It still seems like getting rid of the Fusion was a mistake.

[Rick73]

13 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

Aero doesn't really affect range on a car unless your driving long distances at 70+ MPH.

Let’s try this again except I’m going to be honest and blunt instead of going out of my way trying to be polite.

 

The above statement is wrong.  It’s stupid wrong.  There is no way to spin it other than that.

[akirby]

21 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Let’s try this again except I’m going to be honest and blunt instead of going out of my way trying to be polite.

 

The above statement is wrong.  It’s stupid wrong.  There is no way to spin it other than that.

Stop arguing about subjective statements and just post the math.

 

For a specific vehicle wind resistance is a function speed squared.  Therefore the coefficient is

 

900 at 30 mph

1600 at 40 mph

2500 at 50 mph

3600 at 60 mph

4900 at 70 mph

6400 at 80 mph

8100 at 90 mph

 

For a sleek car with a low cd and small frontal area the actual difference will be minimal up to 70 mph but much higher for a truck with a higher cd and much bigger frontal area.

[Captainp4]

8 hours ago, akirby said:

Stop arguing about subjective statements and just post the math.

 

For a specific vehicle wind resistance is a function speed squared.  Therefore the coefficient is

 

900 at 30 mph

1600 at 40 mph

2500 at 50 mph

3600 at 60 mph

4900 at 70 mph

6400 at 80 mph

8100 at 90 mph

 

For a sleek car with a low cd and small frontal area the actual difference will be minimal up to 70 mph but much higher for a truck with a higher cd and much bigger frontal area.

I was all ready to sound smart about remembering cod from physics, you ruined my fun ?

[Harley Lover]

On 10/11/2023 at 7:06 PM, silvrsvt said:

 

Seriously

 

So lets do some math-

 

the Mach E is .29

 

So if we did a 10% reduction in its cd, it would be .28

 

LOL  Better work on that math a bit more.

[Deanh]

10 hours ago, akirby said:

Stop arguing about subjective statements and just post the math.

 

For a specific vehicle wind resistance is a function speed squared.  Therefore the coefficient is

 

900 at 30 mph

1600 at 40 mph

2500 at 50 mph

3600 at 60 mph

4900 at 70 mph

6400 at 80 mph

8100 at 90 mph

 

For a sleek car with a low cd and small frontal area the actual difference will be minimal up to 70 mph but much higher for a truck with a higher cd and much bigger frontal area.

those are third gear RPM figures from my Aprilia......

[Hugh]

17 hours ago, Deanh said:

those are third gear RPM figures from my Aprilia......

Those are hi-explosive numbers mate.

[Deanh]

4 hours ago, Hugh said:

Those are hi-explosive numbers mate.

still under redline....lol....

[Rick73]

On 10/12/2023 at 8:17 AM, akirby said:

Stop arguing about subjective statements and just post the math.

 

For a specific vehicle wind resistance is a function speed squared.  Therefore the coefficient is

 

900 at 30 mph

1600 at 40 mph

2500 at 50 mph

3600 at 60 mph

4900 at 70 mph

6400 at 80 mph

8100 at 90 mph

 

For a sleek car with a low cd and small frontal area the actual difference will be minimal up to 70 mph but much higher for a truck with a higher cd and much bigger frontal area.

 

I could post objective estimates, but will not bother because it would be a waste of time.  Unless he studied aerodynamics at a university department of mechanical and aerospace engineering, no provided information would ever resonate.

 

Debating at technical level is clearly not a good idea, so let’s try using “related” visuals.  Maybe pictures below can be basis for friendly discussion instead of arguing.  It is a given that coefficient of drag (Cd) and velocity are not the same or interchangeable, but they are related enough that with proper knowledge we can see (extrapolate) what affect lowering EV drag should have on range.  Much easier to understand than numbers.

 

 

By the way, Tesla Model 3 (sleek, low Cd, relatively low frontal area) that achieved distance record was driven very slowly, confirming that what is being stated about lowering Cd at speeds below 70 MPH not being important is simply wrong.  Mercedes engineers proved it as well.  
 

