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

[GearheadGrrrl]

With BEV batteries in short supply and prices no longer dropping, it's becoming impossible to profitably build BEV SUVs and trucks at a price affordable to middle class buyers.

[rperez817]

On 10/9/2023 at 11:41 AM, bzcat said:

So why insist on Ford (or any other company) making a product that is shun by the market and has lower margin. Cars with 1" suspension lift is the new normal. Get used to it. 

 

As owners of a Mustang Mach-E, my wife and I are used to it. From a marketing promotion standpoint, the crossover craze nowadays represents one of the most brilliant achievements of the global automotive industry, getting consumers to willingly pay more for compromised products by cultivating an "active lifestyle" image.

[Sherminator98]

44 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

With BEV batteries in short supply and prices no longer dropping, it's becoming impossible to profitably build BEV SUVs and trucks at a price affordable to middle class buyers.

 

That will change in the new few years:

https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/16/tracking-the-ev-battery-factory-construction-boom-across-north-america/

 

Today there are about 30 battery factories either planned, under construction or operational in the country

 

 

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1271-january-2-2023-electric-vehicle-battery-manufacturing-capacity

 

A wave of new planned electric vehicle battery plants will increase North America’s battery manufacturing capacity from 55 Gigawatt-hours per year (GWh/year) in 2021 to nearly 1,000 GWh/year by 2030. Most of the announced battery plant projects are scheduled to begin production between 2025 and 2030. By 2030, this production capacity will be capable of supporting the manufacture of roughly 10 to 13 million all-electric vehicles per year.

 

About Around 14.8 million motor vehicles were produced in North America in 2022. It was 16 million in 2019, pre covid. 

[rmc523]

On 10/9/2023 at 12:51 PM, fuzzymoomoo said:

They’ve been doing a little bit of that here and there for a few years now. I had to replace the left rear door on my friend’s 2020 Explorer and noticed you can see the bolts and bolsters for the third row seats. Meanwhile in my Flex all of that stuff is covered up. It’s not a huge deal but something I immediately noticed. 

 

Yeah, another of Ford's cost cutting measures - they keep chipping away at too many things like that and people will go elsewhere because at a certain point it cheapens the vehicle.....I think we're approaching that tipping point with so many decontenting measures.

 

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

 

As owners of a Mustang Mach-E, my wife and I are used to it. From a marketing promotion standpoint, the crossover craze nowadays represents one of the most brilliant achievements of the global automotive industry, getting consumers to willingly pay more for compromised products by cultivating an "active lifestyle" image.

 

How is it "compromised" ?   Just because it's not a sedan?

[grbeck]

On 10/8/2023 at 3:49 PM, bzcat said:

 

Nissan sold loads of Altima and it's giving up. 

 

Is the Nissan Altima going away? I had heard that the Maxima is scheduled to be phased out, but I missed any announcement or speculation regarding the Altima. 

 

Word on a Honda website is that the next-generation Accord will not be a sedan, but something along the lines of the old Honda Accord Crosstour - but better executed. 

 

[akirby]

47 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

How is it "compromised" ?   Just because it's not a sedan?

Anything he doesn’t like is compromised and/or doomed……

[rperez817]

10 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

How is it "compromised" ?   

 

Mainly the 1" to 1.5" suspension lift that bzcat mentioned. More often than not, this aspect of crossover type vehicles degrades driving dynamics compared to a sedan or wagon with a lowered suspension, but fails to provide true off-road capability comparable to a traditional 4x4 SUV or pickup truck.

[rperez817]

23 minutes ago, akirby said:

Anything he doesn’t like is compromised and/or doomed……

 

Huh?

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

That will change in the new few years:

https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/16/tracking-the-ev-battery-factory-construction-boom-across-north-america/

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1271-january-2-2023-electric-vehicle-battery-manufacturing-capacity

 

 

 

 

About Around 14.8 million motor vehicles were produced in North America in 2022. It was 16 million in 2019, pre covid. 

What concerns me isn't the amount of battery factories, but rather, the finite amount of rare earth materials like lithium, and cobalt. Now, I have heard about labs growing synthetic lithium and cobalt, but I don't know if this can be done on a massive scale, and at a rapid pace. 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

 

Mainly the 1" to 1.5" suspension lift that bzcat mentioned. More often than not, this aspect of crossover type vehicles degrades driving dynamics compared to a sedan or wagon with a lowered suspension, but fails to provide true off-road capability comparable to a traditional 4x4 SUV or pickup truck.

A difference that only a small percentage of drivers would notice or care about.  I don’t and I owned 2 fusions, a Lincoln LS sport sedan and an Acura Integra.

 

What most people do notice and care about is much easier ingress/egress and far superior cargo room.  In that regard sedans are more compromised.

[rperez817]

1 hour ago, grbeck said:

Is the Nissan Altima going away? 

