Electric Vehicle Discussion Thread - Ford Related

[akirby]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

 

IIRC, y'all don't have the smallest vehicles available either if downsizing is so important.

Just like the people complaining about big SUVs and pollution while they’re driving 20 yr old cars that actually put out far more pollution than a new expedition.

 

Or the people driving an edge complaining about expedition drivers saying they don’t need a vehicle that big.  Well then why aren’t you driving a fiesta?

 

Lots of do what I say not as I do.

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, rmc523 said:

And you guys can buy your Smart car EV.  If I want a bigger vehicle, I'm going to get a bigger vehicle.

 

 IIRC, y'all don't have the smallest vehicles available either if downsizing is so important.

Stating what works and what I may personally do myself are two completely different subjects.  But you already knew that.

 

I know for a fact that electrification based on driving 9,000-pound Silverados EV charged with natural gas or worse will not solve anything.  In a few years we will see that CO2 levels continued to increase, and people will still be bitching about the weather.

I’m not complaining about anything, and why would I?  I’m probably a gasoline super user (not sure) and drive large vehicles due to safety concerns. I try to drive less, and ride a bike when possible, but still love my large van on road trips.  I’m the last guy who will try telling anyone what to buy.   Still, my personal choices have little or nothing to do with technical knowledge.  

 

[DeluxeStang]

I want to be very clear that this is an early design sketch of the cybertruck, but I wouldn't mind if t3 looked kinda like this. It fits the lower front end, more radical looks with a short hood, long bed, which seems to be the direction they're taking with it. 

[slemke]

10 hours ago, akirby said:

Just like the people complaining about big SUVs and pollution while they’re driving 20 yr old cars that actually put out far more pollution than a new expedition.

 

Or the people driving an edge complaining about expedition drivers saying they don’t need a vehicle that big.  Well then why aren’t you driving a fiesta?

 

Lots of do what I say not as I do.

Careful with the generalization about 20 yr old cars.  The 2004 Focus was available as a Pzev. If kept in good condition, it’s probably polluting less than the Expedition.  In general, though, you are correct.

 

 

[silvrsvt]

6 hours ago, slemke said:

Careful with the generalization about 20 yr old cars.  The 2004 Focus was available as a Pzev. If kept in good condition, it’s probably polluting less than the Expedition.  In general, though, you are correct.

 

Its not as big as you would think it would be either

 

[akirby]

7 hours ago, slemke said:

Careful with the generalization about 20 yr old cars.  The 2004 Focus was available as a Pzev. If kept in good condition, it’s probably polluting less than the Expedition.  In general, though, you are correct.

I just threw out the 20 year number.  The specific example I remember the guy was driving an older bmw which was absolutely polluting way more than whatever he was complaining about.

[Rick73]

10 hours ago, slemke said:

Careful with the generalization about 20 yr old cars.  The 2004 Focus was available as a Pzev. If kept in good condition, it’s probably polluting less than the Expedition.  In general, though, you are correct.

 

 

Agree it’s not straight forward.  EPA states each gallon of gas makes 8,887 grams of CO2 (nearly 20 pounds), which is what is most critical by far presently.  Other emissions, while harmful, are so minor that they shouldn’t receive same attention.  In this light, it is therefore critical to reduce gasoline by improving MPG.

 

I replaced an 8 MPG vehicle with one that gets 15 MPG, which saved a tremendous amount of CO2 per mile; though still horrible on an absolute scale.  I’m now planning to replace the 15 MPG with a new 17~20 MPG which is still horrible.  Also to the point of replacing old vehicles, as long as MPG is still as when new, driving it longer can be a good thing because it takes energy to produce a vehicle.  Getting 200,000 miles out of a well-maintained vehicle is better than scrapping it after 100,000 or so (as an example).  I know most new cars last longer, and if not driven much annually, can easily last 20 years or longer.

 

Your 2004 Focus with an EPA rating of 370 grams per mile happens to match exactly the 370 grams per mile of a 2023 Lincoln Aviator AWD PHEV.  Obviously these are completely different vehicles, but it shows how easy it is to offset 20 years of technological improvements by choosing a nicer and larger vehicle.  Not judging choices, just stating why it’s so difficult to reduce GHGs.  As population of Earth gets wealthier, we tend to pollute more.

