Ford CEO: Vertical Integration Will Increase with Move to EVs

[Deanh]

10 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

next EV thread I post I'm putting a disclaimer that you need to find a new talking point or it gets locked!

lol...good luck on that...talk about a rather polarizing subject!

[akirby]

Ford has averaged 3100 Mach-E sales per month this year.  In October they sold 2700.  Somebody is buying them just not at the pace Ford expected.

 

Tesla sales are holding relatively steady.  Volvo BEVs hit record highs in October.  Kia is setting BEV records in October.  
 

3Q BEV sales are up YOY.

 

BEVs are still selling well just not growing at the same pace as before and some are slightly down.  The problem is supply is increasing faster than demand.

 

Price increases and the economy are factors in the slowdown of some sales.

 

These are facts not opinions.

[Deanh]

48 minutes ago, akirby said:

Ford has averaged 3100 Mach-E sales per month this year.  In October they sold 2700.  Somebody is buying them just not at the pace Ford expected.

 

Tesla sales are holding relatively steady.  Volvo BEVs hit record highs in October.  Kia is setting BEV records in October.  
 

3Q BEV sales are up YOY.

 

BEVs are still selling well just not growing at the same pace as before and some are slightly down.  The problem is supply is increasing faster than demand.

 

Price increases and the economy are factors in the slowdown of some sales.

 

These are facts not opinions.

considering theres 3000 Ford dealers those are fantastic numbers....I WOULD love to see where exactly % wise they were sold state wise.....I will say this though, they do seem to be wriggling their way into fleet courtesy deliveries...Ive moved two to Wheels Inc, Enterprize leasing has been receiving a few as have ARI , my gut tells me they are being presented to these fleet companies in way where they make financial sense to move some units, much as Ford has done with other units that encounter slumps, and dont get me wrong, I want their BEVs to suceed...Im just not witnessing that right now so Im on the fence, and dmnt see it changing in  the near future, once tech gets better maybe it will get a foothold so Im sceptical  .. Subject change... next few months will be telling, I have a hunch we are in for a slowdown across the board, all the craop happening bith internally and across the world usually makes people buckle their belts a little tighter  for fear of recessions...

Edited November 14, 2023 by Deanh

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

 

Interesting design, though I'm having difficulty seeing how that's a truck - I don't see room for a bed back there with how the pillars seem to taper in.

 

It sounds like you're actually considering how your vehicle looks, though, not just taking a ruler and drawing a few lines like Tesla did with the Cybertruck.

Thanks, that's actually what I'm going for, something that doesn't look like a normal truck at first glance. The bed starts as the pillars start to go down. I tried a version of the design where the cab goes straight down like most trucks, but the proportions just looked off.

 

To put it into perspective, the model is about a foot and a half shorter than a maverick, but with a similarly sized bed, with ideas on how the bed could be extended even further for more space. I was worried about the angled pillars making it difficult to reach over, but the vehicle isn't very tall, it's about 1-2 inches lower than a maverick's roof, so reaching over the side pillar is easier than trying to reach over the side of something like an f-150 or ranger. 

 

I'm also working on another truck, midsized for that one, that's far more traditional looking, it looks a bit like Rivian's truck from some angles.

[Deanh]

8 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Thanks, that's actually what I'm going for, something that doesn't look like a normal truck at first glance. The bed starts as the pillars start to go down. I tried a version of the design where the cab goes straight down like most trucks, but the proportions just looked off.

 

To put it into perspective, the model is about a foot and a half shorter than a maverick, but with a similarly sized bed, with ideas on how the bed could be extended even further for more space. I was worried about the angled pillars making it difficult to reach over, but the vehicle isn't very tall, it's about 1-2 inches lower than a maverick's roof, so reaching over the side pillar is easier than trying to reach over the side of something like an f-150 or ranger. 

 

I'm also working on another truck, midsized for that one, that's far more traditional looking, it looks a bit like Rivian's truck from some angles.

Ranchero! 

[T-dubz]

25 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Thanks, that's actually what I'm going for, something that doesn't look like a normal truck at first glance. The bed starts as the pillars start to go down. I tried a version of the design where the cab goes straight down like most trucks, but the proportions just looked off.