 

Automotive News reported a couple months ago that Nissan intends to retire the ICE powered Versa and Altima in the U.S. in a couple years. The car may return as a BEV after 2025, as Nissan is planning to introduce 19 new BEV models by 2030. Nissan Altima’s run ends as focus turns to electric vehicles (electrek.co)

[Sherminator98]

3 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

What concerns me isn't the amount of battery factories, but rather, the finite amount of rare earth materials like lithium, and cobalt. Now, I have heard about labs growing synthetic lithium and cobalt, but I don't know if this can be done on a massive scale, and at a rapid pace. 

 

There is a big push to find more lithium at the moment and there are finding more sources of it

 

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/lithium-discovery-in-us-volcano-could-be-biggest-deposit-ever-found/4018032.article

Also don't discount recycling efforts to make it more closed loop

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lithium-ion-battery-recycling-market-174600232.html

 

And the cobalt issue is being addressed already-LFP batteries don't use it and there are other battery types coming along that won't use it either

We are still in the old text flip phone stage of tech with batteries-they are useful but haven't hit the blackberry or even the iphone stage of battery types.

[MadManMoon]

4 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Huh?

Feigning ignorance when called out is another frequently seen tactic.

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

There is a big push to find more lithium at the moment and there are finding more sources of it

 

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/lithium-discovery-in-us-volcano-could-be-biggest-deposit-ever-found/4018032.article

Also don't discount recycling efforts to make it more closed loop

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lithium-ion-battery-recycling-market-174600232.html

 

And the cobalt issue is being addressed already-LFP batteries don't use it and there are other battery types coming along that won't use it either

We are still in the old text flip phone stage of tech with batteries-they are useful but haven't hit the blackberry or even the iphone stage of battery types.

I believe they're called sea salt batteries that some institutions have been experimenting with as well. The recycling of batteries is a fair point, but with the already long, and ever increasing lifespan of batteries, and demand for rare earth materials exploding with more EVs being produced, I fear we won't be able to strike a balance between rising demand for EVs, and recycling existing batteries enough to recycle those resources. 

 

This will change in the future, but by how much remains to be seen. It would be smart for car brands to buy some battery recycling companies, and offer incentives on that brands upcoming EV offerings. This would encourage people to dispose of their EVs through the proper channels, and help with promoting your brands EVs while also owning a profitable recycling and disposal subsidiary. 

[ice-capades]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

There is a big push to find more lithium at the moment and there are finding more sources of it

 

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/lithium-discovery-in-us-volcano-could-be-biggest-deposit-ever-found/4018032.article

Also don't discount recycling efforts to make it more closed loop

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lithium-ion-battery-recycling-market-174600232.html

 

And the cobalt issue is being addressed already-LFP batteries don't use it and there are other battery types coming along that won't use it either

We are still in the old text flip phone stage of tech with batteries-they are useful but haven't hit the blackberry or even the iphone stage of battery types.

 

Las Vegas Review-Journal

STUDY: Lithium Jackpot - State Border Lakebed May Hold World's Largest Deposit of Metal

 

 

Las Vegas Review-Journal_2023-09-13_Study - Lithium Jackpot.pdf

Edited October 11, 2023 by ice-capades
Additional Content

[bzcat]

On 10/10/2023 at 5:08 AM, silvrsvt said:

 

The issue with the CUV/lifted sedan formfactor is that its not the best for an EV powertrain-larger frontal area impacts range...so I wonder how that will factor into things. 

 

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. 

[rmc523]

23 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Mainly the 1" to 1.5" suspension lift that bzcat mentioned. More often than not, this aspect of crossover type vehicles degrades driving dynamics compared to a sedan or wagon with a lowered suspension, but fails to provide true off-road capability comparable to a traditional 4x4 SUV or pickup truck.

 

Yup, let's ignore higher ride height, easier to get in and out of, added utility, etc that buyers want.   Just because it doesn't have the same clearance or off road capability of a truck or SUV doesn't make it useless - maybe someone wants a vehicle that can better go over the hump at the end of their driveway, or maybe they want to sit higher because a road they frequent floods. 

 

COMPROMISED I TELL YOU!!!!

[DeluxeStang]

On 10/10/2023 at 6:08 AM, silvrsvt said:

 

The issue with the CUV/lifted sedan formfactor is that its not the best for an EV powertrain-larger frontal area impacts range...so I wonder how that will factor into things. 

Funky designs that aren't at all visually appealing, just look at reports of what's being said about the explorer ev that might be going back to the drawing board based on what we've heard. The issue is designers start with a traditional looking EV, can't meet areo targets, and have to tack on areo bits after the fact that just don't suit the design. 

 

Personally, if someone tasked me with designing a more efficient crossover for Ford, I'd start with a very sexy, but areo efficient front end, something like the Ford gt. Give it a new front end grille graphic and lights that were better suited to a taller form factor, keep that same basic front fender shape, those vents in the hood could be turned into some sort of areo pass thru, maybe utilize cab forward proportions as well. Essentially, I'm thinking of something that looks like Ford's take on the jaguar I-pace with Ford gt elements throughout.

