Future Ford EVs "Deep Into Development," Will Use Smaller Batteries

[silvrsvt]

https://insideevs.com/news/650745/future-ford-evs-deep-into-development-will-use-smaller-batteries/

 

found this interesting 

 

"Imagine three body styles, each with volume potential of up to one million units, and just a handful of orderable combinations," Farley said, adding that would translate into better quality and lower manufacturing costs, among other benefits. Speaking of simplification, Farley said Fordwants to "design the smallest possible battery for competitive size."

 

In order to further simplify production and cut costs, Farley said Ford would also offer a minimum number of available body styles – or "top hats" – for its future EVs. "On the category side, we do not want to have too many top hats, because that costs a lot to engineer. We want to have minimum choice for customers," he noted

[fuzzymoomoo]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

We want to have minimum choice for customers," he noted 

I get it from a business aspect but I can see that biting them in the ass if/when they misread what customers want/need in a particular segment. 

Edited February 4, 2023 by fuzzymoomoo

[Footballfan]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

https://insideevs.com/news/650745/future-ford-evs-deep-into-development-will-use-smaller-batteries/

 

found this interesting 

 

 

 

Sounds like a recipient for failure.  Customers want choice, not just an option of  Appliance A, B, or C.  I have a feeling Farley is in over his head and this thing is going down the same road as the Fields and Hacket years

Edited February 4, 2023 by Footballfan

[silvrsvt]

27 minutes ago, Footballfan said:

Sounds like a recipient for failure.  Customers want choice, not just an option of  Appliance A, B, or C. 

 

Japanese manufactures have had limited options on cars for years. It makes no sense to make it overly complicated. Just look at what the Mach E ordering process is...its pretty limited and much easier then say a Bronco. 

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, Footballfan said:

Sounds like a recipient for failure.  Customers want choice, not just an option of  Appliance A, B, or C.  I have a feeling Farley is in over his head and this thing is going down the same road as the Fields and Hacket years

It’s looking more like the “stock dealer/fleet  inventory build” model is being adapted to higher trim level retail customer orders, I was wondering how they would control the variability in past ordering but now I see how retail is becoming the new fleet with defined trims & options packages.

 

and that’s how Ford manages so many forward orders for retail buyers. Now if only they could build enough of the damned things…..

Edited February 4, 2023 by jpd80

[Trader 10]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Japanese manufactures have had limited options on cars for years. It makes no sense to make it overly complicated. Just look at what the Mach E ordering process is...its pretty limited and much easier then say a Bronco. 

Farley’s talking about limiting the number of EV models (top hats) to decrease costs. Japanese manufacturers (Toyota and Honda) haven’t been limiting the number of models offered. 

[akirby]

Fewer top hats is a function of new platforms.  If you’re only building 300k vehicles then split that between 2 top hats not 4.  That will change over time.

 

Honda used to offer DX, LX and EX trims with almost no other options.  It works fine.  If you give people choice they’ll take advantage of it but the majority of buyers will be fine with 2 or 3 choices.

 

I would ditch S/XL trim and make fully loaded SE/XLT trims standard with a loaded Limited/Platinum option.  Maybe one option package each and a few appearance packages.  I think a lot of folks will complain but still buy and the few that walk away will be offset by cost savings and/or new buyers.

[T-dubz]

14 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I get it from a business aspect but I can see that biting them in the ass if/when they misread what customers want/need in a particular segment. 

Exactly, and Ford is terrible at putting packages together. Look at the Bronco for example. You have to get the most expensive package just to add the wireless charger, something that is included in the cheapest option package on most other vehicles.

[Rick73]

17 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

Speaking of simplification, Farley said Fordwants to "design the smallest possible battery for competitive size." 

What does he mean by this?  Seems a little ambiguous.  In context of reducing costs, does it mean BEVs with smaller batteries and therefore reduced range?  Or something entirely different?

[mackinaw]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

What does he mean by this?  Seems a little ambiguous.  In context of reducing costs, does it mean BEVs with smaller batteries and therefore reduced range?  Or something entirely different?

 

Battery technology is in its infancy.  I suspect all manufacturers are researching how to make batteries smaller, lighter, more powerful, better cold weather performance, longer range, etc.  In the 1950's and 60's, we had the horsepower and cubic inch wars.  Now, it will be the battery war.  