 

To put it into perspective, the model is about a foot and a half shorter than a maverick, but with a similarly sized bed, with ideas on how the bed could be extended even further for more space. I was worried about the angled pillars making it difficult to reach over, but the vehicle isn't very tall, it's about 1-2 inches lower than a maverick's roof, so reaching over the side pillar is easier than trying to reach over the side of something like an f-150 or ranger. 

 

I'm also working on another truck, midsized for that one, that's far more traditional looking, it looks a bit like Rivian's truck from some angles.

What software are you using? That looks like it would be fun to mess around with.

[rmc523]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

next EV thread I post I'm putting a disclaimer that you need to find a new talking point or it gets locked!

 

Good luck - I'm sure we'll get a few ....articles from someone to really spice things up.

 

26 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Thanks, that's actually what I'm going for, something that doesn't look like a normal truck at first glance. The bed starts as the pillars start to go down. I tried a version of the design where the cab goes straight down like most trucks, but the proportions just looked off.

 

To put it into perspective, the model is about a foot and a half shorter than a maverick, but with a similarly sized bed, with ideas on how the bed could be extended even further for more space. I was worried about the angled pillars making it difficult to reach over, but the vehicle isn't very tall, it's about 1-2 inches lower than a maverick's roof, so reaching over the side pillar is easier than trying to reach over the side of something like an f-150 or ranger. 

 

I'm also working on another truck, midsized for that one, that's far more traditional looking, it looks a bit like Rivian's truck from some angles.

 

I'd love to design cars but also didn't want to move to where the industry is (i.e. Michigan mostly) - have tons of sketches over the years.

 

I could definitely tell it's a lower truck - maybe it's just the angle that made the back part look filled in more than open behind the butresses.

 

7 minutes ago, T-dubz said:

What software are you using? That looks like it would be fun to mess around with.

 

Agreed!

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, T-dubz said:

What software are you using? That looks like it would be fun to mess around with.

That's Vizcom, a free software, at least for the base version. It's only available on desktops for now, but they're working on a mobile version. It uses AI to render, you can feed either existing images, and/or text prompts into it. It's pretty primitive as far as AI image creation goes, it tends to mess up the details a lot of the time. But for free software, it's not bad.

 

It saves a ton of time if you want to sketch something, and then render it, because you can just give it a simple pencil sketch, and ask it to render that drawing realistically, and end up with something that would take half and hour to do in Photoshop if not longer. 

 

As for the 3D modeling itself, I use a program called GravitySketch, which allows you to design in full scale wearing a VR headset. So you can walk around a full sized model while making changes, it's pretty ready to get into. 

[Willwll313wll]

30 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

That's Vizcom, a free software, at least for the base version. It's only available on desktops for now, but they're working on a mobile version. It uses AI to render, you can feed either existing images, and/or text prompts into it. It's pretty primitive as far as AI image creation goes, it tends to mess up the details a lot of the time. But for free software, it's not bad.

 

It saves a ton of time if you want to sketch something, and then render it, because you can just give it a simple pencil sketch, and ask it to render that drawing realistically, and end up with something that would take half and hour to do in Photoshop if not longer. 

 

As for the 3D modeling itself, I use a program called GravitySketch, which allows you to design in full scale wearing a VR headset. So you can walk around a full sized model while making changes, it's pretty ready to get into. 

 

Are you a designer? Design student?

Edited November 14, 2023 by Willwll313wll

[mackinaw]

18 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Here you go my friend. I have to preface that this was rendered feeding a 3D into an AI program, so it did some weird things. The surfacing and detailing is pretty off compared to the actual model, but the overall shape and proportions are pretty close to the real thing. Basically imagine this shape with a more sculpted and vented hood, sportier front graphics, and less cuts down the body side. It's a quirky design, would definitely polarized people if it was an actual truck, but it's had some fans thus far due to how different it is. 

 

 

Interesting design, but I wonder if that short hood would pass government/insurance crash tests.

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, Willwll313wll said:

 

Are you a designer? Design student?

Mostly self taught, have taken some design courses in college. I'm currently developing my portfolio and trying to break into the industry. Unfortunately, car design schools are few and far between, and are extremely expensive, I'm talking medical school experience, Art Center in Pasadena is a 4 year program with 8 semesters, the tuition for each semester was 32k if I'm remembering correctly. So 256 grand for tuition alone, plus all the other costs associated with the school, then factor in the cost of living in a nice part of California. 

