bzcat

Y competes with Mach E. They are both D-segment vehicles in Europe. This Explorer EV is C-segment. Tesla 2 will compete with it but it is still at least a year away. Probably more.

600k annualized rate by end of this year. Which means that Ford expects to produce or sell 50k EV a month by end of this year. And that number is global not US. Ford is expecting a ramp up of Mach E and Transit Custom EV sales this year. Plus the EU Explorer should hit the road in Q3.

This should be a very good and successful replacement for Focus. You can see how Ford has really made this its own despite using the MEB platfrom. Remember last year Farley said more Ford nameplates will become sub-brands? We thought it was a trial balloon to see if Escape EV will be named Explorer Sport (or something like that) but he really actually mean he will use the Explorer name on a bunch of different models.

MEB is the hardware platform and it is staying. SSP is the software platform which will have 3 versions (Trinity, Apollo, Artemis) with different features depending on price point. This is what all the car companies are doing as well. In the future, the hardware platform is not going to be as important (you can even outsource it - e.g. buy turnkey VW MEB or Foxconn platform) but the software is where the differentiation happens.

MQB is VW's transverse ICE platform. It's like Ford's C2 platform. MLB is VW's longitude ICE platform. It is like Ford's CD6 platform. MEB is VW's small to midsize EV platform, it is intended to replace MQB vehicles as they transition to EV. PPE is VW's large size EV platform, it is intended to replace MLB vehicles as they transition to EV. MEB and PPE are the hardware. They will be using the same same software platform (SSP) by 2024, starting with the Porsche Macan EV and Audi A6 eTron.

Ford tests all kinds of Chinese models here too doesn't mean they are coming here. Previous gen Transit Custom launched with FWD only 2 wheelbase and 2 roof height. You had to step up to the big Transit to get AWD. E-Transit Custom is indeed RWD. I wonder if it is the same basic drivetrain package as E-Transit.

Maybe fullsize in Japan but not anywhere else. Hiace has always been about the same size as other midsize vans like VW Transporter and Transit Custom. Toyota doesn't sell a Euro/US fullsize van. The two commercial vans it offers outside North America and Europe: Liteace/Townace ~ Transit Connect Hiace ~ Transit Custom The "Toyota Van" from the 1980s that was sold in the US was an earlier generation of Townace. In Europe, Toyota now sell rebadged Stellantis van and no longer offers its own vans Proace City (Citroen Berlingo) ~ Transit Connect Proace (Peugeot Expert) ~ Transit Custom

European van markets are not distorted by CAFE footprint and EPA emission cutoff at 8500 lbs GVWR. This is why Ford can offer 4 vans in different sizes. (it is distorted in other ways - e.g. CO2 emission targets and displacement based taxes that favors diesel over gas) I have explained the problem with Transit Custom before... it is in no-man's land in terms of GVWR. It is about 80% size of Transit but it is under 8500 lbs cutoff so it is subject to light duty vehicle emission. Ford would rather just sell you a Transit T150 (which at 8505 lbs is actually a class 2b like F-250) which places it in less stringent emission class and weighted impact to CAFE. And chances are if you want a van in Transit Custom size, you can easily make do with a Transit so Ford doesn't want to bother. And this is reflected in how fleet managers make the decision... midsize vans have never sold well in the US because you can "abuse" a full size to do the job without much cost penalty. This is why VW and Toyota don't want to sell Transporter and Hiace (the two best selling work vans outside the US)... it just doesn't make sense in the US given the emission and CAFE regulations. Transit Connect made sense because it is physically small, which means there is actually a big demand in urban area for such a small van. You can't "abuse" a full size Transit to do the job of Transit Connect if you don't have the physical room (e.g. tight parking, low garage roof etc). The business case for Transit Connect is fundamentally sound. Ford went as far as sending out RFP for Tier 1 suppliers for a new generation based on Maverick only to cancel it because it can't keep up with demand as is. https://nhcleancities.org/2016/04/various-vehicle-weight-classes-matter/

Transit Connect is still on sale in Europe. Ford extended the production in Spain until next year. Tourneo Connect is the passenger version and it did switch over to become rebadged Caddy. It's part of the Ford-VW commercial vehicle alliance in Europe. Ford will start supplying VW with Amarok pickup truck later this year. Ford will replace Transit Connect with the new Transit Courier which will be bigger than the current one. Sales didn't evaporate. Supply did. The three vans in the market all had supply circumstance change related to corporate decisions and nothing to do with actual demand. Ford pulled back when it lost the Chicken Tax court case. It was going to make a new one based on Maverick in Mexico but cancelled it because Hermosillo cannot keep up with demand on Bronco Sport and Maverick. And Nissan withdrew from fleet sales so it ended production of NV200 in Mexico (and the fullsize NV2500/3500). Ram PromasterCity's days are also numbered because Stellantis has replaced Fiat Doblo with a rebadged Citrone Berlingo which is not Federalized - the CKD operation in Mexico will end once they run out of stock.

1 in 5 vehicles sold in California last year was EV (in the 4th quarter, EV+PHEV was 1 in 4 sales) so we are already passed the early adopter stage. in 2017, EV sales was about 3% of total sales in California so basically California is 5 years ahead of the rest of the country. So I can see Ford comfortably selling 1/3 BEV and 2/3 ICE/hybrids by 2030. Perhaps even 1/2... but to say 2030 Ford will reach 100% EV sales in the US is bit aggressive. A lot will depend on how good the Explorer and next gen Lightning are... I hope that 24 months delay on Explorer is worth it. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/zero-emission-vehicle-and-infrastructure-statistics/new-zev-sales https://insideevs.com/news/651899/california-plugin-car-sales-2022q4/

Fairly certain Ford just doesn't want Toyota to know the final specs for US Ranger so they have less time to react and tweak the new Tacoma.

