Escape, Edge, TC to be Killed

[jpd80]

9 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

The plant in Mexico is also making units for the EU. 

While that’s true, inventory levels have spiked ever since the extra shift was added.

If there were shipment to Europe, I would expect to see a change of 5,000 or 6,000

[mackinaw]

53 minutes ago, Deanh said:

BINGO!...decade or two....and whos to say during that time a synthetic gas substitute hasnt been produced with zero emmisions that is affordable AND retroactive in that a regular ICE doesnt require a retrofit....there gos ICE becoming obselete...

 

Excellent point.  There are 278 million registered vehicles in the U.S. and 99% of those are ICE powered.  If the government was truly serious about addressing climate change, it'd be developing some sort of low-carbon gas for all of those ICE-powered vehicles which would quickly and dramatically reduce carbon emissions.  That's the smart way to address climate change, not the path we're currently taking.

[paintguy]

59 minutes ago, Deanh said:

BINGO!...decade or two....and whos to say during that time a synthetic gas substitute hasnt been produced with zero emmisions that is affordable AND retroactive in that a regular ICE doesnt require a retrofit....there gos ICE becoming obselete...

A lot of ifs in there. As a chemical engineer who worked both chemical industry and automotive know something of the requirements. Hydrocarbon or chemical processing requires much safety analysis and permitting required. These industries require large capital expenditures, favoring large corporations and mega billionaires. The talent and materials need to build to scale is limited. Each company and contractor has finite resources. To do this in 10 or even 20 years, this would be something in lab testing or semi works now. The usual response is, with a WW II type effort... Well I have worked in WW II built facilities in both industries. (I'm old, but not that old). Looking at the facilities and documents, they could not have been built today. 

Over the years we have found that different compounds have different emissions characteristics. Testing would change to measure effectively. When low emission gasoline with better octane rating was desired, oil refiners added Ethanol or MTBE. MTBE reduced emissions especially in older, poorly tuned vehicles. Concerns about emissions caused MTBE to fall out of favor and be eventually banned. 

In conclusion, mature ICE technology is still here, but probably not be advanced on an unproven supposition. BEVs and battery technology have developed, but the experience is still short of some customer expectations. Some to the point they will not consider. 

[Deanh]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

Page 2 of those results gives inventory levels, total Mach E Inventory is now above 20,000 vehicles

I am concerned that Mach E is selling at 5,000/month yet production is now way above that….

lol...this is the dilemma all the BEV cult members ( and the way they carry on Id say thats an accurate description ) conveiniently ignore...BEVs are all fine and dandy.... but what if no one wants them?.....that forces either HUGE discounts or incentives which KILLS the bottom line...so wheres the business case there?...doesnt matter what YOU think, if its not profitable it cannot continue....well, theres always GOVT subsidies and bailouts... 

[Deanh]

11 minutes ago, paintguy said:

A lot of ifs in there. As a chemical engineer who worked both chemical industry and automotive know something of the requirements. Hydrocarbon or chemical processing requires much safety analysis and permitting required. These industries require large capital expenditures, favoring large corporations and mega billionaires. The talent and materials need to build to scale is limited. Each company and contractor has finite resources. To do this in 10 or even 20 years, this would be something in lab testing or semi works now. The usual response is, with a WW II type effort... Well I have worked in WW II built facilities in both industries. (I'm old, but not that old). Looking at the facilities and documents, they could not have been built today. 

Over the years we have found that different compounds have different emissions characteristics. Testing would change to measure effectively. When low emission gasoline with better octane rating was desired, oil refiners added Ethanol or MTBE. MTBE reduced emissions especially in older, poorly tuned vehicles. Concerns about emissions caused MTBE to fall out of favor and be eventually banned. 

In conclusion, mature ICE technology is still here, but probably not be advanced on an unproven supposition. BEVs and battery technology have developed, but the experience is still short of some customer expectations. Some to the point they will not consider. 

I believe Porsche has already developed a synthetic gasoline substitute, but I think as of now, its expensive...all about scale I would think...

[paintguy]

36 minutes ago, akirby said:

So this is how they explain the difference.  1 and 4 are just bad assumptions by the modeler.  2 is precisely the reason people buy PHEVs over BEVs- so they can more easily take long trips.  Not plugging in or not plugging in long enough is only one of 4 POSSIBLE reasons.  There is no way this data suggests that most PHEV owners don’t plug in.