 

The school was very similar in terms of the student-teacher experience in the movie Whiplash, tons of stories of teachers verbally abusing, and mistreating students sadly. If the cost didn't fully turn me off, the atmosphere of the school did. It's basically a school that caters almost exclusively to snobby rich young people by this point. 

 

It's gonna be an uphill battle, but my approach is to try and apply some smaller, lesser known startups, and offer to work for them. The kinds of brands few people are paying attention to. 

[Rick73]

6 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

And a major difference between the Hummer and Silverado EV is the Hummer comes with 2 or 3 motors and the Silverado will only come with two. Which would go a long way to explain why the Silverado "is so much better" in your eyes. 

 

I didn't see any way to toggle between a 2 motor or 3 motor Hummer on Fuel economy.gov either, but I also don't think its out yet (saw Summer 2024?)

Let’s move past details which don’t really matter that much and focus on big picture.  IMO a large problem with electric pickup sales is that they don’t do some “truck” functions very well, like towing.  When a truck is empty and used as a “car”, range isn’t bad, though we must always remember that rated range is maximum based on 100% of battery capacity.  On long trips, battery will likely go about 70% of that — from around 80% down to 10%; then charged back to 80% and repeat.

 

During empty highway driving conditions, say at steady 70~75 MPH, range is usually lower than EPA highway rating which involves much lower speeds.  Therefore, a truck that has a 285-mile range will need charging every 200 miles when battery cycle is limited to between 10~80 %.  Obviously this is under mostly ideal weather conditions.

 

When towing is added to mix, highway range can go south in a hurry, making EV trucks essentially impractical, even under good weather conditions.  Attached is Car and Driver test for towing a 29-foot camper weighing 6,100 pounds.  They towed with Rivian, Hummer, and Lightning.  Highway 70-MPH-range was between 100 and 140 miles.  And when battery is used through 70% of energy, that would reduce useable range to between 70 and 100 miles.  Again, based on good weather.

 

IMO it is this kind of real-world information that would make prospective EV truck buyers question their “electric” choice.  I’m just the messenger of bad news, so please ease up on personal attacks.  I honestly wish trucks had much higher highway range, especially when towing, but they don’t.  If I was buying another truck, and was planning to tow a camper (which I’ve done before), I wouldn’t consider an BEV pickup at all.

 

 

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a40896618/ev-pickups-towing-test-hummer-rivian-lightning/
 

https://www.caranddriver.com/gmc/hummer-ev

[silvrsvt]

13 hours ago, Rick73 said:

IMO it is this kind of real-world information that would make prospective EV truck buyers question their “electric” choice.  I’m just the messenger of bad news, so please ease up on personal attacks.  I honestly wish trucks had much higher highway range, especially when towing, but they don’t.  If I was buying another truck, and was planning to tow a camper (which I’ve done before), I wouldn’t consider an BEV pickup at all.

In the grand scheme of things your not going to change people's personal choices in a vehicles. Not sure why you don't get that and are on this crusade to say that EV pickups are "bad". 

 

These EV pickups will help fund development of other vehicles that are more efficient, if someone wants that. 

[Rick73]

10 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

In the grand scheme of things your not going to change people's personal choices in a vehicles. Not sure why you don't get that and are on this crusade to say that EV pickups are "bad". 

 

These EV pickups will help fund development of other vehicles that are more efficient, if someone wants that. 

 

I asked nicely not to make it personal with personal attacks.  I guess that’s too much to ask.

 

Do you really think I’m trying to change personal choices?  And where did I say they are bad.  That’s ridiculous.  Yeah, they are bad for towing, but that’s a matter of fact.  These kinds of personal attacks are getting old, and obviously they are motivated by you not liking the message, however correct it is. People can buy whatever the hell they want, and I support free choice more than anyone.  What I find stupid as hell is a bunch of technical morons in the press and internet in general pushing an agenda based on false information.

[silvrsvt]

8 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

 

I asked nicely not to make it personal with personal attacks.  I guess that’s too much to ask.