 

[jpd80]

Given that the current Toyota Camry hybrid achieves a combined 52 mpg, it’s clear that power usage in a sleeker design is much lower, regardless of the speeds in the test cycle Camry hybrid is far more efficient than RAV4 hybrid. My point being that aero efficiency is part of that but there’s more to it than just that.

 

Given Ford’s history in changing some decisions, thee may be a possibility that the door is opened a crack for supply of an efficient sedan in the future, the target audience is critical here and as with all things, if a sedan runs counter to an existing utility product, then there little business case for splitting the sales.

 

Maverick is an example of Ford listening to newer data, maybe it would be open to more pickups to fill the range with more options the competition doesn’t have….sorry Aussie concept picture added itself above 

 

 

 

Edited October 13, 2023 by jpd80

[Rick73]

On 10/11/2023 at 12:43 PM, bzcat said:

 

No doubt that is a key design consideration for all the car companies. They all try to compensate for the larger frontal area with more streamline fastback or tapered kammback shape in the rear. There is a reason why Mach E looked the way it looks. But I think with with more power dense batteries and/or more efficient power management software, we will see more conventional shapes return. 

 

The under car air flow is also a big reason why CUV is less efficient... but EV on skate platforms can perform better here since the bottom is almost entirely sealed. 

 

Agree batteries with greater energy density will help vehicle manufacturers, as will less expensive batteries, but these “improvements” will likely result in less efficient BEVs which will consume more energy to travel a given distance.  In the end, the electrical grid will most likely have to provide more energy, and will create more CO2 due to these improvements.

 

Unless government somehow regulates BEV energy consumption more effectively, newer and/or cheaper batteries could easily result in us having more Hummer-type vehicles on the road and fewer Tesla-Model-3 efficient ones.  Majority of vehicles will likely be in middle, but I fear closer to Hummer end of spectrum.

 

Just as with ICE vehicles, it doesn’t take much design changes for a BEV to require twice as much energy.  And cumulatively, that will require a lot more power plants that produce a lot more CO2, and also indirectly adds much higher cost to us all beyond the vehicle purchase price.

 

In a way, I see cheaper and more advanced batteries as counterproductive towards goal of reducing global warming.  It is human nature to be more wasteful the more affordable things become.

 

I do not like much government involvement, but in this case hope for greater BEV efficiency standards.

 

[silvrsvt]

17 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

I could post objective estimates, but will not bother because it would be a waste of time.  Unless he studied aerodynamics at a university department of mechanical and aerospace engineering, no provided information would ever resonate.

 

Debating at technical level is clearly not a good idea, so let’s try using “related” visuals.  Maybe pictures below can be basis for friendly discussion instead of arguing.  It is a given that coefficient of drag (Cd) and velocity are not the same or interchangeable, but they are related enough that with proper knowledge we can see (extrapolate) what affect lowering EV drag should have on range.  Much easier to understand than numbers.

 

By the way, Tesla Model 3 (sleek, low Cd, relatively low frontal area) that achieved distance record was driven very slowly, confirming that what is being stated about lowering Cd at speeds below 70 MPH not being important is simply wrong.  Mercedes engineers proved it as well.  
 

 

 

Since your calling me out here-

 

Never considered the fact that reason those records where set was due to the inherently more efficient EV powertrain vs ICE?

 

EVs and ICE are directly affected the same way by aerodynamics...there is no way around that.

 

Average speed for local driving is in the sub 25 MPH category, meaning that aerodynamics has almost no impact on it and other things influence MPG far more like stop and go traffic and regenerative braking etc

 

Average speed on the highway is almost 3x more drag then around town, thus has more impact on MPGs

 

 

[silvrsvt]

16 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Given that the current Toyota Camry hybrid achieves a combined 52 mpg, it’s clear that power usage in a sleeker design is much lower, regardless of the speeds in the test cycle Camry hybrid is far more efficient than RAV4 hybrid. My point being that aero efficiency is part of that but there’s more to it than just that.

 

The RAV4 hybrid weighs roughly 300lbs more than the camry also. 

[ice-capades]

All this talk and discussion about aerodynamics and the impact on fuel economy, while interesting, really has nothing to do with the topic subject. 