 

[rmc523]

20 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Stating what works and what I may personally do myself are two completely different subjects.  But you already knew that.

 

I know for a fact that electrification based on driving 9,000-pound Silverados EV charged with natural gas or worse will not solve anything.  In a few years we will see that CO2 levels continued to increase, and people will still be bitching about the weather.

I’m not complaining about anything, and why would I?  I’m probably a gasoline super user (not sure) and drive large vehicles due to safety concerns. I try to drive less, and ride a bike when possible, but still love my large van on road trips.  I’m the last guy who will try telling anyone what to buy.   Still, my personal choices have little or nothing to do with technical knowledge.  

 

 

We should plant more trees and stop cutting them down.

[silvrsvt]

On 7/20/2023 at 4:02 PM, Rick73 said:

I know for a fact that electrification based on driving 9,000-pound Silverados EV charged with natural gas or worse will not solve anything.  In a few years we will see that CO2 levels continued to increase, and people will still be bitching about the weather.

 

But at the same time most of the  products we are seeing are only 1st or 2nd generation products that get manufactures' hands dirty before figuring out that hey maybe doing this different way is actually a better path forward...so in 2033, the second gen Silverado EV is able to lose some weight be more efficient. But customer expectations are bigger and better when it comes to products also.  

[jpd80]

On 7/21/2023 at 3:27 AM, akirby said:

I don’t believe for a second that one brand having 20 more horsepower makes any difference whatsoever on sales especially when both are over 450 hp or over 1000 for diesels.  It’s all about PR and bragging rights and if you can afford it that’s fine.  But Camaro almost always had more power than mustang and better track performance.  That didn’t make it a better car or more profitable.

Absolutely correct.

From the outset, Mustang and Challenger were considered better vehicles for day to day duties even though Camaro had the better performance and handling. Those coupe buyers were either rusted in to their favourite brand or chose one that gave best utility.

 

I find it ironic that as Camaro is about to die again, Ford finds a way to broaden Mustang’s appeal and maintain sales. That from an evolved design tells us that Ford pulled a great move.

 

GM fans saying mustangs side profile looks like Camaro is simply their misread of what a well proportioned coupe should look like

[Rick73]

We shouldn’t forget that progress sometimes takes a very long time, given Ford BEV efforts started many decades before Lightning and Mach-E.  While new generations of BEVs should  be much superior, we shouldn’t lose track that Ford’s prototype Comuta was tested in London back in 1967.  Obviously the tiny car didn’t work out.  Roughly 30 years after that Ford tried again by purchasing Think out of Norway and introducing the Think City, a much more capable electric car.  Reports suggest Ford abandoned that effort as well when sales were much lower than expected.  These were relatively modern efforts; trying to exclude BEVs from over 100 years ago.  Helps to remain objective and optimistic, within reason of course.  It has been a slow process, at least until Tesla breakthrough. 

[Rick73]

21 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

We should plant more trees and stop cutting them down.

Had an interesting conversation with owner of an architectural firm about why we now see so much construction using wood, even for tall apartment and office buildings.  In some cases wood  is replacing steel and concrete.

 

Apparently wood is greener.  In theory when a tree grows, we know it removes CO2 from atmosphere; then by cutting it down and turning lumber into a building, carbon is trapped in the wood used for construction.   A new tree is then planted in  place of the one cut down, and we keep repeating cycle.  In this scenario I suppose cutting down trees can be a good thing.  What we really need is to stop forest fires like the ones in Canada.  I can’t imagine how many equivalent gallons of gasoline worth of CO2 have burned in last few months.

[mackinaw]

23 hours ago, rmc523 said:

We should plant more trees and stop cutting them down.

 

Just remember where your toilet paper comes from.

[akirby]

40 minutes ago, mackinaw said:

 

Just remember where your toilet paper comes from.

Costco!

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, mackinaw said:

 

Just remember where your toilet paper comes from.

