EV Problem: Mach-E Piling Up on Dealer Lots

[ice-capades]

7 hours ago, rperez817 said:

Hopefully the example from Deanh's dealership regarding stock orders for BEV is a fluke.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, the excess BEVs at Deanh's dealership are the result of a cancelled fleet order, not stock orders. 

[Flying68]

11 hours ago, tbone said:

Isn’t this a distinction without a difference?

No, when it is sitting at the dealership, Ford has already "sold" it, removing Ford's incentive to actively manage inventory to what customers want.  It also creates a mismatch geographically if you send these builds to places where they won't be purchased.  Holding at the factory allows them to ship each unit to where it needs to go.  While Tesla doesn't hold at the factory, they have fewer distribution points and still control the pricing because they don't have dealers, so they are incentivized to drop prices on overstocked vehicles.  Tesla has been known to contact folks and tell them you ordered this, but we have this available at the nearest distribution center and will offer it at a discounted price if you take it, plus you get it faster.

[Flying68]

10 hours ago, jpd80 said:

This is the company telling us that the have customer orders up the whazoo in US as well as Europe.

I mean, that was the whole reason that Ford put the third shift on….

From a shareholder perspective, when you lose money on each build, I question why they are increasing production only to have units sitting unsold on lots.  If they have all these customer orders, they should be building those instead of stock units.  I get commodity restraints, but I don't want my margins lowered just to build a bunch of cars that don't sell well.

 

It is like they are thinking "We lose money on each unit, but we are going to make it up with volume."

[balthisar]

Throughout May and June there was an industry-wide shipping issue getting vehicles out Mexico (affecting all OEM's -- this is not proprietary information). I was actually visiting the plant in late May, and there were unshipped MME's visible from the public streets filling every possible parking area at CSAP, including some lots that are/were employee parking lots. These weren't chip-hold vehicles; it was all logistics-related. Also public is the fact the CSAP was down for a month while being reconfigured for a major upspeed.

 

I can't say what the consumer sales are, but my own observations look like what we're seeing is a sudden influx due to the backlog.

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by balthisar

[Deanh]

4 hours ago, ice-capades said:

 

Unless I'm mistaken, the excess BEVs at Deanh's dealership are the result of a cancelled fleet order, not stock orders. 

correct...but the deciding major factor and the reason the fleet order fell through is their business model is predicated on the strength of resale at  lease/ finance term ...sorry, but Ill be blunt ( very unlike me I know ) ...EV's resale SUCKS...the number Im hearing on Mach E's is they are 15k in the hole....when the initial order was placed Evs were the media darling....that gleam has worn off. And that particular order aside, our regular Mach E inventory is building up as well...the furor has died down...and Ford knows it as well...thus all teh incentives being thrown at them to help us move them.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Deanh

[ice-capades]

4 minutes ago, balthisar said:

Throughout May and June there was an industry-wide shipping issue getting vehicles out Mexico (affecting all OEM's -- this is not proprietary information). I was actually visiting the plant in late May, and there were unshipped MME's visible from the public streets filling every possible parking area at CSAP, including some lots that are/were employee parking lots. These weren't chip-hold vehicles; it was all logistics-related. Also public is the fact the CSAP was down for a month while being reconfigured for a major upspeed.

 

I can't say what the consumer sales are, but my own observations look like what we're seeing is a sudden influx due to the backlog.

 

 

For the most part, shipping issues out of Mexico have been a longstanding issue.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Flying68 said:

No, when it is sitting at the dealership, Ford has already "sold" it, removing Ford's incentive to actively manage inventory to what customers want. .

That’s not true at all.  If the dealer can’t sell what’s on their lot they can’t buy more.  That’s the main driver for rebates - moving overstocked vehicles off dealer lots.

[silvrsvt]

The issue with EVs is that the tech is changing so much that it going to take at least another 5-10 years before it becomes mature that it makes sense to keep it for say 10 years. 

[Deanh]

5 minutes ago, akirby said:

That’s not true at all.  If the dealer can’t sell what’s on their lot they can’t buy more.  That’s the main driver for rebates - moving overstocked vehicles off dealer lots.

thats pretty much bang on...Ford observes "days on lots" vehemetley and reacts if it observes vehicles staying longer than they should...the only vehicle that has incentives on it rain hail or snow, seems to be the F150 as that crown is very dear to Corporate.

