bzcat

First impression... not bad. Clearly Bronco family styling cues. But not clear if it is PHEV... didn't see charging port.

Leaked: https://club.autohome.com.cn/bbs/thread/460bc0f671a6113a/112249075-1.html#pvareaid=3454614 The badge on the tailgate confirms it is a Jiangling Ford product (not Chang'an Ford). So probably not a C2 vehicle... likely on whatever platform Equator Sport/Territory is using. Unless of course it is actually the next gen Bronco Sport... in which case, it is probably C2. But Jiangling Ford does not have any existing C2 production site.

Gravity and batteries are both around 80% roundtrip efficiency. The problem is batteries will degrade overtime while gravity like pump hydro will remain constant for the most part. So depending on your time horizon, gravity has many advantages. But the upfront investment is much higher than batteries. Basically, you can assume 50 year life on a dam and 10 or 15 year life on battery farm. But batteries are so cheap and building a dam or a gravity tower so expensive, that you can assume batteries will be completely replaced 3 or 4 times during that 50 years and it still comes out more cost efficient. On per kwh basis, batteries are hard to beat right now.

All of the above approach is of course the right answer. There is a lot of startups focused on compact nuclear reactors that is the size of a 40ft container. The idea is to provide grid resiliency and meet localized demand peaks instead of providing massive grid-level base load of traditional nuclear power plant. e.g. think about all those AI data centers in rural areas drawing 20 or 30x more power than the town it is in.

It depends... If you do not factor in the environmental costs (building dams is not exactly easy on the environment), kinetic (gravity) storage can have lower costs and last longer and have better roundtrip efficiency than chemical (battery) storage. However, landforms that are ideal for gravity storage also tends to be environmentally sensitive. There is also a physical limitation... gravity storage releases its energy by applying mass x acceleration. And the acceleration is being motivated by gravity. You can create bigger mass but you are still limited to 1g of acceleration, at least on this earth. And of course there is a practical limit to the size of the mass: you can only build a dam so big or weights so heavy beyond a point it is not economical anymore. Battery capacity have become very cheap very fast (way faster than even the most rosy projections from 4 or 5 years ago) which is why gravity storage solutions have not taken more market shares. Much cheaper to just add more batteries to whatever storage needs you are trying to solve. Bottom line... battery = easier to scale

Why aren't we talking about styling direction for Transit? 😆 It is the most iconic Ford. Certainly the one that is sold in most places.

Certainly it would be a lot cheaper and more effective for VW to replace ID.4 and Q4 with R2 based product. Especially if they are made in the US given the tariff on new cars will probably never go away even with a new administration.

This is not surprising. 1. It is the cheapest Ford you can buy 2. It has no real competition 3. Ford doesn't have an alt-sedan to compete in-house for these same buyers 4. It is a very good idea and executed well... shocking competence from Ford all around

I used to drive with my sunroof open all the time when I was younger. Sunroof was one of the things that I must have in any car. Now I occasionally tilt it open to vent out hot air while parked under the sun and rarely ever have it open while driving. Most of the time, they just produce too much noise compared to my old cars. I have a theory that as cars got more aerodynamic, car companies are finding it more difficult to keep the noise of air turbulence down which is leading to consumer dissatisfaction. Basically the cars are so slippery now that air flows are sticking very close to the roof and a hole in the roof is producing too much noise. Whereas when cars were not as slipper in the old days, the air flow further above the roof so a hole doesn't cause so much disturbance. The noise is then causing consumer dissatisfaction in things like JDP survey. Also, I'm pretty sure open sunroof causes a dent in the fuel economy. CAFE target is calculated using the most popular configuration so even a tiny 0.1 MPG hit is going to have significant consequences for CAFE target calculation. So getting rid of open sunroof scores two positives for car companies... less noise complaints and better CAFE results. And like I said, because new car sunroofs are generally more noisy than old car with sunroofs, more people keep them closed anyway. It's an easy win from car company's perspective which is why they are all getting rid of it and offering fixed glass roof instead.

I have two guesses on E-Transit. First educated guess is Ford completed delivery of a large fleet order E-Transit in Q1 or Q4 last year so sales have fallen on year over year basis. Amazon and FedEx each ordered a bunch and maybe one of the order is fully delivered. Second educated guess is Ford is supporting the Oshkosh NGDV so it is reducing E-Transit availability. USPS revised the order in 2024 to increase the EV so Ford probably caught flatfooted and decided to prioritize delivery of drivetrain components to Oshkosh and therefore reducing the E-Transit.

You are probably right, CAFE is always the answer. If Ford expects Tremor buyers to opt for the 3.0, they have to reduce the 3.0 volume from somewhere.

I have only seen 2 Explorer Platinum in the wild so it is not a popular choice to begin with and having two engine choices for such a low volume trim didn't make sense. However, I would have kept the 3.0 and nuked the 2.3. Force the upsell for people who wanted the kitchen sink edition.

Every decision Ford has made about this gen Escape has turned out to be questionable at best and downright baffling for the most part. It's really crazy how much they got wrong compare to RAV4 or CR-V. From the beginning they made the car too small and saddled it with a cheap interior. All the way to the end axing the car, which is in the biggest selling volume segment, without a proper replacement.

It was originally planned to end in 2025. I guess Ford just didn't have time to get 2026 CARB certification done (or choose not to because expected short model year). Otherwise identical (from emission standpoint) Maverick and Bronco Sport are still for sale in CARB states so that tells you all you need to know.

US spec Ranger 2.3T makes 270hp and the same engine is rated 185hp in AUS spec PHEV (without the PHEV part). I'm sure Ford didn't detune it by 30% 😆 The AUS spec PHEV is rated at 207KW which is 278hp. Crazy coincidence that PHEV and ICE Ranger have almost the same hp rating? Right... 🙃 Ranger PHEV is Ford Australia's greenwash vehicle and is being closely watched by the Govt regulators since Ranger is either #1 or #2 selling vehicle in AUS and NZ. Australia introduced a new system similar to CAFE where car companies will be fined if they go over some kind of corporate fuel economy target. It's what it says on the spec sheet but some website or magazine will be able to do some 0-100 km/h or 1/4 mile test and strap it to a dyno and we will find out soon enough. US spec Ranger 2.3T does 0-60 mph around 6.5 seconds in various tests. I will take the under if I'm a betting man when an Australian magazine or website do their test on Ranger PHEV.