop solar. Awesome from a resilience perspective too, for the preppers out there.

Wow, 8 cylinders, 2 turbos, and a 10 speed transmission to hopefully approach 40% efficiency in the best case while cruising on the highway at a steady speed. Tesla gets 400hp out of a motor the size of a bucket that gets full torque at 0rpm and revs up to 12,000rpm, letting it run with a single speed transmission and get 80-90% efficiency all day long, getting 300 miles out of a full charge that costs $12 at the average US electricity price. EV sales have grown at over 50% yoy every year since they launched around 2011, I think they're on track for something like 60% so far this year, with over 30 models available in the US. But you're right, probably a fad...

Thanks for all the input, everyone. I suspect the Ioniq is in high demand so he thinks he can sell this pretty quickly and without a discount. Turns out that none of the dealers are really stocking this car and you have to order it and then wait 2-3 months. So that means anybody who's interested in this car might be willing to take something slightly used for the same price if it means they get to skip the line. I feel like these guys have found a way to get some benefit out of the demand/supply situation - for new cars, I think they probably aren't allowed to markup, but I guess nothing's stopping them from asking full price on a demo car if the demand is there. I'm in Quebec, Canada. Automakers have been pushing back hard against a California-style ZEV mandate, saying the demand isn't there and they shouldn't be forced to make cars that people don't want. But at least in some regions, supply is definitely lagging demand. I don't know how they even expect to get a true gauge on demand for these cars if the average buyer can't just walk in and try one out and take it home if they like it and they have one in the right colour.

I'm looking to get my hands on a Hyundai Ioniq electric, and dealer has one that was used briefly as a demo vehicle (for a few special events and test drives) and has about 1500 miles on it. What would be a reasonable discount on a car like this? You always hear about how much value the car loses the minute it leaves the dealer, but in this case, the dealer is asking full price. That seems unreasonable, so I told him I wasn't interested, so i'm just wondering what would be reasonable. The Focus EV is my point of comparison. After tax and government incentives, they're coming in around $31k, whereas this Ioniq is around $38k.

The guys on Autoline are traditional auto journalists that don't really know how to wrap their heads around EVs. So many reviewers test these cars without having access to Level 2 charging at home, so their impression of the car misses out on the most convenient part of owning an EV. They have haul out that portable 120V cordset every time they get home - which is both a hassle and painfully slow (20+ hours vs 4 hours on Level 2). If you can charge at home, you'll be waking up with a full tank every morning, and you won't even have to think twice about whether you've got enough range for your commute, even in cold weather - you've got a decent buffer. I'm counting about 30 DC fast chargers in CT, and probably a ton more coming. So between those, and the hundreds of Level 2 stations in the state, including some at or near your work, you've got plenty of safety net. Cost of electricity in CT looks to be around $0.09/kWh. Focus is rated at 31kWh/100 miles, vs 3.2 gallons/100 miles (fueleconomy.gov). So on electricity, that's $2.79 per 100 miles. For gas to be cheaper, it would have to be $2.79 per 3.2 gallons, or $0.87 per gallon. I think it would be a stretch to find somewhere in the US where driving on electricity would be more expensive than gas, especially if you can charge overnight during off-peak hours. McElroy in that video is talking about cost of using a DC fast charger ("Level 3") - that's not every day. 95% of the time, you're charging up at home at cheap rates. For these guys to fixate on the cost of public charging just highlights how they've never actually lived with an EV as an actual EV owner would with charging at home and almost never needing public charing. And for him to suggest that you should base your assessment of the cost of ownership of an EV on peak rates is ridiculous. Who needs to do all of their charging during peak hours? The Focus EV comes with a timer so you can get it to automatically start charging when electricity is cheap, and that's a huge benefit for the grid that has all sorts of excess capacity. You can hear them start to remember some of these factoids towards the end of their discussion, confusing the idea of throwing dedicated storage into the mix... you can tell their a little over their heads, and it's good that they just cut themselves off there rather than spouting out a bunch of mixed up talking points that'll confuse their audience.

I'm in a similar situation to you - I have a 2012 Focus (manual, hatchback) and looking for a second car for a commuter, and definitely want it to be electric. Beyond just the range, I think the Bolt would also be the best bet just in terms of having the latest and greatest in battery and powertrain tech. I have more faith in GM than anybody else in terms of battery durability - they really coddle those things, and Volts are fairing really well. But as nice as all that sounds, it's hard to justify the extra $10k or so over a Focus which has enough range for my daily commute. My biggest complaint about the Focus is the space under the hatch. It would be annoying for my own use on a regular basis, but probably worse than that would be having to explain to everyone that looks under the hatch that, "no, not all EVs have such terrible packaging". The other car I'm having a look at is the Hyundai Ioniq. Even a bit more range than the Focus, and has a totally flat cargo area. It's a brand new, clean slate design by a company that is clearly committed to the platform (vs shoehorning a higher capacity battery into a model that is clearly not long for this world). The eGolf is also really nice with similar price and specs, though a bit smaller than the Focus. I'm also a bit more convinced of VW's commitment to electrification even if they're sort of being forced into it at this point! But I keep coming back to the Focus because it's just a bit cheaper, and the 0% financing is pretty sweet. I'm just worried I'll be kicking myself in a few years for not spending a bit more and getting something a little less dated. Too bad the 2017 refresh wasn't a bit more comprehensive...

