Rick73

That’s not what I said and you know it. I did say that if Mach E can’t make 300 miles now at the price point with its given battery capacity, and that making it even less aerodynamic will make range even less, and further from 300 miles. I don’t mind anyone disagreeing with me, but having my words twisted around and intentionally misrepresented is a different matter. Contrary to your viewpoint, I am not obsessed with aerodynamics per se; I just happen to understand the effects better than most. I’m suppose to given my education so it’s not surprising I often have a much different view on that subject.

You can not possibly be that goddamn clueless, which makes your response even worse. I wrote my post in simple English and you know that’s not what I said or implied regarding aerodynamics. If you can’t understand simple physics that affects what can and can not be done or accomplished then I suggest you ask for help instead of becoming aggressive. I’m done with your fucking rudeness and bullshit. Enough.

Is that not part of the problem though? The vehicle he wants is not available for under $40k yet, as far as I know anyway. Combination of 300 miles of range, “well equipped” and not too small leads to a vehicle with higher price. Mach E is not the best in aerodynamics already, but if made into more of a traditional SUV its added drag would reduce highway driving range even more. The standard Mach E already falls well below the requested 300-mile wishlist, and we want to make it even worse? IMO it comes down to good things cost a lot, and while engineers can continue to make things more affordable, we also need to reset expectations so they align closer with reality. 😀

A major unknown that limits investment in future technologies and manufacturing is politics. Uncertainty is not the friend of business. I doubt this will change for a few years.

A quick look at Ford Website suggests that that price is based on entry-level variant with smaller battery and much less than 300 miles of range. Doesn’t sound like it meets Sherminator98’s criteria, but if I’m overlooking details please let me know. While on Ford site it seemed that “well equipped” Mach Es easily exceed $50k. I don’t care to argue the point because I don’t have a dog in this fight, and it doesn’t affect me directly anyway. Regardless, what’s more important is that Ford is likely losing money on Mach E sales at the entry-level prices, and if they increase price to make them profitable, sales would decrease further. No doubt Ford can make it a great value by subsidizing costs, but that’s not a longterm solution. Maybe things will turn around soon, who knows?

While I want BEVs to succeed, I’m also extremely objective and look beyond obvious “facts”. Without proper context, facts alone can be misleading in my opinion. You are correct that total BEV sales are increasing, but if most are sold at a loss, it means very little, right? Long term that would not be sustainable. We don’t really know to what degree companies like Ford, GM, Hyundai, VW, etc. are subsidizing their BEVs in order to increase sales volume. We can assume most of these sales are probably not presently profitable IMO. A better indicator or gauge of present-day BEV viability IMO are manufacturers that only build battery electric vehicles because they can not subsidize costs with other profits or investments as easily. When I look at Tesla, Rivian, Lucid, etc., the picture is not quite as bright; not to mention other BEV manufacturers or startups that have failed or will soon. We only have data for one month of sales without tax credits, so it will be interesting to see what happens with manufacturers that can’t simply fund BEVs with profits generated from selling ICEV and HEV. I know profitable BEVs can be designed and manufactured but I’m not sure what percentage of population would buy such vehicles when they are based on present technologies. Wild guess is that at present that number is under 10% if BEVs are not subsidized and must sell at a profit.

Long Before The Chevy Bolt, GM Built An Electric Egg On Wheels Interesting and entertaining short article that highlights how long GM has been working on BEVs, in this case much before EV1. The featured miniature car concept looks a lot like an electrified BMW Isetta knockoff, at least in principle. GM combined the Isetta’s front door with a canopy to make it look cooler, though I’m not sure if easier to enter and exit without banging your head. BEVs sure have come a long ways in last 55 years or so. Too bad engineers of that time did not have lithium batteries to work with. https://www.carscoops.com/2025/11/the-2027-chevy-bolt-could-do-with-some-of-the-gm-512es-pac-man-weirdness/ P.S. — Before some of you get defensive, yes, I’m quite aware Ford had similar projects that date even further back. I’ve posted pictures of incredibly tiny Ford BEVs before.

Can you give us a few examples of BEVs that meet those standards and that you would buy?

