Electric Vehicle Discussion Thread - Ford Related

[jpd80]

9 hours ago, Harley Lover said:

 

Sorry but not in the marketplace. The Edge could be found routinely with discounts from $4-10k depending on the model. There's a reason it's dead man walking, otherwise why wouldn't Ford continue it?

Did you see Edge sales in May? over 9,200 sales, all of them AWDs with virtually zero discounts, chip shortage will ensure that they can’t back that up of course…Don’t get me wrong CD4 Edge/Nautilus are both way past their use by dates.

 

Instead of a sensible C2 replacement, Fields chose  to make it the next CD6 vehicle after Explorer and by all accounts the styling was so terrible, Farley and Hackett cancelled it very late in in development in 2019 when some early prototypes were made. The decision was made to not add hybrid and just run the CD4s for as long at they could….it’s done now anyway but the inside story is pretty sad…..
 

Edited June 4, 2022 by jpd80

[DeluxeStang]

23 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Did you see Edge sales in May? over 9,200 sales, all of them AWDs with virtually zero discounts, chip shortage will ensure that they can’t back that up of course…Don’t get me wrong CD4 Edge/Nautilus are both way past their use by dates.

 

Instead of a sensible C2 replacement, Fields chose  to make it the next CD6 vehicle after Explorer and by all accounts the styling was so terrible, Farley and Hackett cancelled it in 2019. The decision was made to not add hybrid and just run the CD4s for as long at they could….it’s done now anyway but the inside story is pretty sad…..
 

Interesting, I've heard multiple times from insiders that they weren't fond of the styling. I'm curious of just how bad it was. As a 5th gen explorer owner, I don't love the current gen explorer, especially the front end. It lost a lot of that clean, refined look imo. If the new edge looked even worse than the current explorer, oh boy...

[jpd80]

20 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Interesting, I've heard multiple times from insiders that they weren't fond of the styling. I'm curious of just how bad it was. As a 5th gen explorer owner, I don't love the current gen explorer, especially the front end. It lost a lot of that clean, refined look imo. If the new edge looked even worse than the current explorer, oh boy...

In comparison, a C2 version of Edge/Nautilus would have been a much better lower cost choice with less weight, hybrid and PHEV options. All seeing, all knowing Ford managed to kill a vehicle that served a great purpose for what, 15 years now?

[akirby]

10 hours ago, Harley Lover said:

 

Sorry but not in the marketplace. The Edge could be found routinely with discounts from $4-10k depending on the model. There's a reason it's dead man walking, otherwise why wouldn't Ford continue it?

Exactly.  It’s a great vehicle but almost always had $4K rebates.

[fuzzymoomoo]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

Interesting, I've heard multiple times from insiders that they weren't fond of the styling. I'm curious of just how bad it was.

I wouldn't call it awful but it would have definitely suffered from the same thing the new Escape does. It wouldn't have stood out in any way. I never saw the interior but I can imagine it would have taken a similar direction to Escape and Explorer with the iPad glued to the dash look. 

 

[fuzzymoomoo]

21 minutes ago, akirby said:

Exactly.  It’s a great vehicle but almost always had $4K rebates.

Like Ice said, it definitely has a loyal following. Everyone I know who has one has either gotten a new one or plans to before they’re gone forever and is rather sad about it. I feel like Nautilus has a similar following. 

[akirby]

22 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I feel like Nautilus has a similar following. 

It does.  Corsair/Escape is too small and Aviator/Explorer is too big.  We had an Edge for 6 years, MKX for 6 years.  Planning to keep the new Nautilus for at least 10 years.  
 

I understand why it has to go from a business standpoint but as a consumer it’s disappointing,  

[fuzzymoomoo]

22 minutes ago, akirby said:

It does.  Corsair/Escape is too small and Aviator/Explorer is too big.  We had an Edge for 6 years, MKX for 6 years.  Planning to keep the new Nautilus for at least 10 years.  
 

I understand why it has to go from a business standpoint but as a consumer it’s disappointing,  

I have similar feelings about my Flex. The new Explorers are nice and all but I feel like I would be losing out on cargo space. The Explorer felt way more cramped to me, especially in the 2nd row. Didn't get to check out the 3rd row but looking back there it looked smaller to my eyes. The only advantage I wouldn't turn down is much better NVH. 

[rmc523]

21 hours ago, akirby said:

It does.  Corsair/Escape is too small and Aviator/Explorer is too big.  We had an Edge for 6 years, MKX for 6 years.  Planning to keep the new Nautilus for at least 10 years.  
 

I understand why it has to go from a business standpoint but as a consumer it’s disappointing,  

 

Yeah, Ford continually exiting every segment is annoying.

 

I get they can't do everything for everybody.  But when you drop cars to be SUVs/trucks only, and then you're now dropping half your SUV/crossover lineup, it's not a good look.  At least they have Bronco sport in the compact segment, but Bronco and Edge appeal to too different demographics..

