Ford Discusses New Affordable EV Platform

[akirby]

14 minutes ago, Captainp4 said:

.. Like Tesla?
 

Yes, like Tesla.  I give Tesla lots of credit for more efficient manufacturing processes and cost savings.  I was skeptical at first and I don’t think it started to pay off until the last 2-3 years.  And I don’t think everything they’re doing should be copied but I give credit where it’s due.

[Captainp4]

32 minutes ago, akirby said:

Yes, like Tesla.  I give Tesla lots of credit for more efficient manufacturing processes and cost savings.  I was skeptical at first and I don’t think it started to pay off until the last 2-3 years.  And I don’t think everything they’re doing should be copied but I give credit where it’s due.

I'll be honest and say I didn't expect that response out of you, but I really appreciate it. Good work as a mod. Like, legitimately and sincerely.

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, Captainp4 said:

.. Like Tesla?

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

Most of us can appreciate some of what Tesla has accomplished for the EV industry. The difference is many of us despite being able to respect Tesla, don't worship Tesla and Elon as these perfect God like figures, and that's insulting to Tesla's fanbase. Tesla's fanbase are the kind of people who think if you have any criticisms of something, it means you hate their company with a passion. Most people don't, I just don't get a half chub every time Elon speaks. 

Edited February 14 by DeluxeStang

[Captainp4]

11 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Most of us can appreciate some of what Tesla has accomplished for the EV industry. The difference is many of us despite being able to respect Tesla, don't worship Tesla and Elon as these perfect God like figures, and that's insulting to Tesla's fanbase. Tesla's fanbase are the kind of people who think if you have any criticisms of something, it means you hate their company with a passion. Most people don't, I just don't get a half chub everytime Elon speaks. 

I agree there too, and I'll admit I'm a big fan of Elon's work/companies, especially in the aerospace industry with SpaceX, but the mega Tesla fans are pretty weird and usually fairly delusional. I watch everything SpaceX does, and most of what Tesla does because I really like their mission statements and the built in efficiency, but I'm also here on this forum watching everything Ford does because it's all I've ever owned and like to think they'll figure it out too.

[akirby]

42 minutes ago, Captainp4 said:

I'll be honest and say I didn't expect that response out of you, but I really appreciate it. Good work as a mod. Like, legitimately and sincerely.

I don’t hate Tesla or Musk.  I hated when people gave them far too much credit when they were only making 3 models and weren’t turning a profit.  And let’s be honest - cybertruck is a clusterf&#ck.  And I’m still not convinced their model will scale to more vehicles and higher volumes with increased competition from mainstream mfrs when they have to start doing refreshes on existing vehicles.

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, Captainp4 said:

I agree there too, and I'll admit I'm a big fan of Elon's work/companies, especially in the aerospace industry with SpaceX, but the mega Tesla fans are pretty weird and usually fairly delusional. I watch everything SpaceX does, and most of what Tesla does because I really like their mission statements and the built in efficiency, but I'm also here on this forum watching everything Ford does because it's all I've ever owned and like to think they'll figure it out too.

Well then you're more rational than many of his followers. 

 

2 hours ago, akirby said:

I don’t hate Tesla or Musk.  I hated when people gave them far too much credit when they were only making 3 models and weren’t turning a profit.  And let’s be honest - cybertruck is a clusterf&#ck.  And I’m still not convinced their model will scale to more vehicles and higher volumes with increased competition from mainstream mfrs when they have to start doing refreshes on existing vehicles.

Agreed, cybertruck is shaping up to be Tesla's first major miss. I don't hate it, I admire that it dared to be different, and I could see myself owning one some day if they depreciate enough. But the attributes that make it so compelling to Tesla's hardcore fans are the same things that make it poison to conventional truck buyers. If t3 can take the practicality and utility of the current lightning, and blend it with some of the super truck showmanship that the CT and Hummer EV have, I think it's gonna blow everything else it goes up against out of the water. 

[AM222]

On 2/15/2024 at 3:11 AM, 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.

Lately the traditional rugged styling for trucks and SUVs seem to be popular again. 

The Maverick and Bronco Sport have shorter more vertical windshields with the A-pillar base pushed back. This gives it a more traditional appearance of having a longer hood without making the front of the car longer. This is similar to the early Escape models from the 2000s.  

