Escape, Edge, TC to be Killed

[paintguy]

23 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

No the point your missing is that Ford is done spending money on products that are sold just in one market. With EVs your completely eliminate the need for emissions standards testing and crash testing is just good business/PR/marketing

 

Charging stations are being added as we speak-the more EVs on the road will drive more charging stations, this isn't going to be an overnight thing either..the market will keep growing as pricing drops (more production capacity-there should be enough battery production to meet 75-80% or more of the production capacity of NA (all makes) by 2030)

 

in five years time its going to be a completely different landscape. 

How does BEV eliminate need for crash testing? Standards are still the same. If there is not, imagine a safety standard for integrity of high voltage systems woth BEV. Fuel leakage, obviously goes away.

[rperez817]

5 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I suspect that he will rock back towards hybrids and PHEVs to keep the spin on electrification going. 

 

If Farley does that, it will be a huge step back for Ford, jeopardizing Farley's own ambition in the Ford+ plan to make Ford Motor Company "a truly great, world-changing company again".

[fordmantpw]

17 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

If Farley does that, it will be a huge step back for Ford, jeopardizing Farley's own ambition in the Ford+ plan to make Ford Motor Company "a truly great, world-changing company again".

 

You can't change the world if you aren't making any money.

[AM222]

36 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

If Farley does that, it will be a huge step back for Ford, jeopardizing Farley's own ambition in the Ford+ plan to make Ford Motor Company "a truly great, world-changing company again".

It looks like a step back because they committed so hard to EVs. This decade is pretty much a transitional period and car companies need to be flexible. The EV charging infrastructure is still inadequate in many places. 

Edited September 4, 2023 by AM222

[rperez817]

24 minutes ago, fordmantpw said:

You can't change the world if you aren't making any money.

 

As both Jim Farley and John Lawler have mentioned, Ford Model e is spending money now so that it can make money in the future. Lawler set the following targets by 2026 for Model e.

• 8% EBIT
• Annual BEV production run rate of 2 million units

 

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

 

If Farley does that, it will be a huge step back for Ford, jeopardizing Farley's own ambition in the Ford+ plan to make Ford Motor Company "a truly great, world-changing company again".

There's a very strong argument that if you want to save the planet, hybrids are the answer. They produce hardly any emissions, but can be offered at a much lower price that BEVs currently, drastically reducing the barrier to entry. 

 

BEVs are great, but many people, especially many young people, can't afford them. But most people can afford a maverick hybrid. If we transition everything to BEV only in, let's say, the next 10 years, all that's gonna happen is you're gonna be left with a lot of consumers who are priced out of the new car market. Who will continue to drive around in things like 20 year old golfs and Corollas which are far worse for the planet than a new Ford hybrid. 

 

I was confident in the idea of a 20k entry level EV being offered about 5 years ago. Battery and other material prices were steadily dropping, making a cheaper EV more sustainable. But then Covid hit, and thanks to the incompetent current president, and to a lesser degree, the one before him, our economy has suffered significantly setbacks with record high inflation. Now we're back to EVs getting more expensive again because the costs of materials has gone through the roof in many areas. 

 

I could see Ford's strategy of making more areo driven designs and smaller batteries being used on a sub 30k EV eventually. Something that, because drag was heavily reduced, could get by with a smaller battery. Having futuristic styling would actually be a benefit, not a liability if you were trying to appeal to a younger audience, but I think that's a ways off. 

[mackinaw]

1 hour ago, paintguy said:

How does BEV eliminate need for crash testing? Standards are still the same. If there is not, imagine a safety standard for integrity of high voltage systems woth BEV. Fuel leakage, obviously goes away.

 

You're spot on.  If anything, there will be added emphasis on crash testing.  EV's are terribly heavy.  The EV Hummer weighs more than 9,000 pounds, and the battery pack alone (2800 pounds) weighs more than a Mazda Miata (2,400 pounds).  Imagine what will happen when a EV Hummer crashes into a Honda Civic?  NHTSA is already asking questions. 

