2024 FORD EXPLORER SPIED WITH CHINESE COUNTERPART’S FEATURES

[tbone]

9 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

Not to mention the Edge demographic market is being served by the Mach E and Bronco, and maybe the Bronco Sport to an extent. 

 

Some sales figures for the segments

 

https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2023-us-midsize-suv-sales-figures/#quarterlysales

 

https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2023-us-small-suv-sales-figures/#quarterlysales

I would be shocked if anyone replaced their Edge with a BS.  I’ve driven one for several thousands miles and it is not comparable to the Edges I’ve driven.  The backseat room is marginal at best, and is even exceeded by the Escape.  
 

Perhaps a Mach E could replace it but I also don’t see the Bronco as a replacement as it is a very different vehicle.  In my opinion it’s a mistake for Ford not to have a direct replacement for it.  
 

Every vehicle category has the potential to become a commodity, it’s Ford’s responsibility to design a vehicle for the segment that is desirable and can be built at a profit. They could have used the Evos as an Edge replacement but they chose not to.  I’m not a fan of their willingness to abandon segments because of competition. I understand dumping something if you aren’t making any money on it, but  you should strive to keep people in Ford vehicles where possible.  

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, tbone said:

Every vehicle category has the potential to become a commodity, it’s Ford’s responsibility to design a vehicle for the segment that is desirable and can be built at a profit. They could have used the Evos as an Edge replacement but they chose not to.  I’m not a fan of their willingness to abandon segments because of competition. I understand dumping something if you aren’t making any money on it, but  you should strive to keep people in Ford vehicles where possible.  

Exactly, what confuses me is Ford's all over the place strategy. They started out making their hybrid's/EVs generic compliance commodity vehicles, like the c-max. Then they smartly switched strategy, pivoting their EVs and hybrids to be aspirational products like the mach-e and maverick. Now it feels like they're swinging away from aspirational vehicle, back to generic commodity vehicles like the upcoming bullet train ev. 

 

In other words, their ev offerings have gone from ew, to hell yeah, and now it's going back to ew with the upcoming three row. Farley bashes generic commodity products, but a funky styled areo driven 7 seater SUV is as generic as they get. 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, tbone said:

I would be shocked if anyone replaced their Edge with a BS.  I’ve driven one for several thousands miles and it is not comparable to the Edges I’ve driven.  The backseat room is marginal at best, and is even exceeded by the Escape.  
 

Perhaps a Mach E could replace it but I also don’t see the Bronco as a replacement as it is a very different vehicle.  In my opinion it’s a mistake for Ford not to have a direct replacement for it.  
 

Every vehicle category has the potential to become a commodity, it’s Ford’s responsibility to design a vehicle for the segment that is desirable and can be built at a profit. They could have used the Evos as an Edge replacement but they chose not to.  I’m not a fan of their willingness to abandon segments because of competition. I understand dumping something if you aren’t making any money on it, but  you should strive to keep people in Ford vehicles where possible.  

 

 

16 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Exactly, what confuses me is Ford's all over the place strategy. They started out making their hybrid's/EVs generic compliance commodity vehicles, like the c-max. Then they smartly switched strategy, pivoting their EVs and hybrids to be aspirational products like the mach-e and maverick. Now it feels like they're swinging away from aspirational vehicle, back to generic commodity vehicles like the upcoming bullet train ev. 

 

In other words, their ev offerings have gone from ew, to hell yeah, and now it's going back to ew with the upcoming three row. Farley bashes generic commodity products, but a funky styled areo driven 7 seater SUV is as generic as they get. 

You guys clearly don’t understand what commodity means.  It means multiple competitors at low prices with very little differentiation that buyers care about, Take family sedans - none of them are head and shoulders above the others,  Nissan and the Koreans waged a price war that kept prices way down.  Not enough buyers cared about Fusion sport 2.7L or AWD or Titanium features.  In the end it mostly came down to price.  There just isn’t much you can do to differentiate a fwd family sedan enough to justify higher prices,  No passion, just appliances,  That kills profits for everyone.  Contrast that to Bronco and Bronco Sport and Maverick.  Almost no competition, lots of differentiation and options to drive up prices and no low price competition.  And passion.  That drives big profit.

 

I don’t see any other lower cost 3 row BEV SUVS out there so while you think the styling will be bland it shouldn’t have much, if any, competition at least for awhile.  That means no price wars and stable profits.  That’s the opposite of commodity - if you want one you have to go to Ford.