[silvrsvt]

4 hours ago, T-dubz said:

Exactly, and Ford is terrible at putting packages together. Look at the Bronco for example. You have to get the most expensive package just to add the wireless charger, something that is included in the cheapest option package on most other vehicles.

 

I'll save you the time...its fucking garbage

[silvrsvt]

3 hours ago, Rick73 said:

What does he mean by this?  Seems a little ambiguous.  In context of reducing costs, does it mean BEVs with smaller batteries and therefore reduced range?  Or something entirely different?

 

Using the smallest battery packs that give you the best range/weight for what they are.

More batteries equals more weight, which impacts range and I'd guess performance a bit. 

[silvrsvt]

Just look at this way-there are going to be just less options due to having no real engine choice in a BEV-You'll select the range you want, which eventually will be a not issue, due to either expanded recharging stations or 400-500 mile range. RWD or AWD as an option.

 

Interior options-outside of color/leather and maybe an upgraded sound, what else do you need these days? Everything else would be controlled via your phone (gate/garage door access) or would come standard-like Safety options like auto braking and what not. Heated seats/wheel would be standard help with cutting back on heating power requirements

Maybe a sunroof as an option also

[mackinaw]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

More batteries equals more weight, which impacts range and I'd guess performance a bit. 

 

Battery weight affects safety too.  The Hummer EV weighs over 9,000 pounds, with the battery pack weighing as much as a Honda Accord.  The Feds are starting to worry about heavy BEV's colliding with an ordinary car.

[Chrisgb]

22 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

"We want to have minimum choice for our customers" he (Farley) noted.

That will make it much more difficult to decontent successive model years.

 

22 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

 

[akirby]

6 hours ago, T-dubz said:

Exactly, and Ford is terrible at putting packages together. Look at the Bronco for example. You have to get the most expensive package just to add the wireless charger, something that is included in the cheapest option package on most other vehicles.

Sometimes it’s tied to other features and sometimes supply is limited so it’s packaged accordingly.   Not always but there is usually a good reason for something like that.

[akirby]

5 hours ago, Rick73 said:

What does he mean by this?  Seems a little ambiguous.  In context of reducing costs, does it mean BEVs with smaller batteries and therefore reduced range?  Or something entirely different?

It means cheaper vehicles with 200 mile range instead of 400 mile range.  For most use cases 200 is more than sufficient.  

[Rick73]

Below is original article that was quoted.  It is also not entirely clear to me, but appears to suggest future EVs will have less battery capacity for their size in order to keep cost low, thereby making them more competitive in a EV price war.

 

Reminds me of some Ford comments regarding limited battery size and resulting range when eTransit was introduced.  Ford stated that many commercial vans only traveled a limited distance per day on average, and just over 100 miles of eTransit range would meet most needs.  Perhaps similar logic is being applied to cars and SUVs, by accepting that +/- 400-mile range is cost prohibitive.

 

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1138654_ford-ceo-future-evs-radically-simplified-smaller-batteries

[Chrisgb]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

Just look at this way-there are going to be just less options due to having no real engine choice in a BEV-You'll select the range you want, which eventually will be a not issue, due to either expanded recharging stations or 400-500 mile range. RWD or AWD as an option.

 

Interior options-outside of color/leather and maybe an upgraded sound, what else do you need these days? Everything else would be controlled via your phone (gate/garage door access) or would come standard-like Safety options like auto braking and what not. Heated seats/wheel would be standard help with cutting back on heating power requirements

Maybe a sunroof as an option also

Most all available as aftermarket without having to jump into a higher package with features you don't care about to get the one(s) you do.

If Ford is going to do fleet builds for retail, then customers will do what fleet buyers do; take their vehicles to an upfitter for the stuff the factory  doesn't include.

[Rick73]

34 minutes ago, akirby said:

It means cheaper vehicles with 200 mile range instead of 400 mile range.  For most use cases 200 is more than sufficient.  

Agree.  Begs the question of whether 200-mile range will be acceptable to enough buyers?  My guess is that it’s a good move to limit BEVs to more of “city car” role while battery technology and charging infrastructure improve.  Keeping cost down will help a lot, particularly with mult-car families that will retain an ICE vehicle for longer trips anyway.

[Harley Lover]

On 2/4/2023 at 3:53 PM, Rick73 said:

Below is original article that was quoted.  It is also not entirely clear to me, but appears to suggest future EVs will have less battery capacity for their size in order to keep cost low, thereby making them more competitive in a EV price war.

