Rick73

It is hilarious that you and a couple of others have convinced yourselves that when others don’t agree with you it must be because they don’t understand your point, rather than they simply think your ideas, information or conclusions are just wrong. You’re not so brilliant I can’t understand what you write; I often just disagree with your point of view because I think you’re wrong. Every single time I think you have changed and become more professional based on latest posts, and I risk communicating directly with you by responding, I end up regretting it. You can not help yourself from adding offensive, insulting and unnecessary language with sole purpose of being disrespectful. And it’s not just with me, you do it to others as well. Why in the world you would do that is the only thing that goes over my head. It makes no sense, especially since you are a moderator and should behave at a higher level.

The silhouette Tesla teased of the Model 2 is not all that different from what has become the modern fastback sedan shape. To me the back end of many modern sedans look very similar, whether it’s a Ford Mondeo, Chevy Malibu, Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Nissans, Kia, etc. I personally don’t see the fastback sedan look as “ugly” but accept aesthetics is extremely subjective. For example, I always preferred the fastback versions of Mustangs going back to my first car, a 1965 bright red Mustang. A fastback roofline “today” contributes significantly to lower drag, which enables higher highway MPG in ICE and hybrid vehicles, and added range in BEV. The electric Mercedes EQS pictured below claims to be most aerodynamic production car, beating out Tesla S and Lucid Air. Obviously for a city car like Fiat 500e aerodynamics isn’t as important due to lower driving speeds and limited required range, but for versatile vehicles capable of longer trips, real-world highway range is still very important. Just yesterday my son told me that if he doesn’t do close to 75 MPH in his Tesla on way to work he could get run over; and that’s inside city limits. Given the distance he commutes to work, added range at high speeds comes in very handy.

Electrification may lead to a different automotive reality when it comes to frequent redesigns because basic shape affects function far more than with ICE or hybrid vehicles. If designers deviate too far from optimized shape, vehicle driving range may be reduced too much due to added highway aero drag. I agree a Tesla Model 2 (if it happens) will likely be very similar to Models 3 and Y. I expect or would like to see a scaled down version of Model Y hatchback roughly size of Civic/Corolla; which to me is not necessarily a bad thing. I know it’s not a direct comparison, but think how similar commercial airplanes can look even when size is vastly different. Obviously they are not sold retail, but appearance still matters and general shape are similar from a small Embraer 170 to Boeing 737, Dreamliner, or 777. What works best works across wide range of sizes. I don’t expect automobiles will follow same trend of looking almost the same, but similarities within a brand seems unavoidable.

Agree a redesign is due, but have no idea of when that might happen. I don’t follow expensive BEVs closely because they don’t make as much sense to me, but recently read that Models 3 and Y account for 96% of Tesla auto sales (not sure if that percent was US, Europe, or worldwide), so I would guess Tesla will not prioritize an S or X redesign. Perhaps it will make most sense when new technology supports a major update. I’ve seen speculation that new batteries like 4680 or faster-charging battery design may be catalyst for a redesign. It seems to me that they presently have bigger issues to solve, though I understand the Model S is their flagship and needs a new and bigger image.

Interesting that Steve Westley, former Tesla board member, in linked video mentions Model 2 as if still in play, contradicting Reuters April 5th report that it had been cancelled. I thought I heard him also say Cybertruck had been a flop, but not sure I heard correctly. From what I’ve read, most analysts agree Tesla needs an affordable Model 2 far more than Robotaxi. Cybertruck was a huge mistake in my opinion, given those efforts and capital investment could have been applied towards a mass-market vehicle for value-conscious buyers.

Greater cause for concern: Reuters reports Tesla to lay off more than 10% of staff globally as sales fall. Stock is down 31% this year, and many analysts have questioned whether cancelling affordable Model 2 was a good decision given it would support future growth. Of course, that assumes Model 2 has indeed been cancelled, and also that if true, that Tesla had a choice about it.

Bringing up 800-Volt charging is a red herring IMO. While true that 800-Volts can deliver higher power, there are plenty of EVs charging at 400-Volts that are much faster in MPH, including most Tesla (Cybertruck may be 800-Volts, not sure, but other models 400-Volts). Even the lowest cost standard-range LFP Model 3 can charge at +/- 500 MPH (real world — seen it myself). I don’t disagree 800-Volts is the likely future, but that’s a different issue. Like I said, Mach-E is not bad, it’s just not great either by comparison to the best, including those vehicles limited to 400-Volt. Obviously there are vehicles that charged much slower like Chevy Bolt. I don’t want to argue, just remain objective.