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

 

 

You guys clearly don’t understand what commodity means.  It means multiple competitors at low prices with very little differentiation that buyers care about, Take family sedans - none of them are head and shoulders above the others,  Nissan and the Koreans waged a price war that kept prices way down.  Not enough buyers cared about Fusion sport 2.7L or AWD or Titanium features.  In the end it mostly came down to price.  There just isn’t much you can do to differentiate a fwd family sedan enough to justify higher prices,  No passion, just appliances,  That kills profits for everyone.  Contrast that to Bronco and Bronco Sport and Maverick.  Almost no competition, lots of differentiation and options to drive up prices and no low price competition.  And passion.  That drives big profit.

 

I don’t see any other lower cost 3 row BEV SUVS out there so while you think the styling will be bland it shouldn’t have much, if any, competition at least for awhile.  That means no price wars and stable profits.  That’s the opposite of commodity - if you want one you have to go to Ford.

Good sir, we basically just said the same thing. We're both saying commodity vehicles are bland, less aspirational, less profitable products that tend to be unable to differentiate from their competitiors. Hence why I described the c-max as a commodity product, and the mach-e as a more aspirational product. 

 

I understand that three row ev crossovers are a less competitive, and potentially more profitable than two row crossover EVs if they're well executed. But it's clear to see that three row ev crossovers are the next major investment from many brands. Kia and Hyundai's three row EVs look like they're going to beat the explorer to the market, GM has already teased a Cadillac three row ev, I have to assume a significantly cheaper Chevy three row SUV isn't far behind. Count on three rows from Toyota and VW being in development among others.

 

Ford's three row may not have a ton of competition on day 1, but it will after a year or two. Ford has to count on that. 

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

I don’t see any other lower cost 3 row BEV SUVS out there so while you think the styling will be bland it shouldn’t have much, if any, competition at least for awhile.  That means no price wars and stable profits.  That’s the opposite of commodity - if you want one you have to go to Ford.

Again, this is another area where Ford's strategy is unique. Focusing on areo so they can achieve range targets with smaller, cheaper batteries, savings which can be passed onto consumers. But here's the problem, of the Ford three row is a... questionably styled, compromised product that's main claim to fame is that it's cheaper than other three rows, isn't that a problem?

 

Let's say Ford's three row is 5 grand cheaper than it's rivals. A sizable price difference, all well and good. But consumers have shown that when they're spending more money on a vehicle, 40, 50, 60 grand or more, they're more elastic on the prices they'll pay for a vehicle that offers better performance, tech, and design. Price sensitivity appears to drop off the higher up the ladder you climb. 

 

I could see a problem where someone looks at a 45 grand Ford three row, and a 50 grand Hyundai three row, and says "The Ford is cheaper, but the Hyundai looks better, and has better tech, and a better warranty, so I'm ok with paying that extra 5 grand. What's a few thousand spent on a better product when I can distribute that cost over the decade or so that I own it". I guarantee that scenario is going to play out quite a bit. Then, all of a sudden, in a desperate bid to move more product, ford starts slashing prices just to get rid of these funky failed science experiment on wheels looking things, and just like that, they're back where they started, competing on price again. 

[AGR]

3 hours ago, tbone said:

Every vehicle category has the potential to become a commodity, it’s Ford’s responsibility to design a vehicle for the segment that is desirable and can be built at a profit. They could have used the Evos as an Edge replacement but they chose not to.  I’m not a fan of their willingness to abandon segments because of competition. I understand dumping something if you aren’t making any money on it, but  you should strive to keep people in Ford vehicles where possible.  

 

Quoted this part because it needs to be repeated. (apparently over and over again)

The Maverick and Bronco Sport* will have competitors, so does Ford abandon those segments when the competition gets too tough?

*Subaru, Honda, and others already have "offroad" packages for some of their CUVs. If boxy styling isn't a gotta have...

 

The answer, as always, is better products, not running away.

 

[tbone]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

 

 

You guys clearly don’t understand what commodity means.  It means multiple competitors at low prices with very little differentiation that buyers care about, Take family sedans - none of them are head and shoulders above the others,  Nissan and the Koreans waged a price war that kept prices way down.  Not enough buyers cared about Fusion sport 2.7L or AWD or Titanium features.  In the end it mostly came down to price.  There just isn’t much you can do to differentiate a fwd family sedan enough to justify higher prices,  No passion, just appliances,  That kills profits for everyone.  Contrast that to Bronco and Bronco Sport and Maverick.  Almost no competition, lots of differentiation and options to drive up prices and no low price competition.  And passion.  That drives big profit.

