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.

Around town, we are 100% electric except for the couple of days the temps hit almost freezing. Our road trip was only to Victoria for a couple of weeks, so of our 1,550 miles about 3/4 of them are electric. Another factor giving a higher mpg is that I was brought up with the Imperial Gallon, which is bigger than the US Gallon. Although Canada is metric, I still work in Imperial Gallons and miles.

As a owner, based on our actual experience, I again dispute that the difference between an HEV (not PHEV) and a similar 2.0L ICE Escape is not that great. Based on a road trip with the 23 PHEV Escape last summer, we had no ability to plug it in and charge, therefore it was operated entirely as an HEV. During the 2 week trip, we used about 1/2 tank of gas, whereas the 2019 Escape would have used 2 tanks of gas for the same trip. Didn't calculate actual fuel used, so this is based on the car's fuel gauge. So again, in our actual experience, in HEV Mode, the Escape does get significantly improved mileage over a 2019 2.0L Escape. The difference between our 2018 1.5L Escape and the 2019 2.0L Escape was < 1 mpg.

Those figures are all hypothetical, here is some real data and facts from an actual Escape owner, comparing a 23 PHEV and a 19 Titanium. Capital Cost Yes, the PHEV costs more than a similar ICE Escape, however our Govt does not provide grants to ICE vehicles. The $7,000 we received from the Federal & Provincial Govt are deducted at the dealership, therefore the net additional capital cost for purchasing an Escape, was virtually zero. Therefore, in our case, the Escape did NOT cost $5K more. Fuel Economy We have now driven the vehicle for about 1,550 miles and recently filled the tank for the first time. It took 6.6 gallons, most of which was used during a road trip where charging wasn't available. This provided a very respectable 230.5 mpg. In similar driving conditions, DW's 2019 Escape got about 23.7 mpg CO2 Based on our current mileage of 1,550 and 6.6 gallons of gas, I believe we have contributed about 150 lbs of CO2 with the gas use. Since our local power is over 98% hydro and other renewables, we do not contribute any CO2 from our electric use. DW's 2019 Escape would have used about 65.4 gallons of gas for a distance of 1,550 miles. I note this is based on actual driving results when using that vehicle, not some hypothetical EPA estimate. Her previous Escape would have contributed 1,486 lbs to cover 1,550 miles. Therefore our CO2 savings are 1,336 lbs with a distance of 1,550 miles. Since the annual CO2 figures are probably based on 12,000 miles, when I extrapolate our results, I get an actual CO2 savings of 4.6 tons. Considerably higher than your stated 1.2 tons. Fuel Cost Our total fuel cost for the 1,550 miles was $51.87. With the 2019 Escape, the fuel cost would have been $514, so our savings were $462.13. When calculating our electricity cost, I used our higher rate of 14.08c per kWhr, coming up with a cost of $69.84. In 5 months, we have only driven 1,550 miles and still saved almost your stated annual savings of $400. Since the annual savings are again probably based on 12,000 miles, extrapolating our savings to date, our annual savings should be $3,037.08. These savings are also realise without any increased capital cost. I am aware that others will experience different results based on driving habits, electricity/fuel costs and Govt grants, but these are facts based on currently owning a PHEV Escape and previously a 2019 ICE Escape.

We have similar Govt grants. In BC, we receive CAN$ 9,000 from the governments for purchasing a BEV. This isn't a tax credit, it is a rebate available to all, which is applied at time of purchase. The dealers claiming the money directly from Govt. Even with this level of rebates the BEV's are still not selling.

Our local dealer has 32 mach-e's on the lot, with only 2 of them having green window stickers. They have 30 dealer stock, sitting on the lot like anchors, not because they don't know how to sell them, more that the average car buyer doesn't want them. They also have 7 F-150 Lighning with blue stickers sitting on the lot. Big turn around from a couple of years ago, when my Sales Manager mentioned his personal customer base had ordered 150+ Lighning and Ford gave them an allocation of 10. In our local experience, the article you posted is certainly not factual, as a couple of years ago, our local dealer was selling huge quantities of both Mach-E and Lighning, unfortunately Ford couldn't build them, so few were actually delivered. Now as BEV shortcomings are more widely known, the market has significantly reduced. The local dealer knows how to sell them, it is just that few car buyers are now interested in purchasing them. However, with HEV/PHEV, they can't get enough of them.

Don't know about the US, but tidal flow generating has been tested and/or in place in both UK and Canada. South Korea and France also have active projects. Prior to leaving UK in the 80's they were also testing wave energy generating, in addition to tidal action, but I haven't followed up on progress, so don't know if they have any active projects.

And that isn't a dually, or a long box

Not much difference in the Great White North. When I take the F-450 to the mall, it normally requires 4 spaces. The spaces are only as wide as the truck and with the front bumper at the front of the spot, the rear tires are on the back line, so I hang into the space behind by about 3 feet. Couldn't open the doors if I only used 1 spot.

Will be very interesting to see the safety regulations for installing BEV chargers at active gas stations. I expect they will require a minimum clearance of at least 30 - 50 feet from the pumps, vents and tanktops. Electrical devices and hydrocarbon vapours are a dangerous combination, especially when the concentration is between the LEL & UEL. Back in my days on tankers, zero electrical devices were permitted on deck, unless low powered and certified as intrinsically safe.

It has been many years since I worked with the accountant categorising operational and capital expenses. Based on my business experience, Ford's investments in BOC and battery plants are capital investments, which should not show on the operational ledgers until after completion. Once a capital project is completed, the following year the capital costs are recorded annually as depreciation expenses. Capital project progress payments are recorded as assets. Therefore, the only costs impacting the currently selling BEV's should be their development costs and any production modifications, for those vehicles. Those capital costs are expensed as depreciation, based on the anticipated longevity of each model. US accounting rules may differ, but I can't see how the capital costs for BOC & the battery plants are impacting the profitability of the current BEV's. Hopefully a Chartered Accountant can confirm either way.