Ford Discusses New Affordable EV Platform

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

But you’re assuming buyers want to buy a $25K amorphous blob with 250 mile range as opposed to a Bronco sport EV at $30K that gets 230 miles.

If by “amorphous blob” you mean a Tesla 2, I’ve already stated that IMO price will likely be closer to $30k than $25K.  Whatever the price ends up at, I also think that a Bronco Sport BEV with 230 miles of range will cost much more than $5k over the price of an efficient compact “blob” with 250 miles of range.

 

Screw comparison against theoretical Model 2.  I’d bet a BEV Bronco Sport with “real” 230-mile range (not useless EPA City ratings) would cost more than an existing Tesla Model 3 that sells for $39k.  If Ford could build BEV Bronco Sports and sell for $39k while making a profit, they would be doing it already.

 

Physical challenges are enormous.  Affordable BEVs will have less than 2-gallons worth of gasoline energy stored in battery, and even with 3 times the efficiency of an ICE counterpart, getting reasonable driving range out of +/- 5 gallons of gas is next to impossible with vehicles that are not both light and aero.  Sure, in EPA City rating at average speed of 30 MPH it may work, but first time owner takes it on Interstate the range will go to hell, and once word gets out no body will want to buy them.  We have seen this story already in different forms.

 

 

 

 

[rmc523]

This announcement is fine and dandy, but it would have been even better if they just unexpectedly unveiled a vehicle - like they did with the 2nd gen GT - BAM here's our new EV that's coming out in 6 months.

 

Right now, it's more generic "look at what we're working on!!!" with no results.....waste of an announcement to me.

[akirby]

35 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

If by “amorphous blob” you mean a Tesla 2, I’ve already stated that IMO price will likely be closer to $30k than $25K.  Whatever the price ends up at, I also think that a Bronco Sport BEV with 230 miles of range will cost much more than $5k over the price of an efficient compact “blob” with 250 miles of range.

 

Screw comparison against theoretical Model 2.  I’d bet a BEV Bronco Sport with “real” 230-mile range (not useless EPA City ratings) would cost more than an existing Tesla Model 3 that sells for $39k.  If Ford could build BEV Bronco Sports and sell for $39k while making a profit, they would be doing it already.

 

Physical challenges are enormous.  Affordable BEVs will have less than 2-gallons worth of gasoline energy stored in battery, and even with 3 times the efficiency of an ICE counterpart, getting reasonable driving range out of +/- 5 gallons of gas is next to impossible with vehicles that are not both light and aero.  Sure, in EPA City rating at average speed of 30 MPH it may work, but first time owner takes it on Interstate the range will go to hell, and once word gets out no body will want to buy them.  We have seen this story already in different forms.

 

Youre making all these assumptions with ZERO details on Ford’s new platform.  So let’s wait and see.

[Deanh]

12 minutes ago, akirby said:

Youre making all these assumptions with ZERO details on Ford’s new platform.  So let’s wait and see.

the mere mention of the words "skunkworks" has my interests piqued....

[tbone]

11 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

If you're traveling with a car full of people, a 15-20 minute stop is pretty normal. That's all it takes to fast charge a battery to close to 100% again. 

Well that certainly is not the case of the MME I drive, which  is the basis of my understanding.  I hope they will be achieve that or better in the near future, but in the meantime I won’t deal with all of the considerations necessary to conduct a roadtrip in an BEV. 
 

[akirby]

41 minutes ago, Deanh said:

the mere mention of the words "skunkworks" has my interests piqued....

It just means they weren’t hampered by current processes and organizational beurocracy.  Clean sheet especially when it comes to manufacturing.  Nothing legacy to support or worry about.

[Gurgeh]

5 hours ago, Rick73 said:

About 2/3 of Americans live in detached houses so access to charging itself won’t limit market that much IMO.  I believe BEV adoption beyond initial few percent of population (many who are very well off) will come from multi-car households that will use them primarily to commute to work, go shopping, etc. with one or two people in car most of the time.  I don’t want to call it a city car, but maybe city-oriented use where charging is essentially all done at home.  IMO it will be many years before Americans buy BEVs with primary goal of taking them on road trips.  Manufacturers should focus on affordable compact urban electric vehicles that families will buy as second or third  car because risks and fear of unknown are much lower.

Actually the correct statistic, according to the U.S. Census, is 60% of Americans live in detached homes, not 2/3. Not a huge difference, but enough of a difference that it is worth noting. I do agree that most will continue to mainly purchase EVs as second or third cars. But as akirby notes below we'll likely hit the wall sooner than later on the number of people who can easily set up their residences for home charging.

