Rangers09

As I have stated a number of times, I am not American and have zero interest using an American Govt website. If I'm looking for information, I'll use the Canadian or UK Govt websites. I also thought this was an open discussion forum where we can freely discuss our experiences. Every time, I post my experiences, as an actual owner of a specific vehicle, you respond with generic stats from a foreign (to me) Govt agency. This time even alleging my information was not factual. I am shocked that we can't post our personal experiences, without a Moderator disputing the facts of every posting. Having also spent over 10 yrs as a Developer/Administrator/Moderator on a couple of RV'ing websites and forums, I find your conduct well below my expectations of these positions. For this reason, can one of the other Admin/Moderators please delete this account, as I will not be using it again

Not where I come from. Definition of "Anecdotal" per the Cambridge Dictionary - Anecdotal information is not based on facts or careful study: Definition of "Anecdotal" per the Oxford Dictionary - not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

Why would I plug my numbers into a hypothetical govt website, which even uses a different size gallon from me, when I am more than capable of getting REAL facts from actually operating said vehicle. I can assure you I am more than capable of tracking and calculating the fuel cost/quantity and reading the mileage off the odometer. Being of an age that recalls calculators being invented, I can even do the calculations the old fashioned way. You have alleged that I provided "Anecdotal" evidence, which generally means that it isn't necessarily true and/or reliable, as it may be based on personal opinion rather than facts or research. Let me review the information I posted: - Capital Cost - virtually no difference between the cost of the PHEV and an ICE equivalent. Our Govt provides rebates for BEV/PHEV, which are claimed by the selling dealer, therefore the purchaser does not pay the additional PHEV cost. This is FACT. Your government's website is totally incorrect when comparing capital cost in my country. - Total fuel cost - since we have only filled it up once in 6 months this one was easy, requiring me to read the single receipt. This is also FACT - Monthly fuel cost wasn't too challenging a calculation and is also FACT - 2019 Escape costs - with my Scottish upbringing, I am well aware of the 2019 Escape's operating costs, so the actual costs stated are FACT. Since we operated the 2019 similar to the current PHEV, I am comfortable that the fuel cost comparison is relevant. Since you clearly don't know me, yeI you alleged I provided anecdotal information, I am be very interested to know which information I provided you consider is NOT true or reliable.

Again, your hypothetical numbers don't reflect our experience, as an actual PHEV owner. Additional capital cost - virtually zero. Total fuel cost in first 6 months of ownership was only CAN $60 and our gas is way more expensive than the US The PHEV costs us on average about $10/month in gas. With DW's 2019 Escape we filled it up about twice per month, at a cost of CAN $170 - $200. Therefore, our PHEV is saving at least $40/week in gas.

About 1989, I bought a new base model Festiva that didn't even come with an AM/FM radio for under CAN $9,000, or under $8K, when converted to US $. Brilliant motor that I put on 200,000 miles before it was stolen.

Their FAQ advises a typical model year has 200 - 300 reports. Hardly a reasonable sample size for F-150 and Super Duty, since they sell that many on average every 1 - 2 hours. I suspect, more replies can be expected from owners with issues than those with no issues. Personally, I've never paid attention to the CR reliability reports.

As a Ford customer for 50 yrs, on a Ford forum, and not being American, I personally don't care about US sales, as a whole. However, I will watch with interest when Ford's November numbers are published and fully expect PHEV/Hybrids to outsell BEV's, again.

Everything I learned in business is the customer is always the first and primary consideration. Conducting any think tank or planning without considering the customer is a futile exercise. When you have a limited resource, you build what the customer wants in the short term, while developing plans for what the customer may want in the future. Building and selling what the customer wants now generates the profit to help develop future products. Since BEV's are currently selling poorly and have no short term profit expectation, surely the best option is to build more PHEV's/hybrids that the customer is currently purchasing in larger numbers and Ford may be at least breaking even, or making a small profit.

