Captainp4
-
Posts
902 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Captainp4
-
-
2 hours ago, Rick73 said:
I don’t believe we are talking about the same thing. I could be wrong though, just not aware of any manufacturer using 48V except for power which is very different application. Various European manufacturers started using 48V years ago but kept 12V at same time. Again, I could be wrong but not aware of any production vehicle prior to Cybertruck replacing all.12V with 48V.
Tesla is a bad word around here, even if you quote Farley saying they're going to follow Tesla's lead because they're more efficient in every aspect, from design to manufacturing to the end product.
I've seen some people claiming Mercedes did it first, but pretty sure most people are confusing mild hybrids that still step down to 12v for all the inside functions. -
52 minutes ago, tzach said:
LOL, please tell me what extra car will fit in the 9.5 inches gained by the Edge over the Explorer.
9.5 is pretty big depending on context-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, jpd80 said:
While sales of most vehicles appear to be down at the moment, I think the issue with
Mustang Mach E is that for most buyers, there’s no compelling reason to want one.
No disrespect to the vehicle but it seems that Ford has thrown everything at Mach E
to make it desirable to buyers and still, the market seems indifferent.
So I’m stuck, does the problem lie with the vehicle or are buyers just not that into BEVs
or is it a bit of both?
At the Mach E vs Model Y level, the Ford just doesn't offer enough for someone to choose it over the Tesla and pay more for it unless they're a die hard Ford person or have an irrational hatred for Elon Musk. It almost matches most things, but falls a little short.. but who in their right mind would objectively pick it over the guys that have been doing it way longer when it's not substantially better in any category and pay more. If you're the new guy on the block and want to make things happen you need to leapfrog substantially to get someone's attention. It's like when Toyota/Nissan started getting into the half ton market. Ford is dipping their toes in but doesn't seem like they're fully committed. And I'd say the same about cybertruck compared to lightning - Tesla isn't fully committed to figuring out a truck buyer. IMO anyway. Hopefully we see some big improvements with the next gen of BEV out of Ford.
-
1
-
-
I have no need or interest in a truck that small personally, but I knew it would be a hit when I saw it. It hits a sweet spot on affordability and capability while still being unique and pretty cool, it has a lot of people that would never look at a Ford looking.
Still think "passion" products is kind of misleading, like I said in the other thread.. there's plenty of people passionate about owning their boring ass Toyota/Honda sedan because it never lets them down and that's what matters to them. If "passion" means build something that people want to own for whatever reason, then uhh.. duh, you want people to want what you sell. Passion/commodity kind of falls apart if you change the rules to what it fits.
Not disagreeing or agreeing with either side of the on-going argument, just trying to think out what's been said to it's logical end. -
This definitely makes Ford's current EV offerings more appealing.
-
15 minutes ago, Rick73 said:
In my son’s case, the Tesla 3 required a very small wall charger to be mounted in garage. He had to buy that charger separately (but wasn’t too expensive), which plugs into 50A, and operates at 32 Amps. It can also operate on 40A breaker I suppose. He also got a portable charger to leave in car in case he wanted to charge at my house by using an adaptor, or anywhere else in case of emergency. AFAIK, he hasn’t needed it. The home charger provides him over 20 miles of range per hour of charging, so car essentially remains topped off in garage by plugging overnight.
I’m not sure how other chargers install, because I’ve read that some permanently-installed chargers do not require a neutral. I honestly don’t recall if his portable unit can be used without a neutral by using an adaptor, but think it may work OK. I think the charger only uses 240 VAC, and no 120 VAC if I recall correctly, but not sure. Below is one Tesla recommendation. I’m aware some home chargers can now go above 50A (80A IIRC) but that’s probably overkill for most owners unless they drive a BEV that uses a lot of power/energy. An F-150 that towed daily (like lawn service truck), as example, may benefit from faster charging.
https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/en_CA/CA-EN_NEMA_14-50_Installation_Guide.pdf
From what I've learned "researching" the Lightning, it comes with the truck charge port on one end, 30a if I'm remembering correctly, and two pigtails that you can plug into it, either the 14-50 pictured or a standard 120 plug. There's an option for a higher amp charger as well that can go up to 80a. Amp numbers might be off, but it's something like that. From what I've gathered the lower amp one is intended to be mobile so you can charge anywhere while the bigger one is meant to stay where you charge. -
2 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:
While a c2 hybrid Edge would be a desirable product in my mind, that sounds too much like the commodity, in Farley's own words "Boring" vehicles that Ford is trying to do away with. I have a hard time seeing how a new edge could align with Ford's new strategy of selling passion products. But at the same time, it's sold well enough that walking away from that segment entirely seems foolish to me.
