Electric Vehicle Discussion Thread - Ford Related

[Rick73]

7 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.

In my opinion Farley seemed to be referring to manufacturing costs and not what they can sell for.  He said cost to build Mach E were already coming down, though that doesn’t answer whether they are making a profit or not.  Other comments led me to think they are still losing money, as when he mentioned need for next generation of BEVs.

[Captainp4]

8 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

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. 

When did that happen besides the small blip when everyone lost their mind because he bought Twitter? (great buying opportunity, btw)

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Captainp4 said:

When did that happen besides the small blip when everyone lost their mind because he bought Twitter? (great buying opportunity, btw)

$400+ down to $176 is not a small blip.

 

 

[AM222]

14 hours ago, Rick73 said:

In my opinion Farley seemed to be referring to manufacturing costs and not what they can sell for.  He said cost to build Mach E were already coming down, though that doesn’t answer whether they are making a profit or not.  Other comments led me to think they are still losing money, as when he mentioned need for next generation of BEVs.

I really wonder what Ford's most affordable EV will be in the North America.
We know Ford will quit making commodity 2-row SUVs (bye bye Escape, bye bye Edge). In theory, an EV Bronco Sport won't be much more affordable than a regular Mach E.

Edited May 19, 2023 by AM222

[fuzzymoomoo]

15 hours ago, Gurgeh said:

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

What do you mean was? 

[akirby]

2 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

What do you mean was? 

Those are common standard industry terms especially on the finance side.  Sustaining is usually expense while improving/transforming is usually capital.

[silvrsvt]

4 hours ago, AM222 said:

I really wonder what Ford's most affordable EV will be in the North America.
We know Ford will quit making commodity 2-row SUVs (bye bye Escape, bye bye Edge). In theory, an EV Bronco Sport won't be much more affordable than a regular Mach E.

 

I wouldn't say the Escape is going away-its going to change form into an EV most likely (thus losing the commodity part, because there currently isn't many C class BEVs) or be distinct enough like the Bronco Sport that its not "just" a 2 row CUV. 

 

Pricing structure for EVs will improve over the next few years because their will be a much better battery cell supply as more factories get ramped up. That is why currently battery packs are so expensive to replace-because there is no spare capacity to make extras

 

With that said, ICE is still going to be around till 2035 or so (unless the US Government changes mandates), so you can still get a Maverick at the low end. Apparently Ford is adding more ICE products between now and 2030 also...but not sure what markets they are talking about..

[Rick73]

4 hours ago, AM222 said:

I really wonder what Ford's most affordable EV will be in the North America.
We know Ford will quit making commodity 2-row SUVs (bye bye Escape, bye bye Edge). In theory, an EV Bronco Sport won't be much more affordable than a regular Mach E.

Unless batteries get so cheap and light that it doesn’t matter how much battery capacity is needed to achieve reasonable highway range, I think aerodynamics will remain critical to BEV success.  That’s how Tesla has accomplished much of its success in designing vehicles with best efficiency (as in miles per kWh).  I just don’t see personal boxy vehicles with aerodynamics of a brick working out well for many years to come. It would be OK in cities but buyers need to drive at highway speeds for longer distances also.   I was glad to see Farley mention aerodynamics during recent interview.

 

[akirby]

35 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

I wouldn't say the Escape is going away-its going to change form into an EV most likely (thus losing the commodity part, because there currently isn't many C class BEVs) or be distinct enough like the Bronco Sport that its not "just" a 2 row CUV. 

 

Farley already mentioned that the traditional 2 row BEV utility market will be very crowded soon and he wants to focus on trucks and 3 row utilities, so a traditional Escape BEV might be a lot further down the road.   I would expect a BEV Maverick or Bronco first.

[fuzzymoomoo]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Those are common standard industry terms especially on the finance side.  Sustaining is usually expense while improving/transforming is usually capital.

You misunderstood what I meant.

 

Those are still common buzzwords 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

You misunderstood what I meant.

 

Those are still common buzzwords 

I know.  I was explaining why they’re common buzzwords in all companies.

[Gurgeh]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

Those are common standard industry terms especially on the finance side.  Sustaining is usually expense while improving/transforming is usually capital.

 

2 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

You misunderstood what I meant.

