Ford to 100% electric... Or so some thought..

[jpd80]

10 hours ago, Footballfan said:

 

Bottom line the customer is going to buy what they want. At the end of the day no politician or company is going to dictate what folks are going to drive.  If they do, they will pay in the marketplace and at the ballot box.  

 

EVs are being pushed by the Greenies and a bunch of clueless politicians who care neither about the environment nor know the workings of the auto industry.

 

EVs will have a place, mind you, as locally dispatched commercial/delivery vehicles and daily drivers all of which can be charged in one's garage or place of business.  The brick wall that these "all electric" dreams will hit is not enough charging stations and not enough electricity to power them.  

I find it interesting that companies like Ford who project the image of knowing what their customers want, suddenly realises that their plan moving towards electrification was way too slow……that’s not coming from greenies or clueless politicians, that’s a whole bunch of folks that are willing to pay for the type of vehicle they want and pay a premium for it too…..To say that Ford was floored by 200k reservations for Lightning is an understatement and, 70% of those people are non-Ford / non F-150 owners. My take on this is that there’s way more people open to electric vehicles than we imagine, has this come from spiking gas prices? Yes, there’s probably some of that but I wonder if a lot of people are seeing vehicles like Lightning as a real next vehicle, especially if used as a quasi large sedan for daily commutes and weekend go do things with the family.

 

Charging infrastructure obviously needs to grow but I see that growth as symbiotic with the rise of electric vehicles numbers, more charging stations are planned and they will continue to pop up. We often talk about constraints of home wiring to accept a charger appropriate to need and for many people, not possible due to costs or other issues with location, but there’s also a lot of people that can upgrade / install chargers and make a BEV work for them, we’ll see a lot of that to begin with so taking emphasis off requiring a complete public charging network but certainly,  that’s a growth industry. 
 

At the moment, I see the ford plan as a balanced, metered response to rising interest in electrification, we don’t really know anything about depth of sales beyond the spike in initial interest, that’s where Ford and others are spending tens of billions to get the ball rolling but in all of that, not forgetting their ICE buyers and those wanting hybrids and PHEVs, offering choices to buyers and letting them tell Ford how much electrification and how quickly they want it.

Edited February 10, 2022 by jpd80

[rperez817]

4 hours ago, jpd80 said:

My take on this is that there’s way more people open to electric vehicles than we imagine, has this come from spiking gas prices? Yes, there’s probably some of that but I wonder if a lot of people are seeing vehicles like Lightning as a real next vehicle, especially if used as a quasi large sedan for daily commutes and weekend go do things with the family.

 

Good points jpd80 sir. Like you said, spiking fuel prices may explain some of the rising consumer interest in BEV, but the biggest reasons are.

1.) As the number of BEV buyers keeps growing fast, word gets around fast as well about the significant advantages BEV have over ICE powered vehicles

2.) Once someone purchases a BEV, they're "pretty much hooked" as J.D. Power put it. 

 

This becomes a virtuous cycle as first time BEV owners later come back to buy another BEV, which keeps the momentum going.

[rperez817]

15 hours ago, Footballfan said:

The brick wall that these "all electric" dreams will hit is not enough charging stations and not enough electricity to power them.  

 

Both of these issues are being addressed nowadays, so they won't become a "brick wall" in the future.

 

For the first, governments, utility companies, charging network providers, and to a certain extent automakers (incumbent automakers could do more though) are working to continually expand the availbility of EV charging infrastructure. For example in the U.S., President Biden, USDOT and USDOE announced today the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program that will distribute $5 billion to U.S. states to help build out a national EV charging network. President Biden, USDOT and USDOE Announce $5 Billion over Five Years for National EV Charging Network, Made Possible by Bipartisan Infrastructure Law | FHWA

 

For the second, the issue isn't generating capacity, but resiliency. bzcat mentioned this in another thread.

Quote

We don't have an issue with power generation capacity. As slemke mentioned, we have way more power generating capacity than demand most of the time and all that energy usually goes to waste.

We don't have an issue with grid per se either on a national scale. Some local grids needs modernizing but it's not really a serious issue.