Those are hilarious stories. My point was that if Tesla was actually the result of some hotshot at Ford who had turned Lincoln into an all-electric lineup, with cars that are as fast and nice to look at as Tesla, built entirely in US plants, that was getting as much positive press and brand equity as Tesla, performing the same as Tesla (meaning not making any money yet, but Ford's stock was up significantly) and was on the verge of scaling that up into a more affordable model that has 300,000 deposits... I can imagine that this forum would think pretty highly of the guy.

Yes, but none of them have attempted to increase production by 1000% over a few years. My point is that what they're trying to do is exceptional. And I don't mean exceptional in the sense of praising them, I mean it literally, as in "unusual; not typical".

The Model S is profitable, they're just pouring a bit of money into, you know, scaling up production by a factor of 10, and deploying a global network of high power charging stations. Things that not many other car companies do very often. It's funny cause in EV crowds, I'm generally seen as a Tesla basher, but you come on here and the hatred is incredible! If this guy's last name was Ford, everybody on here would be fawning all over him.

I agree the guy is overhyped, and the tunnel idea is stupid, but... one of the guy's companies is selling 50,000 EVs per year and another company is delivering stuff to the space station on a regular basis, and has figured out how to land rockets back on the ground and reuse them. Just saying he's accomplished a bit more than Jim Jones...

what would I have said back in 2012 if somebody told me that in 5 years, every thread about Tesla on this site would be half-filled with people reassuring themselves that Ford is probably still worth more than Tesla? It'd be really interesting to compare Tesla's manufacturing efficiency specifically to Ford's plug-in vehicles. I'm considering buying a Focus Electric (only thing holding me back is the trunk space) and it's taking its sweet time to work its way down the pipeline. Probably harder to compare since they share an assembly line with the other powertrains.

Still a pretty impressive milestone for a company that most of us (myself included) thought would disappear before the Model S hit the road. I assumed the Model 3 would be way behind schedule like everything else they've done, but it looks like they've learned how to set expectations. Their current lineup is selling in similar numbers to the entire Lincoln brand, and that's with one of their two models being about 5 years old. I'm not interested in the Model 3 (not the right body style) but it looks like there's more than enough demand to keep them busy. The only question is whether they can scale up successfully.

First - in terms of plug in sales, US rankings put Ford in 3rd place after Tesla and GM, see here for today's summary of 2016 plug-in vehicle sales (December blew away the previous record for plug-ins sold in a month): http://insideevs.com/almost-25000-evs-sold-as-december-2016-crushes-sales-records-in-the-us/ Globally, Ford is around 10th place in 2016 PEV sales. That's after BYD, Tesla, BMW, Nissan, BAIC, VW, Mitsubishi, GM, and Renault. Pretty much all of Ford's plug-in sales are in the US market, so that makes sense. I think I would fall in the camp of what people here would call "naysayers". My recollection of electrification discussions on this forum are that some people (myself included) wanted Ford to move more quickly on electrification, whereas others argued that Ford is doing it just right, if they're a bit behind in some areas now, they'll catch up quickly when it makes sense. Obviously folks like me are going to be excited when Ford finally starts to shed some light on their plans (not to mention the fact that I've been pining after a hybrid Mustang since I first learned about the existence of internet forums dedicated to discussions about cars). We've known since the announcement of the $4.5B electrification strategy that Ford was going to get on board in a big way by around 2019 or 2020. I think I've just been frustrated that that has left a bit of a gap in the meantime, while GM steals the show in the meantime with the Bolt, and to some extent (I guess we'll see) Chrysler with the Pacifica in a starved segment. Ford's current plug-in offerings all date back to 2012 - waiting till 2019 for anything new other than some (admittedly decent) mid-cycle upgrades is frustrating for those of us who are both Ford fans and PEV fans. I've always been a hug promoter of PHEVs (which are obviously the biggest part of Ford's PEV portfolio to date) and I've recently been highlighting the promising batch of 100-to-125-mile range BEVs of which the updated Focus is probably the best example (hopefully playing a bigger role in the portfolio going forward). So I think Ford is sitting pretty well, certainly better than most automakers. I could probably handle the wait till 2019 a little better if the Focus, Fusion and C-Max updates had included better packaging to improve the cargo area. And I wish it could have been Ford to be the first mover with a PEV in the minivan/crossover segment instead of Chrysler, but news of the Model E being a small SUV is great. Hopefully not too small, I think the EcoSport/HRV/Enclave/etc segment is silly - Escape size would be ideal in my opinion. Also, hybrid F-150 is a huge deal and long overdue, thanks to that failed partnership with Toyota. Presumably, we can expect this to do better than GM's hybrid pickups and SUVs. Also, hopefully there's an opportunity to evolve that into a PHEV shortly afterwards.

