Ford Discusses New Affordable EV Platform

[Captainp4]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

Going to a 48V system is not necessarily “better” and it’s not new.  It’s always been better from a wiring standpoint - smaller cheaper wires.  But that also means new expensive 48V components that aren’t readily available yet or a lot of distributed converters, both of which negate at least some if not all of the cost advantage of the wiring.   I assume Musk has committed to building a lot of the 48v components in house or working with suppliers and Ford is tagging along and I suspect other mfrs will follow based on expected higher volumes on EVs which are much easier to convert.
 

 

I imagine when we made the leap from 6v to 12v and generators to alternators there were naysayers too. Someone had to do it with how much electronics are on board every vehicle these days and Tesla had the balls to jump first. To be clear, I don't think Tesla invented 48v systems (and I understand some of their fanbois would believe that tesla invented a voltage, I joined a few cybertruck groups on facebook to learn more and believe me when I say there are some delusional people about Tesla) lol, but they are the first to implement it throughout the entire vehicle as far as I know.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, Captainp4 said:

I imagine when we made the leap from 6v to 12v and generators to alternators there were naysayers too. Someone had to do it with how much electronics are on board every vehicle these days and Tesla had the balls to jump first. To be clear, I don't think Tesla invented 48v systems (and I understand some of their fanbois would believe that tesla invented a voltage, I joined a few cybertruck groups on facebook to learn more and believe me when I say there are some delusional people about Tesla) lol, but they are the first to implement it throughout the entire vehicle as far as I know.

If I recall correctly, the move to 48V was preceded by an attempt to make 36V the new standard (36V nominal and +/- 42V charging) to replace 12V.  GM had a 36V mild hybrid about 15 years ago IIRC, but American manufacturers were not able to agree on a new 36V standard.

 

After a while a group of German manufacturers got together and decided that 48V nominal (+/-56V charging) was the very highest safe voltage that wont likely electrocute humans; based on studies that predicted around 60 Volts is the maximum you should expose people to.

 

As I recall, that group of manufacturers adopted 48V and told US to join them if they wanted, but basically they were done waiting around.  Mercedes, BMW, VW, Stellantis and others quickly adopted new standard, but as far as I know have limited application to high-power components, and rely on step-down converter to also have a 12V low-voltage system.  That was just a stopgap measure until full 48V was practical.

[DeluxeStang]

5 hours ago, jpd80 said:

The issue with the Edison team is not bureaucracy but what is it they are actually designing.

The problem is that Ford keeps shuttling between developing BEVs  to replace ICE vehicles

and wanting to be Tesla…the coming OAC vehicle is example of that and leads to your next point….

 

I think that the real issue is that Ford doesn’t really know who it’s BEV buyers are and what they actually want.

So they build two vehicles, Mach E and Lightning, early adopters go wild and reservations skyrocket…

Through a series of unfortunate delays, any chance of sales momentum is lost and enthusiasm evaporates.

 

Let me be clear here, Mach E is on the original GE architecture and is basically midsized, Edge sized but longer wheelbase. GE2 is a heavy evolution of GE with a lot of new and different motors, controllers and batteries but importantly wider to make larger BEVs. Conversely, CE1 is to cover compact vehicles like Escape/Bronco Sport sized vehicles that are narrower than Mach E. (None of them are subcompacts)

 

Remember that developments are also being tailored around incentive requirements including size,

price and whether  a particular price/size also requires two row or three row. So that’s why some

decisions look a bit odd until we dig deeper

To illustrate the proportional changes for GE2, wasn't there a mach-e prototype spied testing that platform some time ago? The wheelbase was slightly longer wheel track was noticably wider, and it looked a little taller. 

 

Valid point on Ford not knowing what customers want, their focus is like a damn game of tennis, bouncing back and forth all over the court. That e-max thing was designed to be a a compliance vehicle, they shifted strategy to make it more aspirational with the mach-e. 

