Ford Discusses New Affordable EV Platform

[Rick73]

54 minutes ago, akirby said:

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

Exactly, though it can include shorter rear overhang as well.

 

To put this issue in real world perspective, the Tesla Model Y which is available with a small third row is listed as only 4 inches longer than Corolla.  It seems logical that a compact BEV without 3-row capability could be quite a bit shorter than Model Y or Corolla, yet have plenty of room for 5.

[DeluxeStang]

5 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

 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. 

It sounds like Ford is applying the shorter, areo front end and areo driven design to certain models like the three row, and it's gone down like a lead balloon in consumer clinics. The challenge is, this is gonna sound rude, but I'm just gonna say it, consumers are stupid, especially in America. They say they won't buy EVs unless they're cheap. 

 

As you, and many others have pointed out, one of the best ways to make cheap EVs is to have smaller, inexpensive battery packs. But then you have to have a radical design to make that smaller battery capable of providing a longer ranger. A radical design which then acts as a turn off to the very people you were trying to appeal to who don't want to drive something that looks "Like a science project". 

 

Everyone wants cheap EVs, yet won't accept low range, but also won't accept odd looking designs that cut through the air as efficiently as possible. In other words, many consumers aren't willing to accept reality or compromise. As is so often the case, the American consumer and their irrational desires stand in the way of progress. 

[silvrsvt]

43 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Everyone wants cheap EVs, yet won't accept low range, but also won't accept odd looking designs that cut through the air as efficiently as possible. In other words, many consumers aren't willing to accept reality or compromise. As is so often the case, the American consumer and their irrational desires stand in the way of progress. 

 

Customers are ridiculous-I've seen things where people want 500 mile range EVs, when the vast majority of ICE cars only go 300-400 miles per tank. 

 

The other issue is that demographically the car buying public is getting older and well from my almost 30 years working in IT, the vast majority of people abhor any sort of change (which there is a lot of change in the IT world just for the sake of change also) and I think we are seeing that with EVs, then add in the way social media is and people having almost no BS detector (because it far easier just to believe in something that meets your belief system), we have a cauldron of misinformation/bad information on EVs. 

[Captainp4]

18 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.  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 don't remember if they covered it during the reveal, but if they're taking reservations that might help prop them up a little longer. I also imagine Bezos or Amazon would infuse with some cash. Worst case someone else buys them out. Seems like they're really close to turning the corner, but who knows with an automotive startup.

And yeah, even with all the hype around Tesla's 4680s it seems like Rivian makes better use of their battery packs - I'm not deepy versed in the technical details, just an observation.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, Captainp4 said:

I don't remember if they covered it during the reveal, but if they're taking reservations that might help prop them up a little longer. I also imagine Bezos or Amazon would infuse with some cash. Worst case someone else buys them out. Seems like they're really close to turning the corner, but who knows with an automotive startup.

And yeah, even with all the hype around Tesla's 4680s it seems like Rivian makes better use of their battery packs - I'm not deepy versed in the technical details, just an observation.

Yeah, apparently 68,000 reservations in less than 24 hours.  Not sure how much that actually means given how little money is required to reserve one.

 

Battery cell size is not so much hype in my opinion as improved packaging, allowing more energy capacity in less footprint; albeit making battery pack under floor a bit thicker (taller).  In case you don’t know, each cylindrical cell is 46 mm in diameter and in case of 4680, then 80 mm in length.  The 4695 is 95 mm in length, and there appears to be a 46120 also which is 120 mm in length.  Going from 80 to 120 adds around 1.57 inches in height, but should increase energy by over 50% for same square feet of battery pack.  It seems longer battery cells will likely be used in taller vehicles.  Below from Rivian presentation.

 

 

[jpd80]

5 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Customers are ridiculous-I've seen things where people want 500 mile range EVs, when the vast majority of ICE cars only go 300-400 miles per tank. 

 

The other issue is that demographically the car buying public is getting older and well from my almost 30 years working in IT, the vast majority of people abhor any sort of change (which there is a lot of change in the IT world just for the sake of change also) and I think we are seeing that with EVs, then add in the way social media is and people having almost no BS detector (because it far easier just to believe in something that meets your belief system), we have a cauldron of misinformation/bad information on EVs. 

