What Customers Really Want

[GearheadGrrrl]

You're making some questionable statistical assumptions of steady growth in EVs that seldom seem to work out in reality. Four decades ago the assumption was that the future of automotive propulsion was diesel and some truck makers even dropped their gas engines entirely. Then GM mass marketed a lemon of a diesel, gas prices relented, and by the late 80s there was hardly a diesel car left in production. VW and others cheated on emissions and killed the diesel cars resurgence in the US and Canada, but today worldwide diesel cars still have a respectable but shrinking market share, diesels often fill over half the engine bays in 3/4 and 1 ton trucks, and in 2 ton and heavier trucks Diesel engines dominate.

 

Given the factors that can slow EVs growth like charging and price, it's entirely possible that EVs will dominate some markets like affluent home owners in Coastal "blue" states but sales may plateau for years as many buyers can't afford or conveniently charge diesel cars. We may be at the beginning of one of those plateaus now, or EV sales could trend downward and near disappear like new diesel cars did in the late 80s. 

[rperez817]

39 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Given the factors that can slow EVs growth like charging and price

 

Last year Jim Farley mentioned that those 2 factors weren't holding back growth of BEV, quite the opposite actually. Ford CEO Jim Farley Says EV Transition Occurring Faster Than Expected (fordauthority.com)

 

I mean it’s gone so much faster than people think. So much faster than the charging experience. So much faster than the purchase price. So much faster than you would have predicted.

 

That still holds true nowadays. It wouldn't be surprising if Ford's yearly run rate targets of 600,000 BEV next year and 2,000,000 by 2026 are increased further.

[jpd80]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

The problem is parts not development cash.  They can’t even build escape hybrids.

Parts shortages for C2 are improving, Ford won’t be able to use that excuse much longer.

But in saying that, I bet the hybrid Maverick supply gets priority over Escape hybrid…

 

Isn’t it ironic that Ford now has plenty of battery supply for Mach E but had to

lower production back to earlier levels because poor buyer response..

Edited October 2, 2023 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Given the factors that can slow EVs growth like charging and price, it's entirely possible that EVs will dominate some markets like affluent home owners in Coastal "blue" states but sales may plateau for years as many buyers can't afford or conveniently charge diesel cars. We may be at the beginning of one of those plateaus now, or EV sales could trend downward and near disappear like new diesel cars did in the late 80s. 

 

But with CAFE increasing over the next few years, and EVs being pretty much the only real solution, its not. Like I said before all I hear is excuses and whataboutism that doesn't change anything. 

 

And the only thing holding back EVs is pricing and charging, which both should get better as time goes on.

 

And guess what? You'll still should be able to buy an ICE product 10 years from now, and the only reason that might not happen is that switchover/demand for EVs increases to a point that it makes no sense to keep building them. 

[silvrsvt]

10 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

until we have more renewable energy and a grid to distribute it, putting more EVs in the fleet just results in the GHG producing coal and gas fired generating plants running more and longer.

 

Citation please...

 

Keep in mind that every ICE out there still produces GHG on top of whatever power generation does. All those 100s of thousands or millions of cars add up quick. 

 

EVs can charge at night when demand is lower and don't need to be charging all the time either and it will be a linear increase, not an overnight explosion of demand.  

Edited October 2, 2023 by silvrsvt

[silvrsvt]

5 hours ago, jpd80 said:

you mean clutching at straws - I get what you mean but the point is that Ford put all its cash into electrification, not that it a bad choice but simply walled off any further developments to complement hybrid power trains.

 

But in all seriousness, what has really changed say the 2010 Fusion Hybrid vs a 2023 Hybrid Escape? There is no improvement in MPGs (both rated at 39 combined) and there has been some other improvement like smaller/lighter battery packs. Otherwise Hybrids are being marketed as a power adder or used as a power source in larger vehicles. 

I won't mention plugins since if your plugging in, why not just go whole hog?

[jpd80]

24 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

But in all seriousness, what has really changed say the 2010 Fusion Hybrid vs a 2023 Hybrid Escape? There is no improvement in MPGs (both rated at 39 combined) and there has been some other improvement like smaller/lighter battery packs. Otherwise Hybrids are being marketed as a power adder or used as a power source in larger vehicles. 

I won't mention plugins since if you’re plugging in, why not just go whole hog?