 

Do you really think I’m trying to change personal choices?  And where did I say they are bad.  That’s ridiculous.  Yeah, they are bad for towing, but that’s a matter of fact.  These kinds of personal attacks are getting old, and obviously they are motivated by you not liking the message, however correct it is. People can buy whatever the hell they want, and I support free choice more than anyone.  What I find stupid as hell is a bunch of technical morons in the press and internet in general pushing an agenda based on false information.

 

How is that a personal attack? I didn't call you a nasty name or anything...all I'm doing is calling out your incessant demands for "efficiency" in a product that isn't designed to do that.

 

Its no different then expecting a 500HP Sedan to cost 20K brand new off the lot. Or expecting a 800hp+ Sports car to get 50 MPG. 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

 

I asked nicely not to make it personal with personal attacks.  I guess that’s too much to ask.

 

Do you really think I’m trying to change personal choices?  And where did I say they are bad.  That’s ridiculous.  Yeah, they are bad for towing, but that’s a matter of fact.  These kinds of personal attacks are getting old, and obviously they are motivated by you not liking the message, however correct it is. People can buy whatever the hell they want, and I support free choice more than anyone.  What I find stupid as hell is a bunch of technical morons in the press and internet in general pushing an agenda based on false information.

Not a personal attack at all and yes you want people to make the same choice you would based on what you feel is important regarding degrees of energy efficiency.  You think it’s vitally important that a pickup is heavy and less efficient than a smaller lighter vehicle and we’re telling you pickup buyers don’t care.  It’s always been that way especially when fuel economy was in the low teens/single digits.

[rmc523]

18 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

That's Vizcom, a free software, at least for the base version. It's only available on desktops for now, but they're working on a mobile version. It uses AI to render, you can feed either existing images, and/or text prompts into it. It's pretty primitive as far as AI image creation goes, it tends to mess up the details a lot of the time. But for free software, it's not bad.

 

It saves a ton of time if you want to sketch something, and then render it, because you can just give it a simple pencil sketch, and ask it to render that drawing realistically, and end up with something that would take half and hour to do in Photoshop if not longer. 

 

As for the 3D modeling itself, I use a program called GravitySketch, which allows you to design in full scale wearing a VR headset. So you can walk around a full sized model while making changes, it's pretty ready to get into. 

 

Sounds pretty neat!  I'll have to check those out.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Not a personal attack at all and yes you want people to make the same choice you would based on what you feel is important regarding degrees of energy efficiency.  You think it’s vitally important that a pickup is heavy and less efficient than a smaller lighter vehicle and we’re telling you pickup buyers don’t care.  It’s always been that way especially when fuel economy was in the low teens/single digits.

So back to “energy efficiency” angle?  Seriously?  You’re better than that.  It’s nothing more than deflecting.  ICE trucks take just as big a hit, and nobody questions their inability to tow based on “energy efficiency”. Let’s agree to remain objective if at all possible.

 

I shared objective data to show that the primary justification given over and over again for slow electric truck sales being the economy, high interest rates, inflation, etc. is not the only reason, and maybe not even the main reason, because ICE trucks that are just as expensive still sell.  My “opinion” based on objective data is that as more BEV trucks get used by real people under real truck conditions (like towing their campers), more and more people become aware of their actual limitations.  A truck can be rated to tow 10,000 pounds but if it can’t tow a camper from Houston to Big Bend National Park and back without a bunch of drama, it’s going to leave owner with bad taste in his mouth.

 

I know truck buyers don’t care about extra $5 or even $50 for charging once a month on a camping trip, but I also know for a fact that they care when they can’t drive 100 miles without charging.  That’s a huge problem in many ways you refuse to acknowledge by only focusing on dollars and cents.

 

I also know there are many owners (particularly early adopters) who don’t need to tow.  However, consider what that will do to resale value over time when the pool of used-truck buyers may want to use the truck differently?

[akirby]

25 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

So back to “energy efficiency” angle?  Seriously?  You’re better than that.  It’s nothing more than deflecting.  ICE trucks take just as big a hit, and nobody questions their inability to tow based on “energy efficiency”. Let’s agree to remain objective if at all possible.