 

3 hours ago, akirby said:

But you’re assuming buyers want to buy a $25K amorphous blob with 250 mile range as opposed to a Bronco sport EV at $30K that gets 230 miles.  What you want isn’t necessarily what other buyers want.

 

And don’t assume all detached houses can easily support home chargers.   Older houses are 100 amp service or less and can’t support it without major upgrades and some locations don’t have the infrastructure to support wide adoption.

And current issues go beyond the electrical systems of individual homes or the ability to increase electricity generation fast enough. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers publishes some great articles about the EV transition (they are generally supportive, but try to bring more realism to the policy discussion). Here's one looking at the electrical grid impediments that the wealthy silicon valley city of Palo Alto is facing in its attempts to implement a very aggressive local EV ownership mandate.  https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-ev-transition-explained-2658463709

 

"...There are, however, a few potholes that need to be filled to meet the city’s 2030 emission objectives. At a February meeting of Palo Alto’s Utilities Advisory Commission, Tomm Marshall, assistant director of utilities, stated, 'There are places even today [in the city] where we can’t even take one more heat pump without having to rebuild the portion of the [electrical distribution] system. Or we can’t even have one EV charger go in.'

 

"Peak loading is the primary concern. Palo Alto’s electrical-distribution system was built for the electric loads of the 1950s and 1960s, when household heating, water, and cooking were running mainly on natural gas. The distribution system does not have the capacity to support EVs and all electric appliances at scale, Marshall suggested. Further, the system was designed for one-way power, not for distributed-renewable-energy devices sending power back into the system.

 

"A big problem is the 3,150 distribution transformers in the city, Marshall indicated. A 2020 electrification-impact study found that without improvements, more than 95 percent of residential transformers would be overloaded if Palo Alto hits its EV and electrical-appliance targets by 2030.

 

"For instance, Marshall stated, it is not unusual for a 37.5 kilovolt-ampere transformer to support 15 households, as the distribution system was originally designed for each household to draw 2 kilowatts of power. Converting a gas appliance to a heat pump, for example, would draw 4 to 6 kW, while an L2 charger for EVs would be 12 to 14 kW. A cluster of uncoordinated L2 charging could create an excessive peak load that would overload or blow out a transformer, especially when they are toward the end of their lives, which many already are...

 

"Until it can modernize its distribution network, Marshall conceded that the utility must continue to deal with angry and confused customers who are being encouraged by the city to invest in EVs, charging ports, and electric appliances, only then to be told that they may not be accommodated anytime soon...

 

"As in Palo Alto, it will likely be blown transformers or constantly flickering lights that signal there is an EV charging-load issue. Professor Deepak Divan, the director of the Center for Distributed Energy at Georgia Tech, says his team found that in residential areas 'multiple L2 chargers on one distribution transformer can reduce its life from an expected 30 to 40 years to 3 years.' Given that most of the millions of U.S. transformers are approaching the end of their useful lives, replacing transformers soon could be a major and costly headache for utilities, assuming they can get them.

 

"Supplies for distribution transformers are low, and costs have skyrocketed from a range of $3,000 to $4,000 to $20,000 each. Supporting EVs may require larger, heavier transformers, which means many of the 180 million power poles on which these need to sit will need to be replaced to support the additional weight..."

[silvrsvt]

Outside of the grid issues, another wrinkle to this is sourcing the transformers and what not...if you believe what is going on in China, getting these transformers and other electrical parts are going to get more expensive and harder to get, unless someone starts spooling up production in the US and Mexico. 

[Rick73]

35 minutes ago, Gurgeh said:

Actually the correct statistic, according to the U.S. Census, is 60% of Americans live in detached homes, not 2/3. Not a huge difference, but enough of a difference that it is worth noting. I do agree that most will continue to mainly purchase EVs as second or third cars. But as akirby notes below we'll likely hit the wall sooner than later on the number of people who can easily set up their residences for home charging.

I’ll accept your number because I’m not after accuracy that doesn’t mean much anyway.  Without knowing cars per household, and number of drivers, or miles driven per driver, all this data is a rough estimate at best.  For example, apartment dwellers may use more mass transit, or drive less miles than rural house owners, so statistics are just an indication of potential problem.

 

Anyway, you’re preaching to the choir on electrical power concerns.  I’ve been vocal about this problem but won’t address again because it’s not “technically” on topic.  What is on topic is that compact and efficient BEVs like Farley said Ford would now pursue more aggressively consume much less energy than larger ones, which means they can charge with less power.  Data confirm that compact BEV use roughly half as much energy as large BEV, so the impact on home charging, power generation, distribution, etc. is much less, and also less costly to upgrade.

 

If you run the numbers, you’ll see that even slow charging overnight can provide the “average” miles many BEVs are driven.  
 

