Ford introducing new 7 seat EV CUV in 2025 with 350 miles of range

[jpd80]

16 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

The Mach E is roughly the same size as a Model Y...are you thinking the X? Having a 3rd row in a C sized car isn't going to do anyone favors. 

 

Apparently the new GE2 has alot of cost savings design wise that will help keep the costs down. I see the entry level product starting around 40K with 250 miles of range, but the longer range model will be a bit more. 

Looking at the overhang of the wheels, the track looks to be around four inches wider than the Mach E body

which suggests that yeah, more like Tesla X sized vehicle but hopefully, nowhere near as expensive.

 

I’m thinking of that Cadillac EV that is the  next size bigger than the Y, a good size that justifies the  price premium, so I hope that Ford and Lincoln hit and stick with this thing because they are giving up a slam dunk EV Explorer/Aviator combo to do this. I sure hope that they don’t disappoint buyers wanting the latter just to save face on production at CAP

Edited June 14, 2023 by jpd80

[Oac98]

50 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Looking at the overhang of the wheels, the track looks to be around four inches wider than the Mach E body

which suggests that yeah, more like Tesla X sized vehicle but hopefully, nowhere near as expensive.

 

I’m thinking of that Cadillac EV that is the  next size bigger than the Y, a good size that justifies the  price premium, so I hope that Ford and Lincoln hit and stick with this thing because they are giving up a slam dunk EV Explorer/Aviator combo to do this. I sure hope that they don’t disappoint buyers wanting the latter just to save face on production at CAP

It will be a shame if Ford screws this up. Jim Farley is going on and on about how great these gen 2 EVs will be God I hope he’s right.

[jpd80]

36 minutes ago, Oacjay98 said:

It will be a shame if Ford screws this up. Jim Farley is going on and on about how great these gen 2 EVs will be God I hope he’s right.

I don’t want to be a Debbie downer here because the size of these vehicles and three row part will certainly tick a lot of boxes. I just think they should be doing both the original SUVs and CUVs but someone got in Farley’s ear and changed his mind. He’s limiting new GE2s because Tesla is showing what can be done with just a few vehicles, Jim should know better, Ford is not Tesla and has to offer choices.

Edited June 14, 2023 by jpd80

[Oac98]

12 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

I don’t want to be a Debbie downer here because the size of these vehicles and three row part will certainly tick a lot of boxes. I just think they should be doing both the original SUVs and CUVs but someone got in Farley’s ear and changed his mind. He’s limiting new GE2s because Tesla is showing what can be done with just a few vehicles, Jim should know better, Ford is not Tesla and has to offer choices.

I agree with you, maybe it will work out well. We have to see the finished product then assess and give our opinions

[silvrsvt]

3 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I hope that Ford and Lincoln hit and stick with this thing because they are giving up a slam dunk EV Explorer/Aviator combo to do this. I sure hope that they don’t disappoint buyers wanting the latter just to save face on production at CAP

 

I think the issue we are seeing here is Ford is trying to avoid product overlap where possible. Why have two products that are directly competing against one another, if you don't need to? The ICE Explorer in its current form will be around till the end of the decade at least to pay back its development costs, so why reinvent the wheel have a BEV Explorer compete with the ICE model? I'd see this upcoming model like the Flex-a three row vehicle that appeals to people who don't really want an SUV/CUV Explorer. Like Ford said, the transition to BEVs isn't a monolith and we still have at least 11-12 years of ICE sales in North America in some form. I'd expect a big drop over the course of the next 7 years, but their will still be some sort of market for ICE. 

 

Not to mention it gives BEV tech another five years or so of additional development to close up any perceived gaps that people have against buying a BEV to make the transition easier. 

[akirby]

I agree with the product overlap but you could say the same thing about F150 Lightning.

 

In this case I think price is the driving factor - trying to make a 7 seater that’s not $80k.