Well... Ford sold 624 last month and has 1300 in stock so roughly 2 months worth of sales. It will functionally be sold out by start of summer but I'm sure we will see a couple of random registrations throughout the rest of the year. Huge jump in Transit delivery this month! Edge just keeps on trucking despite one foot in the coffin. Keep waiting for that Mach E production bump to take over from Edge... so far not happening. Escape sales have fallen off the cliff. I thought it was due to the facelift and lack of inventory but seems like Ford is just choosing not to build any. Bronco Sport inventory level is actually higher than Escape now thanks to that extra shift at Hermosillo. Ranger sales probably hit rock bottom due to end of production and shifting of volume over to Bronco. 2024 launch is right around the corner.

Flex fuel got a CAFE bonus that ended after 2019 model year so no one is making new flex fuel vehicle anymore. We just have hold over from cars that were engineered from the time when the CAFE bonus was in effect.

USPS also buys lots of ICE Transit but just not on this particular tender.

I'm sure Ford can make them RHD if USPS really wanted them that way.

25% tariff probably makes the whole thing moot Ford probably did plan to import it when it made the decision to only build it in China. But the business case probably doesn't make sense if the Trump tariff doesn't get repealed.

Helps to keep in mind that Explorer will become an EV in 18 months and Ford China is probably not planning to sell the CD6 Explorer until 2035 like Ford US is planning to do... So Edge L is the ICE replacement for Explorer while Explorer will move on as EV in China. Don't forget, Ford also has Equator which is also the same size. So 3 same size SUV, at least for now. It will change in 2024 when the Explorer EV comes out. Equator (value) Edge (mainstream) Explorer (premium, soon EV)

Lighting is TE1 platform. E-Transit will not use TE1 for sure. Ford already said TE1 will not make it to Europe. Ford hasn't said much about which platform next gen Transit will use but the new Transit Custom that was just revealed (ICE and EV) uses the current FWD version of the Transit platform. I think as long as Ford is still producing ICE Transit, they will stick with the existing platform. The first clean sheet E-Transit will come when the ICE van market is finished... that won't happen for a while. https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/09/12/all-new--all-electric-e-transit-custom-from-ford-pro-is-set-to-s.html https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/feu/en/news/2022/11/22/ford-pro-reveals-all-electric-e-tourneo-custom-multi-activity-ve.html

Seems like a strange article to be writing about van sales and exclude Sprinter. GM's sales increase basically tracked Nissan's decline. If you want a thirsty V8 in your van, you only got one place to go now. I'm really curious about the E-series update posted up thread.

They already have Expedition Timberline. Tremor is for pickup trucks. The equivalent of Tremor for SUV is Timberline. If they are really doing a Raptor, seems like it should have F-150 Raptor's engine... so the high output version of 3.5 EB. Should be interesting.

Goon squad is just kidding... I'm all for good discussion. EV is going to be the most practical solution. But doesn't mean it is the only solution. ICE hybrids will probably still be around for a long time. And syn fuel is probably the long term solution to keep vintage cars on the road once fossil fuel production becomes too expensive for gasoline to be practical for consumer use. We used to use whale oil to light our buildings and streets... until it became too expensive and impractical.

Soft top only with 3 rows of seats! ?

Cyclone and Nano V6 were designed when Ford was still using FWD transverse V6 architecture (D2 and CD4). Currently, once the Edge and Nautilus bites the dust, all the V6 applications are longitude (F-series/Expedition, T6, CD6, S650, Transit). If they are making that decision now, they probably would have gone with I6 that share the same 500 cc cylinder walls with I3 and I4 - i.e. the same strategy that BMW and Mercedes have chosen to produce all the engines in a shared facility: 1.5 I3 2.0 I4 3.0 I6 Would they do that now? Seems unlikely... Nano already meet and will meet the next phase of emission targets so no reason to chuck it out just to be able to make them in the same factory as the I4. But Farley has killed many sacred cows so I wouldn't rule it out completely. Do we know if Cyclon and Nano production sites are used for something else?

Just a guess... Ford wanted to use 2.7 in F-150 so there was bigger budget to support development of dual port and direct fuel injection. 3.0 was never contemplated for F-150 so only enough budget to program direct fuel injection. Also, a big part of any powertrain development decision is the cost of certification and emission compliance. The nano was originally designed with just DI so the 3.0 probably already gone thru EPA and CARB certification before Ford allocated engineering budget to PFDI for 2.7 with F-150 program's deep pockets paying for it. Just a theory.

The very short version is that electric motors produces near max torque as soon as it start spinning so it doesn't need gears to amplify the output. ICE motors need gears because the way it produces power. Electric motors do not need gears to be efficient. They can use gears, but only to amplify the output even more, which most EV do not need. They are terrifyingly fast already. But using gears means lost of power thru the conversion so EV becomes less efficient. Since they do not need the amplification of output, there is no reason to use gears which only reduces efficiency. Think of it this way... If you have a wood burning fireplace, it is more efficient to add more wood to it and keep it burning rather than extinguish the flames and start the fire again when it gets cold 2 hours from now. But if you have a gas fireplace, you just turn it on and off as you wish. You don't ask why we don't add more wood to the gas fireplace to keep the flames alive because that is not how gas fireplace produces heat.