[Deanh]

6 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

The issue with EVs is that the tech is changing so much that it going to take at least another 5-10 years before it becomes mature that it makes sense to keep it for say 10 years. 

and by that time Im guessing electric cars will be old news, and their "cleanliness" and environmental signature debunked  and perhaps something more viable will have taken the crown ( fuel cells maybe...synthetic gas? ),,,,crystal ball time....

[rperez817]

31 minutes ago, balthisar said:

Throughout May and June there was an industry-wide shipping issue getting vehicles out Mexico (affecting all OEM's -- this is not proprietary information).

 

28 minutes ago, ice-capades said:

For the most part, shipping issues out of Mexico have been a longstanding issue.

 

GM Authority indicated last month that GM may encounter similar shipping issues with Equinox EV and Blazer EV, both of which are assembled (or soon will be) at the Ramos Arizpe plant in Coahuila, Mexico due in part to the rail car shortage.

[fuzzymoomoo]

2 hours ago, Flying68 said:

Tesla has been known to contact folks and tell them you ordered this, but we have this available at the nearest distribution center and will offer it at a discounted price if you take it, plus you get it faster.

That’s actually kind of cool. I wonder what percentage of buyers take that deal. 

[fuzzymoomoo]

18 minutes ago, Deanh said:

the only vehicle that has incentives on it rain hail or snow, seems to be the F150 as that crown is very dear to Corporate.

It’s true. I can get $6k off of one before a-plan today if I had a decent down payment handy. 

[fuzzymoomoo]

19 minutes ago, Deanh said:

and by that time Im guessing electric cars will be old news, and their "cleanliness" and environmental signature debunked  and perhaps something more viable will have taken the crown ( fuel cells maybe...synthetic gas? ),,,,crystal ball time....

I’m kind of thinking Toyota might be onto something with their hydrogen powered ICE they’ve started showing off in racing. 

[silvrsvt]

13 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I’m kind of thinking Toyota might be onto something with their hydrogen powered ICE they’ve started showing off in racing. 

lets not go down that rabbit hole....hydrogen in ICE is absolutely fucking stupid, point blank. Lets use a energy source that has less energy density then gas in an engine that loses 40-60% of its power potential through rotational forces already.

 

Maybe a clearer way of putting this is like this-Some guy on Bronco6G has a Lightning and a Bronco. If he drove to work or Home Depot, forget the exact distance, but it wasn't anything excessive-lets say 10-25 miles. The Lightning used enough KwH to power his fridge for 3 days making that ride. If he did the same thing in his Bronco, the amount of KwH that it used would power that same Fridge for something like two or three WEEKS! 

 

ICE is inherently very inefficient. 

[Deanh]

38 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

lets not go down that rabbit hole....hydrogen in ICE is absolutely fucking stupid, point blank. Lets use a energy source that has less energy density then gas in an engine that loses 40-60% of its power potential through rotational forces already.

 

Maybe a clearer way of putting this is like this-Some guy on Bronco6G has a Lightning and a Bronco. If he drove to work or Home Depot, forget the exact distance, but it wasn't anything excessive-lets say 10-25 miles. The Lightning used enough KwH to power his fridge for 3 days making that ride. If he did the same thing in his Bronco, the amount of KwH that it used would power that same Fridge for something like two or three WEEKS! 

 

ICE is inherently very inefficient. 

 

38 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

lets not go down that rabbit hole....hydrogen in ICE is absolutely fucking stupid, point blank. Lets use a energy source that has less energy density then gas in an engine that loses 40-60% of its power potential through rotational forces already.

 

Maybe a clearer way of putting this is like this-Some guy on Bronco6G has a Lightning and a Bronco. If he drove to work or Home Depot, forget the exact distance, but it wasn't anything excessive-lets say 10-25 miles. The Lightning used enough KwH to power his fridge for 3 days making that ride. If he did the same thing in his Bronco, the amount of KwH that it used would power that same Fridge for something like two or three WEEKS! 