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, mackinaw said:

Imagine what will happen when a EV Hummer crashes into a Honda Civic?  NHTSA is already asking questions

Doesn’t require much imagination when one vehicle is 3 times as heavy.  Chevy Silverado won’t be much lighter with its 215 kWh battery.  Not sure much can be improved since anyone with a drivers license can also drive a motorhome, as an example, that can weigh 2~3 times more than a Hummer.

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

As both Jim Farley and John Lawler have mentioned, Ford Model e is spending money now so that it can make money in the future. Lawler set the following targets by 2026 for Model e.

• 8% EBIT
• Annual BEV production run rate of 2 million units

 

What percent of total Ford sales would have to convert to EV by 2026 in order to achieve/require 2 million run rate?  I’m a little confused by magnitude of this target.

 

Based on Ford’s present market share, I can’t make sense of numbers unless adoption rate is way higher than anyone expects by 2026.  I’m either not seeing numbers correctly or Ford will have much more EV manufacturing capacity than they will actually end up using by 2026.  Can you add context to targeted capacity?  I’m assuming this is worldwide and not just US.

 

[fordmantpw]

2 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

As both Jim Farley and John Lawler have mentioned, Ford Model e is spending money now so that it can make money in the future. Lawler set the following targets by 2026 for Model e.

• 8% EBIT
• Annual BEV production run rate of 2 million units

 

 

Targets don't make money.  They can set whatever targets they want, but if the customers aren't there, it means diddly squat.

 

With HEV and PHEV, there's lower cost to entry, more customers, more sales, more profit.  You come up with the interim solution to keep money flowing until you can reach your ideal target.

[silvrsvt]

4 hours ago, paintguy said:

How does BEV eliminate need for crash testing? Standards are still the same. If there is not, imagine a safety standard for integrity of high voltage systems woth BEV. Fuel leakage, obviously goes away.

It doesn’t but it’s not as hard to meet the standards as emission standards that have different testing how it’s graded. I know the EU has certain pedestrian requirements, but some of that can be taken care of with styling changes 

[silvrsvt]

3 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

If Farley does that, it will be a huge step back for Ford, jeopardizing Farley's own ambition in the Ford+ plan to make Ford Motor Company "a truly great, world-changing company again".

The thing is that increasing production of existing hybrids or adding an additional models would be a no brainer. 
 

there isn’t going to be a monolithic change over with EVs, it’s going to be a process as time goes on. 
 

Who knows if they hit 50% in North America by 2030 of all car sales, but I don’t see it being a huge problem as more battery production and more products are added. I’m going to assume pricing will come down also

[silvrsvt]

59 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

What percent of total Ford sales would have to convert to EV by 2026 in order to achieve/require 2 million run rate?  I’m a little confused by magnitude of this target.

Ford sold about 4.2 million units last year and North America made up 2.3 million of those sales. So extrapolate the numbers from that. 

[rperez817]

38 minutes ago, fordmantpw said:

Targets don't make money.  

 

Target Corporation does make money though. $1.785B net earnings in the 6 months ending July 2023. ? 

 

Joking aside, the Ford+ plan contains specific actions Model e is taking to achieve the targets John Lawler set. CNBC summarized these as follows.