 

Those are still common buzzwords 

 

55 minutes ago, akirby said:

I know.  I was explaining why they’re common buzzwords in all companies.

Maybe those words in their original forms have meaning in business. But my background is in energy/environmental policy in government and I assure you that in those worlds the words are particularly vacuous. In their verb sense they have meaning. To sustain something it must be viable and be able to be cost effective over time. One transforms older systems and approaches into things that works into the future. In enviro-speak, turned into adverbs like transformational or, even worse, into adverbs that are then turned further into nouns like sustainability they become increasingly leached of concrete meaning and become whatever policy or approach the speaker prefers but doesn't want to actually explain, define or justify (sometimes because it is pretty much impossible to do so).

[rperez817]

32 minutes ago, Gurgeh said:

In enviro-speak, turned into adverbs like transformational or, even worse, into adverbs that are then turned further into nouns like sustainability they become increasingly leached of concrete meaning

 

Ford does a good job of providing concrete meaning to sustainability as it applies to company goals and activities. It is in line with the multi-faceted definitions for that word in the commercial, public policy, and personal realms. The diagram below is from Ford's latest Integrated Sustainability and Financial Report Summary. Integrated Sustainability and Financial Report Summary 2023 (ford.com)

 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Gurgeh said:

 

 

Maybe those words in their original forms have meaning in business. But my background is in energy/environmental policy in government and I assure you that in those worlds the words are particularly vacuous. In their verb sense they have meaning. To sustain something it must be viable and be able to be cost effective over time. One transforms older systems and approaches into things that works into the future. In enviro-speak, turned into adverbs like transformational or, even worse, into adverbs that are then turned further into nouns like sustainability they become increasingly leached of concrete meaning and become whatever policy or approach the speaker prefers but doesn't want to actually explain, define or justify (sometimes because it is pretty much impossible to do so).

I agree they can be overused or misused but at the same time they’re valid ways of differentiating types of work and investments.

[Captainp4]

23 hours ago, akirby said:

$400+ down to $176 is not a small blip.

 

 

56 to 11 is just fine and dandy though (or 23 to 11 in same time frame) lol. Why you hate Tesla so much? They're driving the positive changes we're seeing out of Ford. I don't get it.

and the small blip was down to ~100 when everyone was losing their minds about him buying twitter, it's only been up since then.. which was the great buying opportunity. 180 today!

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Captainp4 said:

56 to 11 is just fine and dandy though (or 23 to 11 in same time frame) lol. Why you hate Tesla so much? They're driving the positive changes we're seeing out of Ford. I don't get it.

and the small blip was down to ~100 when everyone was losing their minds about him buying twitter, it's only been up since then.. which was the great buying opportunity. 180 today!

 

I don’t hate them I hate when people overrate them and give them more credit than they deserve.

[rperez817]

15 hours ago, Captainp4 said:

56 to 11 is just fine and dandy though (or 23 to 11 in same time frame) lol. Why you hate Tesla so much? They're driving the positive changes we're seeing out of Ford. I don't get it.

and the small blip was down to ~100 when everyone was losing their minds about him buying twitter, it's only been up since then.. which was the great buying opportunity. 180 today!

 

Excellent points Captainp4. Tesla is indeed directly responsible for many of the positive changes at Ford. In fact, Ford Model e division has at least 2 high ranking executives who used to work at Tesla, Doug Field and Alan Clarke.

 

Regarding the valuation of TSLA, this article Professor Enrique Dans wrote in December 2019 remains relevant and correct today. Tesla: There’s None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See… (forbes.com)

 

For some time now, I’ve been discussing Tesla’s valuation with fellow academics who specialize in finance and strategy: irresponsible skeptics trying to convince their students that the company is overvalued, that its price is the result of some kind of collective hallucination, and that Elon Musk is little more than a charlatan who has amazingly managed to fool a lot of the people for a lot of the time. For a company founded in 2003 and that went public in 2010, things aren’t looking too bad at all. At what point, to borrow Matthew Henry’s famous question, will the deaf hear, the blind see, and the skeptics understand that we are talking about a different kind of company, one that can only be assessed on its quest to change the world we live in?