 

I don’t see any other lower cost 3 row BEV SUVS out there so while you think the styling will be bland it shouldn’t have much, if any, competition at least for awhile.  That means no price wars and stable profits.  That’s the opposite of commodity - if you want one you have to go to Ford.

The competition is coming in virtually every category as stated by others.  Every time this happens do they just abandon ship?  Regarding your Fusion example, that was bound for failure based on Ford’s pathetic management of the model that looked virtually unchanged for eight years. No wonder there was no incentive to buy a new one or pay a premium price.  Let’s not get into the debate about engineering, production capacity, etc, in this thread. I was just pointing out the lack of change to drive sales.  

[Harley Lover]

It could be argued that one of the primary differentiators is styling. The Bronco hit it out of the park. The Escape is improved for 2023, but apparently regarded at 'not good enough' since it's been characterized as a follower, not a leader in its segment. I'm not sure how the Edge is seen by Ford.

 

Years ago, there was a great quote from someone in the auto biz along the lines of "It doesn't cost any more to design(style) a great looking vehicle than to design a mediocre looking vehicle". If Ford believes it can deliver 'gotta have' vehicles, then it needs more Broncos and no more 2020 Escapes. I'm not convinced Ford has the moxy to deliver; how did the Escape get past management into production? Will the upcoming 3 row EV mentioned previously in the thread be as abysmal as some fear? Why is Ford already making excuses for its appearance? 

 

If Ford wants to sell aspirational products in each segment, where's the proof that they can consistently deliver that type of product? For every Bronco, there's an Escape. That won't be satisfactory going forward. Remember when Mullally said each Ford should be the best product in its segment? Does anyone here believe that is still the case?

[akirby]

8 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Good sir, we basically just said the same thing. We're both saying commodity vehicles are bland, less aspirational, less profitable products that tend to be unable to differentiate from their competitiors. Hence why I described the c-max as a commodity product, and the mach-e as a more aspirational product.  

Commodity isn’t dictated by the design, it’s dictated by the market.  You can have a great design but if it’s in a commodity market where the majority of buyers only cross shop on price then you’re screwed.  Bronco Sport and Maverick created new markets and Bronco entered one with only one competitor.  The question is basically are people willing to pay a premium for that product (meaning no big factory discounts).  It’s more about the buyers and other competitors than design.

[akirby]

7 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Again, this is another area where Ford's strategy is unique. Focusing on areo so they can achieve range targets with smaller, cheaper batteries, savings which can be passed onto consumers. But here's the problem, of the Ford three row is a... questionably styled, compromised product that's main claim to fame is that it's cheaper than other three rows, isn't that a problem?

 

Let's say Ford's three row is 5 grand cheaper than it's rivals. A sizable price difference, all well and good. But consumers have shown that when they're spending more money on a vehicle, 40, 50, 60 grand or more, they're more elastic on the prices they'll pay for a vehicle that offers better performance, tech, and design. Price sensitivity appears to drop off the higher up the ladder you climb. 

 

I could see a problem where someone looks at a 45 grand Ford three row, and a 50 grand Hyundai three row, and says "The Ford is cheaper, but the Hyundai looks better, and has better tech, and a better warranty, so I'm ok with paying that extra 5 grand. What's a few thousand spent on a better product when I can distribute that cost over the decade or so that I own it". I guarantee that scenario is going to play out quite a bit. Then, all of a sudden, in a desperate bid to move more product, ford starts slashing prices just to get rid of these funky failed science experiment on wheels looking things, and just like that, they're back where they started, competing on price again. 

I think you’re jumping to way too many conclusions about a vehicle we haven’t really seen nor have we seen the potential competition yet.  The design may be far more appealing in final form and we don’t know the price point and range relative to others.  We’ll just have to wait and see.  I agree if price and range are the main selling point it better be significantly better.

 

I think it’s a good strategy if the aero combined with new batteries give them a big price advantage while the competition is doing more traditional and much more expensive designs.

[akirby]

8 hours ago, AGR said:

 

Quoted this part because it needs to be repeated. (apparently over and over again)

The Maverick and Bronco Sport* will have competitors, so does Ford abandon those segments when the competition gets too tough?

*Subaru, Honda, and others already have "offroad" packages for some of their CUVs. If boxy styling isn't a gotta have...

 

The answer, as always, is better products, not running away.