Now it sounds like the OAC three rows are picking up where that e-max design left off, embracing a funky areo shape, then Ford sells it's gonna focus on passion products.Now it's saying it wants to focus on smaller, affordable products to compete with lower prices of rivals. I think someone needs to tell Ford they can do both, it doesn't have to be one or the other. 

[silvrsvt]

14 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Now it sounds like the OAC three rows are picking up where that e-max design left off, embracing a funky areo shape, then Ford sells it's gonna focus on passion products.Now it's saying it wants to focus on smaller, affordable products to compete with lower prices of rivals. I think someone needs to tell Ford they can do both, it doesn't have to be one or the other. 

 

They need a smaller platform to replace what they are doing with the MEB right now. 

 

None of this is really earth shattering-its just nothing more then noise at this point from the media. 

 

The only big thing coming from this is future products post 2027/28 are getting slid to the right further down the road. 

 

Who knows when interest rates come back down and the worldwide political situation calms down (yeah right) and there is more options to charge with, plans might change again. 

[jpd80]

5 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

To illustrate the proportional changes for GE2, wasn't there a mach-e prototype spied testing that platform some time ago? The wheelbase was slightly longer wheel track was noticably wider, and it looked a little taller. 

Correct, it was an attribute prototype, most likely testing out motors, controllers and batteries,

body, trim and HVAC testing would come after that with prototypes.
 

 

5 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

 

Valid point on Ford not knowing what customers want, their focus is like a damn game of tennis, bouncing back and forth all over the court. That e-max thing was designed to be a a compliance vehicle, they shifted strategy to make it more aspirational with the mach-e. 

Everyone believed Farley when he said it was nothing more than a compliance vehicle  but you know,

that was probably the ideal vehicle for Europe at the time and heaven knows how much extra Ford spent

turning Mach E into a sports version of a Utility……probably why the  damn thing will be red ink for years.

 

5 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Now it sounds like the OAC three rows are picking up where that e-max design left off, embracing a funky areo shape, then Ford sells it's gonna focus on passion products.Now it's saying it wants to focus on smaller, affordable products to compete with lower prices of rivals. I think someone needs to tell Ford they can do both, it doesn't have to be one or the other. 

The aero is all about meeting battery range targets, something the original vehicles were missing significantly.

I have to wonder if Ford has swapped one disadvantage for another, s vehicle looks anything like Tesla X

it May suff the same fate as Mach E, consigned to the  not good enough list for many buyers.

 

 

[jpd80]

5 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

They need a smaller platform to replace what they are doing with the MEB right now. 

 

None of this is really earth shattering-its just nothing more then noise at this point from the media. 

 

The only big thing coming from this is future products post 2027/28 are getting slid to the right further down the road. 

 

Who knows when interest rates come back down and the worldwide political situation calms down (yeah right) and there is more options to charge with, plans might change again. 

Sounds like CE1 is a replacement for Europes Subcompact B platform used on BEV Puma and the new BEV Tourneo connect. Ford calls them its own work but a little digging reveals a lot of parts shared with VW Caddy…..

Edited February 13 by jpd80

[AM222]

3 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Sounds like CE1 is a replacement for Europes Subcompact B platform used on BEV Puma and the new BEV Tourneo connect. Ford calls them its own work but a little digging reveals a lot of parts shared with VW Caddy…..

I thought the upcoming BEV version of the B-segment Puma will share the EV hardware of the B-segment BEV Transit/Tourneo Courier. Both are built on updated versions of the Ford Global B-platform that was also used by the Fiesta and EcoSport.


The larger C-segment Transit/Tourneo Connect is the one based on the VW Caddy.

Edited February 13 by AM222

[jpd80]

25 minutes ago, AM222 said:

The larger C-segment Transit/Tourneo Connect is the one based on the VW Caddy.