What we have is an issue with resiliency. Meaning the electrical system doesn't have enough slack to respond to temporary reduction in power supply. The solution to that is energy storage capacity. Without going into too much detail, utilities and municipalities across the country need to beef up on their distributed medium and long duration storage so when there are temporary reduction in supply (like shutting down transmission lines from out of state power plants to prevent wildfire), we still have enough energy in storage to power the grid until the supply disruption is over. Instead of letting excess energy go to waste during normal time, utilities should be banking that energy in storage. But they won't do it unless the regulators demands it. A few states already have energy storage targets but most states are behind on this.

Edited February 10, 2022 by rperez817

[rmc523]

19 hours ago, FordBuyer said:

 

I hate to think it as an Escape owner, but I predict Escape's days are numbered. There is talk of a Maverick CUV making the Escape redundant. Escape sales have going down every year and Maverick is hot. So take advantage with a CUV Maverick and run with it. I guess you could say the Bronco Sport is the Maverick CUV, but the Maverick CUV could be less boxy, more cargo room, more fuel efficient, better towing, and still be more rugged looking than Escape. Besides, it will take more than a new front end to turn Escape into a better seller. 

perhaps worse than the front end was the interior which got panned upon launch.   Sitting in it at auto shows and driving one, I didn’t think it was as bad as reviews made it out to be, but competitors have nicer interiors.

couple that with the poorly received media reaction to the 3 cylinder (which again I found to be just fine/nowhere near as bad as made out to be), and I’d imagine many were turned off/didn’t consider it from the get-go with the negative media reception if buyers read reviews.

 

Maverick’s interior was done using an inexpensive design, but was done in a creative/unique way using nice looking materials.   Escape needs to take that approach if it’s going to keep the “low rent” interior.   Or it just needs an upgraded one better matching competitors.

 

id also argue drop the 3 cylinder and go hybrid standard with the optional 2.0 non hybrid (I think that’s the alternative powertrain these days?).  If they can do it on Maverick, they can do it on Escape.

[twintornados]

7 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Yes sir, given that the demand for well designed BEV far exceeds supply, they are viable for sure. The biggest issue nowadays is for automakers to ramp up production capacity for BEV fast enough.

 

Because the global automotive industry is heavily regulated, government regulations also play a key role in dictating that industry's future. And of course capital markets play a key role too. Both of those are "all in" with electric vehicles.

 

No....market forces will tip in favor of BEV when the ability to charge a vehicle in under 10 minutes (solid state batteries, level 3 charging infrastructure) become a reality and the norm. BEV is already comparable to ICE when you look at them side be side per vehicle from a cost perspective (Mustang Mach E vs Edge is one example). The infrastructure and technology is not quite there yet to displace ICE...example, I can fuel up a Ford Edge quicker and more easily than I can charge up a Mach E. It's almost there...but not yet. Same example can be made for a Nissan Versa compared to a Nissan Leaf.

[pictor]

I for one plan to replace my Escape with a Maverick. Would have liked a bronco sport but I still have to tow a boat twice a year so the inferior towing capacity made it a no go. My wife didn’t appreciate the ride height of the regular Bronco, and to be honest the fuel economy numbers on the full size Bronco didn’t impress me since.  I could be wrong but I believe the Maverick may have a sweet spot in the Maverick. If only they hade enough parts build at a rate to meet demand.  The day to day practicality of the Maverick, fuel economy and price point point to long term success as long as they don’t screw it up by messing with the value proposition.

[rperez817]

1 hour ago, twintornados said:

The infrastructure and technology is not quite there yet to displace ICE...example, I can fuel up a Ford Edge quicker and more easily than I can charge up a Mach E. It's almost there...but not yet. 

 

That's true twintornados, not quite there yet today. But advancements with the BEV charging experience are very rapid, whereas the ICE fueling experience has long been in a steady state.

 

In some markets like California, even with any existing disparities between fueling an ICE vehicle vs charging a BEV outside home, BEV are showing up on lists of best-selling cars and light trucks of any type. Last year, a BEV (Tesla Model Y) came close to being the best-selling light vehicle in California (retail sales only). Model Y missed the top spot by only 1,205 units. It wouldn't be surprising if in 2022, a BEV does become #1. 