Extra 20 miles of range is definitely nice improvement, though mentioned charging rate of 10-80% in 36.2 minutes seems slow and not all that competitive compared to some of the latest BEVs. Even with extra 20 miles of range and 20% faster charging, it works out to about 370 MPH. That’s not entirely slow but some competition is doing twice that or even faster. Next generation and faster-charging batteries should reduce charging time considerably.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with your point of view, but when I stated “many” buyers can overlook Fiat 500e’s small size I didn’t mean the majority or vast numbers. By many I meant enough that perhaps the Fiat 500e could be successful for what it is, a niche vehicle, provided driving range wasn’t so limited given the car’s cost. I don’t like the Fiat’s cute factor (to me looks like something very young people would drive, especially females), but its small size doesn’t intimidate me at all. It’s actually larger than before, so no longer all that small except for being very short. I would love the extra free space it would leave parked inside my home’s garage. As I’ve stated in other threads, I think a compact affordable electric car should not be much smaller than a Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla, provided goal is mass acceptance and adoption. And even Civic/Corolla size will limit many buyers who prefer large SUVs.

In above examples, why not include CO2 from all-electric driving during first 30 miles? The first 30 miles are zero “tailpipe” but not zero overall. The table on previous page included data. Obviously 160 MPG is too high since it exceeds all-electric rating. 😂 Just kidding — not trying to nitpick. I also understand your point and it’s time to move on since much of this doesn’t solve biggest problems anyway.

In my opinion many buyers can overlook 500e small size, some actually preferring it, but the limited city-car-like driving range, given the 500e relatively high starting price, will be a deal breaker for far too many prospective US buyers. A small car is where Tesla energy-efficiency expertise is needed most in order to make an affordable vehicle more practical for daily use. Fiat’s website shows 500e having 162-mile city range, and 149-miles combined. From that we can estimate a highway range around 133 miles, and that’s with a lot of slow driving included in EPA Highway test cycle. At actual steady freeway speeds I expect much less than 133 miles of range, which means I could not even drive from my house to airport that I fly out of most often and still have enough charge to get back home. Most buyers won’t consider a car costing +/- $35k that they can’t drive 50 miles out and 50 miles back without worrying about having to charge. Given its small size and 3,000-pound weight, the Fiat 500e needs to be much more energy efficient in order to provide greater highway driving range. It’s another example of why aerodynamics is so important to BEVs. The 500e is not a brick, but not great either.

Fiat 500e might turn out to be a good example that being a smaller BEV is not enough unless price and performance are also appealing to buyers. I’m curious to see how the new Fiat does. It’s definitely much smaller and lighter than a Tesla 3, but starting price is only about $5k lower; MSRP around $34k. With only about 37 kWh of estimated useable battery capacity, city driving range is in order of +/- 150 miles, limiting the 500e to being mostly a City Car. Some buyers may consider the Fiat 500e “cute” or visually more appealing than a Tesla 3, but giving up +/- 100 miles of range, plus quite a bit of acceleration and real-world highway cruising speed just to save $5k seems a lot to ask of buyers. I hope Tesla haven’t cancelled the Model 2 because US needs a compact BEV under $30k, and with a range of about 250 miles. I may be completely wrong, but just can’t see a BEV the size of Fiat 500e appealing to the masses, particularly at $34,000. I’m also curious to see what kind of vehicle Ford come up with for the small low-cost segment.

"I would just stay tuned. Just don't always believe what you read." - Franz von Holzhausen, Tesla Chief Designer Agree it’s hard to know what to believe. Ambiguous remarks can be walked back in a heartbeat. To your point, I think whether it’s good for Ford or not depends on why Tesla is cancelling Model 2 (assuming report is correct to start with). If Tesla is cancelling Model 2 because they suddenly realized they can’t build it for anything near $25k, or that what they can build for $25k is so undesirable few would buy it, or that profitability is so low that cannibalized Model 3 and Y sales would do more harm than good, then I’m not sure Ford can do much better. On the other hand if Tesla is temporarily canceling Model 2 because they don’t have the funds to support the investment (due to weak 1st quarter sales) or because their resources are stretched too much with Cybertruck issues and or getting Robotaxi going ahead of Model 2, then it could be a great opportunity for Ford and others to get ahead on smallest of BEVs. I personally think Tesla made a huge mistake by designing Cybertruck instead of Model 2 years ago, though at that time Models 3 and Y were selling faster than they could build them, so need for smaller and cheaper car wasn’t as obvious back then.

