Jump to content

The Ford Order Tracking System Is No Longer Available.  THANKS Cyberdman For Making Available All Of These Past Years.  More Here.

Rick73

Member
  • Content Count

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Rick73 got a reaction from slemke in The Real Reason Why No One Ever Plugs In Their Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles   
    Perhaps wireless chargers could help some PHEVs achieve greater EV utilization provided charger costs are lowered and efficiency improved.  I expect many owners would not want to plug-in after every drive if they make multiple short trips a day.  I know I wouldn’t want to plug-in more than once daily, and predict my wife even less.  A wireless charger on garage floor that kept battery close to 100% SOC between shorter trips could be useful.
     
    I often read comments here about how BEVs will improve in the future, particularly regarding greater range and lower cost, but little is mentioned about possibility of PHEV and HEV also improving from new designs or technologies.
  2. Thanks
    Rick73 got a reaction from rperez817 in Ford Increasing production of Mach E for 2023   
    https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2023/01/30/ford-to-significantly-increase-production-of-mustang-mach-e-in-2.html
  3. Thanks
    Rick73 got a reaction from rperez817 in Ford Increasing production of Mach E for 2023   
    https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2023/01/30/ford-to-significantly-increase-production-of-mustang-mach-e-in-2.html
  4. Like
    Rick73 got a reaction from dmpaul in The Real Reason Why No One Ever Plugs In Their Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles   
    I would not concede higher emissions argument that quickly because some PHEV generate lower CO2 than some large BEV options like the Lightning.  It depends on what vehicles are compared.
     
    The US Government list “average” CO2 from electricity generation at 0.818 pounds per kWh (lowest number I found, some as high as 0.855 pounds/kWh for 2021 per eia), and Ford shows Lightning extended range at 1.93 miles per kWh.  This works out to Lightning above 190 grams per mile just for electricity to drive.  It’s actually higher than that due to electric power transmission losses and many other factors not included in EPA testing.  Energy to manufacture vehicle is also much higher due to large battery.
     
    By comparison, EPA states burning a gallon of gasoline makes “about 8,887 grams of CO2”.  Since there are many HEV and PHEV that exceed 50 MPG, it’s possible to reduce CO2 below 180 grams per mile and at approximately half the cost of typical Lightning.  The best HEV should be close to 150 grams CO2 per mile.
     
    Obviously an HEV or PHEV is not in same class or comparable to the much larger Lightning, but if goal is to do our part to save the planet, a smaller HEV or PHEV can achieve more “today” than large BEVs.  What’s even worse is that some BEVs (Hummer) are up to 9,400 pounds in weight, making them 3 times heavier than a Civic or Corolla.  I mention this only because heavier and heavier BEVs is a growing trend which affects not only their energy efficiency, but also raises safety concerns.
     
     
    Above I used “average” US electricity at 0.818 pounds CO2 per kWh (371 grams/kWh), but if we use worse offender (coal) as I think is the correct way to forecast actual impact on environment in the short term, government data is 2.26 pounds CO2 per kWh.  At that present rate a Lightning generates over 500 grams CO2 per mile.  That’s poor by comparison to available smaller HEV and PHEV.
     
    What makes this topic controversial is not the objective data, but the subjective assumptions one chooses over others.
  5. Like
    Rick73 got a reaction from paintguy in Ford's Disaster: The Pinto   
    Particularly after the 1973 oil crisis a few years later, when fuel economy became a greater priority.  It begs the question of why Iacocca was so insistent on keeping Pinto weight under 2,000 pounds at a time when gas was relatively inexpensive?  It’s possible he anticipated oil shortages and wanted Pinto to have great fuel economy, but seems more likely that US market was showing greater interest in small cars starting in the 1960’s.  Prior to Vega, GM’s attempt to compete with VW Beetle, the Corvair, also ran into safety issues.  Not sure if small and safe can be combined at a reasonable price.
  6. Like
    Rick73 got a reaction from Deanh in How California is preparing its grid to handle the transition to electric vehicles   
    Agree; though I think we should prioritize cutting back (eliminating) coal over BEVs.  That first step accomplishes more with less (less cost, less effort, less time).
     