 

ICE is inherently very inefficient. 

based on the "save the earth mentality" being inaccurately promoted...Im not quite sure "efficiency" is a box people check.... and...Gasoline has about 100 times the energy density of a lithium-ion battery....and...fuel cells are approximately 2.5 times more efficient than gasoline engines....So...what bodes for BEVs future....going to be interesting...

Edited July 14, 2023 by Deanh

[bzcat]

23 minutes ago, Deanh said:

 

based on the "save the earth mentality" being inaccurately promoted...Im not quite sure "efficiency" is a box people check.... and...Gasoline has about 100 times the energy density of a lithium-ion battery....and...fuel cells are approximately 2.5 times more efficient than gasoline engines....So...what bodes for BEVs future....going to be interesting...

 

You are just regurgitation bunch of misinformation.

 

Hydrogen is made from fossil fuel. And it is net-negative meaning it takes more energy to produce than it is available to consume. So the efficiency at the end point doesn't make up for the massively inefficiency upstream. Converting our transportation fleet to hydrogen will cause massive increase in CO2 emission.

[Deanh]

17 minutes ago, bzcat said:

 

You are just regurgitation bunch of misinformation.

 

Hydrogen is made from fossil fuel. And it is net-negative meaning it takes more energy to produce than it is available to consume. So the efficiency at the end point doesn't make up for the massively inefficiency upstream. Converting our transportation fleet to hydrogen will cause massive increase in CO2 emission.

really?...maybe Im missing something, I guess any energy source has its own warts, but from everything Ive read hydrogen itself is  clean fuel, when utilized in a fuel cell rproduces only water,  it can be produced by natural gas, nuclear power, biomass and...wait for it..."renewable power" such as solar and wind, so its "cleanliness"is I guess based on how its produced....that said...I doubt its any dirtier than what it takes to produce electricity let alone the minerals required for batteries? that would be an interesting debate ....isnt Ford testing big rigs with Fuel cells?............

Edited July 14, 2023 by Deanh

[Flying68]

14 minutes ago, Deanh said:

really?...maybe Im missing something, I guess any energy source has its own warts, but from everything Ive read hydrogen itself is  clean fuel, when utilized in a fuel cell rproduces only water,  it can be produced by natural gas, nuclear power, biomass and...wait for it..."renewable power" such as solar and wind....that said...I doubt its any dirtier than what it takes to produce electricity let alone the minerals required for batteries?....isnt Ford testing big rigs with Fuel cells?............

Hydrogen is clean.  The problem is that the cheapest way to get hydrogen is from natural gas, but that is dirty.  To dissociate water into H2 and O2 is very energy intensive, it would take a bit over 60 kw-hr to produce 1 kg of H2.  Fuel cells are around 60% efficient (at most) so you lose at least 40% of your engery (better than petrol ICE though).  The other problem with H2 is the storing and shipping, not easy to maintain those super cooled tanks to contain liquid H2.  I think the biggest gain from H2 would be in long haul trucking where you can be more efficient with large fleets and centralized fueling.  You could potentially build big rigs that wouldn't have to refuel anywhere other than there home ports or specific depots because the energy density of H2 is so high they wouldn't have to fill up as often.

[Deanh]

3 minutes ago, Flying68 said:

Hydrogen is clean.  The problem is that the cheapest way to get hydrogen is from natural gas, but that is dirty.  To dissociate water into H2 and O2 is very energy intensive, it would take a bit over 60 kw-hr to produce 1 kg of H2.  Fuel cells are around 60% efficient (at most) so you lose at least 40% of your engery (better than petrol ICE though).  The other problem with H2 is the storing and shipping, not easy to maintain those super cooled tanks to contain liquid H2.  I think the biggest gain from H2 would be in long haul trucking where you can be more efficient with large fleets and centralized fueling.  You could potentially build big rigs that wouldn't have to refuel anywhere other than there home ports or specific depots because the energy density of H2 is so high they wouldn't have to fill up as often.