Ah, now I see, I’m getting my vans mixed up…

 

Edited February 13 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

6 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Sounds like CE1 is a replacement for Europes Subcompact B platform used on BEV Puma and the new BEV Tourneo connect. Ford calls them its own work but a little digging reveals a lot of parts shared with VW Caddy…..

 

I don't think so, current B segment cars from Ford are only about 68-70 inches wide vs 74 for C platform and 76+for CD sized platforms. 

 

Its easier to make a car longer but to make it wider affects its crash cell, would require additional testing/cost. 

 

Given that C class products are Fords bread and butter around the world, I'd say making an affordable EV around the 72-74 width range would be the priory because it would sell in the millions range with it basing whatever replaces the Escape, Kuga, Bronco Sport, EU Explorer, and so on. 

[Rick73]

As reference, Ford list the new Puma at 165”L X 71”W X 61”H on 102” WB.  I would assume electric variant will be very close to that also.

 

Width is listed for Puma with mirrors folded which may be wider than the actual body by an inch or two.

[AM222]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

As reference, Ford list the new Puma at 165”L X 71”W X 61”H on 102” WB.  I would assume electric variant will be very close to that also.

 

Width is listed for Puma with mirrors folded which may be wider than the actual body by an inch or two.

The Puma is based on a stretched (longer wheelbase) version of the Global B-segment platform used by the Fiesta. If you disregard the slightly raised ride height and bigger tires, it's basically a LWB Fiesta with a roomier rear passenger area.

PS: The outgoing pre-facelift Puma shared the same dashboard as the recently discontinued Fiesta (a reskinned version of the previous gen Fiesta that was also sold in North America and Asia). The additional inch + difference in width is mostly from the wider wheel arches with cladding.
Pre-facelift Puma


Ford Fiesta (final gen)

Edited February 13 by AM222

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, AM222 said:

The Puma is based on a stretched (longer wheelbase) version of the Global B-segment platform used by the Fiesta. If you disregard the slightly raised ride height and bigger tires, it's basically a LWB Fiesta with a roomier rear passenger area.

PS: The outgoing pre-facelift Puma shared the same dashboard as the recently discontinued Fiesta (a reskinned version of the previous gen Fiesta that was also sold in North America and Asia). The additional inch + difference in width is mostly from the wider wheel arches with cladding.
Pre-facelift Puma


Ford Fiesta (final gen)

Many Americans may find a vehicle that narrow unacceptable, but for short local trips which is what a BEV is ideal for, I would be fine with it.  Most of my vehicles over the years have been relatively large and wide, but my Honda Civic Coupe and CR-V were both narrower than Puma, and it wasn’t an issue for me.  The Puma cabin above looks spacious to me, and it’s a lot taller than my Civic was, so I expect it would feel roomy enough around town.  I probably would never take an Electric Puma on a long road trip anyway, just like I never took the Civic out of state, so I see some potential in a BEV Puma if Ford sold it in North America.  Comes down to price and driving range to a large degree.  For me, it would likely be a much better fit than Mach-E or Lightning regardless.

[jpd80]

15 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

I don't think so, current B segment cars from Ford are only about 68-70 inches wide vs 74 for C platform and 76+for CD sized platforms. 

 

Its easier to make a car longer but to make it wider affects its crash cell, would require additional testing/cost. 

 

Given that C class products are Fords bread and butter around the world, I'd say making an affordable EV around the 72-74 width range would be the priory because it would sell in the millions range with it basing whatever replaces the Escape, Kuga, Bronco Sport, EU Explorer, and so on. 

Apologies, I realised my mistake after posting, Puma & Tourneo Courier are made together (silly me)

The widths on both are just over 70” at 71” and 70.5” but I get your point perfectly because 

my mistake was conflating the new Caddy based Tourneo Connect  with the smaller Turner Courier.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how much difference width makes to the feel of a vehicle and today’s 

compact vehicles don’t feel as small as they once did exactly because of that extra width you mentioned.