 

21 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I have similar feelings about my Flex. The new Explorers are nice and all but I feel like I would be losing out on cargo space. The Explorer felt way more cramped to me, especially in the 2nd row. Didn't get to check out the 3rd row but looking back there it looked smaller to my eyes. The only advantage I wouldn't turn down is much better NVH. 

 

Flex was a fantastic vehicle when it debuted, and easily the best product in the lineup.  It too had a loyal following, but they literally never updated it aside from a different screen inside and a mild refresh.  It's a shame they couldn't recreate that package.

[Footballfan]

7 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

Yeah, Ford continually exiting every segment is annoying.

 

I get they can't do everything for everybody.  But when you drop cars to be SUVs/trucks only, and then you're now dropping half your SUV/crossover lineup, it's not a good look.  At least they have Bronco sport in the compact segment, but Bronco and Edge appeal to too different demographics..

 

 

 

Especially when they have vehicles offered in other parts of the world that could be offered and built here.

[akirby]

8 hours ago, Footballfan said:

Especially when they have vehicles offered in other parts of the world that could be offered and built here.

You can’t build those AND new BEVs AND existing cash cows without spending billions on new factories which will be empty a decade or two down the road.  And spending that money means cancelling existing projects.  Importing is a better solution but that may be too expensive or have political implications.

[rperez817]

16 hours ago, rmc523 said:

But when you drop cars to be SUVs/trucks only, and then you're now dropping half your SUV/crossover lineup, it's not a good look. 

 

It may not be a good look to the casual observer, but it is a good business plan. Amid the ongoing automotive industry revolution, Ford has a better chance of becoming a leader in BEV if as akirby mentioned the company cancels projects that don't have a good internal rate of return and discontinues product lines that don't stand out among competitors.

[bzcat]

On 6/4/2022 at 6:50 AM, jasonj80 said:

The Edge never lost money, it was a Fusion with a 10-15k price increase. So even discounted it was selling for way more than the Fusion it was based on. Edge issue was if never had a champion in Ford, that is the sole reason it is dead and never had hybrid or plug in developed (even though it was the original show car for fords hybrid tech). If a program is to survive in Ford it has to have internal fighters for project funds, it was never a priority vehicle for Ford. 

 

Exactly. 

 

Explorer was a fundamental icon level program so it was untouchable. 

 

Edge didn't have that kind of history to lean on in the US. And the replacement was tied up in Ford's internal politics over the demise of "OneFord" with Europe, China, and US all proposing different replacement paths. The US-backed CD6 Edge was pretty far in the development process before Hackett pulled the plug on it. And the Chinese version (probably based on existing CD4 platform) I believe was resurrected once Ford China was set free from "OneFord" and became the Equator. Not sure what happened to Ford Europe's "Kuga Plus" version but it never happened. 

[rperez817]

Jim Farley sent a funny twit/tweet yesterday about F-150 Lightning being ready to charge Tesla cars with its onboard Pro Power system combined with the included Tesla charging port adapter. 

 

 

[AGR]

I'm not sure where the MEB discussion was, but I'll post this news here:

John McElroy on Autoline Daily said yesterday that VW will discontinue the MEB platform, along with the one used in the Taycan, after only one generation. MEB is like GE1, based on an ICE platform. VW is developing a new clean sheet EV platform set to debut around 2025. So that is probably why Ford won't use MEB much at all.

[GearheadGrrrl]

Not surprising- In the early stages of development of a new technology like electric cars the advances come fast and furious. While TSLA's cars are becoming obsolete VW, Ford, etc. will have state of the art competitors.

[bzcat]

7 hours ago, AGR said:

I'm not sure where the MEB discussion was, but I'll post this news here:

John McElroy on Autoline Daily said yesterday that VW will discontinue the MEB platform, along with the one used in the Taycan, after only one generation. MEB is like GE1, based on an ICE platform. VW is developing a new clean sheet EV platform set to debut around 2025. So that is probably why Ford won't use MEB much at all.

 

This was well known and VW already said where it was going a year ago. SSP Trinity will replace MEB and SSP Artemis will replace J1 (Taycan).

 

 

 

But MEB is not based on ICE platform. It is an EV-only platform. The switch from MEB to SSP has to do with the modular nature of the components - Right now VW Group has two different EV platform: MEB and J1/PPE with different components and supply chain - basically they share nothing in common. VW wants to converge that into a single platform where the value-differentiating components are all plug and play. So basically, "Trinity SSP" will be value-oriented components (e.g. VW, Skoda) while "Artemis SSP" is all about performance (e.g. Porsche, Bentley), and "Apollon SSP" will fall in the middle (e.g. Audi)

 

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by bzcat

[jpd80]

9 hours ago, AGR said:

I'm not sure where the MEB discussion was, but I'll post this news here:

John McElroy on Autoline Daily said yesterday that VW will discontinue the MEB platform, along with the one used in the Taycan, after only one generation. MEB is like GE1, based on an ICE platform. VW is developing a new clean sheet EV platform set to debut around 2025. So that is probably why Ford won't use MEB much at all.