[silvrsvt]

8 minutes ago, akirby said:

I agree with the product overlap but you could say the same thing about F150 Lightning.

Well I think the Lightning was basically Ford wanting to be first with a BEV pickup since they are considered the market leader in North America-they didn’t want to fast follow with that and the Thunder is the real answer to the other BEV trucks that is a bit more radical. 
 

I’m curious as to how well GM will do with the Equinox and Blazer BEVs and how much of an impact they’ll have on their ICE counterparts. 

[Oac98]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

I think the issue we are seeing here is Ford is trying to avoid product overlap where possible. Why have two products that are directly competing against one another, if you don't need to? The ICE Explorer in its current form will be around till the end of the decade at least to pay back its development costs, so why reinvent the wheel have a BEV Explorer compete with the ICE model? I'd see this upcoming model like the Flex-a three row vehicle that appeals to people who don't really want an SUV/CUV Explorer. Like Ford said, the transition to BEVs isn't a monolith and we still have at least 11-12 years of ICE sales in North America in some form. I'd expect a big drop over the course of the next 7 years, but their will still be some sort of market for ICE. 

 

Not to mention it gives BEV tech another five years or so of additional development to close up any perceived gaps that people have against buying a BEV to make the transition easier. 

We know Ford changes plans all the time, I seen on autoforecast solutions awhile back that OAC was is supposed to get Explorer EV and Aviator Gt EV. With a Dec 2nd 2025 production start date. We all know this and have heard this for awhile now. I also seen that there was no more ICE aviator scheduled. So what does this all mean some renamed Ford EV to pair up with the Aviator GT EV?? I can’t wait til contract time. It’s time to get some info now. I also seen ICE explorer on that scheduling past 2030. Once again, this can all change. Ford hasn’t said a damn thing so I personally doubt they’ll use the explorer name although they claim it will be an ICONIC product. So who knows! Speculation here is March 8 2024 Exge production ends and Dec 15 2023 for Nautilus. Retooling time frame 6 months is what the company wants I’m hearing.

[DeluxeStang]

5 hours ago, Oacjay98 said:

It will be a shame if Ford screws this up. Jim Farley is going on and on about how great these gen 2 EVs will be God I hope he’s right.

I agree with you. But he's the CEO of the company. I don't see him publicly saying "Guess what, these new EVs are terrible". He's described the ev explorer as divisive and has said t3 will be controversial with it's design. So that could be him admitting a lot of people don't like how these vehicles look.  

Edited June 14, 2023 by DeluxeStang

[Rick73]

46 minutes ago, akirby said:

I agree with the product overlap but you could say the same thing about F150 Lightning.

 

In this case I think price is the driving factor - trying to make a 7 seater that’s not $80k.

Agree pricing is driving the bus.  Using Tesla as example, Models 3/Y sales are now far greater than S/X.  That’s not to say there are not some buyers for S/Y, or Lucid, or Mercedes, but the list of BEV best sellers last year was dominated mostly by affordable offerings.

 

For time being until batteries become much cheaper, lower-cost vehicles will require smaller batteries, and since most buyers appear unwilling to settle for a driving range much below 250 miles, it forces vehicle affordability to be range-efficient.

 

If Ford doesn’t want to compete in crowded markets, maybe an expensive large 7-seater is what we are looking at in that test mule.  On the other hand that test mule from a couple of years ago may have been found undesirable and Ford moved on to some other concept.  Who knows?

 

 

[silvrsvt]

11 minutes ago, Oacjay98 said:

We know Ford changes plans all the time, I seen on autoforecast solutions awhile back that OAC was is supposed to get Explorer EV and Aviator Gt EV. With a Dec 2nd 2025 production start date. We all know this and have heard this for awhile now. I also seen that there was no more ICE aviator scheduled. 

 

Right but they also completely missed the Nautilus getting imported from China too, which was an unexpected move. The Auto Solutions Forcast is based on supplier reporting and it a better reading of the tea leaves for future product, but not infallible. 

