Ford Discusses New Affordable EV Platform

[GearheadGrrrl]

26 minutes ago, akirby said:

But from a factory perspective and a corporate resource perspective - Bronco and Ranger did replace Focus just like Mav and BS replaced Fusion.  It’s all about budgets and projects not the products themselves.

 

Think of it as having a fixed amount of shelf space in the grocery store.  You have room for 10 products.  If you want to add a new product you have to get rid of an existing one or you have to expand the store.  They didn’t want to build a new factory so they replaced existing products.  

Thanks for the bread analogy, Hostess/Wonder AKA Continental Baking tried many of Ford's current strategies- Closing bakeries, pushing higher priced breads, and selling private label breads at a loss in hopes the volume would save them. The super markets and convenience stores were their "dealers" and in the old days they nurtured good relationships with them. While the products weren't the tastiest, they had predictable quality that consumers could depend on until management took the smaller retailers for granted and romanced Walmart. After turning profits all through the depression and for decades beyond, they used the 1st bankruptcy in 2004 to gut union contracts and letting Walmart get away with several months of unpaid bills for bread and cake delivered forced their final bankruptcy in 2012.

 

Ford and to be fair, GM too have been exhibiting similar maladaptive behavior the last few years- Betting too much on electrification with no hedging, pushing high profit but short lived products like Bronco, and raising prices beyond customer's affordability. Meanwhile, reliably profitable lower priced products like sedans/wagons/hatches have been dropped despite having excess plant capacity to build them.

[silvrsvt]

50 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

.Ford and to be fair, GM too have been exhibiting similar maladaptive behavior the last few years- Betting too much on electrification with no hedging, pushing high profit but short lived products like Bronco, and raising prices beyond customer's affordability. Meanwhile, reliably profitable lower priced products like sedans/wagons/hatches have been dropped despite having excess plant capacity to build them.

Your personal tastes don’t equate to what the actual market is. 
 

 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

.Ford and to be fair, GM too have been exhibiting similar maladaptive behavior the last few years- Betting too much on electrification with no hedging, pushing high profit but short lived products like Bronco, and raising prices beyond customer's affordability. 

Theyre not pushing anything.  They’re offering products that people want to buy.  Bronco short lived?  That’s utterly ridiculous as is everything else you’ve said lately.  

[Captainp4]

7 hours ago, Rick73 said:

If nothing else, Fusion exterior appearance could be way better than Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, which have become hard to look at for my taste; especially the Camry.  Toyota front end styling are hideous.  Not to get off topic, but in my opinion part of the issue is that Ford seems to resist entry-level vanilla-flavored offerings, which is where Accord and Camry do well.  That leads to “affordability” for the masses who care more about price than performance.

 

Whether BEV or ICE, a large percentage of population just wants affordable and reliable transportation that looks good.

I think it's the "reliable" part that Ford can't nail down with any consistency, so they just gave up. Sometimes they make the most reliable longest running thing you've ever seen (like my 400k mile 96 7.3 zf5 😎) and sometimes it's the biggest pile of poo that was ever released (like my 03 6.0 or 2010 6.4). People that buy "commodity" products don't care how fast it is, how efficient it is, how cool it looks, etc, they want something that gets decent mpg, doesn't break down, and is affordable - they aren't car people and they're passionate about not having to deal with their car besides driving it a-b. This is where Toyota/Honda do well because they have a decades long reputation of reliable/efficient/affordable transportation. Ford is going after people that can overlook the issues because the car speaks to them on an emotional level and they HAVE TO HAVE IT and that brings more margin.
 

5 minutes ago, akirby said:

Theyre not pushing anything.  They’re offering products that people want to buy.  Bronco short lived?  That’s utterly ridiculous as is everything else you’ve said lately.  

Old woman yells at cloud aside, I do wonder where the end game of passion products ends when/if others enter the same markets with competitive product. Does Ford have to keep hitting home-runs in niche markets indefinitely as competition enters segments they're currently excelling in? Does bs/maverick/bronco end up being commodity 5 years from now if someone does them better/cheaper? Or does Ford just keep jumping head first into currently unoccupied or poorly occupied segments?

[akirby]

17 minutes ago, Captainp4 said:

Old woman yells at cloud aside, I do wonder where the end game of passion products ends when/if others enter the same markets with competitive product. Does Ford have to keep hitting home-runs in niche markets indefinitely as competition enters segments they're currently excelling in? Does bs/maverick/bronco end up being commodity 5 years from now if someone does them better/cheaper? Or does Ford just keep jumping head first into currently unoccupied or poorly occupied segments?