• Scale. Simply put, building more EVs and allowing the supply chain to mature will yield greater economies of scale. Ford expects to have the capacity to build EVs at a rate of 2 million per year by the end of 2026. That alone will provide roughly 20 points of margin improvement, according to Ford’s projections.
• Design and Engineering. Lawler said Ford is “obsessing over energy efficient designs because they will allow us to significantly reduce the battery size and cost.” He said such designs will lead to “ultra-high simplicity of manufacturing and platforms that maximize commonality and reuse,” which will yield another 15 points of margin improvement.
• Battery. While costs have come down, batteries are still the most expensive part of an EV, especially if the automaker is buying them from third-party manufacturers, as Ford has been. To make matters worse, or at least more costly, Ford’s EVs have so far used relatively expensive lithium-ion cells, rather than the cheaper lithium iron phosphate, or LFP, cells used by Tesla in its less expensive models. Ford’s plan to bring those costs down further centers on bringing battery-cell manufacturing in house, either directly or via joint ventures with battery makers. In addition, it will soon begin offering LFP as a lower-cost option on some of its EVs — starting later this year with cells bought from Chinese battery giant CATL, and from a new Michigan factory that will come online in 2026. As those efforts scale up, Ford expects to gain another 10 points of margin improvement.
• Other. Ford also expects to find incremental gains by selling software and services, such as driver-assistance system BlueCruise, to EV owners, via benefits in the Inflation Reduction Act, via improvements in raw materials costs, and with other tweaks here and there. But pricing — specifically, the need to stay competitive with a fast-growing number of EV rivals — may offset all of that to some extent. Ford thinks the upshot will be about 3 points of margin gain, just enough to bring it to that targeted positive 8% by the end of 2026.

[jpd80]

5 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

As both Jim Farley and John Lawler have mentioned, Ford Model e is spending money now so that it can make money in the future. Lawler set the following targets by 2026 for Model e.

• 8% EBIT
• Annual BEV production run rate of 2 million units

 

You realise that’s only two years away, Ford is spending close to $50 billion on assets a product development in the next five years. The only way Model E gets 8% EBIT is if Ford Blue keeps paying for all Model E debts. So to clean up behind the Elephants, Ford needs to keep Ford  Blue highly profitable for at least the next decade……

It’s a good bet that Ford and Farley will face reality in a year or so.

 

Annual production run rate does not necessarily equal annual sales rate, it’s the maximum possible production of plants. It’s more likely that BEV annual sales will be lucky to be 600k by 2026

Edited September 4, 2023 by jpd80

[Oac98]

On 9/2/2023 at 12:48 PM, fuzzymoomoo said:

I would argue 4 products, 1 of which is global and 1 who’s biggest market was China, could have potentially meant 3 shifts. 

I agree and it actually disgusts me to be honest. It’s really too bad. I can’t understand some of Ford decisions. The higher ups are makin the big bucks they must know something we don’t. 

[jpd80]

10 minutes ago, Oacjay98 said:

I agree and it actually disgusts me to be honest. It’s really too bad. I can’t understand some of Ford decisions. The higher ups are makin the big bucks they must know something we don’t. 

Only Ford could take a sensible plan to mass produce affordable/desirable  BEVs and butcher it so badly, Ford obviously look at Tesla’s massive sales and profits being generated for 3 and Y and think that it can do the same…….now that Farley admits that early adopters have abandoned Lightning and Mach E, pits going to be hard for it to build “me too” Tesla imitations.

Edited September 4, 2023 by jpd80

[Rangers09]

On 9/3/2023 at 2:34 PM, GearheadGrrrl said:

For EVs to work charging will have to be as available and fast as gas stations provide. 

 

Friday I day tripped almost 400 miles to a threshing show, left at :30 before dawn, enjoyed 6 hours of steam and other old tech in action, and got home 15 minutes before sunset. There are reputedly two charging stations in a town midway on my route, would have had to stop both ways and had to cut my day short or get home after dark. Either that or take a long route to pass by more chargers and cut more into my time at the threshing show or drive more after dark. Worse yet, if the two charging sites 100 miles out were down I would have had to head home, not wanting to wander farther than I'd have charge to make it home.

 

Most of these rural chargers are heavily subsidized, are really used, and they'll become even rarer as they fail and will cost more to repair than they'll produce in revenue. This is why elecrification will take decades out here if it ever happens and we will need IC and PHEV cars for the foreseeable future... Automakers, please don't take away our mobility by forcing us into EVs!