Absolutely, it never occurs to some of thes geniuses that older people only want the basics without all the bells and whistles. I’m pretty sure that most older folks would find modern vehicles with a giant tablet center screen a bit daunting, hence a return to some buttons and dials below the screen…but I do like the simplicity of things like Apple CarPlay and modern navigation systems. I think those are the way in for enlightenment.

 

And you’re right, a lot of people think they know what they want but find it way easier to to tell us what they do and don’t like once there’s an actual vehicle in front of them.

 

I like the light weighting that was done to F Series trucks, the alloy bodies brought down weight enough to have a significant improvement in fuel economy and this Ranger. So I wonder if that’s an option while BEVs are stuck with larger heavier batteries, maybe extracting weight with aluminium bodies would be enough to get better range and meet efficiency targets?

Edited March 9 by jpd80

[jpd80]

3 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Yeah, apparently 68,000 reservations in less than 24 hours.  Not sure how much that actually means given how little money is required to reserve one.

 

Battery cell size is not so much hype in my opinion as improved packaging, allowing more energy capacity in less footprint; albeit making battery pack under floor a bit thicker (taller).  In case you don’t know, each cylindrical cell is 46 mm in diameter and in case of 4680, then 80 mm in length.  The 4695 is 95 mm in length, and there appears to be a 46120 also which is 120 mm in length.  Going from 80 to 120 adds around 1.57 inches in height, but should increase energy by over 50% for same square feet of battery pack.  It seems longer battery cells will likely be used in taller vehicles.  Below from Rivian presentation.

 

 

And ther lies the paradox, improving internal packaging by moving the wheels out to the corners of the vehicle and the front and rear become more bulbous, not that aero dart shape you crave for efficiency. 
 

In smaller vehicles, everything is a compromise and sometimes Form wins over function but mostly the truth is that people like different things and that’s the stylists biggest nightmare.

[DeluxeStang]

5 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Customers are ridiculous-I've seen things where people want 500 mile range EVs, when the vast majority of ICE cars only go 300-400 miles per tank. 

 

The other issue is that demographically the car buying public is getting older and well from my almost 30 years working in IT, the vast majority of people abhor any sort of change (which there is a lot of change in the IT world just for the sake of change also) and I think we are seeing that with EVs, then add in the way social media is and people having almost no BS detector (because it far easier just to believe in something that meets your belief system), we have a cauldron of misinformation/bad information on EVs. 

They keep moving the goal post as well. I remembered when a lot of people a few years ago claimed them wanted EVs to have 300 miles of range or so before they committed to a purchase. Many of those people are now saying 600,700,800 miles of range and it's ridiculous.

[Trader 10]

5 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Customers are ridiculous-I've seen things where people want 500 mile range EVs, when the vast majority of ICE cars only go 300-400 miles per tank. 

 

The other issue is that demographically the car buying public is getting older and well from my almost 30 years working in IT, the vast majority of people abhor any sort of change (which there is a lot of change in the IT world just for the sake of change also) and I think we are seeing that with EVs, then add in the way social media is and people having almost no BS detector (because it far easier just to believe in something that meets your belief system), we have a cauldron of misinformation/bad information on EVs. 

500 mile range is a requirement before I buy an EV. From what I’ve seen, batteries shouldn’t regularly be charged beyond 80% which takes range down to 400 miles and that’s with perfect conditions. Cold weather probably takes range down to around 300. Also, have you noticed how fast traffic moves on rural interstates? Speeds are 75 mph and higher which will quickly sap range. Even with higher ranges you still have the issue of slow charging compared to filling a gas tank in 5 minutes or less. 

[rmc523]

7 hours ago, akirby said:

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

sure.  But you’re already talking about some of the smallest cars on the road?  At that size, id rather have a larger second trunk/frunk than lob another foot off just “because”

[jpd80]

13 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

sure.  But you’re already talking about some of the smallest cars on the road?  At that size, id rather have a larger second trunk/frunk than lob another foot off just “because”

Correct, every decision to shorten a vehicles length impacts another feature or design function.

