Ford Rethinking it's Hybrid Effort According to CFO

[tbone]

12 hours ago, Dequindre said:

 

I kind of like the look of the Evos. It might not be a huge seller in the U.S., but it's sleek enough where it may appeal to former sedan owners that still value form over function. 

I’ve been wondering for a while why the Evos isn’t available here.  I think it’s pretty sharp. I think the Chinese Edge would need some styling adjustments to make it successful here. Ford needs more products to sell. 

[paintguy]

On 1/5/2024 at 5:11 PM, Rick73 said:

Good questions we probably won’t ever know answers to, particularly what happened to ICE experts when future was seen as only electric.

 

EcoBoost reported fuel consumption per HP-hr or kWh is normally higher than Atkinson, so if fuel economy is priority, EB is probably not best choice IMO.  The bigger problem, however, is that Ford doesn’t have an Atkinson larger than the 2.5L used in Maverick and other light vehicles as far as I know.  That engine is not powerful enough for a Ranger, so what would Ford use?  You suggested a new NA 3.0L Nano V6, which could be made into an Atkinson cycle, but I think that if Ford was going to invest time and money on a larger new Atkinson, they might want to go even larger than 3.0L so it could be used in larger vehicles.  I’ve suggested a 3.4L inline six developed from new Mustang 2.3L architecture, but for even larger vehicles maybe Ford could look at a V8 Atkinson based on Coyote design.  For larger hybrid trucks, displacement could easily be up to +/- 5.8L by using taller deck on modular engines as before.  Possibilities seem endless to me, and who knows what Ford will do.

Ford had a 3.3 L V6 hybrid on Explorer, now discontinued, at least for retail purchase. Not feeling the commitment by Ford to hybrid. Buy a threatened with cancellation Escape? Or a Maverick pickup which went from a standard hybrid to optional? 

[2005Explorer]

35 minutes ago, paintguy said:

Ford had a 3.3 L V6 hybrid on Explorer, now discontinued, at least for retail purchase. Not feeling the commitment by Ford to hybrid. Buy a threatened with cancellation Escape? Or a Maverick pickup which went from a standard hybrid to optional? 

Honestly I think there were 2 reasons that the Maverick went from standard hybrid to optional 1) battery supply and 2) the hybrid powertrain is likely more costly to make than the ICE powertrain. Ford might want to rethink plans to cancel the Escape and should probably be thinking about developing one more ICE/hybrid generation. The BEV "revolution" is just not happening yet. The whole Edge fiasco should make them re-think canceling popular products when the BEV replacement might not make any profit at this time. Too many money pits in the line-up long term = bankruptcy.

Edited January 7 by 2005Explorer

[akirby]

I think the biggest problem with Escape was lack of hybrids otherwise sales would have been much higher.  The other problem is cost building it in Louisville instead of Mexico.  And it looks like the plan to lure focus buyers with more car like styling wasn’t effective either.  I think they’ll keep Escape with more hybrids available and give it edgier styling (pun intended).  Although I still think a longer BS or Maverick SUV would yield better profit.

 

Or here’s an idea,  Add a hybrid Maverick suv which would be cheaper than Escape and replace Escape with C2 Edge and Nautilus in Louisville (also with hybrids).

[silvrsvt]

On 1/6/2024 at 12:09 PM, Texasota said:

I agree with you for a HEV. But for a PHEV it will make a "huge" improvement assuming your daily commute and your city driving are within its EV range.  A PHEV Ranger falls into this category perfectly.

I was looking at the specs of the Aviator PHEv and it weighs almost 600 lbs more than the gas model does. I’m surprised we haven’t seen a PHEV F-150 yet either. 

[Texasota]

24 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

I was looking at the specs of the Aviator PHEv and it weighs almost 600 lbs more than the gas model does. I’m surprised we haven’t seen a PHEV F-150 yet either. 

When Farley was talking up hybrids he made a point to mention that the increased hybrid emphasis would not be including PHEVs. I'm not sure why that is unless there is a concern about the larger battery size competing with battery resources for BEVs. I hope that Ford reconsiders that policy in light of the BEV slowdown.

 

I had to wait 10 months for my Escape PHEV and Ford could have sold a lot more of them if they were more readily available.

[paintguy]

1 hour ago, Texasota said:

When Farley was talking up hybrids he made a point to mention that the increased hybrid emphasis would not be including PHEVs. I'm not sure why that is unless there is a concern about the larger battery size competing with battery resources for BEVs. I hope that Ford reconsiders that policy in light of the BEV slowdown.

 

I had to wait 10 months for my Escape PHEV and Ford could have sold a lot more of them if they were more readily available.

I'm surprised they do not want to emphasize PHEV. Seems getting  the plug into the mix helps clear another hurdle to transition to BEV. A bit like training wheels. With size difference of 4 or 5 to 1 between BEV and PHEV, must wonder what level of battery supply can Ford  handle. But I have heard availability caused the suspension of Explorer HEV and Aviator PHEV.