Petrol hybrid getting 134 MPG equivalent, or 4 miles per kWh on electricity may be overstated, making discussion somewhat interesting, but at end of day, making source of electricity greener seems most important. Differences between countries, for example, really highlight that going electric in France is almost 10 times lower CO2 than Germany (only considering charging, not vehicle manufacturing), and even less when compared to Poland. France has been heavily dependent on nuclear and it is reflected in much lower CO2 per kWh.

A great way to discourage that kind of behavior is to enforce laws. It was reported last night that Dallas PD issued arrest warrants for Rashee Rice and Knox associated with their street racing and subsequent crashes. Assuming they are found guilty, much will depend on punishment. Too little and it will just encourage more of the same.

On subject of energy independence, we presently have a good supply of natural gas, and Cummins is making engines available for various single fuels. The B6.7 will run on diesel, natural gas, gasoline, and propane. It would seem the large X15N natural gas engine could compete with battery-electric semi on long haul applications, and or reduce dependence on oil. Below is from new X10 engine line that will replace the L9 and X12 engines, intended for medium and heavy duty trucks. ABOUT THE FUEL AGNOSTIC PLATFORM The engine is built on Cummins’ fuel agnostic platform. These new fuel-agnostic engine platforms feature a series of engine versions that are derived from a common base engine, which means they have some parts commonality. Below the head gasket of each engine will largely have similar components and above the head gasket will have different components for different fuel types. Each engine version will operate using a different, single fuel. Cummins is offering a full portfolio of products in 2026 to cover the medium-duty and heavy-duty customer needs, including the new 15-liter natural gas engine, the X15N. Additionally, the B6.7 will be offered in diesel, natural gas, gasoline and propane.

That’s what I said, right? However, I honestly think society is changing its views on personal responsibility (NOT THAT I LIKE IT OR AGREE WITH IT — PLESE KEEP THIS PART STRAIGHT). I can see two sides of an argument while only agreeing with one. 😆 It’s the same reasoning used for some weapons being legal. If some were made illegal, how about knives that can also kill, or hammers, 2X4s, etc.? I agree the act of murder should be illegal, not so much what weapon is used. Having stated the obvious, as far as I know it’s illegal to own certain weapons that are deemed too dangerous to society, even if owner was responsible, law abiding, and kept it secure. If pragmatic, we have to admit extremes exist. It doesn’t matter what I think personally, but I’d bet there are plenty of lawyers who will argue that building any car with 1,000 HP is knowingly irresponsible. Would some argue that a 500 HP sports car is also too dangerous? I would guess some lawyers do, and it’s just a matter of time before it ends up in court, if it hasn’t already.

Agree that’s direction heavy trucks may be headed, though for over the road applications, I think a modified series hybrid system may be used where a clutch will connect diesel engine directly to drive wheels once truck reaches cruising speed. That greatly reduces generator and electric-motor losses. A similar approach is being used in some hybrid automobiles which further increases highway fuel effficiency.

You cite an obvious abuse of the legal system, but can you see or imagine the flip side at all? A similar occurrence last week had an NFL football player racing a Lamborghini at very high speeds through Dallas, causing a wreck that left some innocent people injured. Fortunately no one was killed as far as I know. Question I have is whether Rashee Rice is 100% guilty/responsible, or did others also contribute? The conservative in me says he must be only one held responsible for the greater good of society, but my common sense questions whether this is like idiot parents giving a loaded gun to their disturbed child who then kills innocent school children. Not an exact parallel, but I think you see my point. Playing Devil’s Advocate, when a manufacturer designs and builds a 1,000 HP car, they can claim drivers should only race them on a track, right? Kind of telling your sick kid to only use gun at shooting range. Does that free them of consequences? In my layman’s opinion, an attorney could argue that practically all Lamborghini will be raced illegally on the streets, and manufacturer should know better than design such a menace. Attorneys for Lamborghini would then argue that essentially all cars are driven illegally at some point. Most things are not black and white, but some shades of grey are close enough to draw the line.