 

Remove the front overhang normally reserved for a FWD ICE and the vehicle loses the frunk, it’s also harder to get that  aero efficient dart shaped front but more importantly, the crash protection cell becomes much shorter…

 

Equally, bobbing the trunk area disappoints buyer luggage room but also puts the rear seats closer to the back end, those folks could be seriously injured in a rear end crash…..

Edited March 9 by jpd80

[DeluxeStang]

35 minutes ago, Trader 10 said:

500 mile range is a requirement before I buy an EV. From what I’ve seen, batteries shouldn’t regularly be charged beyond 80% which takes range down to 400 miles and that’s with perfect conditions. Cold weather probably takes range down to around 300. Also, have you noticed how fast traffic moves on rural interstates? Speeds are 75 mph and higher which will quickly sap range. Even with higher ranges you still have the issue of slow charging compared to filling a gas tank in 5 minutes or less. 

You can't "top off" an EV in five minutes. But you can't refuel a gas powered car while at work, a store, movie theater or restaurant but you can recharge an EV while going about your day. So there are trade offs. 

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

 Form wins over function but mostly the truth is that people like different things and that’s the stylists biggest nightmare.

A thousand times this. I find it odd that consumers always complain about cars looking too similar, and the second someone dares to be different, people call it ugly, discouraging brands from being bold in the future. 

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

You can't "top off" an EV in five minutes. But you can't refuel a gas powered car while at work, a store, movie theater or restaurant but you can recharge an EV while going about your day. So there are trade offs. 

Correct, it’s about managing charging while at home /work places.

 

The issue is security at night, some recharge facilities put drivers (women) in potentially dangerous positions if they get stuck with a flat BEV, they can’t just quickly unplug and drive off like you can with a gasoline vehicle refuelling.

 

2 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

A thousand times this. I find it odd that consumers always complain about cars looking too similar, and the second someone dares to be different, people call it ugly, discouraging brands from being bold in the future. 

And that’s why auto companies have clinics to confirm that their vehicle styling is still in that corridor of acceptability.  Small changes in detail can have big affect or influence on buyer perceptions, it doesn’t have to be miles wrong to disappoint folks, that’s why most designs are lowest common denominator “bland” vanilla…..the ones that really pop like Maverick must be like a Eureka moment to designers….who normally thinks that way to turn a van into a squared off pickup, simply brilliant and quick decision.

 

I sometimes wonder if too many inputs into designing a vehicle and what could be a powerful styling message gets watered down….

Edited March 10 by jpd80
Typos

[silvrsvt]

4 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

A thousand times this. I find it odd that consumers always complain about cars looking too similar, and the second someone dares to be different, people call it ugly, discouraging brands from being bold in the future. 

 

What it boils down to is there is only so much you can do with a two box shape and well the vast majority of people can't delineate what they actually like or don't like about car styling. 

[silvrsvt]

4 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

500 mile range is a requirement before I buy an EV. From what I’ve seen, batteries shouldn’t regularly be charged beyond 80% which takes range down to 400 miles and that’s with perfect conditions. Cold weather probably takes range down to around 300. Also, have you noticed how fast traffic moves on rural interstates? Speeds are 75 mph and higher which will quickly sap range. Even with higher ranges you still have the issue of slow charging compared to filling a gas tank in 5 minutes or less. 

 

Outside of what others have said, do you really have a daily need for 400-500 miles, or it just a nice to have? The vast majority of people drive less than 40 miles in a day. 

 

What your bringing up is expecting an EV to act exactly like a gas car, when that isn't the case. I get the argument both ways, but sometimes all it takes is an lifestyle adjustment to make it work and its not that big of a deal 95% of the time. 

[silvrsvt]

5 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Absolutely, it never occurs to some of thes geniuses that older people only want the basics without all the bells and whistles. I’m pretty sure that most older folks would find modern vehicles with a giant tablet center screen a bit daunting, hence a return to some buttons and dials below the screen…but I do like the simplicity of things like Apple CarPlay and modern navigation systems. I think those are the way in for enlightenment.

 

Well here is the thing, I'm getting into that old group-I'll be 50 at the end of the year and I don't mind it. LOL

 

 

5 hours ago, jpd80 said:

And ther lies the paradox, improving internal packaging by moving the wheels out to the corners of the vehicle and the front and rear become more bulbous, not that aero dart shape you crave for efficiency. 
 