 

I shared objective data to show that the primary justification given over and over again for slow electric truck sales being the economy, high interest rates, inflation, etc. is not the only reason, and maybe not even the main reason, because ICE trucks that are just as expensive still sell.  My “opinion” based on objective data is that as more BEV trucks get used by real people under real truck conditions (like towing their campers), more and more people become aware of their actual limitations.  A truck can be rated to tow 10,000 pounds but if it can’t tow a camper from Houston to Big Bend National Park and back without a bunch of drama, it’s going to leave owner with bad taste in his mouth.

 

I know truck buyers don’t care about extra $5 or even $50 for charging once a month on a camping trip, but I also know for a fact that they care when they can’t drive 100 miles without charging.  That’s a huge problem in many ways you refuse to acknowledge by only focusing on dollars and cents.

 

I also know there are many owners (particularly early adopters) who don’t need to tow.  However, consider what that will do to resale value over time when the pool of used-truck buyers may want to use the truck differently?

You don’t understand F150 buyers.  The vast majority never tow anything to begin with, and IIRC the majority or at least a large portion of Lightning orders were people who had never owned a pickup.  So no, limited tow range is not a big factor at all right now.

 

As for sales, we’ve explained over and over that a BEV purchase is almost never a primary vehicle.  Therefore it’s a discretionary expense and with inflation and higher interest rates combined with price increases people don’t want to spend that money right now.  They’ll keep what they have.   How could you increase prices from $40k to $60K and not expect to lose a lot of orders?

 

Basically people buying Lightnings are buying a Tesla with a roomier cabin and 4wd that they can use to haul mulch and lumber from Home Depot.  Not to tow their 10k lb boat cross country.

[jpd80]

On 11/15/2023 at 6:50 AM, akirby said:

Ford has averaged 3100 Mach-E sales per month this year.  In October they sold 2700.  Somebody is buying them just not at the pace Ford expected.

 

Tesla sales are holding relatively steady.  Volvo BEVs hit record highs in October.  Kia is setting BEV records in October.  
 

3Q BEV sales are up YOY.

 

BEVs are still selling well just not growing at the same pace as before and some are slightly down.  The problem is supply is increasing faster than demand.

 

Price increases and the economy are factors in the slowdown of some sales.

 

These are facts not opinions.

Good points.

Ford has just under 14,000 Mach Es available at dealers, so that’s more than 110 days supply…

Averaging quarterly sales at 3100 ignored last months sudden dip to 2700 which could be signs

of further reductions - we need to see November and December sales to be sure of this.

 

Its also the reason why Ford  is pausing its $12 billion investment - that was from from a time not long ago when Ford had hundreds of thousands of reservations, all of those have now evaporated and early adopters seemed to have moved on with Tesla 3 and Y soaking up the bulk BEV buyers. Tesla’s  20% price reduction just makes the whole business case viability for Ford and GM so much harder….

While Ford and GM’s CEOs are committed to EVs, they need to be able to pivot at a moments notice if required to do so.

 

So going forward, Ford’s predictions of mass ramp up and the huge production predictions have now hit the bin.

GM and Ford are quietly running away from BEVs, the fact that they say pausing investment is a way of delaying 

what they already know and concentrating on money earners until BEVs become more palatable to buyers.

Some would be questioning building that massive BOC when Ford still struggles to sell 3,000 lightnings a month.

 

The BEV evangelists are free to go buy one but, most of Ford’s customers are still happy to buy ICE or hybrids,

there’s just  no burning want or need to buy an electric vehicle unless governments force them to do so.

Edited November 17, 2023 by jpd80

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

The BEV evangelists are free to go buy one but, most of Ford’s customers are still happy to buy ICE or hybrids,

there’s just  no burning want or need to buy an electric vehicle unless governments force them to do so.

I don’t know what people are thinking or plan to buy, but a shift that appears to be gaining momentum are hybrids becoming a major and common offering on many new vehicles.  Earlier today I was looking at 2024 Honda Accord specs, and only the two cheapest are pure ICE, with the top four offerings being hybrids.  LX and  EX are ICE, but nicer variants are all hybrids.  Unless I’m reading trim levels and options wrong, it looks like Honda is moving quickly towards making hybrids their main powertrain.