 

What is a company capable of turning entire industries upside down and ultimately changing the world worth? According to the markets on Tuesday [12/24/2019], $420 per share, making it worth $75 billion, greater than traditional carmakers such as Ford or GM. But in practice, Tesla is worth more, much more. Understanding this comes down to really wanting to hear and to see. And that means accepting the evidence and that one was wrong, which in turn requires a certain level of intelligence that still seems to be sadly lacking in many quarters.

[DeluxeStang]

On 5/19/2023 at 8:09 AM, silvrsvt said:

 

I wouldn't say the Escape is going away-its going to change form into an EV most likely (thus losing the commodity part, because there currently isn't many C class BEVs) or be distinct enough like the Bronco Sport that its not "just" a 2 row CUV. 

 

I think the smart thing would be to diverge with the Bronco sport and escape as much as possible. Give the escape more radical, sporty styling compared to the blockiness of the bronco, and make it a street performance crossover. Get rid of any and all overlap between the two, while making the escape a more compelling stand alone product. 

[DeluxeStang]

On 5/19/2023 at 8:28 AM, Rick73 said:

  I just don’t see personal boxy vehicles with aerodynamics of a brick working out well for many years to come. It would be OK in cities but buyers need to drive at highway speeds for longer distances also.   I was glad to see Farley mention aerodynamics during recent interview.

 

Areo is a major issue, you basically have to choose between making a car that's areodymamically efficient, or good looking in many respects. Not always, but areo wants everything to be droopy, bulbous, overly smooth etc. 

 

Can it be pulled off to make something that still looks spectacular? Yes, just look at the Ford gt, which was very areo driven in it's design. I'm terrified that something like the T3 is going to come out, and everyone is going to go "What the hell is that monstrosity?" and no-one is going to buy it. 

 

Ford needs to realize that people care about areo, but they also want a visually appealing design. 

[Rick73]

4 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Areo is a major issue, you basically have to choose between making a car that's areodymamically efficient, or good looking in many respects. Not always, but areo wants everything to be droopy, bulbous, overly smooth etc. 

 

Can it be pulled off to make something that still looks spectacular? Yes, just look at the Ford gt, which was very areo driven in it's design. I'm terrified that something like the T3 is going to come out, and everyone is going to go "What the hell is that monstrosity?" and no-one is going to buy it. 

 

Ford needs to realize that people care about areo, but they also want a visually appealing design. 

I prefer smooth aerodynamic shapes over boxy shapes not only for their efficiency, but also because of aesthetics.  To me an Tesla Model Y shape looks better than a boxy SUV.  And yes, the original Ford GT40 was one of the most beautiful cars ever designed by my taste, though I suspect Cd was not that low by modern standards.

 

What’s important is that if a MachE has a Cd of around 0.285 (not well documented so accuracy questionable) and a Tesla Model Y is around 0.23, or other BEVs now at or below 0.21, then required battery size to offset drag will make the car heavier and more expensive to manufacture.  If Tesla’s data above is correct and Model Y can do 4 miles per kWh while Mach E only 3, it puts the Ford at a huge disadvantage.

 

Obviously frontal area dimensions are as important as Cd.  It will be interesting to see whether Tesla can design a smaller Model 2 with a low Cd if shaped similar to the Model Y.  If they succeed and can push efficiency to around 5 miles per kWh or higher, it’s going to give them a significant cost advantage.  

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

I prefer smooth aerodynamic shapes over boxy shapes not only for their efficiency, but also because of aesthetics.  To me an Tesla Model Y shape looks better than a boxy SUV.  And yes, the original Ford GT40 was one of the most beautiful cars ever designed by my taste, though I suspect Cd was not that low by modern standards.

 

What’s important is that if a MachE has a Cd of around 0.285 (not well documented so accuracy questionable) and a Tesla Model Y is around 0.23, or other BEVs now at or below 0.21, then required battery size to offset drag will make the car heavier and more expensive to manufacture.  If Tesla’s data above is correct and Model Y can do 4 miles per kWh while Mach E only 3, it puts the Ford at a huge disadvantage.

 

Obviously frontal area dimensions are as important as Cd.  It will be interesting to see whether Tesla can design a smaller Model 2 with a low Cd if shaped similar to the Model Y.  If they succeed and can push efficiency to around 5 miles per kWh or higher, it’s going to give them a significant cost advantage.  