In smaller vehicles, everything is a compromise and sometimes Form wins over function but mostly the truth is that people like different things and that’s the stylists biggest nightmare.

 

I know @Rick73 is all about efficiency, but hear is the rub with smaller vehicles-you run into issue with Aerodynamics because of their size vs people's expectations in a vehicle.  Look at most B class cars-they are very short and very tall, which impacts frontal area of the vehicle and impacts drag significantly. If you make a much more aerodynamic vehicle that is small, your going to turn off people because of the styling or lack of usability (ie not being a 2 box shape), nor will most people buy a cheaper car because it gets better range because its smaller/more aerodynamic. That us why I feel that its a bit of a fools errand to be completely hung up on "efficiency for efficiency sake" because people won't buy it anyways-there has to be some meeting in the middle of both to make EVs successful. 

 

[jpd80]

5 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Well here is the thing, I'm getting into that old group-I'll be 50 at the end of the year and I don't mind it. LOL

Don’t take this the wrong way but you’re still in your prime

I remember laughing at my folks struggling to set the clock on their VCR

but now I’m older than they were in the 1980s….

 

5 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

 

 

I know @Rick73 is all about efficiency, but hear is the rub with smaller vehicles-you run into issue with Aerodynamics because of their size vs people's expectations in a vehicle.  Look at most B class cars-they are very short and very tall, which impacts frontal area of the vehicle and impacts drag significantly. If you make a much more aerodynamic vehicle that is small, your going to turn off people because of the styling or lack of usability (ie not being a 2 box shape), nor will most people buy a cheaper car because it gets better range because its smaller/more aerodynamic. That us why I feel that its a bit of a fools errand to be completely hung up on "efficiency for efficiency sake" because people won't buy it anyways-there has to be some meeting in the middle of both to make EVs successful. 

 

Yes, thank you, I’ve explain as much to him previously but well said….

Edited March 10 by jpd80

[CurtisH]

7 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Outside of what others have said, do you really have a daily need for 400-500 miles, or it just a nice to have? The vast majority of people drive less than 40 miles in a day. 

 

What you’re bringing up is expecting an EV to act exactly like a gas car, when that isn't the case. I get the argument both ways, but sometimes all it takes is a lifestyle adjustment to make it work and it’s not that big of a deal 95% of the time. 

Why would I want to pay more for a vehicle that I have to adapt to?  Charging time and initial cost will eventually be resolved.  Until then, I (and a lot of other people) aren’t interested in a BEV.  

[silvrsvt]

51 minutes ago, CurtisH said:

Why would I want to pay more for a vehicle that I have to adapt to?  Charging time and initial cost will eventually be resolved.  Until then, I (and a lot of other people) aren’t interested in a BEV.  

 

So one of those adoptions is that you don't ever need (well not nearly as much) to go to a gas station again if you have your own home and can charge there. That is a huge improvement (IMO) having to worry about stopping for gas before or after work. 

 

[Rick73]

16 hours ago, jpd80 said:

And ther lies the paradox, improving internal packaging by moving the wheels out to the corners of the vehicle and the front and rear become more bulbous, not that aero dart shape you crave for efficiency. 
 

In smaller vehicles, everything is a compromise and sometimes Form wins over function but mostly the truth is that people like different things and that’s the stylists biggest nightmare.

You may be right, though I tend to trust talented designers and engineers will find a way to achieve aero efficiency without making vehicles appear ugly or goofy.  Granted, as you say, that varies by individual tastes.

 

In case of a smaller BEV approximately the size of a Civic or Corolla, but with slightly shorter front and rear overhangs typical of electric vehicles, we can compare pictures of Civic, Corolla and Tesla Model 3 from the side, and see proportions between axles (within wheelbase) are not all that different.  There’s no physical reason a smaller BEV cannot be designed more efficient than a Tesla Model 3 or Y; especially given smaller size and lower mass/weight.

 

And for reference, Lucid, Mercedes, and Tesla S are much better than Models 3 and Y, so there is actual evidence that even lower drag can be accomplished, not that I limit efficiency to aerodynamics.  Results is what matters because it drives costs down.  Greater MPGe or miles per kWh will likely result in lower-cost car, everything else being similar.