The devil is in the detail.

While the fuel economy didn’t improve, the switch from a 2.0 I-4 hybrid to a 2.5 I-4 hybrid improved performance

which I gather was the main intent and corrected a perception of weakness versus Camry hybrid and RAV4 hybrid.

 

So yeah, a 2.0 hybrid getting 39 mpg combined vs a 2.5 hybrid getting 39 mpg looks the until you drive them.

For context,

the 2023 hybrid Camry now has a combined mileage of 52 mpg which is impressive

and the RAV4 hybrid at 38 mpg, competitive with the Escape hybrid.

Edited October 2, 2023 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

9 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

So yeah, a 2.0 hybrid getting 39 mpg combined vs a 2.5 hybrid getting 39 mpg looks the until you drive them.

 

They both had/have the 2.5L in them

 

 

And the 2.5L isn't anything to write home about performance wise either. 

[paintguy]

14 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

But in all seriousness, what has really changed say the 2010 Fusion Hybrid vs a 2023 Hybrid Escape? There is no improvement in MPGs (both rated at 39 combined) and there has been some other improvement like smaller/lighter battery packs. Otherwise Hybrids are being marketed as a power adder or used as a power source in larger vehicles. 

I won't mention plugins since if your plugging in, why not just go whole hog?

More valid comparison would be 2010 Escape hybrid to 2023 Escape Hybrid. I had a 2009 Escape Hybrid. believe that was 32 combined. So it was an improvement. But I could buy a 2009 Escape Hybrid AWD, and the 2023 you can't. The competition RAV4 has AWD standard 

For the PHEV, most have about a 20 kwh battery pack. The high range BEVs about 100 kwh battery pack. If battery production is the limiting factor, you could significantly increase "electrified" vehicle production with PHEV. The other factor is customer acceptance. Many dismiss the BEV due to charging anxiety. Demographics of Ford customers and where they live may make a big difference. Both coasts in major metropolitan areas, I see plenty of BEVs. Middle America, as you get more rural (truck country) you don't see so many. 

[silvrsvt]

6 minutes ago, paintguy said:

More valid comparison would be 2010 Escape hybrid to 2023 Escape Hybrid. I had a 2009 Escape Hybrid. believe that was 32 combined. So it was an improvement. But I could buy a 2009 Escape Hybrid AWD, and the 2023 you can't. The competition RAV4 has AWD standard 

 

But the issue with AWD is that it hurts MPGs because of additional drivetrain losses.

The 1.5L Escape actually gets better highway mileage then the old AWD Hybrid. 

[paintguy]

6 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

But the issue with AWD is that it hurts MPGs because of additional drivetrain losses.

The 1.5L Escape actually gets better highway mileage then the old AWD Hybrid. 

My 2009 went 115,000 miles mostly trouble free. My nephew's 1.5 L 3 went 20,000 miles before failing and needing a rebuild. And then the rebuild failed. Another customer lost for life.

[silvrsvt]

6 minutes ago, paintguy said:

My nephew's 1.5 L 3 went 20,000 miles before failing and needing a rebuild. And then the rebuild failed. Another customer lost for life.

 

People keep saying that, but that would happen with any other brand also under the same situation. 

 

Car makers make a crappy car once in a while, I had a POS SVT Focus. Otherwise all my other cars have been fine. Its the luck of the draw. It just seems like there is a defeatist attitude when it comes to stuff like this. 

[jpd80]

14 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Technically, I think he could be correct because “exponential” doesn’t necessarily mean fast or rapid growth, particularly at first.  I believe much depends on growth rate, so for example, if we choose the right numbers, we can actually see exponential decay, not growth.  Or somewhere in middle sales could be next to flat, or perhaps approaching linear growth.  The term “exponential growth” has become somewhat of a buzzword IMO.

 

In case of BEV sales, data I can find suggest that volume varies significantly by month, country, manufacturer, model, etc. to the point of being difficult for me to interpret.  Largest plug-in growth by far (BEV + PHEV) are BYD and Tesla, with manufacturers like GM and Ford having little growth 2023 H1 over 2022 H1 (2% and 4% respectively were reported).  I feel data is still too inconsistent to predict future trends accurately, especially given BEV sales are affected by economy, interest rates, etc.