 

There has been much recently about BEVs not achieving EPA ratings. When Car and Driver reports it, well the way they drive, are you surprised? When Consumer Reports says the same, oops big time fail. For cars I know history of, my Ford Taurus SHO did the EPA estimate when I was working, travelling with family in the car, and being a good boy. Now retired with very short runs, less mileage. My 2018 Ford Mustang convertible, Turbo  4 meets estimate and reasonably fast for this old guy. (Still want a V8 sometime) Ford Escape Hybrid 2009, around town, pretty close. On highway with clamshell roof rack, no, off by 5-6 MPG. My Brother in law with a Prius beats EPA estimate. Riding with him, an exercise in patience. 

[paintguy]

9 minutes ago, Deanh said:

I believe Porsche has already developed a synthetic gasoline substitute, but I think as of now, its expensive...all about scale I would think...

Scale is amazing on mass industries such as oil. Henry Ford proved with cars as well. Oil companies have entire sections of engineers seeing technical aspects of scale and accountant and MBA types who figure cost of a 500 liter reactor scaled up hundreds fold. Worked in one plant where I had storage tanks of say 500,000 gallons. My neighbor was then Mobil oil. Had an aerial photo for a permit application. There smallest tank in the photo dwarfed my big tanks. And dwarfed by the tanker tied up to their dock. 

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Page 2 of those results gives inventory levels, total Mach E Inventory is now above 20,000 vehicles

I am concerned that Mach E is selling at 5,000/month yet production is now way above that….

What concerns me is that production went down from a high of 13,639 in May, to 13,000 in June, to 11,611 in July, to only 7,203 in August.

 

Unless there are supply limitations, it would seem production has been cut back significantly to prevent even larger inventory.  This implies sales are no longer limited by supply but rather more by lack of greater demand.

[AM222]

8 hours ago, mustang84isu said:

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.

This is ithe reality nobody wants to address. Early adopters either have access to public chargers (and adjusted their life around long charging times)  or live in houses with home chargers. 

 

Governments are pushing EVs because most people see it as the right thing. The massive increase in mining for raw materials for battery packs and transporting them is just moving the problem behind the curtains. 

Edited September 5, 2023 by AM222

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, mackinaw said:

 

Excellent point.  There are 278 million registered vehicles in the U.S. and 99% of those are ICE powered.  If the government was truly serious about addressing climate change, it'd be developing some sort of low-carbon gas for all of those ICE-powered vehicles which would quickly and dramatically reduce carbon emissions.  That's the smart way to address climate change, not the path we're currently taking.

But even then, the emissions generated by those 278 million vehicles is a fraction of the emissions generated by power plants, change those and the impact vehicles have will be far less.

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

What we get between now and 2028 or so is already more or less decided, since the engineering work has been completed and the logistics of manufacturing it are being ramped up.

Agree that to the plus side it takes years of work to get new vehicles ready, but to the negative side plans can change much faster by simply canceling or delaying new vehicle projects.  I don’t think vehicles  we will see in 5 years is a given yet.

[jpd80]

13 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

What concerns me is that production went down from a high of 13,639 in May, to 13,000 in June, to 11,611 in July, to only 7,203 in August.

 

Unless there are supply limitations, it would seem production has been cut back significantly to prevent even larger inventory.  This implies sales are no longer limited by supply but rather more by lack of greater demand.

Battery supply could be a factor or maybe Ford is already responding to inventory size?

 

And I agree that if early adopter have moved on From Mach E, then Ford has a big problem 

Edited September 5, 2023 by jpd80

[Deanh]

59 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

What concerns me is that production went down from a high of 13,639 in May, to 13,000 in June, to 11,611 in July, to only 7,203 in August.

 

Unless there are supply limitations, it would seem production has been cut back significantly to prevent even larger inventory.  This implies sales are no longer limited by supply but rather more by lack of greater demand.

when demand subsides Dealers wholesales ( where they are offered cars from Ford ) get cut back to avoid cars "sitting" ......

[jpd80]

22 minutes ago, Deanh said:

when demand subsides Dealers wholesales ( where they are offered cars from Ford ) get cut back to avoid cars "sitting" ......

Am I wrong in thinking that the present lul in EV buyers puts the sword through Ford’s insistence on $1 million upgrades to qualify for selling BEVs? I hope dealers have good lawyers to show how unzipped Ford’s EV plans have become now that early adopters have moved on (Farley’s own admission). Why not encourage/subsidise upgrades to dealerships so that more of them can benefit from selling BEVs.

[akirby]

3 hours ago, mackinaw said:

 If the government was truly serious about addressing climate change, it'd be developing some sort of low-carbon gas for all of those ICE-powered vehicles which would quickly and dramatically reduce carbon emissions.  That's the smart way to address climate change, not the path we're currently taking.