[Sherminator98]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

Funky designs that aren't at all visually appealing, just look at reports of what's being said about the explorer ev that might be going back to the drawing board based on what we've heard. The issue is designers start with a traditional looking EV, can't meet areo targets, and have to tack on areo bits after the fact that just don't suit the design. 

 

Personally, if someone tasked me with designing a more efficient crossover for Ford, I'd start with a very sexy, but areo efficient front end, something like the Ford gt. Give it a new front end grille graphic and lights that were better suited to a taller form factor, keep that same basic front fender shape, those vents in the hood could be turned into some sort of areo pass thru, maybe utilize cab forward proportions as well. Essentially, I'm thinking of something that looks like Ford's take on the jaguar I-pace with Ford gt elements throughout.

 

Well its alot harder then you think-just look at the Caddy EV and how terrible the backend of it looks due to aero concerns. 

 

Aero doesn't really affect range on a car unless your driving long distances at 70+ MPH. The aerodynamic forces just keep increasing by a multitude after 60-70 MPH... 

 

With the limitation in batteries, aerodynamics are low lying fruit that is easier to exploit to a point, but you start running into styling issues like you see on the Ionqic 6 EQS with their highly raked back rear-ends that look like Citrons 

[Rick73]

18 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

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

 

Seriously?

[2005Explorer]

On 10/10/2023 at 12:32 PM, akirby said:

Anything he doesn’t like is compromised and/or doomed……

Or a hack-job.

[Sherminator98]

12 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

 

Seriously?

 

Seriously

 

http://www.arcindy.com/effect-of-aerodynamic-drag-on-fuel-economy.html

 

For passenger cars this means that aerodynamics is responsible for a much higher proportion of the fuel used in the highway cycle than the city cycle: 50% for highway; versus 20% for city. This means that if you make a 10% reduction in aerodynamic drag your highway fuel economy will improve by approximately 5%, and your city fuel economy by approximately 2%.

 

So lets do some math-

 

the Mach E is .29

 

So if we did a 10% reduction in its cd, it would be .28, which would raise its range (use the GT) from 270 to 283 miles, without any other considerations being factor in. A 2% increase is almost invisible and could be attributed to differences in driving style or even cold weather. 

 

 

[bzcat]

44 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Seriously

 

http://www.arcindy.com/effect-of-aerodynamic-drag-on-fuel-economy.html

 

 

 

 

So lets do some math-

 

the Mach E is .29

 

So if we did a 10% reduction in its cd, it would be .28, which would raise its range (use the GT) from 270 to 283 miles, without any other considerations being factor in. A 2% increase is almost invisible and could be attributed to differences in driving style or even cold weather. 

 

 

 

True... aerodynamics has relatively small impact in low speed city driving. CD measures how efficiently air move across the surface. At low speed, the volume of air moving past the car is not dramatically different between CD of 0.29 and 0.28. The size of wheels and rolling resistance of tires have far greater impact. At higher speed, air resistance become much more significant factor in efficiency like you mentioned. 

 

However, everything adds up eventually. So a good design that returns 10% improvement in CD can compensate for a less efficient heat pump, or 1" larger wheel etc. So it's not for nothing but also not a big difference maker in isolation. We have to evaluate it in aggregate. 

Edited October 11, 2023 by bzcat

[Rick73]

26 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Seriously

 

http://www.arcindy.com/effect-of-aerodynamic-drag-on-fuel-economy.html

 

 

 

 

So lets do some math-

 

the Mach E is .29

 

So if we did a 10% reduction in its cd, it would be .28, which would raise its range (use the GT) from 270 to 283 miles, without any other considerations being factor in. A 2% increase is almost invisible and could be attributed to differences in driving style or even cold weather. 

 

 

Math wasn’t your subject, was it?  By the way, WLTP highway cycle in link above is much less than 70+ MPH you previously mentioned, and even at those much slower WLTP Highway speeds it makes a difference.  Plus it’s not real highway driving in the first place, where it makes an even greater difference.

 

When driving on an Interstate at steady 75 MPH like many Americans want to do, reduced aerodynamic drag is certainly your friend.  That’s why Tesla, Mercedes, and Lucid do aerodynamics much better than Ford.

[Sherminator98]

10 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

When driving on an Interstate at steady 75 MPH like many Americans want to do, reduced aerodynamic drag is certainly your friend.  That’s why Tesla, Mercedes, and Lucid do aerodynamics much better than Ford.

 

 

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

What part of that don't you understand? 

 

cd of a car doesn't make a MAJOR impact on RANGE or MPGs unless your going FASTER then 70 MPH. This is even the case in ICE cars. 

 

I drive a freaking brick in the form of a Bronco. I get 20-21 MPG around town driving that is maybe an average of 35 MPH. I took a 200 mile road trip that was 80-90% highway doing about 75 MPH and my MPGs actually went down slightly due to the speeds I was operating at due to brick like cd of my vehicle.