Looks cool, but when is somebody going to make a non-luxury plug-in cross over?? Hopefully Ford's got something up their sleeve with the $4.5B they're pouring into electrification. Also, 50kW fast charging - lame! Should be 100kW minimum.

I'm sensing some lingering skepticism about human-cause climate change, so in that case, how about urban air quality and respiratory problems? Maybe you don't live in a place where air quality's an issue, but this is a discussion about California's ZEV credit system... http://www.autoblog.com/2016/10/28/dirty-car-emissions-cost-10-zev-states-37-billion-a-year/

Are you saying the government shouldn't be doing that? Some automakers, including Ford, are coping quite well with their own plug-in vehicle sales. What's wrong with a system that lets the slackers just pay a price to the companies that are going beyond the minimum requirement? Seems like a pretty good way to push industry in a direction that benefits everyone without using any tax payer dollars.

Out of $2.2B total revenue, the ZEV credits count for 6.3% of their revenue. If you're going to say you have to take that program out of the equation (keep in mind, this isn't government money, this is money from the likes of FCA or other automakers who aren't yet meeting ZEV requirements with their own EVs) then I would say we should also subtract any investment Tesla is making to grow from a 25,000 car a year company to a 300,000 car a year company, because that's also something that most other automakers don't deal with. Or should Tesla hold onto those ZEV credits so that they can sell gas-powered pickup trucks to make a profit on? I haven't ever seen you make any suggestions for what Tesla should be doing differently other than going away. All that said, I'm almost certain they'll go back to losses until the Model 3 ramps up, assuming they can get there. But I'm just saying: 1. ZEV credits are a good system 2. Tesla investing everything they earn and then some into scaling up is a much smarter move than remaining a small volume manufacturer, and it's been their plan from the start.

Apple teaming up with Gordon Murray (designer of the McLaren F1) would make more sense to me, given the types of vehicles he's been focused on lately. Apple making supercars doesn't really make sense, but high-end pod-like city cars meshes a little better: http://www.gordonmurraydesign.com/en/products/current/yamaha-motiv.e.html

200 mile charge in 30 minutes exists today - Tesla deployed a network across North America, Europe, and most of China and Japan on their dime in under 3 years. 200 miles in 30 mins requires charging at 120kW. SAE is already working on bumping the CCS standard up to 150kW. Porsche announced plans to double that to 300kW last year at the Frankfurt auto show by going up to 800V DC (most cars today use ~400V batteries), and they're bringing SAE and everyone else along with them. At that point, you're talking 200 miles or more in a 15 minute charge. These days, I don't think I know anyone who wouldn't want to catch up on the internet after a couple hours on the road, but if that's not you, then get a plug-in hybrid and burn a little gas every once in a while?

Not sure what you're getting at here. In terms of Level 2 charging (the 240V stations with J1772 connectors, of which there are something like 40,000 of them in the US), the vast majority of them are limited to 7.2kW, so 9 hours for 238 miles is about as good as it gets. For DC fast charging (formerly called "level 3") where you bypass the on-board charger and go straight to the batteries, most of what's in the ground right now is capped at 50kW. Most people expected GM to announce the ability to charge at 75kW or even 100kW, but so far they've only stated 50kW. They may be holding out for an announcement at a later date (a ride along video shows a GM engineer saying "we're saying 50kW right now"), but for now, of the 600 or so DCFC stations in North America with the SAE Combo Connector, there might be a couple lurking around behind the scenes at automakers that can go higher than 50kW, but for now, they're pretty much all 50kW or even 25kW. Ford has talked about going as high as 240kW, and VW/Audi/Porsche have plans for 300kW that are being picked up by SAE, but until someone builds that infrastructure (cough VW settlement), neither GM nor Ford are going to be able to brag about faster charging times, regardless of what they build into the vehicle.

a) Direct quote from the article you linked to: "On average in the United States, at least in major markets, electric cars would offer an improvement on carbon emissions" b) Going a bit deeper, the Union of Concerned Scientists study they quoted in that article shows that, between 2009 and 2012, coal went from generating 45% of US electricity to 37%. Thanks to cheap natural gas, cheaper and cheaper renewables, and nuclear, the grid is already cleaning up. See all the details here: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions#.V9jqiDtLXgk c) Getting the grid off of fossil fuels and getting transportation off of fossil fuels are two monumental tasks. What about this situation suggests that they need to happen one after the other rather than in parallel? d) The tiny sample size of posters in this thread suggests that, if you happen to live in a part of the world where your grid isn't clean enough to justify an EV, you can take matters into your own hands and make your own electricity if you care enough about your grandkids and have enough money for a financially sound investment.