appreciated info 68...as I said...I think every energy type has its warts, is utilizing Nat Gas worse than mining for minerals and transporting them here on tankers for battery manufacture processed with toxic chemicals worse? I cant answer that question....seems to me a case of the lessor of two evils but Electrics getting all the Press, with few if any detractors...I for one arent sold on Electric in the slightest...everyone sweeps ITS issues and carbon footprint under the guise of "good for the environment"...anyone that believes that has been duped IMO....lots of virtue signalling

[silvrsvt]

35 minutes ago, Deanh said:

appreciated info 68...as I said...I think every energy type has its warts, is utilizing Nat Gas worse than mining for minerals and transporting them here on tankers for battery manufacture processed with toxic chemicals worse? I cant answer that question....seems to me a case of the lessor of two evils but Electrics getting all the Press, with few if any detractors...I for one arent sold on Electric in the slightest...everyone sweeps ITS issues and carbon footprint under the guise of "good for the environment"...anyone that believes that has been duped IMO....lots of virtue signalling

 

One way to think about it is that the batteries can be recycled and used for other things or made into new batteries. Natural gas and other fossil fuels are just burned without any further use. 

[Deanh]

10 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

One way to think about it is that the batteries can be recycled and used for other things or made into new batteries. Natural gas and other fossil fuels are just burned without any further use. 

lol...so less waste....

[Flying68]

The proper way to frame energy usage is in terms of minimizing the burning or usage of carbon based fuels (create less waste).  We know that the use of carbon fuels can't be eliminated completely, but you can try to achieve higher efficiencies for what you do use and replace other usage with more energy efficient methods.  ICE engine efficiency is probably as maxed out as it can practically get.  Electric motor efficiency is much greater (+90% vs ICE's 35%-40%).  So then we have to figure out what the efficiency of the grid is and of course the mineral extraction, etc..  There are a bundle of papers out their that study the total carbon emissions for both ICE and EV and they are pretty close initially, with ICE possibly having a slight advantage, but most of those studies show over the lifetime of a vehicle the EV beats the ICE vehicle on total emissions even with the current average US mix of power.  Newer technology solid state batteries that use more common metals and minerals and increasing renewable energy sources in the power grid will tilt the scales even further.  But as has been pointed out, BEV's aren't necessarily the solution for everyone or every application right now.

[Deanh]

4 minutes ago, Flying68 said:

The proper way to frame energy usage is in terms of minimizing the burning or usage of carbon based fuels (create less waste).  We know that the use of carbon fuels can't be eliminated completely, but you can try to achieve higher efficiencies for what you do use and replace other usage with more energy efficient methods.  ICE engine efficiency is probably as maxed out as it can practically get.  Electric motor efficiency is much greater (+90% vs ICE's 35%-40%).  So then we have to figure out what the efficiency of the grid is and of course the mineral extraction, etc..  There are a bundle of papers out their that study the total carbon emissions for both ICE and EV and they are pretty close initially, with ICE possibly having a slight advantage, but most of those studies show over the lifetime of a vehicle the EV beats the ICE vehicle on total emissions even with the current average US mix of power.  Newer technology solid state batteries that use more common metals and minerals and increasing renewable energy sources in the power grid will tilt the scales even further.  But as has been pointed out, BEV's aren't necessarily the solution for everyone or every application right now.

what is weird to me is that "transition" could havce been adressed by a drivretrain combo that seems to have been sidestepped....plug in hybrids...still in my mind the best all round alternative..

[rperez817]

2 hours ago, Deanh said:

what is weird to me is that "transition" could havce been adressed by a drivretrain combo that seems to have been sidestepped....plug in hybrids

 

The big problem with the current crop of PHEV, including those from Ford, is they are ICE dominant. Research in both U.S. and Europe show that in real world usage, PHEV owners plug in those vehicles much less often than regulators assume. This is not the fault of the PHEV owner, but rather the design inherent to the current crop of PHEV, all of which have less than 50 miles AER. The Real Reason Why No One Ever Plugs In Their Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles (hotcars.com)

 

If automakers had true "extended range electric vehicles" (EREV) that are electric motor dominant with at least 75 miles AER, that could have addressed the transition say 5 years ago as AutoThink recommended (see diagram below). But in the U.S. market, only BMW i3 REx met that criteria, and it was discontinued in 2021. Ford is better off focusing on BEV rather than EREV at this point.

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by rperez817