 

Personally, I'd like that #1 selling BEV to someday be a Ford product like F-150 Lightning. 

 

[FordBuyer]

1 hour ago, twintornados said:

 

No....market forces will tip in favor of BEV when the ability to charge a vehicle in under 10 minutes (solid state batteries, level 3 charging infrastructure) become a reality and the norm. BEV is already comparable to ICE when you look at them side be side per vehicle from a cost perspective (Mustang Mach E vs Edge is one example). The infrastructure and technology is not quite there yet to displace ICE...example, I can fuel up a Ford Edge quicker and more easily than I can charge up a Mach E. It's almost there...but not yet. Same example can be made for a Nissan Versa compared to a Nissan Leaf.

 

I believe I read where a new long range battery on a Mach E is $20,000 +. Something to consider as your Mach E approaches the 10 year mark. And what that does to depreciation. You basically have to replace the battery before selling it if it's more than 7 years old. 

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, FordBuyer said:

 

I believe I read where a new long range battery on a Mach E is $20,000 +. Something to consider as your Mach E approaches the 10 year mark. And what that does to depreciation. You basically have to replace the battery before selling it if it's more than 7 years old. 

 

where in the hell are you pulling that out of your ass?

Electric Vehicle Component Coverage: 8 years or 100,00 miles (whichever occurs first), with retention of 70% or more of the original High Voltage Battery capacity over that period.

 

I have an almost 12 year old Fusion Hybrid and battery still works fine on it.

So worst case scenario is that if you buy a used BEV, using the RWD Mach E extended range as an example, you go from 303 or so mile of range to 242 miles or so with possible 20% derogation of the battery. Its not as bad as you make it out to be.

To keep things "real" a 2.3L EcoBoost longblock from a Mustang is $6,595.00-which could very well fail at the 100K mark if its abused and not maintained. 

The real reason BEVs depreciate so much is the tech is changing/improving so much. Once we hit the 300 miles of range in all of them with a fairly quick recharge time, prices will stabilize. 

 

[FordBuyer]

59 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

where in the hell are you pulling that out of your ass?

Electric Vehicle Component Coverage: 8 years or 100,00 miles (whichever occurs first), with retention of 70% or more of the original High Voltage Battery capacity over that period.

 

I have an almost 12 year old Fusion Hybrid and battery still works fine on it.

So worst case scenario is that if you buy a used BEV, using the RWD Mach E extended range as an example, you go from 303 or so mile of range to 242 miles or so with possible 20% derogation of the battery. Its not as bad as you make it out to be.

To keep things "real" a 2.3L EcoBoost longblock from a Mustang is $6,595.00-which could very well fail at the 100K mark if its abused and not maintained. 

The real reason BEVs depreciate so much is the tech is changing/improving so much. Once we hit the 300 miles of range in all of them with a fairly quick recharge time, prices will stabilize. 

 

 

To sell a used electric golf cart around here, you have to replace the batteries or no one will buy it. Lead acid batteries replacement is around $1,000 and Lithium is around $4,000, about what it costs to replace the battery on my Escape Hybrid. If I were in the market for a used electrified vehicle more than 7 years old, it would need a recent battery replacement for me to be interested...golf cart or electric car. I imagine there is reason why Ford only warranties my hybrid system for 8 years or $80,000 miles. 

 

To sell my Boxster, I had to spend $3,000+ to replace the IMS bearing or no one would offer me a fair price. I wouldn't offer a fair price for an older used EV with original battery. Doubt if many would. 

[Rangers09]

4 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Good points jpd80 sir. Like you said, spiking fuel prices may explain some of the rising consumer interest in BEV, but the biggest reasons are.

1.) As the number of BEV buyers keeps growing fast, word gets around fast as well about the significant advantages BEV have over ICE powered vehicles

2.) Once someone purchases a BEV, they're "pretty much hooked" as J.D. Power put it. 

 

This becomes a virtuous cycle as first time BEV owners later come back to buy another BEV, which keeps the momentum going.

 

This might be true for car and small truck purchasers, but we have minimal, if any BEV discussion on the Super Duty Forum, where the discussion is more around 6.7 Diesel v's 7.3 gas.

