Electric Vehicle Discussion Thread - Ford Related

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, ThomasGT said:

 

I think that this problem has been known for a long time and a solution will be found when the load increases.

 

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.

[tzach]

53 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

 

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.

 

Very well said.  

[bzcat]

4 hours ago, Captainp4 said:

Saw this on twitter this morning, wonder what it looks like if only showing EV? F had the largest growth in EV I think

 

This shows more of impact on supply chain recovery and sourcing strategy rather than growth in EV.

 

In 2020, companies like Ford and GM were hit severely when COVID disruptions caused production to halt while companies that had closer relations to its suppliers like Toyota and Nissan were able to ride out the initial problems. But US and European car companies moved very quickly to diversify its sourcing while the Japanese companies were not able to do that because of the close relationships. And so we saw the reverse trend in 2021.

 

 

[Gurgeh]

Haven't seen this posted here yet. The new EPA/IRS designation of what electric vehicles qualify for the new $7,500 tax credit are coming in, and it turns out that it will become much more difficult to get EV tax credits, at least at the $7,500 level, under the new law that kicked in Jan. 1. The new Cadillac Lyriq SUV, for instance, does not qualify. At just under 6,000 lbs. it is not heavy enough(!), it is just a little too low to the ground, it is currently only 2-wheel drive (AWD is coming later this year), under old ICE definitions of fuel efficiency it is either too fuel efficient or not fuel efficient enough (not sure which), and is too expensive to fit under the car category it now finds itself in. Cars can't be over $55,000 MSRP and SUVs/trucks can't cost over $80,000.

 

It might be fun to, well, make fun of GM for not figuring this out earlier, but the new law also considers the Escape and Corsair PHEVs and most of the Mustang Mach-Es sold to be cars, not SUVs, and hence don't make the new tax credit cut. Many Tesla Model Ys also gets hit under the new not-an-SUV designation.

 

Here's an article to try to explain some of this: https://www.npr.org/2023/01/07/1147209505/electric-car-tax-credit-climate-bill-tesla-volkswagen-ev

 

-------------------------------------

Buying an electric car? You can get a $7,500 tax credit, but it won't be easy

 

"Uncle Sam wants you to buy an electric vehicle. And he's willing to throw $7,500 your way to make it happen ... if you and the model you want both qualify.

The tax credits for purchasing electric vehicles (EVs) got a major overhaul on Jan. 1. EV tax credits have been around for years, but they were redesigned as part of President Biden's massive climate bill signed into law last year. And in the process, they got complicated. Really complicated...

 

"Whether a vehicle is subject to that $55,000 cap, or an $80,000 cap, is not at all intuitive. For instance, the IRS says the Volkswagen ID.4 is a car ... unless it has all-wheel drive, in which case it's an SUV. Lots of vehicles consumers consider SUVs, like Tesla's Model Y and the plug-in Lincoln Corsair, are counted as cars.

 

"The IRS says the categories are based on the criteria for fuel economy for gas-powered vehicles, but the seemingly arbitrary classifications are causing confusion and frustration..."

[akirby]

No credit for expensive vehicles is good but the implementation is way too complicated.  Just set a single dollar limit (say $60k) with a sliding scale below that.

 

Or just stop the subsidies and let the market dictate adoption.  All this does is allow mfrs to mark up their vehicles.

[Gurgeh]

26 minutes ago, akirby said:

No credit for expensive vehicles is good but the implementation is way too complicated.  Just set a single dollar limit (say $60k) with a sliding scale below that.

 

Or just stop the subsidies and let the market dictate adoption.  All this does is allow mfrs to mark up their vehicles.

Yeah, this is going to lead to automakers producing vehicles to fit the designation, not necessarily being optimized for being the best product.

[Chrisgb]

On 12/25/2022 at 2:48 PM, jpd80 said:

I’ve never understood why power utilities complain about increasing demand,

it’s like oil companies complaining about too many customers wanting more oil.