 

Recycled paper products if your into John Wayne TP-its rough and tough and doesn't take shit off anybody LOL

[Rick73]

For those who appreciate data based on actual driving, a couple of guys with Ford’s help tested an E-Transit fully loaded to its 9,500 pound GVWR.    Test was conducted under 38~40 F temperature with heater set at 70 F.  They mentioned wanting to drive normally.  An unusual finding was that city driving consumed more energy per mile than their highway test.  There is not much details.  Heavy weight and heater use could explain some reduced city range compared to highway, though their city route with lots of start-stop probably played a part.  Anyway, one data point on how added mass affects range.

 

 

 

[tbone]

On 7/21/2023 at 11:19 AM, rmc523 said:

 

We should plant more trees and stop cutting them down.

I do love trees! It makes me sad when I see trees destroyed in storms or having to be cut down for various other reasons. 

 

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Recycled paper products if your into John Wayne TP-its rough and tough and doesn't take shit off anybody LOL

Classic!

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

For those who appreciate data based on actual driving, a couple of guys with Ford’s help tested an E-Transit fully loaded to its 9,500 pound GVWR.    Test was conducted under 38~40 F temperature with heater set at 70 F.  They mentioned wanting to drive normally.  An unusual finding was that city driving consumed more energy per mile than their highway test.  There is not much details.  Heavy weight and heater use could explain some reduced city range compared to highway, though their city route with lots of start-stop probably played a part.  Anyway, one data point on how added mass affects range

Thanks for providing that data.

I guess the point is that when heavily loaded, Regen braking helps with city cycle where a lot of energy could otherwise be lost but  highway running is still slightly more efficient, especially when heavily loaded. Probably the reason why freight companies are so interested in BEV vans and trucks.

Edited July 22, 2023 by jpd80

[Rick73]

13 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I guess the point is that when heavily loaded, Regen braking helps with city cycle where a lot of energy could otherwise be lost but  highway running is still slightly more efficient, especially when heavily loaded.

Video title suggests “Shocking Range”, but I’m not sure if it’s really that surprising.  The average between their city and highway was roughly 1.3 miles per kWh, and with van loaded to maximum of 9,500 pounds, it makes E-Transit about 2.6 times heavier than base Tesla 3 as an example.  Comparing based on mass ratio alone would be equal to Tesla at 3.3 miles per kWh.  Given that test was in 38~40 F range with heater set at 70 F, it seems reasonable to me.  Granted E-Transit aerodynamics aren’t affected much by load, so it would explain why highway surpassed city driving range, unusual for BEVs in EPA testing.  Conclusion is it takes a lot of battery capacity for heavy vehicles, and 68 kWh is marginal in this case.

 

By the way, a recent development is that hot weather we are having in Southwest is significantly reducing BEV range.  Apparently EVs do best in 20~25 C (68~77 F) temperatures, and may lose as much as 17% on average driving in 95 F according to some who track charging details.  Air conditioning load is part of it, but at temperatures above 100 F battery chemistry is also significantly affected, requiring additional cooling and degrading efficiency.

 

For what it’s worth, Tesla has stated their range reduction is much less.  I expect not many cars have been driven through entire battery capacity in 110 F or higher to better quantify adverse affect at extreme temperatures.

[Captainp4]

On 7/23/2023 at 7:49 AM, Rick73 said:

Video title suggests “Shocking Range”, but I’m not sure if it’s really that surprising.  The average between their city and highway was roughly 1.3 miles per kWh, and with van loaded to maximum of 9,500 pounds, it makes E-Transit about 2.6 times heavier than base Tesla 3 as an example.  Comparing based on mass ratio alone would be equal to Tesla at 3.3 miles per kWh.  Given that test was in 38~40 F range with heater set at 70 F, it seems reasonable to me.  Granted E-Transit aerodynamics aren’t affected much by load, so it would explain why highway surpassed city driving range, unusual for BEVs in EPA testing.  Conclusion is it takes a lot of battery capacity for heavy vehicles, and 68 kWh is marginal in this case.