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

I don’t know what people are thinking or plan to buy, but a shift that appears to be gaining momentum are hybrids becoming a major and common offering on many new vehicles.  Earlier today I was looking at 2024 Honda Accord specs, and only the two cheapest are pure ICE, with the top four offerings being hybrids.  LX and  EX are ICE, but nicer variants are all hybrids.  Unless I’m reading trim levels and options wrong, it looks like Honda is moving quickly towards making hybrids their main powertrain.

People buy hybrids for different reasons, the original reason was to improve the fuel economy of the gasoline engine

in stop start or variable speed running. If most of your running is above 40 mph, a hybrid probably won’t help  all that

much with fuel economy.

 

I will be interested to see how the new Tacoma performs with its 2.4 turbo hybrid engine, the variable capacity

provided by forced induction when run with miller cycle probably consigns Atkinson cycle engines to history.

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I will be interested to see how the new Tacoma performs with its 2.4 turbo hybrid engine, the variable capacity

provided by forced induction when run with miller cycle probably consigns Atkinson cycle engines to history.

 

I prefer Atkinson  over Miller cycle for hybrid applications because of its simplicity and probable lower cost, but mostly because in practice it tends to deliver better fuel economy when design is optimized.  The key though is for the hybrid vehicle to have much greater electrification power and therefore depend less on ICE to meet peak load demands.

 

In case of Honda Accord, note that hybrid’s electric motor can produce more peak power (181 HP) than the 2.0L Atkinson’s peak of 146 HP.  Combined it’s only 204 HP but enough to accelerate faster than the non-hybrid Accord which has 1.5L Turbo engine.

 

EPA Combined fuel economy jumps from 32 to 48 MPG for comparable EX, or 50% higher.  That’s impressive (largely due to 181 HP of electrification), and I doubt replacing 2.0L Atkinson with smaller Miller turbo engine would do much better, if at all.  I think that’s the path Ford should pursuit with future hybrids — more electric and less ICE power.

 

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

I prefer Atkinson  over Miller cycle for hybrid applications because of its simplicity and probable lower cost, but mostly because in practice it tends to deliver better fuel economy when design is optimized.  The key though is for the hybrid vehicle to have much greater electrification power and therefore depend less on ICE to meet peak load demands.

But see, you’re presenting your preferences as typical of most hybrid buyers when clearly, your wants and needs are quite different to perhaps what a wider group of buyers would prefer…

 

 

Quote

 

In case of Honda Accord, note that hybrid’s electric motor can produce more peak power (181 HP) than the 2.0L Atkinson’s peak of 146 HP.  Combined it’s only 204 HP but enough to accelerate faster than the non-hybrid Accord which has 1.5L Turbo engine.

 A better comparison would be something like a Ford 2.5 hybrid vs the 2.0 EB where the power and torque comparison is not so one sided like the Accord……

 

 

Quote

 

EPA Combined fuel economy jumps from 32 to 48 MPG for comparable EX, or 50% higher.  That’s impressive (largely due to 181 HP of electrification), and I doubt replacing 2.0L Atkinson with smaller Miller turbo engine would do much better, if at all.  I think that’s the path Ford should pursuit with future hybrids — more electric and less ICE power.

 

My point being that if manufacturers like Ford want to extend beyond today’s hybrid offerings, they need to cast a wider net and consider more than just fuel economy, things like the  Powerboost applied to other Ecoboost engines is a good example of that.

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by jpd80

[Rick73]

Both Miller and Atkinson work, as proven by their use by Toyota, Ford, Stellantis, Hyundai/Kia, etc.  I simply expressed my opinion that Atkinson is hardly becoming history.  If anything, it seems clear to me that Atkinson will be around at least until internal combustion engines are replaced by BEVs, if or when that happens.  Technically, I see more advantages to Atkinson than Miller for hybrids.  Plus it’s hard to argue with success.

 

Not only is Honda taking Accord in Atkinson-hybrid direction, I just read that Toyota introduced new Camry and it will be available only with an upgraded version of their 2.5L Atkinson powertrain.  Also, “Toyota previously switched its Sienna minivan to an all-hybrid powertrain approach” suggesting their is great commitment by some manufacturers to fuel-efficient hybrids, and it’s not limited to sedans.

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/toyotas-camry-best-selling-car-us-goes-all-hybrid-2023-11-15/
 

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a45805477/2025-toyota-camry-revealed/