 

just on CE1 BEVs, would love to see BEV Bronco Sport but perhaps a shade longe wheelbase  to make battery fit better but also more roomier rear seat inside……maybe even a BEV Maverick as well. Done right, those two could sew up a lot of the compact BEV market by offering something different to Tesla - that’s the key I think….

Edited February 14 by jpd80

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

 

 

just on CE1 BEVs, would love to see BEV Bronco Sport but perhaps a shade longe wheelbase  to make battery fit better but also more roomier rear seat inside……maybe even a BEV Maverick as well. Done right, those two could sew up a lot of the compact BEV market by offering something different to Tesla - that’s the key I think….

I'll be curious to see if the CE1 Bronco sport and maverick carry over most of their components and sheet metal from the current ICE products sans powertrain, or if Ford gives them their own ground up redesign on ev platforms, retaining the naming conventions, but changing everything else. 

 

Like with an ICE and EV maverick look the same, or will the EV version take advantage of the benefits of EV packaging flexibility and adopt a cab forward design, giving buyers a small truck with a longer bed, something many buyers seem to want. There are pros and cons to either approach. Ground up EVs would be able to stand alone easier, but would require more capital to engineer and design. Products that retained many components between the ICE and EV versions would be significantly cheaper, but would be more compromised.

[jpd80]

22 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

I'll be curious to see if the CE1 Bronco sport and maverick carry over most of their components and sheet metal from the current ICE products sans powertrain, or if Ford gives them their own ground up redesign on ev platforms, retaining the naming conventions, but changing everything else. 

 

Like with an ICE and EV maverick look the same, or will the EV version take advantage of the benefits of EV packaging flexibility and adopt a cab forward design, giving buyers a small truck with a longer bed, something many buyers seem to want. There are pros and cons to either approach. Ground up EVs would be able to stand alone easier, but would require more capital to engineer and design. Products that retained many components between the ICE and EV versions would be significantly cheaper, but would be more compromised.

Not sure that sharing the ICE top hats would be all that compromised as BEV buyers like the Frunk space in front,

the shorter nose definitely reduces space in that area. Also not convinced that Maverick buyers want a super long bed but yes, something longer than present might be welcomed - maybe just lengthen rear wheel overhang a tad?

Edited February 14 by jpd80

[jpd80]

 The skunkworks is based in Irvine and headed by Former Tesla executive Alan Clarke.

That should give certain people here a hard on at the mention of an ex-Tesla chief

heading up the project….

 

https://fordauthority.com/2024/02/low-cost-ford-ev-skunkworks-project-led-by-former-tesla-exec/

Quote

That executive is indeed Clarke himself, who is currently leading the Advanced EV development team at Ford. Clarke’s skunkworks team – which has been operating more like a startup and in total secrecy – is based in Irvine, California, and has been working on developing this low-cost Ford EV for roughly two years now, according to CEO Jim Farley.

In addition to Clarke, this skunkworks team also consists of engineers from Auto Motive Power (AMP), an EV startup that FoMoCo acquired back in November 2023 – a group that includes AMP founder Anil Paryani, who also worked with Clarke for roughly five years at Tesla."

 

Now if this is a low cost project, the odds are good that they are developing a skateboard BEV lower 

to be added to existing Ford bodies.
 

Currently, the two projects vehicles are a Utility (Bronco Sport) and a Pickup (Maverick?) that are going into Louisville after Escape and Corsair end.

Edited February 14 by jpd80

[akirby]

7 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

I'll be curious to see if the CE1 Bronco sport and maverick carry over most of their components and sheet metal from the current ICE products sans powertrain, or if Ford gives them their own ground up redesign on ev platforms, retaining the naming conventions, but changing everything else. 

 

 

They have to retain most of the styling cues otherwise there is no point.  They can be sleeker, lower, more aerodynamic but styling and functionality is what make them desirable.

[akirby]

I think they’re mostly developing cheaper components and manufacturing methods.  Probably making most of it in house.  Less hardware more software.