 

For the millionth time, it’s not just competition.  There is huge competition in full sized trucks but Ford still dominates.  Look at the factory and aftermarket options for Maverick and Bronco Sport.  Those aren’t commodity buyers looking for the lowest cost.  An off-road package for RAV4 isn’t going to turn Bronco Sport into a commodity.  Ford has to work to keep the market lead but those are not commodity markets.

[akirby]

7 hours ago, tbone said:

The competition is coming in virtually every category as stated by others.  Every time this happens do they just abandon ship?  Regarding your Fusion example, that was bound for failure based on Ford’s pathetic management of the model that looked virtually unchanged for eight years. No wonder there was no incentive to buy a new one or pay a premium price.  Let’s not get into the debate about engineering, production capacity, etc, in this thread. I was just pointing out the lack of change to drive sales.  

There is nothing you can do to a mass market family sedan to make it any less of a commodity.  You can’t give it big tires or off road packages.  Buyers don’t care about performance.  They don’t care about luxury features - if they want that they get an entry level luxury sedan.  It’s just dependable comfortable transportation.

 

Yes - lack of updates made Fusion less desirable but that wasn’t the problem.  Even when it was fresh in 2013 and they sold 300k they simply weren’t making much profit thanks to Nissan and the Koreans and their bargain basement pricing.  Fusion Titaniums (I had a 2013) were far better than the competition and so was the 2017 sport.  But only a few people cared enough to pay the premium.

 

It’s like trying to sell a $7 bottle of designer ketchup.  A few will pay but everybody else is just buying the regular $3 bottle because ketchup is ketchup.  There is profit in commodity items but the margins are really small and you need high volume which requires a lot of infrastructure.  If that’s the only game in town then you play.  But if you have better options then that investment can yield better returns.  Case in point - Hermosillo and MAP.

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Harley Lover said:

It could be argued that one of the primary differentiators is styling. The Bronco hit it out of the park. The Escape is improved for 2023, but apparently regarded at 'not good enough' since it's been characterized as a follower, not a leader in its segment. I'm not sure how the Edge is seen by Ford.

 

Years ago, there was a great quote from someone in the auto biz along the lines of "It doesn't cost any more to design(style) a great looking vehicle than to design a mediocre looking vehicle". If Ford believes it can deliver 'gotta have' vehicles, then it needs more Broncos and no more 2020 Escapes. I'm not convinced Ford has the moxy to deliver; how did the Escape get past management into production? Will the upcoming 3 row EV mentioned previously in the thread be as abysmal as some fear? Why is Ford already making excuses for its appearance? 

 

If Ford wants to sell aspirational products in each segment, where's the proof that they can consistently deliver that type of product? For every Bronco, there's an Escape. That won't be satisfactory going forward. Remember when Mullally said each Ford should be the best product in its segment? Does anyone here believe that is still the case?

I agree Ford needs better designs on some products.  I think Escape was intended to fill the gap left by Focus hatchbacks and they wanted max mpg for the hybrid version.  And they wanted a softer alternative to the Bronco Sport.  It’s not bad but it’s not great.  I think they get too caught up in a formula trying to hit this target or that target instead of just making a great vehicle.  We saw that with the Mach-E redesign.  Definitely room for improvement on some vehicles.

 

However - great styling doesn’t turn a commodity product into a cash cow.  Let’s say in 2017 the Fusion refresh was a knockout.  It might have increased market share and sales but it was still a commodity market.  Most buyers aren’t paying $30k for a Fusion when they can get a Kia or Hyundai or Camry for $25k regardless of the styling because it’s just cheap reliable transportation.  That’s the difference in a commodity market - at the core it’s price driven, period.  So you can get sales but you can’t get big margins no matter how good your product is.

Edited July 12, 2023 by akirby

[rperez817]

2 hours ago, Harley Lover said:

Remember when Mullally said each Ford should be the best product in its segment? Does anyone here believe that is still the case?

 

Not with current gen Explorer. It is the worst product in its class, coming in dead last in Motor Trend's most recent comparison test. And the 2024 refresh for the U.S. market Explorer doesn't address the vehicle's biggest shortcoming, its "cheap and chintzy" interior. 3-Row SUV Big Test! Kia Telluride vs. Honda Pilot, Mazda CX-90, Hyundai Palisade, Subaru Ascent, Ford Explorer, Jeep Grand Cherokee L (motortrend.com)

 

29 minutes ago, akirby said:

Yes - lack of updates made Fusion less desirable but that wasn’t the problem.  Even when it was fresh in 2013 and they sold 300k they simply weren’t making much profit thanks to Nissan and the Koreans and their bargain basement pricing. 