    The main issue remains that we in US can not directly control other sovereign countries.  How long will our population support spending on CO2 reduction when other countries can offset our gains much easier and faster, and while strengthening their economies at our expense?  It’s truly admirable that California wants to save the planet, but as an example, could they end up running their state’s economy into the ground while China builds more coal plants to support a growing industry?  And it’s not just China.  What about Russia or India?  Are they investing heavily in green energy?   I know it’s not simple because we also use the most, so should cut back more than others.  Just hope we proceed carefully.
  7. Like
    Rick73 got a reaction from rperez817 in Motor Trend 2023 Truck of the Year   
    You called it.
     
    https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2023/01/11/f-150-lightning-wins-2023-north-american-truck-of-the-year--thir.html
  8. Like
    Rick73 got a reaction from PS197TT in Motor Trend 2023 Truck of the Year   
    I would also assume the higher the income, the higher the probability of owning a large BEV requiring greater charging infrastructure upgrades.  I only know well one person who owns a BEV, and he’s rich and only drives a couple of miles to work.  In fairness, he pays a lot more in taxes than I do.
     
     
  9. Like
    Rick73 got a reaction from PS197TT in Motor Trend 2023 Truck of the Year   
    I’m more concerned with who pays for upgrades.  Tesla Megacharger for new Semi as an example is estimated to require over 1 MW, which ERCOT estimates is the “peak” power demand of 200 Texas homes.  Car chargers presently are roughly 1/10 of that.  As long as electrical-infrastructure-upgrade costs are passed on to end users in a fair manner, I do not see a problem.  Where we could run into issues in my opinion is if non-BEV owners end up paying disproportionally for infrastructure upgrades through taxes so that the few who own power-hungry BEVs have access to cheaper and or faster charging.  I expect government could artificially keep charging rates low to promote BEV transition.  If so, that probably wouldn’t go over well with ICE drivers since they would be subsidizing BEV fuel costs and charging convenience.  Regardless of how it is done, some will benefit much more than others.
  10. Like
    Rick73 got a reaction from PS197TT in How California is preparing its grid to handle the transition to electric vehicles   
    It is funny that that was my reaction as well, but with exception study was backwards looking when convenient and forward looking also when convenient.  My objection was they selected the most energy efficient BEV at the time (Tesla 3) for future estimates, and compared to backwards looking historical ICE data which included gas guzzlers.  That approach is biased in my opinion.
     
    Estimates based on comparables, like Tesla 3 versus similar-size hybrids, is better but would yield different results.  Present-day hybrids already achieve twice the fuel economy of what was used in study if I recall correctly (in mid 20s).
     
    Regarding California power generation goals, it seems very optimistic to me.  Regardless, even if they can achieve 100% by 2045, their plans are not necessarily applicable to other parts of country.  In the north, for example, peak solar in winter doesn’t produce nearly as much as in summer, while residential heating is more demanding than air conditioning in summer.  Also, details like heat pumps may not be as effective as in California, so heat may require much less efficient resistance heat.
     
    I like BEVs a lot and don’t doubt California has good intentions.  However, they are not the center of the universe nor should they be seen as a role model for every other state in my opinion.
     
     
     
  11. Like
    Rick73 got a reaction from PS197TT in How California is preparing its grid to handle the transition to electric vehicles   
    That they are not comparable was the point.  As I understand it, in a few years Californians will be able to buy and drive a Cybertruck (or similar) but won’t be allowed to buy a new HEV Prius (or similar).  Obviously these vehicles are not the same and have very different capabilities, but policy does not prevent anyone from buying energy inefficient BEVs and use them to drive to store or their kids to school.
  12. Like
    Rick73 got a reaction from PS197TT in Electric Vehicle Discussion Thread - Ford Related   
    Probably, but betting on the come seems risky to me because solutions may not be as efficient (or affordable) as we need.  I prefer making decisions based on known information, not based on hope that we can dig ourselves out of any problems we create for ourselves.
     