[Gurgeh]

16 minutes ago, paintguy said:

I'm surprised they do not want to emphasize PHEV. Seems getting  the plug into the mix helps clear another hurdle to transition to BEV. A bit like training wheels. With size difference of 4 or 5 to 1 between BEV and PHEV, must wonder what level of battery supply can Ford  handle. But I have heard availability caused the suspension of Explorer HEV and Aviator PHEV.

I think you answered your own question. There are many folks who want a hybrid (I'm buying the new Nautilus HEV) but don't want to get a plug into the mix. Like a huge number of folks, I don't have the ability to charge at home. If the Nautilus hybrid was PHEV I would have gone with a mild hybrid Range Rover Sport or Mercedes GLE instead.

[akirby]

You can build 3-4 hybrids or 1 PHEV.

[DeluxeStang]

5 hours ago, akirby said:

Or here’s an idea,  Add a hybrid Maverick suv which would be cheaper than Escape and replace Escape with C2 Edge and Nautilus in Louisville (also with hybrids).

I like this idea, but how would a maverick SUV really differentiate itself from the bronco sport and maverick? If would presumably be more expensive than the existing maverick, but with less wow factor than the BS. Personally, I'd love for Ford to engineer a AWD hybrid and offer it on both the maverick and bronco sport. Offering something with fuel efficiency gains, that could still be marketed as off-road capable to cater to the bronco crowd. 

[sullynd]

The Maverick is longer than the BS. I don’t think you can offer a Maverick SUV AND the BS. They’re too similar, and the Mav being bigger would cannibalize BS sales. In my opinion it’s not “Bronco” enough to justify additional cost, and even if the interior is nicer, Americans equate size to value, so they’re not going to pay more for a BS than a Maverick SUV. 

[Texasota]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

You can build 3-4 hybrids or 1 PHEV.

In the case of the Escape PHEV (14.4 kWh) and the Escape HEV (1.1 kWh) you can build 13 Escape HEVs for 1 Escape PHEV.

[akirby]

51 minutes ago, Texasota said:

In the case of the Escape PHEV (14.4 kWh) and the Escape HEV (1.1 kWh) you can build 13 Escape HEVs for 1 Escape PHEV.

Wow I didn’t realize it was that much bigger.

[sullynd]

16 minutes ago, akirby said:

Wow I didn’t realize it was that much bigger.

My Lightning is 131 kWh. 

[DeluxeStang]

On 1/5/2024 at 9:16 AM, 92merc said:

My big concern with going back to hybrids, is does Fords still have enough ICE powertrain and platform people around to add more hybrids to the mix.

 

They didn't make an Edge replacement, so that's a negative on the platform side.  They should have made a C2 Edge.  Do they have the resources to go back to that perhaps?

 

Engines wise, the 2.5 NA is an old platform.  It'll probably still fit the bill for the C2.  But will the EcoBoost engines work well with regards to efficiency for larger platforms like the Ranger?  Ford needs an efficient solution for the F150 hybrid as well.  Is the 2.7EB the best approach?  Or should that be the 3.3 NA that they had dropped from the F150's?  Or maybe a 3.0 NA build off the 3.0 EB engine, just re-tuned for NA/hyrbid.

 

Does Ford still have they ICE engineers around to handle the pivot back to hybrids?

The up side is Ford's ICE lineup is already very competitive, so they shouldn't need to invest a ton of resources engineering brand new ground up motors and systems, it's all just about subtle tweaks and improvements now. Small changes which don't require entire warehouses of engineers to work on. 

 

The 5.0, 6.7, the Ecoboost range, and the 2.5 are all basically future proofed. All of those powertrains are solid and could easily survive another 10 years with minimal improvements. That's where Ford was genius being one of the first companies to invest in mainstream turbocharged and hybrid powertrains. It took some time, but ford Ecoboost and hybrid engines are basically the gold standard for everything you want out of turbocharged and hybrid components. 

[akirby]

15 hours ago, sullynd said:

The Maverick is longer than the BS. I don’t think you can offer a Maverick SUV AND the BS. They’re too similar, and the Mav being bigger would cannibalize BS sales. In my opinion it’s not “Bronco” enough to justify additional cost, and even if the interior is nicer, Americans equate size to value, so they’re not going to pay more for a BS than a Maverick SUV. 

 

BS would continue as the short rugged off-roader while Mav SUV would be bigger and cheaper with hybrid powertrains.  Just think of it as a restyling of the Escape to be more truck like at a lower price point.  I don’t think it would cannibalize BS sales at all.  Different buyers.

[Rick73]

23 hours ago, paintguy said:

Ford had a 3.3 L V6 hybrid on Explorer, now discontinued, at least for retail purchase. Not feeling the commitment by Ford to hybrid. Buy a threatened with cancellation Escape? Or a Maverick pickup which went from a standard hybrid to optional? 

The 2024 Tow guide still shows 3.3L V6 Explorer (fleet only), and 3.3L HEV (Police Interceptor Utility only), which suggest it’s still in production, though that may just be Ford’s way of eliminating remaining engine inventory during transition to a new design.

 

The 3.3L Ti-VCT V6 in Explorer is about 50 pounds lighter and slightly more fuel efficient than 3.0L EcoBoost, so appears a good option for buyers wanting lower costs over power and torque (like Fleet?).  When in HEV application, fuel efficiency goes up even more, particularly in city (23 vs 17 MPG), though highway only 1 MPG (24 vs 23). 