[DeluxeStang]

4 hours ago, rmc523 said:

This announcement is fine and dandy, but it would have been even better if they just unexpectedly unveiled a vehicle - like they did with the 2nd gen GT - BAM here's our new EV that's coming out in 6 months.

 

Right now, it's more generic "look at what we're working on!!!" with no results.....waste of an announcement to me.

We all like those positive surprise reveals. But you have to get the timing of a product reveal and release just right. You don't want to drop a product onto people with no hype or build up. But you also don't want don't want to reveal a concept car five years before it goes into production. 

 

The affordable EVs Ford is referring to  are almost certainly at least 2-3 years out. If they showed a concept off now, most people would lose interest by the time they went into production. Better to wait to show something until we get closer to the release date. In terms of what we will see this year, my money is on the three rows, and t3, probably this summer at Detroit. 

[Harley Lover]

12 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

probably this summer at Detroit. 

 

Nope. Detroit show has been moved back to its former timing in January. Next show is in 2025.

[Rick73]

16 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

In terms of what we will see this year, my money is on the three rows, and t3, probably this summer at Detroit. 

A few sources report possible delays like “CEO Jim Farley said Ford may postpone some EV launches”.

 

https://www.autonews.com/automakers-suppliers/ford-developing-small-evs-delaying-profit-targets

 

 

 

Also quote below connects second generation to higher demand, but who knows what that threshold volume may be.  It seems obvious Ford can’t or won’t pursue vehicles that will only increase losses.

 

While Ford is not abandoning its EV plans altogether, CFO John Lawley did say its new 'second generation' electric cars would not arrive until consumer demand was high enough.

 

'Our gen two vehicles... won't launch unless we can get to a profit,' said Lawley. In fact, Ford's huge third-quarter losses came even though year-on-year sales were up by around 4,000 units.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/yourmoney/cars/article-13056613/Ford-EV-Toyota-record-profits.html

[2005Explorer]

22 hours ago, Deanh said:

raises the question...theres already been "cheap" BEVs...and they were basically sales flops....and then GM and Honda canned their plans for affordable BEVs as well...so Im scratching my head... 

Yeah, but the expensive ones are also turning out to be flops as well. The manufacturers need affordable BEVs that are also compelling to the consumer. Look at affordable ICE products that have been successful and follow that formula. Weird stuff doesn't sell.

[akirby]

59 minutes ago, 2005Explorer said:

Weird stuff doesn't sell.

Unless it’s a first gen Prius……

[rmc523]

17 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

We all like those positive surprise reveals. But you have to get the timing of a product reveal and release just right. You don't want to drop a product onto people with no hype or build up. But you also don't want don't want to reveal a concept car five years before it goes into production. 

 

The affordable EVs Ford is referring to  are almost certainly at least 2-3 years out. If they showed a concept off now, most people would lose interest by the time they went into production. Better to wait to show something until we get closer to the release date. In terms of what we will see this year, my money is on the three rows, and t3, probably this summer at Detroit. 

 

I understand that completely - I agree you don't want to show something too far out (unless a sort of design concept).  I just don't see the point of announcing this "skunkworks" team.....that won't produce anything until 2-3 years from now?

 

Why bother?  It's just a "we're working on it!" announcement since they've screwed up/changed plans so much.

[akirby]

12 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

I understand that completely - I agree you don't want to show something too far out (unless a sort of design concept).  I just don't see the point of announcing this "skunkworks" team.....that won't produce anything until 2-3 years from now?

 

Why bother?  It's just a "we're working on it!" announcement since they've screwed up/changed plans so much.

Because it was to let dealers know what to expect.  This was a dealer presentation.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, 2005Explorer said:

Weird stuff doesn't sell.

Not to the masses in large volume, but didn’t Tesla start out with a 2-seater sports car based on a Lotus?  That car was never going to appeal to many buyers, but that wasn’t its purpose or mission.

[mackinaw]

18 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

I understand that completely - I agree you don't want to show something too far out (unless a sort of design concept).  I just don't see the point of announcing this "skunkworks" team.....that won't produce anything until 2-3 years from now?....

 

To placate Wall Street.  Remember this was an earnings call with investors.

[Rick73]

15 minutes ago, akirby said:

Because it was to let dealers know what to expect.  This was a dealer presentation.

Perhaps also to let investors know Ford will try to stop the hemorrhaging.

[mackinaw]

17 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Perhaps also to let investors know Ford will try to stop the hemorrhaging.

 

Definitely.  That question was asked several times by investors on the earning's call.  Wall Street is patient, for now.

[DeluxeStang]

Interesting technology to reduce the cost of manufacturing a vehicle. If Ford's future EVs have questionable looks, and likely won't sell very well, this technology would be something worth considering to lower the cost of production. Ford needs to look at anything and everything to get the costs of making EVs down, this could go a long way with improving profitablity on lower volume products. 