    My personal opinion is that we can accomplish a lot more towards improving the environment if we focus on conservation and upgrading the grid first by removing worst power generators from service as soon as practical.  Adding any load to the grid will just slow the process of eliminating coal, and then natural gas.  Data not only for ERCOT, but total US generation shows that coal plants are based loaded, and additional power peaks are essentially met with natural gas.  Short term I feel we are doing more harm than good.  We may be improving overall, but we are not improving as much as we could be with same effort and cost, so in my opinion we are going about this wrong.  Our priority should be on reducing CO2 in atmosphere, not manufacturing BEVs.  They are not one and the same.  Society has limited resources, and I think emphasizing BEVs that are not actually contributing to lower CO2 all that much today, or in next 5 ~ 10 years or longer, is somewhat misguided.  We can and should do better.
  13. Like
    Rick73 got a reaction from PS197TT in Electric Vehicle Discussion Thread - Ford Related   
    Probably, but betting on the come seems risky to me because solutions may not be as efficient (or affordable) as we need.  I prefer making decisions based on known information, not based on hope that we can dig ourselves out of any problems we create for ourselves.
     
    My personal opinion is that we can accomplish a lot more towards improving the environment if we focus on conservation and upgrading the grid first by removing worst power generators from service as soon as practical.  Adding any load to the grid will just slow the process of eliminating coal, and then natural gas.  Data not only for ERCOT, but total US generation shows that coal plants are based loaded, and additional power peaks are essentially met with natural gas.  Short term I feel we are doing more harm than good.  We may be improving overall, but we are not improving as much as we could be with same effort and cost, so in my opinion we are going about this wrong.  Our priority should be on reducing CO2 in atmosphere, not manufacturing BEVs.  They are not one and the same.  Society has limited resources, and I think emphasizing BEVs that are not actually contributing to lower CO2 all that much today, or in next 5 ~ 10 years or longer, is somewhat misguided.  We can and should do better.
  14. Like
    Rick73 got a reaction from PS197TT in Motor Trend 2023 Truck of the Year   
    Buyers purchase a new vehicle to enjoy today, not in 7 years when infrastructure has improved.  I understand that BEV supporters want the majority of buyers to be altruistic and invest for the future of the planet, but I think most people will do what is in their best interest and will invest in vehicles that have the most value to them at time of purchase.
     
    I want BEVs to succeed, but not through mandates or incentives; it should be on their own by being better than competition.  Tesla sold plenty of cars because buyers wanted them, not because they were forced.  Granted incentives helped, but most Teslas would likely have sold anyway because they initially appealed to wealthy.
     
    Similarly, a buyer should have the option to choose between Lightning and ICE F-150 indefinitely just like they can choose internet speed based on what they need or can afford.  When technology and competition drives costs down, buyers will switch on their own.  The difference now that seems most divisive is that the transition to electric is being forced by government by eliminating choice.  That transition is being forced gradually over 10 or 20 years isn’t the point.
  15. Like
    Rick73 got a reaction from PS197TT in Motor Trend 2023 Truck of the Year   
    Buyers purchase a new vehicle to enjoy today, not in 7 years when infrastructure has improved.  I understand that BEV supporters want the majority of buyers to be altruistic and invest for the future of the planet, but I think most people will do what is in their best interest and will invest in vehicles that have the most value to them at time of purchase.
     
    I want BEVs to succeed, but not through mandates or incentives; it should be on their own by being better than competition.  Tesla sold plenty of cars because buyers wanted them, not because they were forced.  Granted incentives helped, but most Teslas would likely have sold anyway because they initially appealed to wealthy.
     
    Similarly, a buyer should have the option to choose between Lightning and ICE F-150 indefinitely just like they can choose internet speed based on what they need or can afford.  When technology and competition drives costs down, buyers will switch on their own.  The difference now that seems most divisive is that the transition to electric is being forced by government by eliminating choice.  That transition is being forced gradually over 10 or 20 years isn’t the point.
  16. Haha
    Rick73 got a reaction from twintornados in Electric Vehicle Discussion Thread - Ford Related   
    At least ERCOT is moving in right direction, though maybe not fast enough to keep up with Texas population and business growth.  Texas is a business-friendly state by comparison, so I understand why Musk may prefer Tesla be out of Austin. 
     
    In my opinion data for maximum power production can be misleading because solar and wind do not operate at full capacity 24-hours a day.  Installed peak capacity in Texas is much higher than available on average.  Real capacity is reported around 85,000 ~ 86,000 megawatts as far as I know.
     