Colossal up front costs in time and treasure. Land purchase or leasing for solar or wind, DOE, EPA & local/regional PUC permitting processes regardless of generation type, local zoning. Also in many  cases the "first mile" high voltage power lines are developed and/or operated by a separate company, which have their own hurdles. 

It's not implausible that the planning for power needs in 2050 and beyond is already in the works, and has been for awhile. Nuclear is tamped down in this country so much that the costs to get a plant online nearly or completely exceed the margins necessary to operate the plants profitably over their service life. France on the other hand is ~80% nuclear;  vive le nucléaire!

Edited January 10, 2023 by Chrisgb

[Captainp4]

32 minutes ago, PS197TT said:

 

Which is how it should be.  If there is such insatiable demand for EVs as some claim, then incentives are not necessary.  I agree that all incentives will do is cause the price to go up as automakers try and get relatively close to making a buck or two on these things.  

Check Tesla's sales numbers when the old incentives ran out for them. I agree on principle .gov shouldn't be involved, but it doesn't appear to affect much of anything.

[Captainp4]

27 minutes ago, PS197TT said:

Tesla is like Apple.  Those that want it will buy it regardless of price.  Both are the best at what they do but using one company is not a great way to show demand in the market 

I think GM was the only other one to use up the incentive, then their junk started catching on fire so

[akirby]

Price is not a huge issue for current buyers.  Ford raised Lightning prices dramatically but still have more orders than can be filled.

 

More evidence that the rebates are not necessary to drive adoption.

[rperez817]

8 hours ago, akirby said:

Just set a single dollar limit (say $60k) with a sliding scale below that.

 

That would be an improvement over the current setup. Another good approach would be to structure government BEV/ZEV incentives so they are most generous for lower income motorists whose vehicle usage patterns consume the most gasoline or diesel fuel (what Coltura terms "superusers"). In California, the bill AB 2816 introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting last year did just that. AB 2816 didn't advance, but will likely be re-introduced this year. California Superuser Bill — Coltura - moving beyond gasoline

 

AB 2816 would require the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to:

• Develop a strategy for identifying lower-income drivers who use the most gasoline, and expediting their switch to ZEVs.  
• Determine ZEV incentive amounts based on the applicant’s past gasoline usage – e.g., a certain dollar amount per average annual gallon of gasoline used — with a boosted amount per gallon for lower income people.
• Set ZEV incentive amounts at levels that maximize the displacement of gasoline and vehicle emissions per dollar spent.
• Report on the impact of ZEV incentive spending on emissions cuts and transportation savings in lower income communities.
• Develop an online tool for drivers to estimate their average annual gallons of gasoline used. 

[Gurgeh]

4 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

That would be an improvement over the current setup. Another good approach would be to structure government BEV/ZEV incentives so they are most generous for lower income motorists whose vehicle usage patterns consume the most gasoline or diesel fuel (what Coltura terms "superusers"). In California, the bill AB 2816 introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting last year did just that. AB 2816 didn't advance, but will likely be re-introduced this year. California Superuser Bill — Coltura - moving beyond gasoline

 

AB 2816 would require the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to:

• Develop a strategy for identifying lower-income drivers who use the most gasoline, and expediting their switch to ZEVs.  
• Determine ZEV incentive amounts based on the applicant’s past gasoline usage – e.g., a certain dollar amount per average annual gallon of gasoline used — with a boosted amount per gallon for lower income people.
• Set ZEV incentive amounts at levels that maximize the displacement of gasoline and vehicle emissions per dollar spent.
• Report on the impact of ZEV incentive spending on emissions cuts and transportation savings in lower income communities.
• Develop an online tool for drivers to estimate their average annual gallons of gasoline used. 

 

 

 

I get the thought behind the effort, but this is an example of the kind of lazy legislating I really dislike. It doesn't legislate precise laws but empowers an unaccountable bureaucracy (in this case the CARB) to in essence come up with their own laws and implement them by regulation.