Back on topic of why $50,000+ vehicles are not viable, IMO there are probably many reasons, but the two that I see as most important are high costs, which is most obvious, but also that most-expensive vehicles tend to also be the largest and therefore do not address the original goal of reducing greenhouse gases to the same degree as smaller and more energy efficient vehicles. I recall Farley stating during an interview a while back that we needed to change the way Americans view transportation in order to make it more efficient, and I completely agree. Lowering costs not only makes BEV ownership more likely but probably makes those vehicles more efficient at same time, providing even greater benefits. I was recently reminded while reading Renault Twingo specs that size and mass have direct impact on energy requirements and emissions. At only 2,600 pounds it achieves approximately 6 miles per kWh in “City” driving during mild weather, when large EVs weighing close to 8,000 pounds or more have difficult time getting 2 miles per kWh. There must be a viable BEV between these two extremes. I hope Farley and Ford can bring in new electric vehicles closer to 3,000 pounds so they actually accomplish a significant reduction in GHGs. If 8,000+ pounds they might as well not bother.

With due respect, how can we know that what Ford is doing now wasn’t their backup plan all along? Or second backup plan? That’s not to say they haven’t made many mistakes and or that even if they made backup plans that they weren’t ill conceived. I just can’t imagine a corporation as large as Ford would bet the entire farm on electrification without at least considering a safety net. The fact that they are still profitable today means they did a few things right. I give credit for that. 👍 IIRC at least two major changes have occurred since Ford and other manufacturers committed to invest heavily on electrification. One was buyers slowing the adoption rate considerably, in part because BEV economics were tough to justify. EV costs remain high, operating costs are higher than originally thought, depreciation is higher than other options, and the economy lost steam. All these things make buyers question spending more for a BEV when they can make do with an ICEV or HEV at lower cost. The second big change was a new administration that turned the industry on its head by reversing or eliminating some regulations and mandates. In my opinion manufacturers probably don’t know what will happen after the midterms or under next administration so they are likely working on various plans to cover different scenarios. I don’t think that all the announced delays until 2027 and 2028 are a coincidence. In some cases manufacturers are buying time to avoid investing more capital until there is greater clarity and predictability. My 2 cents….

P.S. — Not exactly the same, but similar to when Tesla introduced Model 3 which in some ways resembled much more expensive Model S. After that, sales of Model S plummeted as did their resale value. Again, not exactly the same, but suddenly the image and value of previous luxury vehicle took a big hit.

I believe auto companies, actually all companies, should be careful not to dilute the image and value of their premium brands. I was referring more to the general sequence than to Ford versus Lincoln specifically. Your statement below jumped out at me. Going from affordable to luxury doesn’t seem as damaging to me because at least the new buyers of the luxury vehicle know what’s involved and can therefore price it into their decision. Reminds me of when GM took cheap Chevy Cavalier and upgraded to pseudo-luxury Cadillac Cimarron. Going the other way, however, seems much different to me if I understand your point correctly. If a company takes a luxury vehicle and waters it down to sell at a much lower price point, I believe two things could happen. Firstly, could discourage many prospective buyers of the premium vehicle from purchasing, and secondly, previous owners of the premium vehicles could get pissed and feel betrayed. I would think intelligent owners would figure out that such a move would likely depreciate the value of their vehicle. Just my 2 cents (opinion) since this is extremely subjective topic.

In fairness that includes most people. We all have biases and often ignore facts. It’s unavoidable. As just one example your F-150 ownership probably biases your opinions on Lightning. If we were all 100% rational and unbiased we wouldn’t disagree on anything. 😀

Your logic makes sense from a Ford buyer’s perspective but from the Lincoln buyer’s or owner’s not quite as much IMO.

The reviewer in video I watched said A Segment represents 5% of total market, but also questioned whether that 5% was limited by real demand or more by manufacturers who ignored the segment while pursuing more expensive vehicles with greater margins and profits. Some people think it creates a self fulfilling prophecy. If manufacturers don’t make great small cars because they don’t want to invest limited resources then buyers won’t show much interest in cheap models they do build. It’s one down side to free markets — end user does not always get what they really want because of corporate pressure for higher profits. Thanks for link. Renault is a bigger player in Europe than I was aware of, per article. It’s interesting that Twingo reviewer said car only took 2 years to complete from start. If accurate that’s impressive. I like the Twingo in large part because I always thought BEVs should have started on small side and moved upscale from there, but also know and accept that for Tesla to make electrification commonplace they needed to attract the rich with money to burn first, and then move downmarket. Maybe $30k vehicles won’t be any more successful than $50k-plus-cars that few people are buying. My personal guess is that cheaper will be better, and expect cars like Bolt to outsell more expensive models.