 How have they managed to do it with F series for 76 years?  Mustang for 60 years?  Explorer for 30 years?  It’s not about not having competition - that just helps with profit margins.  It’s about the investment required to stay competitive in a particular market vs the expected ROI.  

[Rick73]

Talking about smaller EV platforms, competition could be heating up even more.  Rivian revealed today their R2 SUV which is smaller than present R1.  I think they call it mid-size rather than compact.  Rivian surprised by also revealing even smaller R3 and R3X models, though these two are years away.  R2 should come earlier.  All are projected to have 300+ mile range.  R2 is estimated to start at $45k for single motor.  Two- and three-motor variants will also be available.

 

Anyway, these Rivian should be of interest to those here who like traditional-looking SUV instead of proverbial aerodynamic “jellybean” or “blob”.  Video below of reveal was condensed, though still long.  If you like square shapes, these should make you happy. 😆 

 

https://www.cnet.com/videos/rivian-r2-r3-and-r3x-reveal-event-everything-announced-in-8-minutes/

 

If nothing else, it shows Rivian believes 300-mile range with boxy shape is possible at a mid-range price.

[Trader 10]

10 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Are...are you serious? It can't get much smaller man. My maverick next to a full sized truck for scale. 

Hell, a full sized truck makes a locomotive look small. Looks like my truck - Area 51 2022 XLT all wheel drive with 4k towing. 

[DeluxeStang]

5 minutes ago, Trader 10 said:

Looks like my truck - Area 51 2022 XLT all wheel drive with 4k towing. 

Close, Area 51 2022 XLT hybrid. 

[Captainp4]

18 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Talking about smaller EV platforms, competition could be heating up even more.  Rivian revealed today their R2 SUV which is smaller than present R1.  I think they call it mid-size rather than compact.  Rivian surprised by also revealing even smaller R3 and R3X models, though these two are years away.  R2 should come earlier.  All are projected to have 300+ mile range.  R2 is estimated to start at $45k for single motor.  Two- and three-motor variants will also be available.

 

Anyway, these Rivian should be of interest to those here who like traditional-looking SUV instead of proverbial aerodynamic “jellybean” or “blob”.  Video below of reveal was condensed, though still long.  If you like square shapes, these should make you happy. 😆 

 

https://www.cnet.com/videos/rivian-r2-r3-and-r3x-reveal-event-everything-announced-in-8-minutes/

 

If nothing else, it shows Rivian believes 300-mile range with boxy shape is possible at a mid-range price.

Rivian makes some really nice products from what I've seen. Unfortunately they're struggling to make money on them, so much so that if things continue as they are without change they have about 1.5 years of money left. I think they're positioned really well if they can pull through, and the R2/R3/R3X should certainly help volume if they can deliver on the range and price points. Watched their reveal event the other night, was pretty good. Was funny how proud RJ was about putting two glove boxes on the R2 because people complained the R1s didn't have one lol

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, Captainp4 said:

Rivian makes some really nice products from what I've seen. Unfortunately they're struggling to make money on them, so much so that if things continue as they are without change they have about 1.5 years of money left. I think they're positioned really well if they can pull through, and the R2/R3/R3X should certainly help volume if they can deliver on the range and price points. Watched their reveal event the other night, was pretty good. Was funny how proud RJ was about putting two glove boxes on the R2 because people complained the R1s didn't have one lol

Reports indicate R2 won’t be available until first half of 2026, which is two years away.  R3 will likely follow by another year.  If Rivian only has 18 months of money left, they will be hurting unless they secure additional funding.  Read somewhere that Rivian projects flat sales through 2024.  That also won’t help with cash flow or attracting investors.  A lot of these companies are overly optimistic, so flat sales could easily become declining sales.  My first thought about revealing R3 and R3X so early was that it was mostly to attract investor interest.

 

For what it’s worth, shape of R3 and R3X from side look like a car from the 80s, maybe the VW Rabbit?  I don’t know, it just doesn’t look right to me.  Looks dated.  I do like interior with fold-flat seats to improve utility.  Ford could do the same since they have folding front seats already in smaller Euro Transits.

 

From tech standpoint I like Rivian’s use of 4695 battery cells.  It may add 15 mm (0.59 inches) in height over 4680 cells, but allows for a lot more battery capacity in compact vehicle because of their limited footprint.  It would not surprise me if other manufacturers like Ford and Tesla start using 4695 cells in smaller vehicle platforms also.

[jpd80]

On 3/8/2024 at 2:54 AM, ice-capades said:

Ford may have cancelled Focus production and converted the MIchigan Assembly Plant in order to produce the all-new Bronco and Ranger models which have been very successful, but I don't consider them to be replacements for the Focus. To me it was a matter of better plant utilization for producing the all-new Bronco and reintroducing the Ranger to the North American market. 