 

Reminds me of some Ford comments regarding limited battery size and resulting range when eTransit was introduced.  Ford stated that many commercial vans only traveled a limited distance per day on average, and just over 100 miles of eTransit range would meet most needs.  Perhaps similar logic is being applied to cars and SUVs, by accepting that +/- 400-mile range is cost prohibitive.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1138654_ford-ceo-future-evs-radically-simplified-smaller-batteries

 

From the link: 

Quote

“But we want to design the smallest possible battery for competitive size,” said Farley, who also noted the need for “radical simplification”.

And as the CEO has hinted before, he sees China as a serious threat to the EV business, as well as a “huge price war” over EVs. 

 

My take is that he's saying Ford will be adopting some 'best practices' they have identified in the competition, in the case of simplification perhaps moving towards 'gigapress' castings to both simplify and also improve quality. Gigapress certainly meets the description of 'radical simplification'. 

 

I agree with the posters here that he seems to be saying smaller batteries with less range, but 2 things: 1) those products could still be designed to accept a longer range battery (ala MME), the better to allow the consumer to decide what range they want and 2) perhaps (a big maybe) he's anticipating some fruit from Ford's investments in solid state batteries which would allow Ford to design future vehicles with smaller batteries that maintain longer range relative to the size of the battery.

 

I think it's also important to remember the audience to whom he was speaking: the investment community. He's compelled to pitch cost savings, etc. to this group. There is probably much more going on with product planning that he did not reveal to this group because it would 'wooosh' right over their heads. They only want to hear about cost efficiency and so on.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Harley Lover

[rmc523]

On 2/4/2023 at 10:01 AM, T-dubz said:

Exactly, and Ford is terrible at putting packages together. Look at the Bronco for example. You have to get the most expensive package just to add the wireless charger, something that is included in the cheapest option package on most other vehicles.

 

Yeah, same idea as having to get the top Lux package just to get a garage door opener.

 

---

 

Others have mentioned it, but they could/should do 3 trims for most products - XLT, Limited, Platinum (these names could be swapped out depending on product).  Have Platinum be loaded, with the only options being exterior and interior color, and an alt. wheel option.  Limited is well equipped, but missing some of the fanciest features (say, adaptive cruise, vs. adaptive with lane center), and AWD optional, interior/exterior colors and a alt wheel option.  XLT is decently equipped with standard safety suite, smaller screen, less features, but not bare bones - nothing says cheap like a bare bones product, and I'd hate for Ford to get that reputation.  Don't offer AWD, limit the color palette and have a single wheel design standard with no alt. option.

 

Even that setup has a large variety of combinations, but far smaller than now with dozens of a la carte options on each trim.

 

[1984Poke]

On 2/4/2023 at 9:01 AM, T-dubz said:

Exactly, and Ford is terrible at putting packages together. Look at the Bronco for example. You have to get the most expensive package just to add the wireless charger, something that is included in the cheapest option package on most other vehicles.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

Speaking as a guy who is currently on his 5th consecutive new Lincoln, I regret to say there will not be a 6th consecutive new Lincoln for me.  That disappoints me immensely but the reason is that Lincoln has driven me away with its feature-packaging choices.

 

I want a 2023 Lincoln Corsair Grand Touring PHEV, I really do, but Lincoln insists that I must accept an all-glass roof (the Panoramic Vista Roof) on even the base-level Grand Touring Corsair.

 

I'm not cheap.  The glass roof is not a cost issue for me.  It's an issue of living where there are lots of strong thunderstorms with occasionally large hail.  (My MKS took at absolute beating from a big hailstorm a few years ago, and I'm lucky that my current MKZ-h just avoided a similar hail-beating last year.)

 

I would happily buy a PHEV Grand Touring Corsair with pretty much all the "bells and whistles" (HUD, super adjustable seats, navigation, super duper audio, massaging seats, etc.) but not if it means I have to accept that stupid all-glass roof.

 

I ended up ordering a 2023 Ford Escape PHEV last month, even though it's not what I really want (I want a Grand Touring Corsair), but on the Escape, you can add all the options you want while the "panoramic" roof/all-glass roof remains an option that one can skip--which I did.

Clearly, the Louisville plant is capable of building Corsairs without the all-glass roof.  On the Reserve Corsair (the next-lower model, below the Grand Touring), the all-glass roof is an option.

 

Lincoln lost me as a customer because of this.  ☹️

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by 1984Poke