See that's my point, the mach-e has a higher drag coefficient, but looks way better than a model Y. I tend to prefer curvier designs for smaller vehicles. But boxier designs for larger ones. Something like a curvaceous truck just looks strange imo. 

[silvrsvt]

5 hours ago, Rick73 said:

I prefer smooth aerodynamic shapes over boxy shapes not only for their efficiency, but also because of aesthetics.  To me an Tesla Model Y shape looks better than a boxy SUV.  And yes, the original Ford GT40 was one of the most beautiful cars ever designed by my taste, though I suspect Cd was not that low by modern standards.

 

What’s important is that if a MachE has a Cd of around 0.285 (not well documented so accuracy questionable) and a Tesla Model Y is around 0.23, or other BEVs now at or below 0.21, then required battery size to offset drag will make the car heavier and more expensive to manufacture.  If Tesla’s data above is correct and Model Y can do 4 miles per kWh while Mach E only 3, it puts the Ford at a huge disadvantage.

 

Obviously frontal area dimensions are as important as Cd.  It will be interesting to see whether Tesla can design a smaller Model 2 with a low Cd if shaped similar to the Model Y.  If they succeed and can push efficiency to around 5 miles per kWh or higher, it’s going to give them a significant cost advantage.  

 

 

The issue with the S and Y is that they look like a S/3 that turned into a blood swollen tick. The major disadvantage to them is they have no high cargo area in the rear that would be offered in a traditional 2 box shape like the Escape for example.

 

The thing to keep in mind about the Mach E is that its a translational model-much of it is based on C2 platform and at best a second gen EV design from Ford. There is going to be a gap for the time being till it moves to a cleansheet/dedicated EV platform and other improvements.I'm sure the efficiency gap that apparently appears will be closed as time goes on. 

[silvrsvt]

On 5/19/2023 at 10:48 AM, akirby said:

Farley already mentioned that the traditional 2 row BEV utility market will be very crowded soon and he wants to focus on trucks and 3 row utilities, so a traditional Escape BEV might be a lot further down the road.   I would expect a BEV Maverick or Bronco first.

Well according the to the document posted in the future Ford post-the BEV Escape will hit in 2026 or so...

 

The Maverick and Bronco Sport are scheduled for production till 2032 or later....only thing I see happening is the Bronco Sport gets a minor refresh and hybrid in the next 18-24 months. The Escape/Corsair will be a bit of an orphan since they are built on a slightly different C2 platform and the Kuga is dying off soon in the EU...not sure about the plans for China.I don't see a BEV Maverick/Bronco Sport till after the start of next decade, unless battery prices drop dramatically and are on par with profit margins for ICE for those products.   

[jpd80]

15 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Excellent points Captainp4. Tesla is indeed directly responsible for many of the positive changes at Ford. In fact, Ford Model e division has at least 2 high ranking executives who used to work at Tesla, Doug Field and Alan Clarke.

 

Regarding the valuation of TSLA, this article Professor Enrique Dans wrote in December 2019 remains relevant and correct today. Tesla: There’s None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See… (forbes.com)

 

A real problem for investors is that Tesla who are now very profitable continue to

refuse to pay stockholders a dividend. That should be a giant red flag and shows

a big disconnect between the operations side of Tesla and the section who sold stock….

 

Now that Tesla makes consistent profits, they are done selling stock to raise money

and caring about stock price…

Edited May 21, 2023 by jpd80

[akirby]

14 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

Well according the to the document posted in the future Ford post-the BEV Escape will hit in 2026 or so...

 

The Maverick and Bronco Sport are scheduled for production till 2032 or later....only thing I see happening is the Bronco Sport gets a minor refresh and hybrid in the next 18-24 months. The Escape/Corsair will be a bit of an orphan since they are built on a slightly different C2 platform and the Kuga is dying off soon in the EU...not sure about the plans for China.I don't see a BEV Maverick/Bronco Sport till after the start of next decade, unless battery prices drop dramatically and are on par with profit margins for ICE for those products.   

If true then the biggest reasons for a BEV escape vs mav/BS is aerodynamics and not wanting to impact more profitable ICE vehicle sales.