[joseodiaga4]

9 hours ago, jpd80 said:

 The skunkworks is based in Irvine and headed by Former Tesla executive Alan Clarke.

That should give certain people here a hard on at the mention of an ex-Tesla chief

heading up the project….

 

https://fordauthority.com/2024/02/low-cost-ford-ev-skunkworks-project-led-by-former-tesla-exec/

 

Now if this is a low cost project, the odds are good that they are developing a skateboard BEV lower 

to be added to existing Ford bodies.
 

Currently, the two projects vehicles are a Utility (Bronco Sport) and a Pickup (Maverick?) that are going into Louisville after Escape and Corsair end.

Corsair is not going to have a replacement?
The planned to change it with a EV Or to produce it in China like the Nautilus? 

[silvrsvt]

48 minutes ago, joseodiaga4 said:

Corsair is not going to have a replacement?
The planned to change it with a EV Or to produce it in China like the Nautilus? 

Don't read into it so much-there will be a C sized Lincoln...

 

But also keep in mind the smaller EV program will most likely slide to the right closer to 2030 then the expected 2027 date that the Escape/Corsair was supposed to go away per the UAW contract. 

[DeluxeStang]

11 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Not sure that sharing the ICE top hats would be all that compromised as BEV buyers like the Frunk space in front,

the shorter nose definitely reduces space in that area. Also not convinced that Maverick buyers want a super long bed but yes, something longer than present might be welcomed - maybe just lengthen rear wheel overhang a tad?

There's definitely a trade-off there, a lot of people like having those large frunks, while others are frustrated that EVs are still having that long hood shape associated with ICE vehicles, and view it as wasted space. Ford did show a rough outline for a truck design showing a shorter hood, but I've heard these basic proportions are more in line, but not exact, with what we'll see with t3, rather than hinting at what to expect for an electric ranger or maverick. 

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

There's definitely a trade-off there, a lot of people like having those large frunks, while others are frustrated that EVs are still having that long hood shape associated with ICE vehicles, and view it as wasted space. Ford did show a rough outline for a truck design showing a shorter hood, but I've heard these basic proportions are more in line, but not exact, with what we'll see with t3, rather than hinting at what to expect for an electric ranger or maverick. 

 

This could be just my impression but a shorter hood on a compact pickup like Maverick would make it look

more like it’s progenitor vehicle, the Transit Connect. After all, the reason the hood was lengthened was to

make it resemble a Ranger or even an F150. Do buyers now want a stumpy nose?

Im asking because I don’t know if styling preferences have changed and I’m stuck in the past with my opinions.

[twintornados]

Whats old is new again.....70's era concept van Ford Carousel.

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

This could be just my impression but a shorter hood on a compact pickup like Maverick would make it look

more like it’s progenitor vehicle, the Transit Connect. After all, the reason the hood was lengthened was to

make it resemble a Ranger or even an F150. Do buyers now want a stumpy nose?

Im asking because I don’t know if styling preferences have changed and I’m stuck in the past with my opinions.

I personally hate the short hood, stubby front end look, but moving the cab forward does have some practical benefits. Stylistically, I'd prefer it if t3, and Ford's other upcoming electric trucks looked closer to that ram electric concept we saw awhile back. Something with a wider, lower stance, flared fenders, something like looked like the ford trucks we all know, just taken up a few notices in the futuristic styling department. 

 

But unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if the styling on t3 was just as "polarizing" as the three rows, as it's apparently very areo driven and unconventional in its design. Who knows, maybe the team who worked on it was able to deliver something that looks good, while also being areo efficient. It just sounds like Ford has essentially given up on attractive styling on its EVs in favor of areodynamic efficiency, and that's quite concerning. 

 

 

[Captainp4]

10 hours ago, akirby said:

I think they’re mostly developing cheaper components and manufacturing methods.  Probably making most of it in house.  Less hardware more software.

.. Like Tesla?

I'm sorry, I'll stop, don't ban me ?