 

Totally agree that PHEV and HEV is the perfect solution. While I am clearly also not in favour of BEV's due to their limitations, we are very happy with the PHEV, which we have owned for almost 3-months. Around town we are 100% electric, but once we head out on a road trip it is almost 100% ICE, as charging stations are about as common as my F-450 in downtown Vancouver.

 

Personally, I wouldn't leave town unless the vehicle has a diesel or petrol engine. Might change one day, but that's many years in the future.

[Rangers09]

9 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

If Farley does that, it will be a huge step back for Ford, jeopardizing Farley's own ambition in the Ford+ plan to make Ford Motor Company "a truly great, world-changing company again".

 

How is shifting the plan to a potential interim focus on PHEV/HEV as step back, when they are outselling BEV's almost 2:1. As a manufacturer, Ford has to respond to what the market wants, and sales figures point towards PHEV/HEV's being more popular than BEV's.

 

They can only be a successful world changing company if they produce what the majority of the market wants, unless they contract to being no more than a niche market.

 

When August sales numbers are released it will be very interesting to see the spread between PHEV/BEV.

[Rangers09]

9 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

As both Jim Farley and John Lawler have mentioned, Ford Model e is spending money now so that it can make money in the future. Lawler set the following targets by 2026 for Model e.

• 8% EBIT
• Annual BEV production run rate of 2 million units

 

 

Those are nothing more than goals & objectives, which as with any plan are amended based on business cycles.

 

Regardless of any management decisions, they will only be achieved if they can build affordable BEV's, that the majority of the market wants. At present, I'll suggest they don't have an affordable BEV and most of the market doesn't want them, which is backed by declining sales figures. Y2Y BEV sales figures for August will be very interesting.

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, Rangers09 said:

 

How is shifting the plan to a potential interim focus on PHEV/HEV as step back, when they are outselling BEV's almost 2:1. As a manufacturer, Ford has to respond to what the market wants, and sales figures point towards PHEV/HEV's being more popular than BEV's.

 

They can only be a successful world changing company if they produce what the majority of the market wants, unless they contract to being no more than a niche market.

 

The issue your missing is that CAFE is going to force everyones hand into making vehicles that are EVs. PHEVs are fucking useless unless you plug them in (which seems vast majority of users don't), you get no additional benefit over a HEV if you don't and if your plugging in (from a CO2 reduction perspective), your better off going full EV.  They are basically a crutch that doesn't "do anything", outside of keeping the inconvenience factor low for users. Politics might play to a point but at this point I don't see how the current administration gets voted out with demographics and voting blocks the way they are. 

 

Short term (next 3-4 years) you'll be ok, but once we get closer to 2030, it will make no sense for future investment into ICE/Hybrid power. The thing that everyone forgets is what is coming out this year was done 3-4 years ago. 

 

The focus on EVs the past 24 months or so was wholly focused on helping stock prices and helping Fords' image-its much like Bill Ford saying they are coming out with hybrid SUVs that get 30 MPG or something like that almost 15 years ago...didn't quite pan out exactly that way. 

[jpd80]

42 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

The issue your missing is that CAFE is going to force everyones hand into making vehicles that are EVs. PHEVs are fucking useless unless you plug them in (which seems vast majority of users don't), you get no additional benefit over a HEV if you don't and if your plugging in (from a CO2 reduction perspective), your better off going full EV.  They are basically a crutch that doesn't "do anything", outside of keeping the inconvenience factor low for users. Politics might play to a point but at this point I don't see how the current administration gets voted out with demographics and voting blocks the way they are. 

 

I’d be curious to know the difference in manufacturing costs between the three similar sized vehicles, a hybrid, a PHEV and a BEV.  While Ford is struggling to attract BEV buyers it could be worthwhile fortifying hybrid sales as something useful to ICE buyers that keeps the value of electrification on the table, PHEVs I agree are  lose a lot of their benefit if owners don’t plug them in, defaulting to a hybrid.