 

By the way, a recent development is that hot weather we are having in Southwest is significantly reducing BEV range.  Apparently EVs do best in 20~25 C (68~77 F) temperatures, and may lose as much as 17% on average driving in 95 F according to some who track charging details.  Air conditioning load is part of it, but at temperatures above 100 F battery chemistry is also significantly affected, requiring additional cooling and degrading efficiency.

 

For what it’s worth, Tesla has stated their range reduction is much less.  I expect not many cars have been driven through entire battery capacity in 110 F or higher to better quantify adverse affect at extreme temperatures.

I imagine the transit being a fairly large metal box with not much insulation probably contributes to excess energy use trying to heat it. Wasn't there something recently Ford was trying to do with the e transit to mitigate that issue?

[BarneyFord]

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, Captainp4 said:

I imagine the transit being a fairly large metal box with not much insulation probably contributes to excess energy use trying to heat it. Wasn't there something recently Ford was trying to do with the e transit to mitigate that issue?

Yes, was discussed recently.  Report stated efforts are being made to keep driver warm enough to remain comfortable without having to use as much battery capacity.

 

In video above the van had a bulkhead directly behind driver and passenger, so I would assume keeping cabin warm was not much harder than regular car or SUV, if at all.  If this had been a BEV passenger van, it would likely require much more space heating energy.  It should not be as big an issue with cargo vans equipped with bulkhead; and where partition should help with air conditioning in summer also. A heat pump would help in the 38~40 F range of above test, but in sub-freezing temperatures it may not work well towards saving energy.  Just a lot of variables to think about.

 

In the above test, I think extra load (total mass) was likely cause of much of the higher-than-normal energy consumption.  Cold air is also more dense, so adds to aerodynamic resistance, particularly at highway speeds.  We have to keep in mind Transit requires a lot of power at highway speed even under normal conditions.  A mid-roof Transit reportedly gets lower real-world highway MPG than an F-150 when both have V6 engines (though engines slightly different).  I would expect relative comparison between e-Transit and Lightning (+/- 2 miles per kWh) to hold, plus in this case Transit was loaded down and it was cold, hence much lower than 2 miles per kWh.

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, BarneyFord said:

 

I’m not sure what the intent of that MPGe conversion the government came up with was meant to represent to average Americans.  It’s not real energy efficiency comparison, or real CO2 efficiency comparison, so likely meant as a political tool.  I don’t like it, and find it intentionally misleading.

[7Mary3]

On 7/21/2023 at 6:31 PM, jpd80 said:

Absolutely correct.

From the outset, Mustang and Challenger were considered better vehicles for day to day duties even though Camaro had the better performance and handling. Those coupe buyers were either rusted in to their favourite brand or chose one that gave best utility.

 

I find it ironic that as Camaro is about to die again, Ford finds a way to broaden Mustang’s appeal and maintain sales. That from an evolved design tells us that Ford pulled a great move.

 

GM fans saying mustangs side profile looks like Camaro is simply their misread of what a well proportioned coupe should look like

 

Keep in mind that Mustang sales have dropped from over 160,000 in 2006 to less than 50,000 in 2022.  It's clearly a segment in decline, and 50,000 units isn't really enough to justify a unique platform.  If the trend keeps up Ford will of course abandon the segment as well, which is why I think it was a good move to introduce a BEV 'Mustang' to keep the name alive.

[jpd80]

41 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

Keep in mind that Mustang sales have dropped from over 160,000 in 2006 to less than 50,000 in 2022.  It's clearly a segment in decline, and 50,000 units isn't really enough to justify a unique platform.  If the trend keeps up Ford will of course abandon the segment as well, which is why I think it was a good move to introduce a BEV 'Mustang' to keep the name alive.

If it was a non-iconic $30k vehicle like the Fusion  I’d agree.
The difference is that the platform is already developed and the current version was a lower cost  evolution.

Add onto that the premium pricing buyers pay to get what the want and keeping the iconic brand around

is not a hard financial decision. Ford has indicated that it will keep the Mustang as long as enough buyers want it.

 

Edited July 29, 2023 by jpd80