[Oac98]

13 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

I agree with you. But he's the CEO of the company. I don't see him publicly saying "Guess what, these new EVs are terrible". He's described the ev explorer as divisive and has said t3 will be controversial with it's design. So that could be him admitting a lot of people don't like how these vehicles look.  

Very true he has to endorse the product and he did indeed say some people may not like the new stylings.

[Oac98]

26 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Right but they also completely missed the Nautilus getting imported from China too, which was an unexpected move. The Auto Solutions Forcast is based on supplier reporting and it a better reading of the tea leaves for future product, but not infallible. 

That’s true I didn’t see the Nautilus move on their list which is somewhat tentative in nature.  The got EV Bronco EV Ranger for BOC on that list too. 

[jpd80]

Also, Farley’s recent announcement committing to hydrogen vehicles shows a to and fro dysfunction within Ford, they  keep changing their future target (appearing superficially committed to whatever is convenient?)

 

Notice how the narrative and plan changes every year.when some other idea takes their fancy. So I’m wondering how many tens of billions Ford will blow on EVs only to find that sales depth is not there yet, and hydrogen vehicles are the new target…..

Edited June 14, 2023 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

32 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Notice how the narrative and plan changes every year.when some other idea takes their fancy. So I’m wondering how many tens of billions Ford will blow on EVs only to find that sales depth is not there yet, and hydrogen vehicles are the new target…..

 

Hydrogen only makes sense for large vehicles that need to tow something...its not going to work for the vast majority of things

 

[jpd80]

7 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Hydrogen only makes sense for large vehicles that need to tow something...its not going to work for the vast majority of things

 

Correct but Farley’s messaging seems confusing, it’s like people are seeing this as an either/or decision for commitment. I do hope it works out for Ford and importing Nautilus from China should be a no brainer given expected sales volume. It just feels like EV rollout will be a lot slower than what Ford though a few years ago, I wonder how reservation holder feel about that…

[rmc523]

8 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

I think the issue we are seeing here is Ford is trying to avoid product overlap where possible. Why have two products that are directly competing against one another, if you don't need to? The ICE Explorer in its current form will be around till the end of the decade at least to pay back its development costs, so why reinvent the wheel have a BEV Explorer compete with the ICE model? I'd see this upcoming model like the Flex-a three row vehicle that appeals to people who don't really want an SUV/CUV Explorer. Like Ford said, the transition to BEVs isn't a monolith and we still have at least 11-12 years of ICE sales in North America in some form. I'd expect a big drop over the course of the next 7 years, but their will still be some sort of market for ICE. 

 

Not to mention it gives BEV tech another five years or so of additional development to close up any perceived gaps that people have against buying a BEV to make the transition easier. 

 

I absolutely get what you're saying, but I'd give some pushback on that with the following points:

 

-they don't want to be left behind in a segment they're currently at the top of

-as competitors offer more traditional BEV 3-rows, if Ford doesn't have an entrant, will that siphon off those buyers?

-will there be enough buyers of this....."bullet thing" to replace lost ICE 3 row sales?

 

I think we'll ultimately see them do a "D, all of the above" like they're doing with F-150 (ICE, Lightning, and more "futuristic"/controversial "Thunder") for the 7-passenger segment by having ICE Explorer, "Bullet thing" and eventually BEV Explorer, but it sounds like they're trying to get some more attention by doing the bullet thing first.

[silvrsvt]

8 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

I absolutely get what you're saying, but I'd give some pushback on that with the following points:

 

-they don't want to be left behind in a segment they're currently at the top of

-as competitors offer more traditional BEV 3-rows, if Ford doesn't have an entrant, will that siphon off those buyers?

-will there be enough buyers of this....."bullet thing" to replace lost ICE 3 row sales?

