slemke

Yeah…shop at target recently? Woke and broke. Target missed earnings and the stock dropped 25%. Not many shoppers. Costco opened another store in the area and they are usually packed.

Until they get the electric bill and realize they are paying just as much per mile Really depends on the tax structure. If those charging stations are fed by natural gas electric generators, there is going to be a carbon tax that could be worse than what they are currently paying for gas and diesel. In the US, public charging station prices aren’t much different than gas in a fuel efficient vehicle. With Europe’s high gas and diesel taxes, the equation shifts in favor of electric until government misses the tax revenue.

But nothing was released from 3 Mile Island. The safety systems work and averted disaster. Technology has improved dramatically since 1979. If someone is firing cruise misses at the continental US, we’ve got bigger problems.

But will customers be willing to give Ford additional profit on the 6.8L or will they expect it to be a more cost effective solution? It may be available as a top end towing option on the F150, but I doubt it will replace the 3.5l EB or powerboost. The 3.5 simply gets better mpg for CAFE and works just fine for those who drive the truck to work everyday and tow a small boat or travel trailer on weekends. That being said, I’d like to see a short deck 4.0-4.5l coyote EB or powerboost.

That’s possible. I think Ford wanted to get under 10%. Might be some sort of SEC scrutiny for over 10% that Ford wanted to avoid. Also possible Ford thinks the stock will continue to sink. Rivian is coming into a much more crowded market than Tesla. Factor in the loyalty of truck owners and Rivian has its work cut out. Lightning, Silverado, and Ram will continue to be the leaders because they know their customers. Rivian will get the scraps similar to Nissan.

Keep repeating it and maybe it will sink in. There are plenty of places that will need public chargers because charging at home is not an option. For those locations where at home charging is feasible, fewer public chargers are needed. RMC and I are talking about the required number of charging locations and chargers at those locations vs pumps. Without government interference the market would determine the locations and number of chargers. Neighborhoods without electric cars and newer neighborhoods with garages and plenty of electrical capacity for home charges wouldn’t get as many or any chargers but would have gas stations. Fast chargers will be needed along interstate travel corridors and high traffic areas for those that need to fill up on the go. Now at some point, we may need a rural electrification act 2.0 to finish building out the infrastructure. But, Tesla has been managing to do that on their own as they have now added super chargers along I94 in ND. I read recently that Tesla has raised the prices at their super chargers in California to $0.58 per kWh. So much for savings a 40mpg Maverick hybrid comes out ahead in cost of ownership. Hopefully Ford adds more hybrids to the portfolio including Mustang and if it becomes a reality Thunderbird.

Was Ford the only auto manufacturer to sign? Oops found volvo which has also committed to all EV. Surprisingly Jaguar isn’t there. Seems like Ford made a gamble on BEV and the only way for it to pay off is lobbying for Government help. Doesn’t seem very encouraging. Very few of those companies have anything to do with automotive industry. Many would directly benefit from the regulation, though. Seems more like something to help out the companies themselves and not consumers

The domination is assuming EVs are cost effective. For a mile or two, walking or biking is cheaper and healthier. With working from home on a regular basis, my desire for a cheap electric commuter car has diminished. A fun toy and road trip vehicle is where it is at. Plug in hybrid seems to fit the bill. Electric for the short trips around town and gas for the longer trips.

Wouldn’t a better comparison be chargers compared to pumps? I’m pretty sure the charging station number is the number of charges, not locations to charge. Also need to factor in the throughput of how much time is spent at the pump vs charger. Home charging for daily driving takes some of the load off public charges, but not for trips.

That same Stanford report also stated that it would take $2k-$6k in grid improvements for each EV added to the fleet. It isn’t going to be cheap. We still don’t know what the environmental impact of all those batteries and solar panels is. As of now, the solar panels that can’t be salvaged and used at a lower efficiency are ground up and buried in a landfill. Similar for the lithium ion batteries. Very few are recycled. Seems government has gotten the cart in front of the horse. We might be better of getting businesses to offer covered parking under solar panels to charge during peak sunlight and then discharge into the grid in the early evening if needed. At any rate energy is lost every step of the way. We need more nuclear power plants to cover the base load. Instead, they are being shut down.

For personal use, not many as the extra row of passengers is quite appealing. But for the termite guy, city inspector, or parts delivery truck? I was thinking more for the commercial appeal of the regular cab. The frunk at least alleviates the need to use the extended cab or back seat for cargo storage….so 7 or 8 more

Ford went beyond the 8500lb GVWR typical of the 1/2 ton class. I wonder how this will impact CAFE numbers. In the past, over 8500lb were exempt. Some regulation likely changed. I also found the fuel savings interesting. Not much of a savings, but it should be compared to a 4x4 truck, not an average vehicle. any idea how many of these FCTP vehicles are being produced? With Ford bumping up the payload, it’s a more attractive vehicle to me, just not the price. A fctp lightning just might make the cut.