 

Fortunately, Super Dutys will remain with ICE for the foresaeeable future, until they can attain the same range, payload, tow ratings and recharge in same time as filling the tank.

 

Since Ford only introduced the new 7.3 a couple of years ago to SD, and they update the 6.7 almost every year, I highly doubt they are planning to eliminate them soon.

 

 

[jpd80]

35 minutes ago, Rangers09 said:

 

This might be true for car and small truck purchasers, but we have minimal, if any BEV discussion on the Super Duty Forum, where the discussion is more around 6.7 Diesel v's 7.3 gas.

 

Fortunately, Super Dutys will remain with ICE for the foresaeeable future, until they can attain the same range, payload, tow ratings and recharge in same time as filling the tank.

 

Since Ford only introduced the new 7.3 a couple of years ago to SD, and they update the 6.7 almost every year, I highly doubt they are planning to eliminate them soon.

 

 

Makes me wonder if some kind of hybrid or PHEV might be more cost effective for Super Duty buyers, something that buyers can see saves them fuel in stop-go running with lots of speed changes.

[Rangers09]

24 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Makes me wonder if some kind of hybrid or PHEV might be more cost effective for Super Duty buyers, something that buyers can see saves them fuel in stop-go running with lots of speed changes.

 

The problem with hydrid/PHEV is that many of us use these trucks for working or towing, so the payload and towing ratings are critical. When the vehicle still requires an engine, the additional weight of batteries will result in a reduction in payload. Personally, it doesn't work for me, as I am happy with my 6.7 diesel, even with all the emissions junk.

[jpd80]

I was thinking 7.3 hybrid which has a lower payload and probably more suited to hybrid application. I don’t expect that it will replace large diesel.

[slemke]

2 hours ago, FordBuyer said:

 

To sell a used electric golf cart around here, you have to replace the batteries or no one will buy it. Lead acid batteries replacement is around $1,000 and Lithium is around $4,000, about what it costs to replace the battery on my Escape Hybrid. If I were in the market for a used electrified vehicle more than 7 years old, it would need a recent battery replacement for me to be interested...golf cart or electric car. I imagine there is reason why Ford only warranties my hybrid system for 8 years or $80,000 miles. 

 

To sell my Boxster, I had to spend $3,000+ to replace the IMS bearing or no one would offer me a fair price. I wouldn't offer a fair price for an older used EV with original battery. Doubt if many would. 

I don’t see much demand for 7-10 year old BEVs until we find out how long they last in the real world.  The battery cells used are good for 500-1000 cycles.  If charged once a week, they could last 10 to 20 years and 150000-30000 miles.  I’d buy one if it was cheap enough and the battery capacity tested out good.  Battery life could be hit or miss.

A friend of mine got rid of his model3 for a different one several months after getting the first one because the battery range was deteriorating quickly.  He had no problems with the second one.

 

By  the way, it was $28k to replace the battery pack on the Mach-e that was damaged being towed.  It will be interesting to see how insurance companies deal with it as more BEV hit the market and are involved in collisions or other mishaps.

[Trader 10]

6 hours ago, rmc523 said:

id also argue drop the 3 cylinder and go hybrid standard with the optional 2.0 non hybrid (I think that’s the alternative powertrain these days?).  If they can do it on Maverick, they can do it on Escape.

 

Would be a good idea if Ford could supply the hybrids but it cant satisfy the demand for Maverick hybrids even though they’re only offered in FWD. 

[Rangers09]

14 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I was thinking 7.3 hybrid which has a lower payload and probably more suited to hybrid application. I don’t expect that it will replace large diesel.

 

A 7.3 hybrid might work for some F-250's and F-350 SRW's, but the F-450 doesn't have the 7.3 option, as it would reduce the towing capacity. I expect the extra battery weight and reduced payload would push many up to a higher class of truck, with the associated higher registration costs in some US States.

[FordBuyer]

15 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

 

Would be a good idea if Ford could supply the hybrids but it cant satisfy the demand for Maverick hybrids even though they’re only offered in FWD. 