 

Ford's inability to "make much profit" with Fusion sedan back then had nothing to do with "Nissan and the Koreans", who did not employ "bargain basement pricing" in any case. It was due to Ford's dysfunctional and inefficient product development and manufacturing operations at the time.

[silvrsvt]

19 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Not with current gen Explorer. It is the worst product in its class, coming in dead last in Motor Trend's most recent comparison test. And the 2024 refresh for the U.S. market Explorer doesn't address the vehicle's biggest shortcoming, its "cheap and chintzy" interior. 3-Row SUV Big Test! Kia Telluride vs. Honda Pilot, Mazda CX-90, Hyundai Palisade, Subaru Ascent, Ford Explorer, Jeep Grand Cherokee L (motortrend.com)

 

Outside of some spy shots you came to that determination already?

 

Bitching about interior materials in Ford Products has been going on for 20+ years. I'm wondering how well the other interiors stand up to daily use vs "cheap chintzy" ones from Ford that Ford itself has stated is made for durability and not looks. If you want to get into a pissing match about materials/looks with higher cost products, they never mention the Lincoln product that would be a better match in the 60k+ plus segment 

[akirby]

59 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

 

 

Ford's inability to "make much profit" with Fusion sedan back then had nothing to do with "Nissan and the Koreans", who did not employ "bargain basement pricing" in any case. It was due to Ford's dysfunctional and inefficient product development and manufacturing operations at the time.

Looking at overall profit margins for the Asian brands back then it was painfully obvious they weren’t making a lot of money on sedans despite huge sales.  Although they were making a bit more than Ford.

[T-dubz]

It won’t be by itself in the 3 row ev segment for long. In fact Kia and Hyundai will probably beat them to the punch with the ioniq 7 and ev9.

[DeluxeStang]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

I think you’re jumping to way too many conclusions about a vehicle we haven’t really seen nor have we seen the potential competition yet.  The design may be far more appealing in final form and we don’t know the price point and range relative to others.  We’ll just have to wait and see.  I agree if price and range are the main selling point it better be significantly better.

 

I think it’s a good strategy if the aero combined with new batteries give them a big price advantage while the competition is doing more traditional and much more expensive designs.

True, sorry if I seems like I'm being pessimistic, like I'm sure most of us do, I want Ford to succeed. But when I hear multiple insiders talking about how the vehicle is shocking, and not in a good way, it doesn't fill me with confidence. Who know, the 80s Tarus and s550 were both hated by a lot of Ford employees when they first saw them, simply for being radically different. Maybe this design is just really futuristic and needs some time to get used to.

[silvrsvt]

33 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

True, sorry if I seems like I'm being pessimistic, like I'm sure most of us do, I want Ford to succeed. But when I hear multiple insiders talking about how the vehicle is shocking, and not in a good way, it doesn't fill me with confidence. Who know, the 80s Tarus and s550 were both hated by a lot of Ford employees when they first saw them, simply for being radically different. Maybe this design is just really futuristic and needs some time to get used to.

 

Also keep in mind that bad press sells too. 

 

Given the past thirty years of what Ford has come out with, I can't think of anything that was completely atrocious styling wise. Lazy or boring yes (1999-2004 Mustang, 2008-2011 Focus and the Ecosport), but nothing like Pontiac Aztec level

[rmc523]

22 hours ago, akirby said:

Huh?  These aren’t debates.  These are Edge owners saying this is why I bought an Edge.  They wanted more room than Escape or Bronco Sport.  And that echoes my experience going from edge to escape and also test driving a Corsair before buying a Nautilus.  They don’t need or want 3 rows.  They don’t go off-road or want boxy styling.  That’s the demographic.

 

I considered an Edge Sport (I was looking pre-ST), and I liked it but didn't love it.  The more unique Bronco appealed to me more (plus I loved the SUV "convertible" aspect of it) - if Bronco didn't exist, I'd have probably ended up with an Edge.  I like sporty vehicles, but I've ironically wound up with 2 boxy vehicles (my old, since sold Flex, and Bronco), though i did have a Mustang for a few years.

 

16 hours ago, tbone said:

I would be shocked if anyone replaced their Edge with a BS.  I’ve driven one for several thousands miles and it is not comparable to the Edges I’ve driven.  The backseat room is marginal at best, and is even exceeded by the Escape.  
 

Perhaps a Mach E could replace it but I also don’t see the Bronco as a replacement as it is a very different vehicle.  In my opinion it’s a mistake for Ford not to have a direct replacement for it.  
 