The older Ford designs like the previous gen Escape for example, has this exaggerated long windshield with the A-pillar base pulled forward towards the strut towers. This has zero benefits for usable interior space or aerodynamics. It does give the appearance or illusion that it is probably more aerodynamic than it really is. 

The Kia KV9 for example is very aerodynamic for a large boxy SUV even if it has a prominent hood and upright windshield. It has a drag coefficient of 0.28.


I'd rather have a hood on an EV with a frunk or at least compartment for cables/accessories etc than a pickup version of an e Transit. Lol

Edited February 29 by AM222

[GearheadGrrrl]

If EV charging was everywhere and cheap, CD might not matter much. But right now allowing .01 more CD means a few miles less range and easily another thousand dollars in battery costs.

[Rick73]

4 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

If EV charging was everywhere and cheap, CD might not matter much. But right now allowing .01 more CD means a few miles less range and easily another thousand dollars in battery costs.

Exactly.  Efficiency in any of its forms (aerodynamic, mechanical, electrical, etc.) supports higher performance, longer range, faster charging, lower-cost, etc.  I don’t know many who argue in favor of inefficiency.

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Exactly.  Efficiency in any of its forms (aerodynamic, mechanical, electrical, etc.) supports higher performance, longer range, faster charging, lower-cost, etc.  I don’t know many who argue in favor of inefficiency.

You only seem to be interested in efficiency that maximizes range and lowers overall cost.   But a 2.0 ecoboost hybrid that replaces a 2.7 ecoboost v6 and returns 30 mpg vs 20 is also a much more efficient solution for those who want more power.  Not everybody want max mpg at the expense of power and acceleration.  Or max EV range and lowest cost at the expense of styling and functionality.

[GearheadGrrrl]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

You only seem to be interested in efficiency that maximizes range and lowers overall cost.   But a 2.0 ecoboost hybrid that replaces a 2.7 ecoboost v6 and returns 30 mpg vs 20 is also a much more efficient solution for those who want more power.  Not everybody want max mpg at the expense of power and acceleration.  Or max EV range and lowest cost at the expense of styling and functionality.

Aerodynamic efficiency is much more critical in an EV- On an IC it's easy to add power to make up for bad aero or simply. offer better performance, while on an EV high battery costs drive the demand for excellent aerodynamics. 

[jpd80]

4 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Aerodynamic efficiency is much more critical in an EV- On an IC it's easy to add power to make up for bad aero or simply. offer better performance, while on an EV high battery costs drive the demand for excellent aerodynamics. 

I would argue that the added weight of big batteries acts more against range than aerodynamics 

which come into play at highway speeds but probably a blend of the two acts against most BEVs.

Edited March 1 by jpd80

[akirby]

9 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Aerodynamic efficiency is much more critical in an EV- On an IC it's easy to add power to make up for bad aero or simply. offer better performance, while on an EV high battery costs drive the demand for excellent aerodynamics. 

Thats only true at the lower end of the price range.  At higher prices buyers generally demand better styling, materials and performance and don’t mind paying extra.  Someone buying a $75K navigator doesn’t want bland styling or poor performance just to save $5K on battery costs.  

[Rick73]

6 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I would argue that the added weight of big batteries acts more against range than aerodynamics 

which come into play at highway speeds but probably a blend of the two acts against most BEVs.

Yeah, it’s both.  Poor aero has snowball effect of requiring more battery capacity, which adds weight, which then requires even more battery capacity, then larger drive motors to maintain equal performance, heavier suspension, etc.  Various technical papers have been written on this subject.  In the end most manufacturers seem to accept that their non-aero models will have much less range.  With exception of Chevy Bolt, most haven’t sold well; and I’m not sure I’d call Bolt a success.

[Rick73]

12 hours ago, akirby said:

You only seem to be interested in efficiency that maximizes range and lowers overall cost.   But a 2.0 ecoboost hybrid that replaces a 2.7 ecoboost v6 and returns 30 mpg vs 20 is also a much more efficient solution for those who want more power.  Not everybody want max mpg at the expense of power and acceleration.  Or max EV range and lowest cost at the expense of styling and functionality.

You seem to limit your thought process by continuing to assume that many of these design goals are mutually exclusive.  