Wow, VW spent a bomb developing MEB, I think it was like $17 billion but you’re right about VW needing a new more affordable BEV platform as Tesla Berlin is gonna rip the guts out of their market, it think it’s already too late to arrest the damage for them…

So how must Ford be thinking, embracing a possibly orphan MEB platform with all the differences of switchgear, build processes and suppliers that are different enough to be painful……time to dust off a better GE1 for the compacts?

Edited June 9, 2022 by jpd80

[rperez817]

Yesterday Jim Farley joined GM CEO Mary Barra, Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares, and Toyota NA President Tetsuo Ogawa in a letter to U.S. Congress requesting removal of the 200,000 unit cap per OEM for the federal plug-in vehicle tax credit.

 

[akirby]

More importantly it subsidizes the mfrs by allowing them to charge more and generate more profit.  And it only helps higher income taxpayers.

 

Maybe we should just be subsidizing the mfrs investments in EVs that create new US jobs.

[rperez817]

29 minutes ago, akirby said:

Maybe we should just be subsidizing the mfrs investments in EVs that create new US jobs.

 

U.S. DOE ATVM program does this. For example, Ford got $5.9 billion in subsidized loans since 2009 in the ATVM program for investments in U.S. plants and workers. Now would be a good time to revise ATVM to only include BEV and BEV component manufacturing (no ICE or hybrids). DOE-LPO-ATVM-Jan2020.pdf (energy.gov)

[ice-capades]

33 minutes ago, akirby said:

More importantly it subsidizes the mfrs by allowing them to charge more and generate more profit.  And it only helps higher income taxpayers.

 

Maybe we should just be subsidizing the mfrs investments in EVs that create new US jobs.

 

Interesting points! This reminds me of what happened when the student loan programs started years ago which gave colleges a license to print money. Tuition and fees increased dramatically over the years because students had easy access to the student loan funding. 

[rperez817]

Regarding the points that akirby and ice-capades shared about the plug-in vehicle tax credit and Farley's signature on the June 13 letter to Congress, here is an alternative approach that Coltura came up with. I wrote the following in another thread.

 

"Hopefully Farley supports the proposal that Coltura put forth last year that focuses on getting gasoline Superusers to switch to BEV as quickly as possible. This is a better approach than a flat incentive structure for tax credits to BEV buyers, including the proposal in the Build Back Better bill." Gasoline Superusers Report — Coltura - moving beyond gasoline

 

Quote

• Drivers are highly unequal in their gasoline consumption. The drivers in the top 10% of gasoline consumption each use upwards of 1,000 gallons of gasoline each year. 
• Collectively Gasoline Superusers burn nearly one-third of all U.S. gasoline consumed in the U.S. by light duty vehicles. This is more than the bottom 60% of users combined. The top 20% of gasoline users burn 48%.
• Revising EV incentives to focus on displacing gasoline consumption will cut gasoline use faster, more efficiently, and at lower cost. 
• Getting Gasoline Superusers into EVs as quickly as possible is critical to hitting our climate goals

 

Key Characteristics of Gasoline Superusers:

• Use more than 1,000 gallons of gasoline a year
• Drive three times more miles than the average driver
• Are more likely to drive pickups and SUVs
• Are more likely to live in rural areas
• Have similar income and educational levels as the general population
• Have lower average income levels than current EV drivers
• Spend on average 8% of their income on gasoline — more than twice that of average drivers.

 

 

[Flying68]

3 hours ago, rperez817 said:

Regarding the points that akirby and ice-capades shared about the plug-in vehicle tax credit and Farley's signature on the June 13 letter to Congress, here is an alternative approach that Coltura came up with. I wrote the following in another thread.

 

"Hopefully Farley supports the proposal that Coltura put forth last year that focuses on getting gasoline Superusers to switch to BEV as quickly as possible. This is a better approach than a flat incentive structure for tax credits to BEV buyers, including the proposal in the Build Back Better bill." Gasoline Superusers Report — Coltura - moving beyond gasoline

 

 

I must be a super user.  I average around 19,000 miles per year, at 19 mpg, that would be 1,000 gallons, but in reality I am getting closer to 18 combined mpg.  That is just my vehicle.  The problem is that there isn't a viable replacement for a full size BOF SUV as a BEV yet.  Maybe in 3 to 4 years when my Expy is ready for replacing.  But by then if they have a hybrid, I might go with that.

[fuzzymoomoo]

You gotta love when companies want to punish their customers who are just trying to get by and not be a menace. 

Edited June 15, 2022 by fuzzymoomoo
Fixed a typo