[AGR]

8 hours ago, ice-capades said:

All this talk and discussion about aerodynamics and the impact on fuel economy, while interesting, really has nothing to do with the topic subject. 

 

Well, the topic in the OP has been discussed over and over, and everyone has their entrenched positions...

[rperez817]

56 minutes ago, AGR said:

Well, the topic in the OP has been discussed over and over, and everyone has their entrenched positions...

 

Regardless of the entrenched position one takes on the topic of "Ford getting rid of the Fusion may have been a mistake", the likelihood that Ford will introduce a new ICE powered sedan in the U.S. market is close to nil.

[jpd80]

20 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Regardless of the entrenched position one takes on the topic of "Ford getting rid of the Fusion may have been a mistake", the likelihood that Ford will introduce a new ICE powered sedan in the U.S. market is close to nil.

Exactly and it will stay that way until/if ever  Ford sees a need to change….

Also remember that Ford felt the same way about Bronco, Ranger

and a compact pickup like Maverick - those topics were banned

under the rule of Mulally.

Edited October 15, 2023 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Also remember that Ford felt the same way about Bronco, Ranger

and a compact pickup like Maverick - those topics were banned

under the rule of Mulally.

 

The Bronco always tried to come back, but always got screwed up by different things for the past 20 years.

 

The Maverick was done well after Mulally in a short time frame. 

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

The Bronco always tried to come back, but always got screwed up by different things for the past 20 years.

 

The Maverick was done well after Mulally in a short time frame. 

Both vehicles being made possible through a change in the way Ford develops vehicles,

Bronco took a little longer as it had to be timed with next Gen T6 product cycle.

[DeluxeStang]

5 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Exactly and it will stay that way until/if ever  Ford sees a need to change….

Also remember that Ford felt the same way about Bronco, Ranger

and a compact pickup like Maverick - those topics were banned

under the rule of Mulally.

Was a maverick like vehicle something being kicked around during the Mulally era? 

[jpd80]

43 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Was a maverick like vehicle something being kicked around during the Mulally era? 

They were trying to get rid of the 2WD Ranger crew cab that was being used as cheap transport.

South Africa had a pickup called Bantam based on the FWD fiesta - thinking of it for South America.

[rperez817]

7 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Both vehicles being made possible through a change in the way Ford develops vehicles

 

For sure jpd80. Jim Hackett's design thinking was a major contributor to that "change in the way Ford develops vehicles", and why Bronco & Maverick as well as F-150 Lightning & Mustang Mach-E appeal to customers based on product merit rather than on massive sales incentives.

[Rick73]

11 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Regardless of the entrenched position one takes on the topic of "Ford getting rid of the Fusion may have been a mistake", the likelihood that Ford will introduce a new ICE powered sedan in the U.S. market is close to nil.

Probably correct, but if buyers are slow to adopt BEVs and government does not backpedal on fuel economy requirements, will Ford have much choice but to offer some 50+ MPG ICE vehicles (actually hybrid)?  Toyota, Honda and Hyundai already are, so not that much of a reach.

[silvrsvt]

10 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Bronco took a little longer as it had to be timed with next Gen T6 product cycle.

 

In the Bring back Bronco podcast, they had about 3 different attempts to Bring the Bronco back post 1996

 

One was killed due to the Firestone tire fiscao 

 

The other one was killed by the increase gas prices and then the 2007-2008 Economic recession. 

[akirby]

41 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

In the Bring back Bronco podcast, they had about 3 different attempts to Bring the Bronco back post 1996

 

One was killed due to the Firestone tire fiscao 

 

The other one was killed by the increase gas prices and then the 2007-2008 Economic recession. 

It was also a difficult standalone business case until they decided to drop focus and bring back Ranger.

[slemke]

9 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

For sure jpd80. Jim Hackett's design thinking was a major contributor to that "change in the way Ford develops vehicles", and why Bronco & Maverick as well as F-150 Lightning & Mustang Mach-E appeal to customers based on product merit rather than on massive sales incentives.

Might not be “massive “ but Ford is trying to close out ‘23 Lightning with $7500 incentives on xlt and lariat.  Inventory of pro and platinum must be under control as those were excluded.