 

https://jalopnik.com/the-production-method-that-gave-us-the-isuzu-vehicross-1840597933

 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, mackinaw said:

 

To placate Wall Street.  Remember this was an earnings call with investors.

I thought it was at the dealer conference.  Same reason either way.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

Interesting technology to reduce the cost of manufacturing a vehicle. If Ford's future EVs have questionable looks, and likely won't sell very well, this technology would be something worth considering to lower the cost of production. Ford needs to look at anything and everything to get the costs of making EVs down, this could go a long way with improving profitablity on lower volume products. 

 

https://jalopnik.com/the-production-method-that-gave-us-the-isuzu-vehicross-1840597933

 

For now (during early transition) I would avoid niche electric vehicles, and focus on a few purpose-designed models with high volume potential (like Tesla has done with 3 and Y), or else on more flexible vehicle architecture that allows ICE, HEV, PHEV, and BEV to share.  Isn’t that what Ford has done with Transit in Europe?  Not only does it reduce tooling costs, but other development costs as well.  This approach is also being used by Stellantis, and reports/rumors suggest Ford will reveal a BEV variant of new Puma this year.  It’s definitely not ideal from energy efficiency standpoint, but better than alternatives if trying to provide buyers various BEV choices on a (limited capital) budget.

 

New Puma looks good to me, and could be a great way for Ford to get into compact BEV market, but anticipated higher cost would make it DOA for North America in my opinion.  Why would buyers pay over $10,000 more than ICE?  I hope actual costs are lower for BEV variant.

 

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/feu/en/news/2024/02/07/new-ford-puma--cool--calm-and-connected-.html
 

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/ford/puma/357557/new-ford-puma-ev-price-specs-launch-and-sale-dates

 

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

For now (during early transition) I would avoid niche electric vehicles, and focus on a few purpose-designed models with high volume potential (like Tesla has done with 3 and Y), or else on more flexible vehicle architecture that allows ICE, HEV, PHEV, and BEV to share.  Isn’t that what Ford has done with Transit in Europe?  Not only does it reduce tooling costs, but other development costs as well.  This approach is also being used by Stellantis, and reports/rumors suggest Ford will reveal a BEV variant of new Puma this year.  It’s definitely not ideal from energy efficiency standpoint, but better than alternatives if trying to provide buyers various BEV choices on a (limited capital) budget.

 

New Puma looks good to me, and could be a great way for Ford to get into compact BEV market, but anticipated higher cost would make it DOA for North America in my opinion.  Why would buyers pay over $10,000 more than ICE?  I hope actual costs are lower for BEV variant.

 

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/feu/en/news/2024/02/07/new-ford-puma--cool--calm-and-connected-.html
 

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/ford/puma/357557/new-ford-puma-ev-price-specs-launch-and-sale-dates

 

High volume is ideal as long as profit margins are strong. But the reality is things like Ford's three rows apparently aren't doing well in clinics, and EV demand is slowing down. I predict demand won't be particularly high for them. 

 

So Ford should go in knowing that. Plan for a failure with a path to ramp up production quickly if the product turns out to be a surprise success. That's preferable to overestimating demand, and dumping a bunch of money into products that ultimately don't take off. 

[jpd80]

3 hours ago, Rick73 said:

For now (during early transition) I would avoid niche electric vehicles, and focus on a few purpose-designed models with high volume potential (like Tesla has done with 3 and Y), or else on more flexible vehicle architecture that allows ICE, HEV, PHEV, and BEV to share.  Isn’t that what Ford has done with Transit in Europe?  Not only does it reduce tooling costs, but other development costs as well.  This approach is also being used by Stellantis, and reports/rumors suggest Ford will reveal a BEV variant of new Puma this year.  It’s definitely not ideal from energy efficiency standpoint, but better than alternatives if trying to provide buyers various BEV choices on a (limited capital) budget.

 

New Puma looks good to me, and could be a great way for Ford to get into compact BEV market, but anticipated higher cost would make it DOA for North America in my opinion.  Why would buyers pay over $10,000 more than ICE?  I hope actual costs are lower for BEV variant.

 

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/feu/en/news/2024/02/07/new-ford-puma--cool--calm-and-connected-.html
 

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/ford/puma/357557/new-ford-puma-ev-price-specs-launch-and-sale-dates

 

What you’ve missed is that the ICE puma is being cancelled as the plant switches over to dedicated BEV Puma shared with the BEV Tourneo Connect in Romania. The important thing to note is that Tourneo Connect is a share with VW Caddy, and the BEV Puma also share those battery and electrics…Ford is very evasive about this fact and claims it’s all their own work….