    You are correct that capacity is tight, so adding millions of BEVs will likely have consequences unless grid is upgraded that much more. 
  17. Like
    Rick73 got a reaction from PS197TT in Motor Trend 2023 Truck of the Year   
    Not all PHEV are extremely expensive if you look at list of top 10 that I posted previously.  One is under $30,000 and a couple more under $40,000, including the Ford.
     
    Regarding European BEV versus PHEV, what is missing is data on HEV.  Another source shows HEV numbers at just over twice those of BEV or PHEV, so if we combine HEV and PHEV (total hybrids), they represent over three times as many vehicles as BEV.
     
    My personal opinion (I have no proof) is that European shortages of electricity and higher costs due to war may affect vehicle purchases.  One graph even showed a recent decline for BEVs.  I would post data but I’m not sure of forum rules.  Information is easy enough to find though.
  18. Like
    Rick73 got a reaction from PS197TT in Motor Trend 2023 Truck of the Year   
    European BEV and PHEV sales are essentially equal for cars according to European Environment Agency.  Data by country varies considerably, but overall it shows buyers have different preferences.  It doesn’t prove either is better than the other, just that there is some demand for both.
     
    https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/new-registrations-of-electric-vehicles
     
     
  19. Like
    Rick73 got a reaction from PS197TT in Motor Trend 2023 Truck of the Year   
    Stellantis is introducing a plug-in Dodge Hornet (later this week?) which suggests PHEV efforts have not been abandoned completely.  Preliminary specs and description are interesting in that it uses 90 kW motor to power rear wheels when operating as a BEV on short local trips, with small 1.3L turbo ICE powering front wheels through a 6-speed-automatic when needed on longer drives.
     
    Electric range is limited, but battery weight is less than 300 pounds.  I’m curious to see what total weight and EPA ratings will be.
     
    https://topelectricsuv.com/news/dodge/dodge-hornet-suv-plug-in-hybrid/
  20. Like
    Rick73 got a reaction from tbone in Motor Trend 2023 Truck of the Year   
    Exactly.  However, a major concern should be that there are many hell-bent on eliminating EcoBoost, Powerboost, and 5.0 V8 choices so that electric powertrain is the only power option left to choose from.  People won’t be able to decide what works best for their own situation when decisions are taken out of their hands.  California’s governor has made it clear that ICE must be eliminated, and wants to do it as soon as possible.
     
    I want BEVs to succeed, but on merit in a competitive market where buyers are not forced by politicians, particularly those they didn’t even elect, to buy vehicles they don’t prefer.  On principle alone Americans should have an issue with a California governor having such influence over other states.
  21. Like
    Rick73 got a reaction from tbone in Motor Trend 2023 Truck of the Year   
    rperez817, while I agree completely that “ideal” is the enemy of “good”, the very same can also be said for the opposite point of view; so to me it doesn’t make a very strong argument either way.  In my opinion the “ideal” of eliminating ICE as soon as possible at any cost to society will limit how much “good” we could do if open to other possibilities.  Shorter-term anyway.
     
    I suggest we could learn from what is happening in Europe, even though their auto and EV markets are different.  Their list of top 50 BEVs suggest smaller size in general compare to NA, which would help keep costs down, yet many buyers feel they are being priced out of market.  Stellantis CEO Tavares has addressed this multiple times even though they are well represented in the top 50 list.
     
    The issue is further complicated when the simplest way to lower BEV costs to make them affordable to the masses is to downsize to tiny urban-size cars which many European feel are unsafe.  Apparently there is some pushback starting to develop there, and they don’t even have to deal with 8,000- ~ 10,000-pound pickups running around neighborhoods.  That some trucks can reach 60 under 3 seconds doesn’t help either when mixed with much smaller vehicles.
     
    I believe small cars like the Mitsubishi BEV would do much better here in NA if buyers were not afraid for their safety and that of their families.  Larger and heavier  trucks will just make matters worse because we will simply shift the minimum acceptable size upward which has detrimental affect on pretty much everything.
     
     
    P.S. — I like Lightning, though don’t need one, but find it a stretch to say it “obsoletes” ICE pickups, at least at this time.  Lightning can’t even replace a RAM 1500 used by a family member of mine to tow a small horse trailer to competitions, and certainly can’t replace Super Duty or Cummins 1-ton trucks for most of what they are required to do.  No doubt it meets many needs, but falls short of many others in my opinion.
  22. Like
    Rick73 got a reaction from tbone in Motor Trend 2023 Truck of the Year   
    rperez817, while I agree completely that “ideal” is the enemy of “good”, the very same can also be said for the opposite point of view; so to me it doesn’t make a very strong argument either way.  In my opinion the “ideal” of eliminating ICE as soon as possible at any cost to society will limit how much “good” we could do if open to other possibilities.  Shorter-term anyway.
     