 

I think we'll ultimately see them do a "D, all of the above" like they're doing with F-150 (ICE, Lightning, and more "futuristic"/controversial "Thunder") for the 7-passenger segment by having ICE Explorer, "Bullet thing" and eventually BEV Explorer, but it sounds like they're trying to get some more attention by doing the bullet thing first.

 

I don't think they'll be left behind...there is a new/refreshed Explorer coming in the next 18 months, which Fall of 2024, would be could technically a 2025 model year product. That would be on sale for say 4 years or so, which would bring us to CY2029. 

I'm also guessing this is an exercise in efficiency/aerodynamics-an Explorer shaped BEV might be giving up some aero to the point that it loses 20-50 miles of range that it can't afford to give up due to battery size/weight? Having another 5 years of development allows either for better batteries or at least the infrastructure to be built out more that its not an issue any more. 

[Gurgeh]

14 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

...Having another 5 years of development allows either for better batteries or at least the infrastructure to be built out more that its not an issue any more. 

I hope 5 years will finally get into the commercialization of solid state batteries. Notice Toyota's big solid state battery "breakthrough" announcement a couple of days ago? Well, if you get into the details of the announcement you see that there's no projected date for their application and that the EVs they have planned within the next few years all use traditional EV battery technology. Their "breakthrough" seems to be nothing much different from the press releases we've seen in the last couple of years from other solid state developers about their own path to the technology's commercial application within the 5-7 year timeframe.

[silvrsvt]

22 minutes ago, Gurgeh said:

I hope 5 years will finally get into the commercialization of solid state batteries. Notice Toyota's big solid state battery "breakthrough" announcement a couple of days ago? Well, if you get into the details of the announcement you see that there's no projected date for their application and that the EVs they have planned within the next few years all use traditional EV battery technology. Their "breakthrough" seems to be nothing much different from the press releases we've seen in the last couple of years from other solid state developers about their own path to the technology's commercial application within the 5-7 year timeframe.

 

Right, but I think the whole range thing becomes a moot point if charging points are ubiquitous as gas stations and you can charge to 80% in 20 minutes or less. I bought stock in Soildpower, but I still think Solid state batteries are at least 5-10 years out from becoming a thing.

 

Its like people wanting 500 mile range electric cars when the vast majority of gas powered cars only go about 300-400 miles on a single tank. 

[tbone]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Right, but I think the whole range thing becomes a moot point if charging points are ubiquitous as gas stations and you can charge to 80% in 20 minutes or less. I bought stock in Soildpower, but I still think Solid state batteries are at least 5-10 years out from becoming a thing.

 

Its like people wanting 500 mile range electric cars when the vast majority of gas powered cars only go about 300-400 miles on a single tank. 

However, I can pull into a gas station and be back on the road within 5 five minutes or less, so 300-400 miles doesn’t affect me. I don’t have to plan out a route because gas stations are everywhere.  Until EVs can charge in 5 minutes and chargers are easily accessible, they will be low on my interest list.  Convenience and flexibility are important to me, and EVs don’t really offer that right now IMO.  I value time, and when I see people sitting at a charging station for extended periods of time, it does not appeal to me.  
 

I will be getting a Mach E work vehicle to test out within the next few weeks so I will get first hand, real world experience with one, so perhaps it will change my mind.  

[mackinaw]

4 hours ago, Gurgeh said:

I hope 5 years will finally get into the commercialization of solid state batteries. Notice Toyota's big solid state battery "breakthrough" announcement a couple of days ago? Well, if you get into the details of the announcement you see that there's no projected date for their application and that the EVs they have planned within the next few years all use traditional EV battery technology. Their "breakthrough" seems to be nothing much different from the press releases we've seen in the last couple of years from other solid state developers about their own path to the technology's commercial application within the 5-7 year timeframe.

Toyota's recent dog & pony show was to satisfy some militant investors who wanted to see the Toyota CEO resign because of Toyota's lukewarm support of EV's.  Their battery breakthrough made no mention of cost either.  A 900 mile range is impressive, but at what cost?