Ford should be optimizing all vehicles, not just BEV. Many of the aerodynamic and weight reduction improvements can be used on either BEV or ICE. Same goes for the electronics. IMO, body on frame vehicles such as the 150 already have advantages for being converted to electric. Plenty of space between the frame rails for batteries. The floor pan could be modified to remove the transmission tunnel and lower the rear floor, which is already flat. Or use that space for additional battery capacity. Traditional truck buyers seem to want a brick with a long hood, any changes to the front end from that formula would likely relegate it to a niche. Use the space for a 15+ cu ft frunk where tools and gear can be safely stowed from the elements. We’ll see what comes out in the future, but the current lightning is pretty darn good from a packaging standpoint. I would like to see additional cab and bed options, though. With a frunk, regular cab flare side Lightnings may be able to make a comeback. The ‘99 through ‘03 were my favorites.

One of the benefits of the long nose is the 14 cu ft frunk. Very useful as that is the only enclosed cargo space. I’d like to see a lightning with the 6.5’ bed. It could support an even larger battery, but that might cut into the payload too much.

Agree on the 3.5L powerboost. Now that Toyota has inched past with the Tundra, Ford might up the ante. I think the small 1.5Kwh battery pack and CAFE are the culprits. No reason a 550hp or greater version couldn’t be created other than if the transmission can handle the power output. The aviator is 494hp/630lb ft. In grand touring aka powerboost. Another 100hp is quite a jump, but not impossible. Hard to say what the 6.8L will make for power numbers. If 32 valves, 600hp 600 lb ft NA should be easy. Add 50-100hp for powerboost. Even pushrod I would expect 600hp and 600+ lb ft. What is missing is a powerboost Coyote and or ecoboost coyote. Then again, Ford may not be interested in that market segment occupied by the 600hp twin turbo German V8s.

I’m not following the logic here. 2030 would still be 5 model years away. Seems like a regular product cycle to me. I wouldn’t expect any new architectures that couldn’t be electrified, though. Not introducing anything new on the ice front would be dicey as to whether Ford can secure the supply chain for Bev components and demand for electric vehicles keeps pace. By mid to late decade the current products would be quite stale. Better to have something of a plan B using ice. Particularly for traditional customers that are Ford’s base. Otherwise, I see the base being eroded faster to competitors that kept their ice products fresh than the new Bev customers coming on board. Product planning is going to be critical over the next decade or so. Those that get it right will be big winners.

Their stake in Rivian? $5.5B of that loss was a paper adjustment of the value of the Rivian stock. Since Ford didn’t sell, they didn’t really lose anything. It may go up next quarter or down some more. If it does the latter, there will be questions raised about why Ford didn’t cash out early. Could be an interesting shareholder meeting.

Certainly. Similar to getting a remanufactured engine or transmission now. The battery packs themselves are made up of 100s or 1000s of cells. It will be those individual cells that will be replaced on an as needed basis. No need to wait for the technology to settle down. Just keep the specs within tolerance. People are buying the battery packs now to harvest the cells and create their own power walls or refurbish power tool and outdoor power equipment batteries.

It isn’t just lithium. Nickel, cobalt, and rare earth elements for motor magnets all are facing upward pressure. Depending on environmental issues with permits for mines, we may not see a large scale increase and need to find alternative materials. Tesla already uses LiFePo4 batteries in the standard range 3 to cut costs. I’m sure others will follow. They have a lower energy density, but greater charge cycle count for a lower cost.

I think the focus will be on cost reduction and weight reduction. Sure, there will be some that go for the all out range title like Lucid, but the non premium brands will focus on value. The plug your ev in to back feed the grid is still theory. It will take some time to develop the infrastructure. I suspect there will be some sort of parameters to allow users to limit when and how much power can be back fed. Customers would need to opt into the program similar to the cutoff switches on ac units to limit usage during peak demand periods.

I think the shortage will ease up later this year. Nvidia reported some not so good earnings for Q1 compared to expectations and demand is expected to fall throughout the year. Car max also reported fewer sales. Consumer confidence is declining as inflation, rising interest rates, and fear of a recession take their toll. Lower demand in other sectors will free up some chips for automotive use while demand for autos also declines.

This compared to the 5.7? If so, that’s a pretty decent improvement since it generates more power than the 475hp 392 hemi. Every little bit helps.

There is a new zf transmission that goes along with the I6 and supports mild 48v and full hybrid operation. I think Stellantis will be ok. They seem to be electrifying Jeeps left and right.

It’s about getting re-elected. The best thing that can happen to reduce energy usage is higher prices. But, those higher prices upset constituents, and that’s bad for incumbents in an election year.

Or we end up in a Cuba like situation where people keep their ice vehicles forever and don’t make the switch. Mandating a solution that doesn’t work for an individual won’t get them to adopt.