As a PHEV owner, I'll suggest that rather than educating on how good electrification is, the real benefit of the PHEV is providing an opportunity for potential BEV customers to gain 1st hand experience with both the pros and cons of an electric vehicle, but still having the engine available, when required. In the general media and also this forum, you have both extremes of opinion regarding BEV's, so prior to purchasing our PHEV, it was very difficult to get a balanced opinion, especially from actual users. Prior to purchasing the PHEV, I did considerable research, having a reasonable idea of the pros and cons, but knowing the engine is always available, is a huge benefit. We have owned it now for 6-months and are extremely happy with our choice. The actual positives and negatives of electric driving are about what we expected, with the pros more positive than expected and the cons more negative. The biggest gain in the pros column is the regen braking. This feature is just way more comprehensive than putting power back into the battery when you touch the brakes. Anytime your foot comes off the accelerator, the car is charging the battery, without touching the brakes. On our 2-week road trip, I drove the 40 miles from the ferry home with the engine in normal operation. Even using the engine, once you take your foot off the accelerator and/or brake, the car is charging the battery. In 40 miles, we had sufficient power to use electric for the final couple of miles. Note - this was not hybrid operation using the engine to charge the battery, this was straight ICE operation, with regen braking charging the battery. I have learned, and am still learning new techniques to maximise the range and/or maximising the efficiency when the battery is low. An example is that in city driving we received a greater charge in hybrid mode than when hybrid driving on a motorway at constant speed. Negatives are mostly around range and charging availability. I expected the range to be reduced in winter, as cold batteries are not as efficient as warm ones. However, even with our temperatures, the range was reduced by about 40% just from temperatures around 0C/32F. Once use of heated seats and steering wheel are added, the range drops by about 50%. This is considerably more than I expected. However, Ford's posted range of 37 miles is well below the 50 miles we get in the summer time. Therefore, I agree that Ford should be offering PHEV/Hybrid options for each model, as per our experience, it is best way to educate customers on the pros/cons of electric vehicle operation, with respect to their needs and uses. As a PHEV owner, we are now more likely to purchase a BEV, but only when they address the limited range, charging infrastructure and charging times. Probably 10 - 15 yrs, at least, before we consider a BEV, but will definitely purchase another PHEV.

Same here, we immediately turn on the heated seats and steering wheel, with the heater set to a comfortable temperature. Might as well be comfortable, as once the battery is dead we have the engine to get us home. Will be interesting to note your results.

Haha, all depends where you live. We are on the North West Coast and normally only get a few days a year below freezing, so for us that is bitterly cold. I can't imagine how much further the range reduces back East.

Even Ford has admitted that BEV Super Dutys are not possible with current technology and are not anticipated in the short/medium term. How many times do you have to be told that a BEV Super Duty is not currently possible. My F-450, nor previous F-350's, are not daily drivers, they are for long trips towing a 16,500 lbs trailer. Minimum range requirement is 500 miles, so it would require towing an additional F-450 loaded with batteries. If Ford could build PHEV Mavericks and Rangers they will sell well, but based on current customer demand, BEV models will probably sit like anchors on dealer lots, along with the thousands of Mach-E's & Lightnings.

Another factor to consider when reviewing range is the ambient temperature, and use of cabin heater. heated seats and heated steering wheel. We are experiencing another week of bitterly cold temperatures of 31-33 F and our Escape's range has been cut in half. So put a camper on the back of a Lightning and drive it in freezing temperatures and the range will be further reduced.

Let me see if I am understanding this correctly. The State Government is implementing a rule that 35% of light-duty auto sales must be BEV by 2026. However, this requirement will NOT impose any requirements on consumers or dealerships. If the rule is enforced then who exactly will be purchasing and selling these vehicles? Only way it can work, if these requirements are enforced, is the manufacturers will need to reduce ICE production and significantly increase building BEV's that many consumers, at present, don't want. Therefore, with reduced availability of the vehicles that are selling, prices and ADM's will increase significantly - supply & demand economics and BEV's, which sit on dealer lots, will become relatively cheaper. Spin doctors may like the voters to believe that there is no direct requirements impacting their options of purchasing a vehicle, but if these requirements are enforced, the indirect requirements will certainly have an impact, especially on those wanting an ICE vehicle. Only a Government could dream up this stuff, as when the complaints start, they will blame the manufacturers and dealers.

We are never going to agree on this one. In addition to our experience, Texasota has also posted their experience, which shows better overall fuel economy than your Govt publishes. Personally, I prefer real drivers experience of actually owning and operating a vehicle, over some generic data published by a Govt agency. Yes, every driver will get different results, so why would you consider your Govt data to be definitive. The Govt CAFE data is only relevant if they use criteria reflecting the average owners usage. If the criteria used isn't consistent with the average user, the data is totally meaningless. Based on the results posted by 2 PHEV owners, your Govt criteria clearly doesn't match our real life use, so do we have unrealistic uses of a PHEV, or is your Govt criteria not relevant to this type of vehicle. Just to confirm, surely they tailor the criteria for each vehicle based on the type of use. Hopefully they don't use the same criteria for my F-450 as they use for the PHEV Escape, as both our vehicles have totally different uses and require different driving styles.