 

42 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

Short term (next 3-4 years) you'll be ok, but once we get closer to 2030, it will make no sense for future investment into ICE/Hybrid power. The thing that everyone forgets is what is coming out this year was done 3-4 years ago. 

 

The focus on EVs the past 24 months or so was wholly focused on helping stock prices and helping Fords' image-its much like Bill Ford saying they are coming out with hybrid SUVs that get 30 MPG or something like that almost 15 years ago...didn't quite pan out exactly that way. 

The one benefit hybrids offer is taking the cost of fuel off the buyers mind but that has to be counter balanced against the benefits of a proper battery electric and the users expectation. Most manufacturers hope that at least one BEV will be bought in multi-vehicle household.

[silvrsvt]

8 hours ago, jpd80 said:

 

I’d be curious to know the difference in manufacturing costs between the three similar sized vehicles, a hybrid, a PHEV and a BEV.  While Ford is struggling to attract BEV buyers it could be worthwhile fortifying hybrid sales as something useful to ICE buyers that keeps the value of electrification on the table, PHEVs I agree are  lose a lot of their benefit if owners don’t plug them in, defaulting to a hybrid.

 

The one benefit hybrids offer is taking the cost of fuel off the buyers mind but that has to be counter balanced against the benefits of a proper battery electric and the users expectation. Most manufacturers hope that at least one BEV will be bought in multi-vehicle household.

 

I'm not sure what Ford's (or better yet the expectations that the press has set when it comes to this apparently HEV/PHEV push that is going around), but I've always expected Ford to expand P/HEV offerings even as they come out with more EVs...given CAFE demands that is a given. There are only a handful of products in NA that don't offer some sort of Hybrid option and one is more or less a slam dunk because it shares its platform with products that do. The only big issue is the Bronco and Ranger at this point. But here lies the question, do they go the cheap and lazy route of the 3.3L V6 that is in the Explorer (but will it even fit?-not sure how much differences there are between the Cyclone and Nano V6s in physical size) or do they develop a RWD 2.3L Ecoboost with the powerboost transmission? That would make the most sense, but also how would it fit into other products to offset development costs? IMO it could be a higher end engine to slot over the 2.7L, since it would most likely develop more Torque and a little more HP then it, going by trends in the F-150. So it would be a slightly more powerful engine that gets slightly better around town MPGs then the I4 or V6. 

[rperez817]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

But here lies the question, do they go the cheap and lazy route of the 3.3L V6 that is in the Explorer (but will it even fit?-not sure how much differences there are between the Cyclone and Nano V6s in physical size) or do they develop a RWD 2.3L Ecoboost with the powerboost transmission? 

 

Cheap and lazy route for sure. Any investment on Ford Blue's part for hybrid powertrains nowadays should be kept to an absolute minimum.

Edited September 5, 2023 by rperez817

[mustang84isu]

21 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

There's a very strong argument that if you want to save the planet, hybrids are the answer. They produce hardly any emissions, but can be offered at a much lower price that BEVs currently, drastically reducing the barrier to entry. 

 

BEVs are great, but many people, especially many young people, can't afford them. But most people can afford a maverick hybrid. If we transition everything to BEV only in, let's say, the next 10 years, all that's gonna happen is you're gonna be left with a lot of consumers who are priced out of the new car market. Who will continue to drive around in things like 20 year old golfs and Corollas which are far worse for the planet than a new Ford hybrid. 

IMO, the biggest barrier to entry is charging infrastructure itself.  Where I live, multi-family apartment complexes are going up everywhere - and none of them have charging infrastructure being built in.  If you can't charge overnight, the prospect of owning an EV becomes difficult, if not impossible.  Retrofitting older houses with charging stations is also a cost and burden that not many will want to take on initially.  Until charging times drop down to the equivalent of a gas engine or charging stations become more widespread, I think EV adoption will be much slower than some are expecting.  I agree that hybrids are our best solution for the interim if we are trying to focus on what is best for the environment....and I don't know why governments aren't doing more to push hybrids instead of expensive EV's.