Personally, I think Ford should expand the explorer sub-brand with a two row explorer offering. Something that offers similar pricing and market positioning to the previous edge, but has that boxier styling buyers love, and a more iconic name.
2 hours ago, Gurgeh said:If Ford can make a "passion" affordable entry-level truck don't know why they can't do the same with a mid-sized 2-row crossover. And the new Nautilus? I test drove one yesterday and that's about as passionate a vehicle as I could imagine. Sure, it's upscale from the Edge, but it is in a very crowded luxury segment where I think it will do quite well.
I was reading through a facebook comment section on something the other day, and I could only describe the people commenting as "passionate" about how reliable their toyota camrys/rav4s/etc were and that they were never going with another brand because they just work and don't let them down. What non car people want is affordable/fairly efficient for class/RELIABLE. Ford just can't or won't deliver on that last part, so it seems like they're just giving up and building things for the car guy that can fix it their self in their driveway, because it looks cool or makes cool noises/is fast/fun/etc. I honestly don't know if it's the right approach or not, as a car guy it sounds good, but it's blindingly obvious why Ford can't make any progress in what they call "commodity" vehicles. We saw what happened when Bob Lutz was the GM guy building car guy vehicles and Mulally was over here making things efficient and how well Stellantis has done with a stuff a hellcat in everything mantra. Car guy me likes Farley and hopes he figures out a way to make it work, but I'm still skeptical of giving up all this ground on "commodity" vehicles. I understand limited plant capacity and resources and all that, but the new and shiny is going to wear off eventually on the "passion" products unless they just keep delivering unique product that resonates, which historically tends to fade away after a couple generations of a product line.-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Rick73 said:
I should note that both Ford Lightning and Rivian pickups are EPA rated approximately +/- 2 miles per kWh depending on trim and options, so it seemed unlikely Tesla Cybertruck could achieve 340 miles with only 123 kWh battery (2.76 miles/kWh). Tesla is good at efficiency, but not that good IMO.I did a quick estimate based on Tesla data from website, and came up with much larger battery that seems more realistic to me.
Testa says 250 kW charger in 15 minutes (+/- 62.5 kWh) adds 136 miles to AWD or 128 miles to tri-motor Beast. Granted, owner won’t always get full 250 kW charge rate, but I’m pretty sure Tesla won’t advertise fast charging under less than ideal conditions, so I used 250 kW.
AWD is therefore about 136 miles / 62.5 kWh = 2.176 miles/kWh
Beast is about 128 miles / 62.5 kWh = 2.048 miles/kWh
The AWD is rated 340 miles of range, which at 2.176 requires 156 kWh.
Beast is rated 320 miles, which at 2.048 requires 156 kWh.
I can see a 123 kWh battery pack being about right for next year’s RWD Cybertruck, because with 250 miles of rated range, would require 2.03 miles/kWh. That’s in the right ballpark compared to AWD and Beast Cybertruck, and also Lighting and Rivian.
P.S. — After estimating battery size above, I found reference in an official government filing suggesting 150 kWh. That’s much closer to my 156 kWh estimate, and much more believable. Seems you got your wish for larger battery, though I doubt towing is Cybertruck’s forte even with 150 kWh battery.
Not sure, every source I can find says 123. This one and everything I click on youtube/google/forums/facebook groups says 123 . Not arguing with ya, cause I honestly I don't really care unless it's giving me more range. Where'd you find that doc? It also uses an induction motor on the front axle, and permanent magnet on the rear and the output numbers are wrong so maybe it's an out of date document?
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a46010154/tesla-cybertruck-battery-capacity/
Edit: Was looking at the awd motor outputs, looks like output numbers are correct for beast motors, but not motor type: " "Cyberbeast"—swaps motor locations (permanent magnet to front axle, induction motor to rear axle) and adds a second induction motor on the rear axle, offering a maximum combined output of 845 hp (630 kW) in Beast Mode,[4] split as 276 hp (206 kW) for the front motor and 284 hp (212 kW) for each rear motor."
-
57 minutes ago, Rick73 said:
Curious where you found 123 kWh? Seems low to me.
