Ford CEO: Vertical Integration Will Increase with Move to EVs

[silvrsvt]

4 hours ago, Rangers09 said:

As a owner, based on our actual experience, I again dispute that the difference between an HEV (not PHEV) and a similar 2.0L ICE Escape is not that great.

 

The thing is that what you get and what someone else gets on the Escape is immaterial because of so many different variables. That is why using what CAFE testing is the only "fair" way of comparing products. 

[silvrsvt]

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I guess that’s the point, CAFE limits are more important to manufacturers that the actual fuel savings to buyers.

Getting more buyers to embrace hybrids will sustain or prolong the ICE side of the business while BEVs improve.

 

The other issue is the numbers (per the screen shot posted from Wikipedia) used to determine CAFE isn't the same as what you get on the window sticker either. Its about 24% more then what is on the window sticker. 

[jpd80]

26 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

The other issue is the numbers (per the screen shot posted from Wikipedia) used to determine CAFE isn't the same as what you get on the window sticker either. Its about 24% more then what is on the window sticker. 

Yes, I remember Richard Jensen from years ago pointing out that the actual CAFE mpg is an uncorrected number

At the time, lots of people were panicking about 54 mpg limit for some vehicles until explained it was much lower.

[Rangers09]

14 hours ago, Texasota said:

 

This is my results since picking up my Escape PHEV from the dealership. Not nearly as good as yours, Ranger09, but we did a circle tour of Lake Superior with no charging along the way.

 

 

 

Around town, we are 100% electric except for the couple of days the temps hit almost freezing. Our road trip was only to Victoria for a couple of weeks, so of our 1,550 miles about 3/4 of them are electric.

 

Another factor giving a higher mpg is that I was brought up with the Imperial Gallon, which is bigger than the US Gallon. Although Canada is metric, I still work in Imperial Gallons and miles.

[Rangers09]

11 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

The thing is that what you get and what someone else gets on the Escape is immaterial because of so many different variables. That is why using what CAFE testing is the only "fair" way of comparing products. 

 

We are never going to agree on this one.

 

In addition to our experience, Texasota has also posted their experience, which shows better overall fuel economy than your Govt publishes. Personally, I prefer real drivers experience of actually owning and operating a vehicle, over some generic data published by a Govt agency. Yes, every driver will get different results, so why would you consider your Govt data to be definitive. The Govt CAFE data is only relevant if they use criteria reflecting the average owners usage. If the criteria used isn't consistent with the average user, the data is totally meaningless.

 

Based on the results posted by 2 PHEV owners, your Govt criteria clearly doesn't match our real life use, so do we have unrealistic uses of a PHEV, or is your Govt criteria not relevant to this type of vehicle.

 

Just to confirm, surely they tailor the criteria for each vehicle based on the type of use. Hopefully they don't use the same criteria for my F-450 as they use for the PHEV Escape, as both our vehicles have totally different uses and require different driving styles.

[Rick73]

17 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I guess that’s the point, CAFE limits are more important to manufacturers that the actual fuel savings to buyers.

Getting more buyers to embrace hybrids will sustain or prolong the ICE side of the business while BEVs improve.

 

 

Funny how politicians placed much of fuel-economy burden on manufacturers instead of more directly on buyers, who happen to vote.  You are correct though that buyers don’t care as much about fuel economy as politicians would prefer they do, and as vehicles become more fuel efficient, we should expect buyers will have even less reason to care about fuel costs.  Regardless, I find it promising that hybrid technology already exists to achieve 60 MPG with practical compact vehicles, even though fuel savings alone will not be sufficient incentive for buyers at $3.00/gallon due to diminishing returns.  There’s also the issue that as hybrids become more efficient, it makes transition to BEVs more difficult to justify, perhaps motivating some environmentalist to undermine hybrids.

 

Discussion reminds me that back when I started driving, going from 15 to 20 MPG saved 200 gallons over 12,000 miles (my annual driving).  Years later it required going from 20 to 30 MPG (downsizing to Honda Civic) to achieve same 200-gallon annual savings.  Now if I look at one of the many available 40 MPG hybrids, going from 30 to 40 only saves 100 gallons per year, or half as much.  And beyond that, it would require going from 40 to 60 MPG to save another 100 gallons annually; or $300 at today’s fuel cost, which doesn’t pay for much additional technology to improve fuel economy.

[jpd80]

Yes diminishing returns the higher the bar is set,

maybe the answer is to make all running below 

say, 30 mpg as electric only with bigger batteries 

in the PHEVs and all gasoline running at higher speeds 

Edited November 20, 2023 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

20 hours ago, Rangers09 said:

 

We are never going to agree on this one.

 

In addition to our experience, Texasota has also posted their experience, which shows better overall fuel economy than your Govt publishes. Personally, I prefer real drivers experience of actually owning and operating a vehicle, over some generic data published by a Govt agency. Yes, every driver will get different results, so why would you consider your Govt data to be definitive. The Govt CAFE data is only relevant if they use criteria reflecting the average owners usage. If the criteria used isn't consistent with the average user, the data is totally meaningless.

 

Based on the results posted by 2 PHEV owners, your Govt criteria clearly doesn't match our real life use, so do we have unrealistic uses of a PHEV, or is your Govt criteria not relevant to this type of vehicle.

 

Just to confirm, surely they tailor the criteria for each vehicle based on the type of use. Hopefully they don't use the same criteria for my F-450 as they use for the PHEV Escape, as both our vehicles have totally different uses and require different driving styles.

 

The government data is definitive because its testing done in a controlled environment to measure output. If you can't get consistent data recording, your data is garbage. If your doing more around town driving then Texasota is doing, of course your going to get better MPGs because of the advantages of a hybrid system in that type of environment, but it won't show itself as much during highway driving.

 

Just as a counterpoint to your user data-I've seen Bronco MPGs all over the place when it comes to what the sticker is-just because there are so many different factors at play (bigger tires, operating off road, driving styles) that are from 15 MPG up to 24 MPG depending on the engine. I personally see 20-21 MPG around town with my V6 which is slightly better then what the window sticker is.

 

And to your last question-yes they are all tested the same way and guess what? your F-450 doesn't matter because of its GVWR to high count towards CAFE. 

[silvrsvt]

17 hours ago, Rick73 said:

There’s also the issue that as hybrids become more efficient, it makes transition to BEVs more difficult to justify, perhaps motivating some environmentalist to undermine hybrids.

 

How much more are they going to actually be more efficient in the real world-look at this-20 years of improvement leads to a 1 MPG improvement according to "real world data" that you seem to hold so dearly. The data on the 2003 Prius had its MPG adjusted so its more in line with the 2023 model. 

 

Not to mention only a 60 gpm difference in CO2 emissions vs saying going to a Tesla model 3, which has a sub 100 pgm using my data from my state. 

[akirby]

You can’t say EPA is the only thing that matters and then use real world results from only 2 vehicles.

 

We’re done here.

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

You can’t say EPA is the only thing that matters and then use real world results from only 2 vehicles.

 

It only matters in an apples to apples comparison because the test data is done in a controlled environment