Originally, there were two plants on the one site, Wayne Assembly Plant that made Focus (& C-Max) and Michigan Truck Plant making Navigator and Expedition.

 

Today, I think the old Wayne Plant area is used for parts store and some vehicle fit out for Bronco accessories…..so there’s no real way of splitting  them back up into two plants….

 

My point is that building compact cars there was always uneconomic and basically a CAFE offset for larger cars built within the USA. It was a constant point of annoyance for Mulally when told the cars lost money and there was no foreseeable way to improve that, even with DOE lending assistance.

 

Linking back to this thread, I can’t see how an affordable compact electric vehicle can be made profitably in the US when perhaps larger mid-Sized BEVs like a Mustang coupe, a four door sedan and companion Utility maybe even SUV and crossover styles would all be a better proposition in at Louisville.

Edited March 9 by jpd80

[jpd80]

On 3/8/2024 at 8:43 AM, akirby said:

 How have they managed to do it with F series for 76 years?  Mustang for 60 years?  Explorer for 30 years?  It’s not about not having competition - that just helps with profit margins.  It’s about the investment required to stay competitive in a particular market vs the expected ROI.  

Also, having a well established vehicle dominate those markets certainly helps but equally, change away from the formula too much and those buyer will disappear.

[rmc523]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Reports indicate R2 won’t be available until first half of 2026, which is two years away.  R3 will likely follow by another year.  If Rivian only has 18 months of money left, they will be hurting unless they secure additional funding.  Read somewhere that Rivian projects flat sales through 2024.  That also won’t help with cash flow or attracting investors.  A lot of these companies are overly optimistic, so flat sales could easily become declining sales.  My first thought about revealing R3 and R3X so early was that it was mostly to attract investor interest.

 

For what it’s worth, shape of R3 and R3X from side look like a car from the 80s, maybe the VW Rabbit?  I don’t know, it just doesn’t look right to me.  Looks dated.  I do like interior with fold-flat seats to improve utility.  Ford could do the same since they have folding front seats already in smaller Euro Transits.

 

From tech standpoint I like Rivian’s use of 4695 battery cells.  It may add 15 mm (0.59 inches) in height over 4680 cells, but allows for a lot more battery capacity in compact vehicle because of their limited footprint.  It would not surprise me if other manufacturers like Ford and Tesla start using 4695 cells in smaller vehicle platforms also.

I actually like the profile and look of the R3.  It looks more unique vs something g like the ionic 5, which looks too 80s sci-fi 

[mackinaw]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Reports indicate R2 won’t be available until first half of 2026, which is two years away.  R3 will likely follow by another year.  If Rivian only has 18 months of money left, they will be hurting unless they secure additional funding.  

I was reading elsewhere this afternoon that one reason Rivian delayed their planned Georgia plant was because it save them 2.25 billion dollars, which will buy them one more year.

Edited March 9 by mackinaw

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

Linking back to this thread, I can’t see how an affordable compact electric vehicle can be made profitably in the US when perhaps larger mid-Sized BEVs like a Mustang coupe, a four door sedan and companion Utility maybe even SUV and crossover styles would all be a better proposition in at Louisville.

 

Compact means Escape size..the Mach E is a compact sized vehicle (186" OL vs 180 for the Escape) and the Mustang is considered a compact (due to interior size) and has a OL of 190 inches, which is roughly the same as the Bronco. 

I don't think Ford is targeting the subcompact market-more like a 40K EV that is roughly the size of the Escape...which I've been saying for ages is the sweet spot for EV adaptation'

Edited March 9 by silvrsvt

[Rick73]

I don’t have a crystal ball, nor does anyone else here for that matter, but I would bet the sweet spot dimensionally for an affordable BEV will be roughly Civic or Corolla in size but about a foot shorter due to electric packaging advantage.  That’s what is expected from Tesla for Model 2, and what other manufacturers will likely try to copy for North American market if Model 2 is successful.  Anything smaller won’t have much mass appeal, and larger will add costs making less affordable to masses.  Unfortunately, it will be a gamble because Ford and GM can’t wait for years to see if a smaller Tesla is successful.

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Compact means Escape size..the Mach E is a compact sized vehicle (186" OL vs 180 for the Escape) and the Mustang is considered a compact (due to interior size) and has a OL of 190 inches, which is roughly the same as the Bronco. 

I don't think Ford is targeting the subcompact market-more like a 40K EV that is roughly the size of the Escape...which I've been saying for ages is the sweet spot for EV adaptation'

Well, there is the European MEB based BEVs about to drop but the amount of

changes made to make them affordable, it’s easy to see why Ford started its 

own design projects. They’re having real problems getting the affordable part 

of BEV compact vehicles…..