There can be quite a bit of weight difference when comparing similar power levels. The diesel Cummins 6.7L is just under 1,000 pounds, which makes it very close to Ford Power Stroke. By comparison, the gasoline 7.3L Ford V8 is “about” 400 pounds lighter. Adding emissions equipment and other mass to mitigate diesel differences makes a similar diesel pickup up to 700 ponds heavier. Granted, diesel has higher GCWR even when gasoline has equal power rating, suggesting diesel engines are designed to work at higher percentage of rated power for long periods. Regarding engine speed, part of reason large diesel engines run much slower than gasoline is that they often have much longer stroke. When comparing engines, piston speed can often be more useful than RPM. The Cummins has a 124 mm stroke (4.88 inches) which is considerably longer than Ford 7.3L gasoline at 101 mm (3.98 inches). Basically, the Cummins at 3,200 RPM (max shown on chart) is equivalent in piston speed to Ford 7.3L gasoline at 3,900 RPM, which happens to be where commercial power rating was limited. Obviously piston speed is just one limitation in that diesel fuel injection, relative to gasoline engines, can also limit RPM, particularly in smaller engines. Anyway, it’s not unusual for diesels to have a lot more torque than power compared to gasoline engines.

That’s not a given, or a fact. Repeating this assumption doesn’t make it so. I’m replying here solely for benefit of others.

The 300 was close to maxed out in displacement, so it couldn’t be enlarged much anyway. I’ve read articles of engines being bored and stroked slightly, but not enough to make a difference in this context of powering large trucks and other heavy vehicles. It would be limited to approximately 5 liters (from original 4.9L). As much as I would personally like to see Ford create a new large-displacement inline-6 for trucks, I think there is essentially no chance of that happening. It would simply have too little application because of physical size. An inline-6 variant of 7.3L V8 would yield 5.5 liters, and maybe could be stroked to 6-liters, but without turbocharging it would be going in wrong direction compared to already-available 7.3L V8. Other than designing a gas version of Power Stroke diesel V8, a lower-cost option may be a +/- 6-liter EcoBoost twin-turbo V8. Maybe Ford could resurrect the long-stroke tall-deck Modular V8 to make a new truck-specific engine. That same architecture minus turbos could also serve as naturally-aspirated engine for large hybrids, thereby spreading cost over greater volume. Even if possible to design a long-stroke Coyote-based EcoBoost V8 for trucks, I doubt it would be considered. It would likely compete well on power, torque, fuel economy and cost with new Cummins, but perceived ruggedness and durability would not be competitive in my opinion.

That’s what I meant; there’s huge difference between designing limited production $300k supercars where profitability may not even be much of an issue, and designing budget-oriented $25~30k profitable BEVs for mass appeal. I’ll be first to acknowledge talent is talent, so let’s hope for the best possible outcome.

The Cummins 6.7L gasoline engine is listed with power ratings from 220 to 325 HP, which is already matched by Ford 7.3L V8. I think the bigger issues are torque ratings, which Cummins list at 600 and 660 pound-feet, and durability, whether real or perceived. I am not a big fan of turbo gas engines because they don’t deliver the economy they were originally suppose to, but there is little doubt they deliver much greater torque for a given engine displacement, and also much higher power and torque at high elevations compared to naturally aspirated engines. The famous Ford 300 cubic inch inline six you mention were only good for about 150 HP in later years, so while they had great reputation, they were very underpowered by today’s standards. As a teenager I got to drive a couple in F-600 trucks and they were no comparison to the Ford V10 I owned in a motorhome, and the newer and simpler 7.3L V8 is even better. It will be interesting to see which customers the new Cummins attracts.

You're correct, but question now is whether they can deliver value in an affordable vehicle, which are nearly very opposite of these two cost-no-object examples. I hope they can, but wonder if previous success is applicable under very tight budget. Anyway, Ford Authority suggest prototype may be seen this year. https://fordauthority.com/2024/04/low-cost-ford-ev-prototype-will-hit-the-road-this-year/ On topic of new affordable BEV, Reuters last week reported Tesla had cancelled the $25k Model 2, which sent Tesla stock down considerably. Musk then quickly denied and accused Reuters of lying again. Just suggesting that when it comes to an affordable BEV, much is still up in the air, including what Chinese vehicles may make it to North America (north of Mexico anyway, since there already).