Bunch of youtube videos previously and the google to confirm what I remembered before I posted that. I'm not sure if Tesla has officially released that. -
13 minutes ago, Rick73 said:
Based on specs, I expect Cybertruck must have a fairly large battery, in order of about 150~160 kWh (rough estimate) which makes it much larger than that of Model S and X. By comparison, I would expect that Cybertruck will cost more to manufacture, particularly when considering unusual stainless body. Anyway, I would not be surprised if cost goes up beyond $79k for AWD variant over time. Rich buyers will probably get the even more expensive + $100k beast option.
123 kWh pack. It's efficient in that regard, personally wish they had stuffed some more battery in for people that wanted to use it as a truck, but there's enough people lined up for a status symbol it probably doesn't matter to them yet. -
14 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:
But here's what I don't get, as I'm not an engineer, wouldn't you want to engineer a bit of flex into something like a truck?
This same argument was made when the 04 150 came out with a fully boxed frame by the other guys that looked like they were twerking on the high speed bump tests. Same argument about the Ridgeline being too stiff because it was unibody. Not that I'm a fan of that thing, but lol. They said c channel semis worked because they flex and give, etc. .. more torsional rigidity doesn't seem to have any real world implications other than better driving dynamics from everything I've seen over the last 20 years or so of following the car/truck world. I imagine it has it's limits, but my instinct tells me sticking with c channel frames is just a cost saving thing. -
28 minutes ago, jpd80 said:
CT May be a great vehicle to own and to impress others who want it bad enough to jump the queue an pay overs to get one.
Other than that I don’t see any reason. to own one, especially with so many unknowns.
Could we end up seeing a lot o those reservations evaporate over the next year when people have to commit to a $79k order?
The original promises made a good case for me. 14k towing, 500+ mile range. It made perfect sense for my business that tows roughly 9-10k daily, under 300 miles a week, and not more than 100 in a day, on a set route, comes back to the shop every night, and only used when the grass is growing (so, warm, no cold weather range loss concern). The 4 wheel steer looked pretty damn cool to not have to make 30 point turns on dead end roads too when towing the 26ft trailer. All that AND lose the diesel fuel and maintenance costs? SIGN ME UP!
What we got was 11k towing, 340 mile range (you can get ALMOST 500 if you drop ANOTHER 16k on range extender pack that will surely diminish payload capacity even more) and on top of that has none of the towing doodads Ford has on the Lightning that make your life easier when towing. The stainless body was appealing to me too because despite any effort made to avoid it, you're going to send projectiles hurtling towards your own truck if you own a lawn care business and can't always choose the best location to park. If you get up close on my 2010 250 you'll see tons of little dings (still looks pretty dang good from 5-10ft, but if you look close you'll see them).
But like I said earlier in the thread, just watching and waiting before I make my decision when my number gets called.-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, mackinaw said:
Nobody's mentioned cost so far. A quick search shows that stainless steel costs substantially more than conventional carbon steel. I wonder about repair costs too.
Repair costs will be interesting to see. On one hand it's going to resist minor dings and maybe even light fender benders, on the other hand people that can still work bare metal without filler and paint to hide behind are very few and far between (hell, even brand new cars have filler on the panels sometimes) so it's likely going to be full panel replacement if there's any distortion of the metal. Unless this particular alloy has a "memory" and can be easily stretched/shrank back. I wonder if the quarters are bolted on or bonded? Haven't seen anything about the one that got hit right after the delivery event yet. -
11 minutes ago, jpd80 said:
Just like “go F yourself” but hey, it’s Elon’s money to loose…..
Are you from the part of Australia where I can call you a cunt and it's a term of endearment?
Either way, GFY ?
All jokes, don't ban me pls -
11 minutes ago, jpd80 said:
Just an observation that a person so easily triggered by a simple question cannot be the same away from the cameras..
He doesn’t supper fools and has had years to weed out dissenters so now everyone agrees with is vision…
Those are certainly all words -
14 minutes ago, jpd80 said:
It was hilarious but he did it knowing that major sponsors were sitting in the crowd
because he’d just had a major issue with them earlier that day, it was a continuation
of a dialogue he’d been having and had nothing to do with trying to bribe him with money,
he made that the issue so he could attack them….. they had already pulled out, not coming back.
These are not customers, these are advertisers and there’s a big difference….
Advertisers are customers, they pay you to run their ads. Still not seeing how this ties into the we/us narrative that's going on here. -
11 minutes ago, jpd80 said:
You’re only seeing the image he wants to project but every now and then you see the person
who gets triggered by the smallest things and goes off the deep end…..”Go F yourself” I mean really?