 

 

With regards to my inaccurate initial comments, let me restate this way:

 

If Ford was to use the new GE2 platform to develop a BEV Mustang coupe along

with companion vehicles like a four door mid sized sedan and a couple of utilities

like a Boxy SUV and an Edge sized hatchback, I think they would do a lot better

selling larger looking vehicles that can more easily justify higher prices…

[DeluxeStang]

20 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

If Ford was to use the new GE2 platform to develop a BEV Mustang coupe along

with companion vehicles like a four door mid sized sedan and a couple of utilities

like a Boxy SUV and an Edge sized hatchback, I think they would do a lot better

selling larger looking vehicles that can more easily justify higher prices…

Hey now, don't try to propose logical Ford product plans with a varied lineup of desirable vehicles, that's gonna piss Ford's leadership off. 

[ice-capades]

I'll post this here as it's related to EV transition...

 

CT Lawmakers Scrap 2035 EV Transition Plan

https://www.nhregister.com/politics/article/ct-abandons-2035-target-mandating-evs-california-18709543.php

 

New Haven Register_2024-03-09_CT Lawmakers Scrap 2035 EV Transition Plan.pdf

[fuzzymoomoo]

13 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Originally, there were two plants on the one site, Wayne Assembly Plant that made Focus (& C-Max) and Michigan Truck Plant making Navigator and Expedition.

C-max didn’t come until well after Wayne closed and MTP was renamed MAP. 

[fuzzymoomoo]

13 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Today, I think the old Wayne Plant area is used for parts store and some vehicle fit out for Bronco accessories…..so there’s no real way of splitting  them back up into two plants….

Parts warehouse, the eastern half was converted to the MOD Center, and the southwest corner has some sub-assembly lines that are part of ISA and feed other ford plants.

[rmc523]

10 hours ago, Rick73 said:

I don’t have a crystal ball, nor does anyone else here for that matter, but I would bet the sweet spot dimensionally for an affordable BEV will be roughly Civic or Corolla in size but about a foot shorter due to electric packaging advantage.  That’s what is expected from Tesla for Model 2, and what other manufacturers will likely try to copy for North American market if Model 2 is successful.  Anything smaller won’t have much mass appeal, and larger will add costs making less affordable to masses.  Unfortunately, it will be a gamble because Ford and GM can’t wait for years to see if a smaller Tesla is successful.

americans don’t like small cars unless they HAVE to.   Why would you take one of the smaller sized segments on the road and cut a foot off of it just “because”?

people don’t want cars that small.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

americans don’t like small cars unless they HAVE to.   Why would you take one of the smaller sized segments on the road and cut a foot off of it just “because”?

people don’t want cars that small.

I think he meant the nose would be shorter not passenger space or cargo space.

[Rick73]

55 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

americans don’t like small cars unless they HAVE to.   Why would you take one of the smaller sized segments on the road and cut a foot off of it just “because”?

people don’t want cars that small.

Context.  Context. Context.

 

We are talking about a vehicle that is affordable to more of the masses, not necessarily one that buyers would want if they had plenty of money.  That’s a completely different subject. 

 

Obviously all Americans would prefer to fly First Class, live in mansions, etc.  No body with any common sense at all will argue that.  The real issue is similar to how cramp can airlines make coach travel and still get passengers to fly.  It’s a trade off between what people want or prefer and what they are actually willing to spend.  
 

Honda sold 200,000 Civic last year in US, and Toyota even more Corollas.  They are obviously not for everybody, but shows plenty of buyers are willing to buy them when their budget doesn’t allow them to buy more.  My opinion is that any BEV smaller than Civic or Corolla will indeed fail miserably.   And to be clear, BEVs are more space efficient than similar ICE, so my reference to being a foot shorter is so interior space remains comparable.

 

I am not the only one thinking this way when it comes to affordable BEVs.  TopSpeed wrote what I consider an excellent article on this subject listing 10 differences for Tesla Model 2 versus Model 3 in order to get price down.  The very same applies to whether it’s Ford or GM, etc.  Just substitute Ford “affordable” compact BEV for Model 2.

[GearheadGrrrl]

As long as EVs remain a niche market, North American demand for dedicated EVs alone is too small to turn a profit. That means future Ford EVs will have to be competitive in Worldwide markets where the best selling vehicles are 4 to 5 meters long. Thus the business case for Explorer and larger EVs is a weak one, and a shorter more aero front end will allow 3 row seating in a less than 5 meter "world size" EV and save a couple thousand dollars, euros, or whatever in battery costs.