Edited January 11, 2023 by Gurgeh

[rperez817]

On 12/6/2022 at 10:29 AM, rperez817 said:

Direct to consumer is the superior sales model for BEV, but Ford in its current form can't take advantage of it primarily due to regulatory roadblocks. 

 

Sierra Club released its Nationwide Study of the Electric Vehicle Shopping Experience earlier this week, focusing on legacy automakers and their franchised dealerships. The reports overall conclusion is that the "U.S. auto industry is largely failing to meet consumer demand for electric vehicles (EVs) and automakers are greenwashing their EV commitments." The report blames the automakers more than the dealers, though both have a lot of room for improvement. Sierra Club Releases Nationwide Investigation into Electric Vehicle Shopping Experience | Sierra Club

 

Quote

“We are in a climate crisis and at a major inflection point for the American electric vehicle industry, and yet automakers are still pumping out millions of gas-powered vehicles while they lag on their EV commitments,” said Sierra Club Clean Transportation for All Director Katherine Garcia. “To help avoid the worst impacts of climate disruption and protect our communities, it’s important that we accelerate the transition to all-electric vehicles. Enough empty promises: The auto industry must step on the accelerator and get electric vehicles on dealership lots now.”

 

Highlights.

• Sixty-six percent of car dealerships nationwide did not have a single EV available for sale, while 34% of dealers did have an EV available for sale. 
• Supply chain, inventory issues, and automaker allocation of EVs to dealerships created EV availability barriers. Of the 66% of car dealerships that did not have an EV for sale, 44% reported they would offer an EV for sale if they could get one. 
• Some car dealerships refuse or are still not ready to sell EVs to consumers. Of the 66% of car dealerships that did not have an EV for sale, 45% of those dealers reported they would not offer an EV for sale regardless of automaker allocation and supply chain constraints.
• Testimonials from the surveys showed a general willingness from dealerships to sell electric vehicles, if they had the inventory.
  • Volunteer surveying a Ford dealership in Virginia: “Dealer was happy to help me order an EV, but had no EV in stock that I could look at or test drive."
• Twenty-three states allow manufacturers to sell directly to consumers in their states, this law is often referred to as “Direct Sales.”
  • While there was not a difference in EV availability between direct sales states and non-direct sales states, direct sales laws are having a large impact on volume and sales. Direct sales accounts for only 23 states, but sold 65 percent of the nation’s EVs, while non-direct sales accounts for 28 states (including DC), but only sold 35 percent of the nation’s EVs.
• Recommendations from report.
  • It is the responsibility of manufacturers to deliver more EVs to all dealers
  • Automakers must invest more in EV production to match consumer demand that is at a record high

Edited May 13, 2023 by rperez817

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 Sierra Club released its Nationwide Study of the Electric Vehicle Shopping Experience 

The main issue is that Katherine Garcia could not care less if Ford makes a profit, nor does the Sierra Club.  In fact, some extreme environmentalist want transportation as we know it today to end suddenly.  Below is from her page.

 

“Clean Transportation for All Campaign for @SierraClub . Advocate for environmental justice, transit & EVs (especially e-bikes). Drive less!”

 

If Ford and most other manufacturers can’t make money on BEVs because it costs more to build than what normal people are willing to pay or can afford, what would Ms Garcia have Ford do, give them away or reduce cost so as to take greater loss on even more vehicles?

 

Either Garcia is clueless as to how businesses operate in the US, or she wants companies like Ford to go out of business.  All her conclusions go right against profitability at this time, whether it’s dealers trying to remain viable, or manufacturers trying to reduce hemorrhaging.  

 

Garcia’s business is to “save” the environment, and Ford’s to create a return for shareholders.  The two have different objectives, and much of it opposing in many ways.  It’s not just about BEVs either, since Ford, GM, and Stellantis make most profit on vehicles that pollute the most.