I mean, I thought that moment was hilarious personally because I've said it to customers I've had enough of and found some validation there, but what's that have to do with the we/us thing?-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, jpd80 said:
Correct, it’s all Elon’s vision until things go wrong……
This isn't true either if you read or watch him. He always gives credit to the team, be it SpaceX or Tesla.-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:
I know car engineers usually couldn't care less about exterior styling, but there was a report that came out that some Tesla engineers found the CT so ugly that they tried to put together their own proposal, I'm not joking.
There's a lot of articles that are flat out lies because the in thing to do now is hate Elon Musk because it gets clicks/views. At some point everyone will realize these articles keep happening every time Tesla hit's a temporary wall and that they always blow through it and come out on top of the predictions and naysayers.-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Rick73 said:
No, not at all, and for good reason. Market knows how important a more affordable BEV is to Tesla to support growth, and wanted it much sooner. IMO, as stated before, prioritizing Cybertruck over Model 2 was a huge mistake. Musk mentioned Cybertruck sales could be as high as 250,000 if I recall correctly, but I doubt it will be that high given price and radical appearance.
Reservations say the demand is there and they're still coming in from what I've heard, but we've all seen how that can be misleading. I personally really like the looks of it after seeing it in person and think the price is fair IF it the things it's good at (speed/handling/tech) are what you're into and only occasionally doing truck things . The more reviews I watch of it though it's clear why F series is the leader in the truck market for people that need a truck for truck things, Cybertruck misses on all the things that make towing/hauling comfortable and convenient. Some of it can change with software down the road, some of it is physical things. Time will tell, but I think they'll sell every one they can make for the foreseeable future. I do have a reservation in but really not liking the reviews I've seen so far as far as "truck things" are concerned, Lightning is looking more and more like a better value for my use case and considering cancelling, but I'm so far down the line it'll be a while before I have to make that choice.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Rick73 said:
Call with investors stated current schedule is to start second half of 2025, but Musk also said part of reason to move initial manufacturing to Texas was because assembly process is so different that engineers will be living on the assembly line. I’d bet estimated volume of 10,000 per week won’t be achieved until 2026 or later, if ever in Texas.
Model 2 Redwood was described as a compact crossover, meaning it can still be a smaller version of Model Y. Reports stated Tesla disassembled and studied a Civic to learn how Honda can build a quality car under $25k. This also suggests to me that Redwood may be close in size to a Honda Civic. IMO that’s the size BEV Tesla and buyers need most initially in order to get costs down as much as possible while still being large enough to be taken seriously and considered by large group of buyers.
The market did not like that call ?
Musk really needs to work on distinguishing between internal optimistic timelines and what he tells the public too, Elon Time is rarely accurate. Still waiting on the next starship launch in "3-4 weeks" since November -
Look, there's still demand for it!
-
3
-
3
-
-
27 minutes ago, akirby said:
I didn’t say anything about the company’s goals or motivation. I only objected to classifying their vehicles up to now as affordable.
I guess I misunderstood, and things have been volatile in the last few years, but I'd consider 3/y affordable currently and in the last few years. Not entry level cheap, but on par with what mostly sells. -
1 hour ago, akirby said:
I’m not knocking their business model just don’t make it sound like they’re being good guys making affordable vehicles. 3/Y are still pushing $40K+ and don’t forget they raised prices during Covid just like everyone else - up to $8K on some models. Theyre going after the lower end now with the 2 because it’s the only way to expand their market share not because they’re helping buyers.
Their stated goals indicate they are the good guys, whether you like Musk or not or even agree with how he thinks he's helping, the "master plan" lays out the goal to convert the world to sustainable auto and they've met or exceeded every goal they stated. Whether you believe it's for the good of humanity or a money grab is on the person watching or reading, I've watched enough of Musk to believe him but I understand if you don't.. and even if you don't Tesla has laid out the blueprint on how to do it and make money for "legacy auto". Either way, I personally believe they are the good guys, but even if they aren't they're still doing it better than Ford on the BEV design and manufacturing end.
Model 2 I'm skeptical about after waiting 4 years for the cybertruck to cost twice as much and have half the range promised with 3k lbs less towing. Holding a reservation for cybertruck, but been looking at the lightning lately and it seems like a better truck right now.-
1
-
Ford Discusses New Affordable EV Platform
in Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum
Posted
And hopefully can respect where Tesla is miles ahead and realize Ford is trying to catch up in certain areas without disregarding or trying to discredit every comment that mentions Tesla. It's clear some can't. There's a reason they're #1 in EV and making money doing it, and Farley says as much pretty often.