[GearheadGrrrl]

The current Navigator is basically an F series 5 door and the restyling to make it look like a Lincoln makes it probably the ugliest F series variant, while the added mass to bring it up to the Lincoln "luxury" image and the extended extended cab pushes it's weight up to around 3 tons. While the Ecobeast V6 tries it's hardest, with such mass to drive around it's performance only excels in maybe towing ability, and fans of the Ford V8s would question that. The Navigator's potential as a performance vehicle, already crippled, is buried by it's high center of gravity. While substituting the F150 Lightnings EV battery and drivetrain will lower that CG a bit, it'll probably end up being a 4 ton SUV and that added mass will undo any COG benefit of the EV drivetrain. And while a more aerodynamic front end would help, the Navigator still has to make a big hole through the atmosphere and it's added mass compared to it's F150 Lightning brother don't help either. I've yet to see an F150 Lightning at an autocross, track day, or even rallycross, and given the Navigator's only 20K or so annual sales I don't expect o see many anywhere... And does a $75K product really make much if any profit at 20K a year volume?

[akirby]

17 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

You seem to limit your thought process by continuing to assume that many of these design goals are mutually exclusive.  

Improved efficiency is not mutually exclusive with better performance, but achieving maximum efficiency in terms of EV range and mpg vs high performance.  For Nautilus they should have used the 2.5 Atkinson hybrid for max mpg.  Instead they chose to use the hybrid setup with the 2.0eb to replace the 2.7 performance wise.   No different than the last 60 years of ICE vehicles where you pay more for better performance and almost always get less mpg.  The same applies to styling and aero.  Some want max range and others want specific styling and/or performance and don’t care if range suffers a bit.  Just like people buying big block v8s in the late 60s didn’t care about mpg.

 

And let’s not kid anyone - you always want the most efficient option and think anything else is a waste of resources.

[akirby]

45 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

The current Navigator is basically an F series 5 door and the restyling to make it look like a Lincoln makes it probably the ugliest F series variant, while the added mass to bring it up to the Lincoln "luxury" image and the extended extended cab pushes it's weight up to around 3 tons. While the Ecobeast V6 tries it's hardest, with such mass to drive around it's performance only excels in maybe towing ability, and fans of the Ford V8s would question that. The Navigator's potential as a performance vehicle, already crippled, is buried by it's high center of gravity. While substituting the F150 Lightnings EV battery and drivetrain will lower that CG a bit, it'll probably end up being a 4 ton SUV and that added mass will undo any COG benefit of the EV drivetrain. And while a more aerodynamic front end would help, the Navigator still has to make a big hole through the atmosphere and it's added mass compared to it's F150 Lightning brother don't help either. I've yet to see an F150 Lightning at an autocross, track day, or even rallycross, and given the Navigator's only 20K or so annual sales I don't expect o see many anywhere... And does a $75K product really make much if any profit at 20K a year volume?

Autocrossing a Navigator or F150?  You’re either trolling or you’ve lost your mind.

[Gurgeh]

22 minutes ago, akirby said:

Improved efficiency is not mutually exclusive with better performance, but achieving maximum efficiency in terms of EV range and mpg vs high performance.  For Nautilus they should have used the 2.5 Atkinson hybrid for max mpg.  Instead they chose to use the hybrid setup with the 2.0eb to replace the 2.7 performance wise.   No different than the last 60 years of ICE vehicles where you pay more for better performance and almost always get less mpg.  The same applies to styling and aero.  Some want max range and others want specific styling and/or performance and don’t care if range suffers a bit.  Just like people buying big block v8s in the late 60s didn’t care about mpg.

 

And let’s not kid anyone - you always want the most efficient option and think anything else is a waste of resources.

The curious thing about the more powerful drivetrain upgrade option in the 2024 Nautilus is that it not only provides more power and a smoother ride, but it actually gets you more fuel efficiency than the base 2.0eb-only configuration. ...and all for a surprisingly low $1500 cost. The engine upgrade option in earlier Nautilus (2.0eb to 2.7eb) did get you more power but it was both a more expensive option and was less fuel efficient. Granted, the new hybrid configuration doesn't quite match the power of the 2.7, but oddly enough it feels like it does.

Edited March 1 by Gurgeh

[GearheadGrrrl]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Autocrossing a Navigator or F150?  You’re either trolling or you’ve lost your mind.