 

I don't think Ford will have an adequate supply of hybrid batteries until they build their big battery complex in TN which is at least 2 years away and probably longer. I would imagine those 2 plants will assemble batteries for all Ford's electrified vehicles. Ford will also be recycling batteries at those plants. 

 

Meanwhile, look for a limited supply of all of Ford's electrified vehicles for at least 3 more years. Even if  Ford gets up to stated goal of 600,000 electrified vehicles in the next 3 years, that is only 30% of Ford's total production of 2 million in N.A. 

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, Rangers09 said:

 

A 7.3 hybrid might work for some F-250's and F-350 SRW's, but the F-450 doesn't have the 7.3 option, as it would reduce the towing capacity. I expect the extra battery weight and reduced payload would push many up to a higher class of truck, with the associated higher registration costs in some US States.

For a given class of truck, the payload and towing limits for the 7.3 is less than when optioned with a 6.7 powerstroke.  The addition of something like a “7.3 Powerboost” would most likely result in an increase in payload and towing over a regular 7.3 but we’re now getting into the weeds on this… you don’t like the idea of a hybrid and I respect that, all I’m saying is that if one were to emerge, it would have to show proven worth to intended buyers, without that it’s just a novelty idea….

 

Since  there’s 7.3 in F550 and F600 as well as the Medium Dutys, it’s a bit odd that there’s  no 7.3 in F450 but I get that it’s basically a heavy duty version of F350 with upgraded rear axle, my take on F450 is that it’s clearly intended as a 6.7 Powerstroke oriented vehicle.

Edited February 11, 2022 by jpd80

[Captainp4]

Eagerly awaiting a BEV/PHEV superduty for my business. Under 200 miles a week towing a trailer that could technically be towed by a 150 but would be pushing it with 100% towing cycle. Currently get by with a 2010 6.4 F250, but it's getting up there in age and has already had an engine replacement and rear axle replacement.

[silvrsvt]

On 2/10/2022 at 8:37 PM, FordBuyer said:

 

To sell a used electric golf cart around here, you have to replace the batteries or no one will buy it. Lead acid batteries replacement is around $1,000 and Lithium is around $4,000, about what it costs to replace the battery on my Escape Hybrid. If I were in the market for a used electrified vehicle more than 7 years old, it would need a recent battery replacement for me to be interested...golf cart or electric car. I imagine there is reason why Ford only warranties my hybrid system for 8 years or $80,000 miles. 

 

To sell my Boxster, I had to spend $3,000+ to replace the IMS bearing or no one would offer me a fair price. I wouldn't offer a fair price for an older used EV with original battery. Doubt if many would. 

Why are you even bringing up lead acid batteries which are completely different tech then lithium batteries? 
 

Your IMS issue is just like any other point of failure with an ICE…other cars/products have issues- intakes on Crown Vics, transmissions on first gen Tauruses etc…

 

We just don’t have the data to see if BEVs Batteries are going to be an issue with age or not. Your just spreading FUD now. 

[Rockkicker]

hard to imagine 100% EV in the not so distant future. the infrastructure of charging stations and time to charge still has to grow, we are only now starting to see regular stations here in CT. plus, is there a retrofitting for charging stations at home? completely new to this too so i may be way out of the loop in this.

[rperez817]

1 hour ago, Rockkicker said:

is there a retrofitting for charging stations at home?

 

Yes sir Rockkicker. Ford partners with Qmerit to help their BEV owners who choose to purchase Ford Connected Charge Station (240V Level 2) get the station retrofitted and fully configured at their residences. EV Auto OEMs – Qmerit Electrification LLC

Edited February 15, 2022 by rperez817

[7Mary3]

The current administration is about to reinstate California's EPA waiver to set vehicle emissions and ZEV mandates.  That about guarantees a 100% BEV future for California, and we all know the EPA follows the CARB lock-step a few years later.  

[silvrsvt]

16 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

The current administration is about to reinstate California's EPA waiver to set vehicle emissions and ZEV mandates.  That about guarantees a 100% BEV future for California, and we all know the EPA follows the CARB lock-step a few years later.  

 

I saw something that NY State wants to ban ICE sales also. I'm sure the other CARB states (which is basically almost half the union) will start implementing the same thing between now and 2030