    I suggest we could learn from what is happening in Europe, even though their auto and EV markets are different.  Their list of top 50 BEVs suggest smaller size in general compare to NA, which would help keep costs down, yet many buyers feel they are being priced out of market.  Stellantis CEO Tavares has addressed this multiple times even though they are well represented in the top 50 list.
     
    The issue is further complicated when the simplest way to lower BEV costs to make them affordable to the masses is to downsize to tiny urban-size cars which many European feel are unsafe.  Apparently there is some pushback starting to develop there, and they don’t even have to deal with 8,000- ~ 10,000-pound pickups running around neighborhoods.  That some trucks can reach 60 under 3 seconds doesn’t help either when mixed with much smaller vehicles.
     
    I believe small cars like the Mitsubishi BEV would do much better here in NA if buyers were not afraid for their safety and that of their families.  Larger and heavier  trucks will just make matters worse because we will simply shift the minimum acceptable size upward which has detrimental affect on pretty much everything.
     
     
    P.S. — I like Lightning, though don’t need one, but find it a stretch to say it “obsoletes” ICE pickups, at least at this time.  Lightning can’t even replace a RAM 1500 used by a family member of mine to tow a small horse trailer to competitions, and certainly can’t replace Super Duty or Cummins 1-ton trucks for most of what they are required to do.  No doubt it meets many needs, but falls short of many others in my opinion.
  23. Like
    Rick73 got a reaction from ehaase in Motor Trend 2023 Truck of the Year   
    In my opinion it is a very complicated problem that too many have oversimplified by thinking that just going electric will accomplish goals.  For example, if not for battery costs that have essentially limited vehicle weight and size, where exactly would the auto industry have taken BEVs in general, and especially pickup trucks that need even more stored energy to tow?  Already we are seeing plans for pickups with 200 kWh of battery capacity or even higher, as if that in itself doesn’t cause additional problems.  Of course the normal reply is that when we achieve 100% renewable energy it won’t matter, but that is not in the foreseeable future based on most published forecasts that predict well over 10 years.
     
    From a technical standpoint I believe energy efficiency does matter significantly,  but as you say buyers want larger vehicles, which coincidentally often lead to higher profits for manufacturers.  As discussed in article below, large vehicles may be what buyers prefer, and what manufacturers want to sell them, but it’s not what is best for the environment.
     
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2022/12/28/elon-musk-tesla-cybertruck-climate-commitment/
  24. Haha
    Rick73 got a reaction from twintornados in Electric Vehicle Discussion Thread - Ford Related   
    At least ERCOT is moving in right direction, though maybe not fast enough to keep up with Texas population and business growth.  Texas is a business-friendly state by comparison, so I understand why Musk may prefer Tesla be out of Austin. 
     
    In my opinion data for maximum power production can be misleading because solar and wind do not operate at full capacity 24-hours a day.  Installed peak capacity in Texas is much higher than available on average.  Real capacity is reported around 85,000 ~ 86,000 megawatts as far as I know.
     
    You are correct that capacity is tight, so adding millions of BEVs will likely have consequences unless grid is upgraded that much more. 
  25. Like
    Rick73 got a reaction from paintguy in Electric Vehicle Discussion Thread - Ford Related   
    My initial concern was that governments will have an easier path to control transportation energy usage by controlling prices.  What would prevent a state like Texas from charging more per kWh, similar to an added tax.  Then I realized they could already add additional tax to gas and diesel just as easily, so not that different.
     
    Where there could be differences is if politicians decided to limit energy usage by charging on a progressive scale; the more you use the more costly it gets per unit.  With gas it’s the same per gallon whether I use 20 or 200 gallons a week.  However, with home electricity use that is metered, I can imagine someone may eventually want to discourage wastefulness.  Not that it’s all bad to conserve, but potentially moving further from free markets makes me a little more hesitant/nervous.
     
×