Nice to see we're agreed on how useless the Navigator is!

[Texasota]

5 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Nice to see we're agreed on how useless the Navigator is!

There are a lot of customers that want to tow a heavy trailer but prefer a luxury SUV over a F-150. The Navigator is far from useless.

[jpd80]

10 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Yeah, it’s both.  Poor aero has snowball effect of requiring more battery capacity, which adds weight, which then requires even more battery capacity, then larger drive motors to maintain equal performance, heavier suspension, etc.  Various technical papers have been written on this subject.  In the end most manufacturers seem to accept that their non-aero models will have much less range.  With exception of Chevy Bolt, most haven’t sold well; and I’m not sure I’d call Bolt a success.

It’s hard to judge knowing that todays battery technology is really a get through to the eventual

solid state version that promises higher density and reduced weight and size.

 

Today, we suffer the consequences of needing large heavy batteries to guarantee sufficient range,

so a lot of the vehicle size and form is linked to that plus people seem to prefer the more square,

rugged style of utility, some prefer rounded dart shape but I think those will become “commodities”

only because they will be cheapest, easiest form to guarantee efficiency with least amount of battery.

[DeluxeStang]

13 hours ago, akirby said:

Thats only true at the lower end of the price range.  At higher prices buyers generally demand better styling, materials and performance and don’t mind paying extra.  Someone buying a $75K navigator doesn’t want bland styling or poor performance just to save $5K on battery costs.  

Which is why Ford should employ a mixed strategy when it comes to styling, battery sizing, and market positioning with their EVs, moreso than they already are. In terms of demographics, the individuals purchasing more expensive products tend to be older, with more reserved visual tastes. These funky areo designs aren't gonna appeal to most of them. It's better to take more traditional looking vehicles, and just improve upon them, better proportions, shorter overhangs, the things you can do with EVs to make them look better without rocking the boat too much. 

 

Then for cheaper, more affordable EVs, the only way to make them affordable is to use smaller, less expensive battery packs. This is where they strategy of adopting more radical areo designs comes into play. It enables you to have those smaller batteries while still having an acceptable range. But there's an added benefit, and that's the fact that younger buyers tend to gravitate towards bold, expressive designs.

 

Ford's areo EVs would not only be more affordable, but their unique styling would help them stand out amidst the crowed affordable vehicle space, as most of those vehicles tend to be rather generic. That's how you take a liability, futuristic styling that's not gonna land with older buyers, and spin it into a selling point, giving young buyers the exciting designs that appeal to them. 

[jpd80]

At this point, I doubt that Ford knows exactly who wants to buy BEVs and what they want…..

Once interest rates started going up and up, it seems like  a lot of buyers lost interest…..

[Rick73]

16 hours ago, jpd80 said:

It’s hard to judge knowing that todays battery technology is really a get through to the eventual

solid state version that promises higher density and reduced weight and size.

 

Today, we suffer the consequences of needing large heavy batteries to guarantee sufficient range,

so a lot of the vehicle size and form is linked to that plus people seem to prefer the more square,

rugged style of utility, some prefer rounded dart shape but I think those will become “commodities”

only because they will be cheapest, easiest form to guarantee efficiency with least amount of battery.

Excellent point.  We have already seen this trend evolve if we look back at (arguably) first modern BEV, GM’s EV1, which was limited by very heavy and low-power lead-acid batteries.  In order to achieve any practical range and performance at all (which were dismal by present BEV standards), the car had to be small with very low frontal area and extremely low coefficient of drag, resulting in a drag area just under 4 square feet.

 

As soon as lithium batteries became available, new BEVs were introduced that were far more conventional than GM’s teardrop 2-seater EV1.  So yeah, I agree that if future solid state batteries become 2X to 3X more energy dense, it will allow BEVs to be even more conventional than present ones.  Solid state battery prices today are still far too high though, and will likely remain uncompetitive for years to come.

 

Having said that, what you refer to as “rounded dart shape” vehicles will always be better to combat global warming and meet government regulations, so I expect designers will find ways to make them more appealing to more buyers.  As they say, where there’s a will, there’s a way.  All I know is that whatever “aero shape” is, vehicle designs have been moving towards lower Cd over time.  I don’t see that trend reversing.