Mind you, an exponential increase in sales implies something like a continual doubling of sales for successive time periods, be that monthly, quarterly or yearly…….an annual growth rate of 16% or so is not exponential unless it becomes something like 32% next year.

Edited October 2, 2023 by jpd80

[paintguy]

51 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

People keep saying that, but that would happen with any other brand also under the same situation. 

 

Car makers make a crappy car once in a while, I had a POS SVT Focus. Otherwise all my other cars have been fine. Its the luck of the draw. It just seems like there is a defeatist attitude when it comes to stuff like this. 

Yes. I have a 3.5 Ecoboost Taurus SHO, and a Mustang Ecoboost, both are great. This was my wife's family who mainly drive Toyotas. The nephew, a police officer, drove Crown Vics, Taurus and Explorer Police Interceptors. The first time the engine broke, he was cool, the second time, not so much. Then the dealer, (nephew had retired and moved) balked at doing the repair. Now I face that entire side of the family will not consider a Ford. That is the cost of poor quality that sometimes we don't face. I'm sure it happens with others. But the frequency? Who is losing market share? 

[Rick73]

15 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

If that truly was the case, they would be doing that already. There really is no practical way of making major increases in improvements with ICE that would make sense in a lowering of CO2 senario. I just see people clutching at pearls. 

Isn’t that the same defeatist attitude you mentioned regarding another subject?  We can just as easily say that if it were possible to build cheap BEVs, with 400-miles of range, that charge in 10 minutes, “they would be doing that already”.  How about let’s be a little fair and remain objective?

 

There are presently hybrids from Hyundai that get +/- 50% higher MPG than the 39 MPG you mention from Ford (Hyundai is close to 60 combined).  Again, keeping an open mind, just because Ford doesn’t build such a car doesn’t mean it’s not possible.

 

Additionally, we don’t know what the actual upper MPG limit of a hybrid will be unless it is tested.  The only real drawback to 100 MPG cars is that they would be too small for most buyers, but that too could change.  Or not — who knows?.  GM 30 years ago built a prototype that got 100 mpg at constant 50 MPH if I recall correctly (80 MPG EPA highway), so with technology advancements over 3 decades, maybe 100 MPG may be closer to practical than we expect.

 

I know electrification is justified based on most buyers wanting pickups and large SUVs, so downsizing (BEV or ICE) is not even discussed as an option.  But that could change once we figure out how much CO2 a 9,000+ pound BEV pickup like Silverado produces.

[silvrsvt]

7 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Isn’t that the same defeatist attitude you mentioned regarding another subject?  We can just as easily say that if it were possible to build cheap BEVs, with 400-miles of range, that charge in 10 minutes, “they would be doing that already”.  How about let’s be a little fair and remain objective?

 

There are presently hybrids from Hyundai that get +/- 50% higher MPG than the 39 MPG you mention from Ford (Hyundai is close to 60 combined).  Again, keeping an open mind, just because Ford doesn’t build such a car doesn’t mean it’s not possible.

 

Additionally, we don’t know what the actual upper MPG limit of a hybrid will be unless it is tested.  The only real drawback to 100 MPG cars is that they would be too small for most buyers, but that too could change.  Or not — who knows?.  GM 30 years ago built a prototype that got 100 mpg at constant 50 MPH if I recall correctly (80 MPG EPA highway), so with technology advancements over 3 decades, maybe 100 MPG may be closer to practical than we expect.

 

I know electrification is justified based on most buyers wanting pickups and large SUVs, so downsizing (BEV or ICE) is not even discussed as an option.  But that could change once we figure out how much CO2 a 9,000+ pound BEV pickup like Silverado produces.

 

If your hung up using MPGs as a measurement, it doesn't really matter after you hit 20-30 MPG

http://www.mpgillusion.com/p/what-is-mpg-illusion.html

Plus as you mentioned, if you want good range or MPGs, there are going to be too many sacrifices for the average consumer to consider it.  

 

As for your extreme example of the Silverado EV or the Hummer, your cherry picking worst case scenario. Its a first generation product to learn how to do it and hopefully GM figures out that more isn't always better when it comes to putting a huge battery into a vehicle.

 

 

[Rick73]

4 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

If your hung up using MPGs as a measurement, it doesn't really matter after you hit 20-30 MPG

http://www.mpgillusion.com/p/what-is-mpg-illusion.html

Plus as you mentioned, if you want good range or MPGs, there are going to be too many sacrifices for the average consumer to consider it.  