 

I want to see BEVs succeed long term, but can’t take anything Garcia says seriously.  Her extreme views are not helpful in my opinion.  We can’t keep subsidizing inefficient BEVs in order to promote adoption if it means sending the country into bankruptcy.  It’s really that simple, there are limits to what people and businesses can afford.

[tbone]

4 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Sierra Club released its Nationwide Study of the Electric Vehicle Shopping Experience earlier this week, focusing on legacy automakers and their franchised dealerships. The reports overall conclusion is that the "U.S. auto industry is largely failing to meet consumer demand for electric vehicles (EVs) and automakers are greenwashing their EV commitments." The report blames the automakers more than the dealers, though both have a lot of room for improvement. Sierra Club Releases Nationwide Investigation into Electric Vehicle Shopping Experience | Sierra Club

 

Yeah, I’m sure this was a highly legitimate study, with no bias in it whatsoever.  I could care less what this eco-terrorist has to say. 

[rperez817]

22 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Either Garcia is clueless as to how businesses operate in the US, or she wants companies like Ford to go out of business. 

 

Not at all. Automotive manufacturing is a highly regulated industry globally, as such government incentives and standards are a key component of the leading that industry to an all-electric future. Each individual automaker however has to formulate its own business strategies and approaches to make that happen, and to get there sooner than their competitors. Sierra Club's concern as described in its latest Electric Vehicle Shopping Experience survey is that legacy automakers and their dealerships are lagging way behind consumer demand when it comes to producing and marketing BEV. This is something that impacts all legacy automakers operating in the U.S., not just Ford. For Ford in particular, the company has a great opportunity to become a leader in the new world of the automotive industry, and that is contingent upon doing exactly what Garcia said, "step on the accelerator and get electric vehicles on dealership lots now."

 

Also, a couple years ago, Sierra Club commended Ford for its Rouge Electric Vehicle Center start of production, where F-150 Lightning is currently assembled, and where President Biden made a visit. Sierra Club Statement on Biden’s Michigan Visit to Ford Electric Vehicle Manufacturing Plant | Sierra Club

The Ford Rouge EV Center - where union workers will build an electric pick-up truck - is a tangible example of building back better in action. Ford should also move at lightning speed to seize the EV market for U.S. manufacturing and set a target to shift their production to all electric vehicles.

[Rick73]

Farley on Fox Business interview weighed in on Electric versus ICE vehicles.

 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6327433589112

 

His view of an all-electric future for Ford does not seem all that clear.  He states that the type of vehicle Ford depends on most will take longer to transition to battery-electric power.

 

 

Key points (some obvious) worth summarizing in no particular order:

 

Ford is not a typical vehicle manufacturer

Ford is more dependent on pickups and large SUV

ICE costs are increasing while BEV decreasing

Cost parity expected by 2026

Aerodynamics affect battery size

Ford 50% adoption expected around 2030

BEVs are not best for everyone

BEV not suited to tow 5th wheel in Wyoming

BEV well suited for multi-vehicle families

BEV best for up to 100~200 mile local trips

BEV has lower operating costs

ICE at Ford expected to grow over next few years

[rmc523]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Farley on Fox Business interview weighed in on Electric versus ICE vehicles.

 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6327433589112

 

His view of an all-electric future for Ford does not seem all that clear.  He states that the type of vehicle Ford depends on most will take longer to transition to battery-electric power.

 

 

Key points (some obvious) worth summarizing in no particular order:

 

Ford is not a typical vehicle manufacturer

Ford is more dependent on pickups and large SUV

ICE costs are increasing while BEV decreasing

Cost parity expected by 2026

Aerodynamics affect battery size

Ford 50% adoption expected around 2030

BEVs are not best for everyone

BEV not suited to tow 5th wheel in Wyoming

BEV well suited for multi-vehicle families

BEV best for up to 100~200 mile local trips

BEV has lower operating costs

ICE at Ford expected to grow over next few years

 

In other words, what most of us have been saying here for some time except for a select few...