 

What I find most interesting is that 3.3L Naturally Aspirated V6, even without Atkinson or latest engine geometry, is as efficient as 3.0L EB or more so in highway driving.  If Ford are 100% committed to fuel economy and reducing GHGs, I would have expected the next hybrid would incorporate a new Atkinson-cycle engine instead of 2.3L EB.  I may be wrong and 2.3L may surprise, but expect it will mainly improve city MPG, not highway by much if at all.

 

Fast transition to BEVs may have lead to new-engine cancellations, but if we are now looking at 10 years or more of hybrids, maybe we’ll see new engines in next couple of years.  I hope so anyway.

By the way, Ford making Maverick Hybrid a higher-cost option is due to higher demand which allows Ford to increase profits.  To me that only confirms that a lot of buyers prefer hybrid economy over EB power when prices are similar.  That same opportunity should apply to other vehicle lines as well.  Obviously combining hybrid and EB is another possibility, but it’s nothing I would consider buying for myself, nor have seen great sales success yet.  Seems overengineered from my perspective. 

 

[tbone]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

 

BS would continue as the short rugged off-roader while Mav SUV would be bigger and cheaper with hybrid powertrains.  Just think of it as a restyling of the Escape to be more truck like at a lower price point.  I don’t think it would cannibalize BS sales at all.  Different buyers.

I do think they need a bigger rugged affordable SUV.  When we replaced our totaled Escape, my daughter had the option for a BS and she chose the Escape because of the poor rear seat legroom.  It was also nice that the 23 Escape was noticeably nicer than the outgoing model. 
 

I also don’t think the a Mav SUV would cannibalize  BS sales due to the size differentiation. 

Edited January 8 by tbone

[akirby]

53 minutes ago, tbone said:

I do think they need a bigger rugged affordable SUV.  When we replaced our totaled Escape, my daughter had the option for a BS and she chose the Escape because of the poor rear seat legroom.  It was also nice that the 23 Escape was noticeably nicer than the outgoing model. 
 

I also don’t think the a Mav SUV would cannibalize  BS sales due to the size differentiation. 

I think a lot of folks don’t understand how short BS is behind the driver’s seat.

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

What I find most interesting is that 3.3L Naturally Aspirated V6, even without Atkinson or latest engine geometry, is as efficient as 3.0L EB or more so in highway driving.  If Ford are 100% committed to fuel economy and reducing GHGs, I would have expected the next hybrid would incorporate a new Atkinson-cycle engine instead of 2.3L EB.  I may be wrong and 2.3L may surprise, but expect it will mainly improve city MPG, not highway by much if at all

 

The thing is that Atkinson cycle engine loses about 20-30% of its power over its Otto cycle engine.

 

So a 3.3L V6 would conservatory lose about 70 HP (from 290HP) or so with an Atkinson cycle engine. Not sure many people would want to drive around in 220HP or so Explorer or the like. Yes the electric motor makes that up, but the whole point is not to use it all the time. Which also the reason why I don't think anyone is using an Atkinson cycle on a larger engine like a V6 or V8, because the power loss is too great vs expect performance and maybe even economy. 

 

Just as an example, I just found out that Hyunida Palisades uses an Atkinson style or cycle engine in its 3.8L V6. The 2.3L Ecoboost in the Explorer gives better performance and gas mileage. 

 

Edited January 8 by silvrsvt

[Rick73]

Comparing similar vehicles, Chrysler Pacifica PHEV has 3.6L  Atkinson V6.  Power drops from 287 to 220 HP, but with help from electric motors is almost as fast.  More importantly Car and Driver observed fuel economy going from 17 to 24 MPG, ~40% improvement.  That same Atkinson V6 is expected in upcoming RAM 1500 PHEV pickup truck (with totally different powertrain arrangement).

 

In steady 75 MPH test, Pacifica PHEV achieved 33 MPG which is really good for a vehicle that size and weight, given the high speed and associated aero drag.

 

 

https://www.caranddriver.com/chrysler/pacifica
 

 

[rmc523]

On 1/5/2024 at 7:57 PM, akirby said:

Oh I agree but it looks better than the previous one.

 

You mean our current Edge?  Or the Chinese one?

 

On 1/6/2024 at 2:12 PM, Dequindre said:

 

I kind of like the look of the Evos. It might not be a huge seller in the U.S., but it's sleek enough where it may appeal to former sedan owners that still value form over function. 

 

I agree - I think it'd have been a good "non sedan" offering that is close to sedan, but you could charge higher prices since it's a hatch, for those that really want to have that lower sedan-like vehicle.

[akirby]

10 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

You mean our current Edge?  Or the Chinese one?

I was referring to the Chinese Edges.

[rmc523]

10 minutes ago, akirby said:

I was referring to the Chinese Edges.

ah yes, nevermind then.

[paintguy]

On 1/7/2024 at 1:54 PM, akirby said:

You can build 3-4 hybrids or 1 PHEV.

Or 1/4 of a BEV...