I’ve suggested that a couple of times and got berated by the BEV mafia because BEVs are the only possible solution.

[akirby]

30 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Am I wrong in thinking that the present lul in EV buyers puts the sword through Ford’s insistence on $1 million upgrades to qualify for selling BEVs? I hope dealers have good lawyers to show how unzipped Ford’s EV plans have become now that early adopters have moved on (Farley’s own admission). Why not encourage/subsidise upgrades to dealerships so that more of them can benefit from selling BEVs.

I think Ford will weather these changes ok but some dealers could be totally screwed.

[jpd80]

12 minutes ago, akirby said:

I think Ford will weather these changes ok but some dealers could be totally screwed.

It just feels like the upgrade contracts to sell BEVs was a bit premature, maybe designed to exit a certain number of franchises that wouldn’t pay the $1 million in upgrades. Would be much better if this was a softer target so that both sides could see how sales demand goes.
 

Australia is one the countries slated to get RHD Mach E early next year, it gladdens my heart that there looks to be plenty of Mach E stock but wonder if Ford Europe is about to swap Mach E for new BEV Explorer…..not sure what the thinking is with those two….

Edited September 6, 2023 by jpd80

[CurtisH]

6 hours ago, akirby said:

Absolutely true IF AND ONLY IF BEVs are viable for all buyers which means much cheaper prices and ubiquitous public charging.  And anyone who is being honest and logical knows that isn’t happening for years and maybe a decade or two.   Ignoring hybrids and PHEVs in the meantime will only keep more non hybrid ICE vehicles on the road.

I was going to say the same thing.  We will be buying a car in the next 6-7 months.  We’re willing to consider a hybrid or PHEV.  Currently, we will not consider a BEV.

[jpd80]

There is a loophole that manufacturers like Ford can use to get Chinese BEVs sold in the US, all they have to do is export some North American BEVs to China - maybe the coming TE1 based BEV F150 and an Expedition SUV…….just a thought

[Sherminator98]

3 hours ago, jpd80 said:

But even then, the emissions generated by those 278 million vehicles is a fraction of the emissions generated by power plants, change those and the impact vehicles have will be far less.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

 

Transportation still generates more CO2 then Electric power generation-plus power generation is going through its own CO2 reductions. 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by silvrsvt

[Sherminator98]

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

It just feels like the upgrade contracts to sell BEVs was a bit premature, maybe designed to exit a certain number of franchises that wouldn’t pay the $1 million in upgrades. Would be much better if this was a softer target so that both sides could see how sales demand goes.

 

Ultimately what it boils down to is that changes need to happen and letting market forces do it isn't going to solve the problem either. I've been around far too many different groups of people to see that people don't like change nor do they even plan ahead...its not a problem, till its a problem then with some people its not till its on fire.

[paintguy]

4 hours ago, jpd80 said:

But even then, the emissions generated by those 278 million vehicles is a fraction of the emissions generated by power plants, change those and the impact vehicles have will be far less.

Changing powerplants not an easy thing either. Solar farms, wind farms, even offshore wind farms face large resistance. Permits, environmental impact statements, public meeting sites all slowing implementation. BTW I have not seen recharging stations at popular priced chain hotels or travel restaurants outside tollway style rest stops. If anyone knows, would like to be set straight.

[paintguy]

20 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Ultimately what it boils down to is that changes need to happen and letting market forces do it isn't going to solve the problem either. I've been around far too many different groups of people to see that people don't like change nor do they even plan ahead...its not a problem, till its a problem then with some people its not till its on fire.

So you are for forced change and willing to deal with unintended consequences? maybe a late model auto restoration service might be worthwhile. Remember in the 70s restoring a 60s car was radical.

[jpd80]

25 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

 

Transportation still generates more CO2 then Electric power generation-plus power generation is going through its own CO2 reductions. 

 

 

Correct but as electric power emission reduce, it reduces the power industry % but also increases the % of vehicular emissions even though the quantity does not increase.

Pre 2020, the percentage of passenger vehicle emission was about 10% of the total but when you lump in transportation, that includes trucks, trains and maybe ships. That in itself makes the pull out of passenger vehicles quite difficult- something the green advocates would probably prefer…

Edited September 6, 2023 by jpd80

[jpd80]

11 minutes ago, paintguy said:

Changing powerplants not an easy thing either. Solar farms, wind farms, even offshore wind farms face large resistance. Permits, environmental impact statements, public meeting sites all slowing implementation. BTW I have not seen recharging stations at popular priced chain hotels or travel restaurants outside tollway style rest stops. If anyone knows, would like to be set straight.

I think California is down to just one coal fired power plant now.