Every vehicle category has the potential to become a commodity, it’s Ford’s responsibility to design a vehicle for the segment that is desirable and can be built at a profit. They could have used the Evos as an Edge replacement but they chose not to.  I’m not a fan of their willingness to abandon segments because of competition. I understand dumping something if you aren’t making any money on it, but  you should strive to keep people in Ford vehicles where possible.  

 

IMO, Evos would've been more of a Fusion replacement, as it's more that bodystyle with a hatch.  It, like the Mach E, sits too low to be a proper Edge replacement in my eyes.

 

15 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Exactly, what confuses me is Ford's all over the place strategy. They started out making their hybrid's/EVs generic compliance commodity vehicles, like the c-max. Then they smartly switched strategy, pivoting their EVs and hybrids to be aspirational products like the mach-e and maverick. Now it feels like they're swinging away from aspirational vehicle, back to generic commodity vehicles like the upcoming bullet train ev. 

 

In other words, their ev offerings have gone from ew, to hell yeah, and now it's going back to ew with the upcoming three row. Farley bashes generic commodity products, but a funky styled areo driven 7 seater SUV is as generic as they get. 

 

I don't think "generic commodity vehicle" would describe what we know so far - something with a controversial design.

 

3 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Not with current gen Explorer. It is the worst product in its class, coming in dead last in Motor Trend's most recent comparison test. And the 2024 refresh for the U.S. market Explorer doesn't address the vehicle's biggest shortcoming, its "cheap and chintzy" interior. 3-Row SUV Big Test! Kia Telluride vs. Honda Pilot, Mazda CX-90, Hyundai Palisade, Subaru Ascent, Ford Explorer, Jeep Grand Cherokee L (motortrend.com)

 

 

Ford's inability to "make much profit" with Fusion sedan back then had nothing to do with "Nissan and the Koreans", who did not employ "bargain basement pricing" in any case. It was due to Ford's dysfunctional and inefficient product development and manufacturing operations at the time.

 

So you know what the interior is like on a non-released product that has a redesigned dash?  That's impressive.

[akirby]

56 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

True, sorry if I seems like I'm being pessimistic, like I'm sure most of us do, I want Ford to succeed. But when I hear multiple insiders talking about how the vehicle is shocking, and not in a good way, it doesn't fill me with confidence. Who know, the 80s Tarus and s550 were both hated by a lot of Ford employees when they first saw them, simply for being radically different. Maybe this design is just really futuristic and needs some time to get used to.

I’m sure it’s radical if you’re just looking at the design.  But this isn’t just a radical design.  The design is what enables the use of fewer, cheaper batteries.  So if, e.g., it comes in at $40k with a 250 mile range while the competition is at $60k with less space then it will be a huge hit. If it was the same price size and range as the competition then I would be really worried.  To me it sounds more like an EV minivan.  

[Harley Lover]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

  So if, e.g., it comes in at $40k with a 250 mile range while the competition is at $60k with less space then it will be a huge hit. If it was the same price size and range as the competition then I would be really worried.  To me it sounds more like an EV minivan.  

 

I'm not convinced that Ford will price under the competition - it's much more likely Ford will try to price with the competition, and pocket the savings you describe. That's much more the Ford way ( as well as most companies for that matter).

Edited July 12, 2023 by Harley Lover

[rmc523]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

I’m sure it’s radical if you’re just looking at the design.  But this isn’t just a radical design.  The design is what enables the use of fewer, cheaper batteries.  So if, e.g., it comes in at $40k with a 250 mile range while the competition is at $60k with less space then it will be a huge hit. If it was the same price size and range as the competition then I would be really worried.  To me it sounds more like an EV minivan.  

 

Given Ford pricing of late, I'm highly skeptical of a $40k mark, especially for a BEV.

 

Granted, isn't this using "next gen" tech?  But still....

[akirby]

22 minutes ago, Harley Lover said:

 

I'm not convinced that Ford will price under the competition - it's much more likely Ford will try to price with the competition, and pocket the savings you describe. That's much more the Ford way ( as well as most companies for that matter).

They didn’t do that with Maverick

[akirby]

19 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

Given Ford pricing of late, I'm highly skeptical of a $40k mark, especially for a BEV.

 

Granted, isn't this using "next gen" tech?  But still....

The idea is the next Gen batteries are cheaper and due to aero and lighter weight they’ll need less of them.  I think I made up the $40k figure but if they expect to undercut the competition it will need to be close to that.