 

Again, I’m not saying everyone will go out and buy a Civic/Corolla sized BEV, just that if Ford wants to design an “affordable” sub $30k BEV with adequate range and performance, it can be done by making tough choices.  Or they can build a sub $30k inefficient SUV with so little range that very few will buy it.  Chevy Bolt came close to sub $30k, but who knows how much money GM loses on Bolt sales, not to mention government subsidies won’t be around indefinitely.  Eventually BEVs need to be profitable on their own.

[Rick73]

15 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

500 mile range is a requirement before I buy an EV. From what I’ve seen, batteries shouldn’t regularly be charged beyond 80% which takes range down to 400 miles and that’s with perfect conditions. Cold weather probably takes range down to around 300. Also, have you noticed how fast traffic moves on rural interstates? Speeds are 75 mph and higher which will quickly sap range. Even with higher ranges you still have the issue of slow charging compared to filling a gas tank in 5 minutes or less. 

You make a very valid point, though I personally think targeting 500 miles of maximum range seems a bit much unless driver will be doing a lot of long-distance driving.  

 

The Devil is in the details, and using new traditionally-shaped Honda Prologue SUV as an example (want to avoid using Ford to prevent conflict), range based on EPA City cycle, and also “Combined”, are not too bad (about 300 miles) but the Highway rating is considerably lower.  At steady interstate speeds it’s probably even lower than that.  Using Highway MPGe and its 85 kWh battery, we can estimate a Highway range of 210~230 miles based on 100% battery capacity.  However, limiting battery usage between 80 and 10 % means charging every 2 hours, and in Prologue’s case, will require a 30-minute stop.  Personally, I couldn’t deal with 30-minute stops every two hours of driving.  So yeah, I agree 300 miles of perfect-condition range is great around town, but for long trips in poor weather, fighting headwinds, etc. all of a sudden it’s not so great.  And this is reality for a vehicle that cost $50k or more.

[Rick73]

4 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Yes, thank you, I’ve explain as much to him previously but well said….

My first Mustang got 15 MPG, and today there are various cars which are larger, more comfortable, safer, cleaner, and also much faster that can do 50 MPG.  That’s the result of relentless pursuit of efficiency in every aspect of design and engineering.  Similarly, improved efficiency has allowed Tesla to increase Model S range from about 270 to just over 400 miles over a period of about 10 years.

 

Arguing against efficiency is arguing in favor of inefficiency, which makes no sense to me at all; but if you guys want to, by all means have fun with it.

 

 

By the way, you don’t need to “explain” it to me.  I understand exactly what you stated, but agreeing is a different matter. 😆 

[ice-capades]

12 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

My first Mustang got 15 MPG, and today there are various cars which are larger, more comfortable, safer, cleaner, and also much faster that can do 50 MPG.  That’s the result of relentless pursuit of efficiency in every aspect of design and engineering.  Similarly, improved efficiency has allowed Tesla to increase Model S range from about 270 to just over 400 miles over a period of about 10 years.

 

Arguing against efficiency is arguing in favor of inefficiency, which makes no sense to me at all; but if you guys want to, by all means have fun with it.

 

 

By the way, you don’t need to “explain” it to me.  I understand exactly what you stated, but agreeing is a different matter. 😆 

 

Do you think that we're not understanding or getting the point of your constantly repeated posts about efficiency? We get it and enough already! Repeating the same "efficiency" message doesn't make it any more important or contribute anything further.  

[CurtisH]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

So one of those adoptions is that you don't ever need (well not nearly as much) to go to a gas station again if you have your own home and can charge there. That is a huge improvement (IMO) having to worry about stopping for gas before or after work. 

 

We usually drive my wife’s Corsair.  I put 370-390 miles on a tank of gas.  That means I fill up about twice a month, which is a minor inconvenience.  
 

When I am by myself, I take my Mustang.  I put 290-310 miles on a tank, so I fill it up twice a month.

 

However, I can take either car on a trip and not worry about where to refuel or how long it will take.  That convenience is worth the quick trips to the gas station for our routine driving.  
 

Final note:  I like EV’s.  The adoptions required are more than I want to make right now.  Our next car purchase is probably another 6-8 years away.  I suspect it will be an EV.  They should have resolved my concerns by then.