 

As for your extreme example of the Silverado EV or the Hummer, your cherry picking worst case scenario. Its a first generation product to learn how to do it and hopefully GM figures out that more isn't always better when it comes to putting a huge battery into a vehicle.

 

 

 

Not the right thread to discuss this subject IMO.  This is about UAW, and while there is some affect/connection on future labor, BEV vs ICE vs Hybrid efficiency is too unrelated.  I’ll gladly discuss topic in “what customers want” thread or other.  Not here for me though.

[rperez817]

15 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

You'll still should be able to buy an ICE product 10 years from now, and the only reason that might not happen is that switchover/demand for EVs increases to a point that it makes no sense to keep building them. 

 

10 years from now is 2033. Ford's target for an all electric vehicle lineup in "leading markets" is 2035. While there is a possibility that Ford still sells ICE vehicles new in 2033, at the rate things are going, it's quite likely that Ford will fully transition to all electric by 2033.

[akirby]

49 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

10 years from now is 2033. Ford's target for an all electric vehicle lineup in "leading markets" is 2035. While there is a possibility that Ford still sells ICE vehicles new in 2033, at the rate things are going, it's quite likely that Ford will fully transition to all electric by 2033.

It’s also quite likely you’re delusional.

[rperez817]

6 minutes ago, akirby said:

It’s also quite likely you’re realistic delusional.

 

Fixed.

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

 

Not the right thread to discuss this subject IMO.  This is about UAW, and while there is some affect/connection on future labor, BEV vs ICE vs Hybrid efficiency is too unrelated.  I’ll gladly discuss topic in “what customers want” thread or other.  Not here for me though.

 

I was about to say the same thing....

[silvrsvt]

Took out most of the EV/hybrid comments out of the UAW thread and moved them here

 

[CoolScoop]

21 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

But the issue with AWD is that it hurts MPGs because of additional drivetrain losses. 

That's not correct with the 2023 Escape Hybrid AWD for some reason.  Our ST-Line Elite AWD Hybrid window sticker says 42 city, 36 highway and 39 combined... exactly the same as the FWD models.  We still have our 2010 Fusion Hybrid FWD (now with 160K trouble free miles) and the new Escape Hybrid AWD is way more refined and gets consistently better real world mileage in all types of driving than the Fusion ever did.

Edited October 2, 2023 by CoolScoop

[CoolScoop]

18 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

I won't mention plugins since if your plugging in, why not just go whole hog?

We also have an Aviator GT PHEV... we got it over an EV so we can go anywhere we want without pre-planning for range anxiety, make 10 minute pit stops, not have to worry about extremely cold temperatures, etc.  PHEVs and Hybrids are extemely good stepping stones to full EV adoption. IMHO they will help with the transition, not slow it down.  If they didn't have PHEVs, we would have purchased another ICE because we're just not ready for a full EV... and that's just being realistic!!!

Edited October 2, 2023 by CoolScoop

[Rick73]

8 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

If your hung up using MPGs as a measurement, it doesn't really matter after you hit 20-30 MPG

You’ll need to explain why it doesn’t matter above 20-30 MPG because on the surface it sounds idiotic that it wouldn’t matter.  Plus the numbers say otherwise.

 

When a vehicle traveling the same 10,000 miles per year (example from your link) improves from say, 25 to 50 MPG, does it not consume half the gas, and produce half the tailpipe CO2?  Consumption for 10,000 miles drops from 400 to 200 gallons.  How is 50% reduction not a win that matters in the real world?

 

And in future, increasing from 50 to 100 MPG would drop consumption from 200 to 100 gallons.  Obviously, improvement is only 100 gallons per year, not the previous 200 gallons per year.  What article correctly states is that improving from 25 to 50 MPG is more beneficial than from 50 to 100 MPG, but both certainly matter if goal is to get closer to zero gallons.  Diminishing return on fuel economy is real, and does exist, so let’s get more and more buyers to at least want 50 MPG vehicles that accomplish so much with so little effort.  It’s not an illusion, it’s a math-based fact.

 

Not only are 50 MPG vehicles available today at affordable prices, they also don’t require billions upon billions of dollars to upgrade the electrical power system that will otherwise lead to blackouts.  That’s an added bonus.