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, tbone said:

However, I can pull into a gas station and be back on the road within 5 five minutes or less, so 300-400 miles doesn’t affect me. I don’t have to plan out a route because gas stations are everywhere.  Until EVs can charge in 5 minutes and chargers are easily accessible, they will be low on my interest list.  Convenience and flexibility are important to me, and EVs don’t really offer that right now IMO.  I value time, and when I see people sitting at a charging station for extended periods of time, it does not appeal to me.  
 

I will be getting a Mach E work vehicle to test out within the next few weeks so I will get first hand, real world experience with one, so perhaps it will change my mind.  

 

If you can charge at home, the point is moot for the most part...you'd have to charge once or twice a week depending on your commute or if you can charge at work. Plus I guess you missed the part about charging being ubiquitous as finding a gas station. Even if you didn't have charging at home, you could drive to Target (for example) go shopping for 30 minutes and your car would be at 80-90% charge when your done. Its a mindset change from oh I have to stop at a gas station to hey I can get this done while the car is getting charged, if you don't have access to a charger at home/work. 

 

Realistically having to charge for 15-20 minutes on a 3-4+ hour drive isn't a bad thing...get lunch or coffee and unwind a bit.  

[rmc523]

8 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

I think the issue we are seeing here is Ford is trying to avoid product overlap where possible. Why have two products that are directly competing against one another, if you don't need to? The ICE Explorer in its current form will be around till the end of the decade at least to pay back its development costs, so why reinvent the wheel have a BEV Explorer compete with the ICE model? I'd see this upcoming model like the Flex-a three row vehicle that appeals to people who don't really want an SUV/CUV Explorer. Like Ford said, the transition to BEVs isn't a monolith and we still have at least 11-12 years of ICE sales in North America in some form. I'd expect a big drop over the course of the next 7 years, but their will still be some sort of market for ICE. 

 

Not to mention it gives BEV tech another five years or so of additional development to close up any perceived gaps that people have against buying a BEV to make the transition easier. 

 

I absolutely get what you're saying, but I'd give some pushback on that with the following points:

 

-they don't want to be left behind in a segment they're currently at the top of

-as competitors offer more traditional BEV 3-rows, if Ford doesn't have an entrant, will that siphon off those buyers?

-will there be enough buyers of this....."bullet thing" to replace lost ICE 3 row sales?

 

I think we'll ultimately see them do a "D, all of the above" like they're doing with F-150 (ICE, Lightning, and more "futuristic"/controversial "Thunder") for the 7-passenger segment by having ICE Explorer, "Bullet thing" and eventually BEV Explorer, but it sounds like they're trying to get some more attention by doing the bullet thing first.

[Harley Lover]

1 hour ago, mackinaw said:

 Their battery breakthrough made no mention of cost either.  A 900 mile range is impressive, but at what cost?

 

Not true: 

Quote

The company stated it has achieved a “technological breakthrough,” having resolved solid-state batteries’ durability issues without providing details. It claims to be working on a method to mass produce the batteries for 2027–2028 with a 746-mile range, a recharge time of less than 10 minutes and a cost 20% lower than current batteries. All would be impressive breakthroughs.

 

Quote

Next up will be a bipolar lithium iron phosphate battery that arrives around 2026 or 2027. Bipolar batteries boost power density by combining anode and cathode terminals into the same current collector. Anodes and cathodes normally have their own collectors.

This battery will boost range by 20 percent over today's bZ4X battery while reducing its cost by 40 percent, thanks to the use of the less expensive iron phosphate chemistry.

 

I'm not saying I believe the claims or their timeline, only pointing out that they did address cost.

 

https://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2023/06/toyota-reveals-ev-plans-ahead-of-shareholders-meeting/

https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/toyota-future-ev-plans-include-batteries-900-mile-range?utm_source=breaking-news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20230612&utm_content=hero-headline