[rperez817]

Ford of Europe announced it is "entirely reimagining the customer journey to EV ownership, with online access and touchpoints available every step of the way". Ford to Transform Experience of Discovering, Buying and Owning Electric Vehicles for Ultimate Customer Convenience | Ford of Europe | Ford Media Center

 

COLOGNE, Germany, May 15, 2023 – Ford today unveiled a new vision to make discovering, testing, buying and owning its products not only simpler, but also more satisfying – starting with Ford electric vehicles (EVs).

The company, in partnership with its retail partners across Europe, is entirely reimagining the customer journey to EV ownership, with online access and touchpoints available every step of the way.

The new approach introduces online showrooms and virtual test drives for exploring products and services from the comfort of the sofa or during a 10-minute break between meetings. Big decisions will be easier to make with transparent pricing for no surprises. And customers will be able to personalise their vehicle handover, access charging, and arrange pick-up and delivery for servicing with a few clicks on their smartphone.

Ford today outlined its innovative new strategy at the Bring On Tomorrow Live event in Copenhagen, Denmark, to its retail partners from across Europe who will be fundamental to delivering next-generation customer experiences. The company is on track to deliver 10 new electric models in Europe by 2024, including the new E-Tourneo Courier 1 multi-activity vehicle unveiled today in Copenhagen.

“We’re well on the way to becoming an electric passenger car brand by 2030, with a uniquely comprehensive line-up of vehicles already introduced and inspired by an understanding that EV customers see the world differently,” said Martin Sander, general manager, Ford Model e, Europe. “Our vision is to make it easier and more appealing than ever for customers to discover, buy and own the right electric vehicle for them, whether switching to electric for the first time or already an experienced owner.”

By making it easier for greater numbers of customers to go electric, Ford's new customer experience will support the company's commitments to achieving carbon neutrality for its European operations, logistics and direct suppliers by 2035, and building a more sustainable, inclusive and equitable transportation future.

[tbone]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

“reimagining” 

I have developed great disdain for that word.  

[fuzzymoomoo]

5 hours ago, tbone said:

I have developed great disdain for that word.  

Just one of myriad corporate buzzwords that drive me up a freaking wall 

[AM222]

21 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Farley on Fox Business interview weighed in on Electric versus ICE vehicles.

 

ICE costs are increasing while BEV decreasing

The F150 Lightning Pro's base MSRP went from $39,974 to $59,974 in the span of a year.

That's a $20K increase, almost the price of a base hybrid Maverick.


Ford did cut Mach E prices, but they're not making any profit from it. Supposedly Ford's been losing money on Every Mach e sold. Is this true?
On the bright side, they did gain some EV knowledge and experience.

Edited May 18, 2023 by AM222

[rperez817]

2 hours ago, AM222 said:

The F150 Lightning Pro's base MSRP went from $39,974 to $59,974 in the span of a year.

That's a $20K increase, almost the price of a base hybrid Maverick.

Ford did cut Mach E prices, but they're not making any profit from it. 

 

What Farley may be referring to is the fact that as Ford Model e implements totally different approaches to the design, engineering, production, and marketing of BEV, and production capacity for BEV is increased, cost per unit of production will go down (which is already happening). ICE vehicles by contrast are in a situation where regulatory compliance costs are rising faster than Ford's (or any legacy automaker's) ability to rein in other costs internally.

 

Price increases/decreases on individual BEV models will vary depending on the dynamics of the specific segment each model occupies.

Edited May 18, 2023 by rperez817

[silvrsvt]

On 11/17/2021 at 1:57 PM, rmc523 said:

 

Aka "let's pretend they're a different company to jump on the overvalued bandwagon".

 

That'd be stupid to split it off.

 

That would never happen with Ford anyways-due to the family's control of the Stock. I don't think they'll give up control for $$$ and not to mention overvalued stocks like Tesla are coming back down to earth. 

[Gurgeh]

8 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Just one of myriad corporate buzzwords that drive me up a freaking wall 

Remember a few years ago when everything was "sustainable" or "transformational" (or both)?