Ford Aims To Beat Chinese Automakers With Small EVs Using Chinese Batteries

[Sherminator98]

https://www.autoweek.com/news/a61699950/ford-small-evs-with-chinese-batteries

 

Lots of good info plus talks about Ford Pro and how they can't make enough transits and Super Duties. 

[DeluxeStang]

It's hard to admit when you're wrong, but it's better to swallow your pride and change direction, rather than stick with a flawed product plan. While t3 definitely sounds like it has some potential, Ford's making the smart choice pivoting to smaller, more affordable EVs. If well executed, and if they can beat Tesla to market, I can genuinely see this being where Ford closes the gap to Tesla significantly. 

[akirby]

T3 is important long term because that is Ford’s wheelhouse.  But transit, super duty, Maverick, etc are more importanter right now!

[T-dubz]

I think we all have been saying this for years. I wonder why it took ford so long to realize it. 

[akirby]

2 minutes ago, T-dubz said:

I think we all have been saying this for years. I wonder why it took ford so long to realize it. 

This is why separating Ford pro and model E was so important.  It shows the company what’s more important.

[DeluxeStang]

5 hours ago, T-dubz said:

I think we all have been saying this for years. I wonder why it took ford so long to realize it. 

Look at it this way, Ford thought they were doing the right thing by developing full sized truck and suv EVs. Because that's what's worked really well for them in the world of combustion vehicles, so they assumed it would work with EVs as well. They made a mistake, but they learned from it which a lot of brands seem incapable of doing. 

[akirby]

10 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Look at it this way, Ford thought they were doing the right thing by developing full sized truck and suv EVs. Because that's what's worked really well for them in the world of combustion vehicles, so they assumed it would work with EVs as well. They made a mistake, but they learned from it which a lot of brands seem incapable of doing. 

Lightning and Mach-E are not mistakes.  The alternative was to do nothing and wait 3-4 years.  I’m sure they’ve learned a lot from them that will factor into T3 and all the other new EVs.

[rmc523]

It'll be interesting to see how the move to use Chinese batteries will go...

[DeluxeStang]

6 minutes ago, akirby said:

Lightning and Mach-E are not mistakes.  The alternative was to do nothing and wait 3-4 years.  I’m sure they’ve learned a lot from them that will factor into T3 and all the other new EVs.

The idea wasn't, but the execution of them was. The decision to engineer them in a similar fashion to how Ford engineers everything else rather than rethinking the development process led to a lot of waste. 

[rmc523]

29 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

The idea wasn't, but the execution of them was. The decision to engineer them in a similar fashion to how Ford engineers everything else rather than rethinking the development process led to a lot of waste. 

 

They wanted to get a EV pickup out first because they're the pickup leader.  You can't rethink the whole process and be first out of the gates unless you were years ahead on planning, which they weren't.

So we got the stopgap measure, which isn't bad, but isn't world beating either.

 

The alternative was doing what they've done with the 3-rows and cancel/push them back multiple times and years, endlessly waiting until they're "just right"

[akirby]

31 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

The idea wasn't, but the execution of them was. The decision to engineer them in a similar fashion to how Ford engineers everything else rather than rethinking the development process led to a lot of waste. 

Agreed, but the trade off was they were able to bring them to market much sooner.  Sales are pretty decent and buyers seem very satisfied.

[DeluxeStang]

16 minutes ago, akirby said:

Agreed, but the trade off was they were able to bring them to market much sooner.  Sales are pretty decent and buyers seem very satisfied.

Which in turn means they've had years of experience with these products on the market. Meaning they've collected a lot of feedback and data from owners and reviewers that will serve to make the next generation of EVs even better. 

 

What frustrates me is some insiders have hinted that there might not be a mach-e second generation, which would be a mistake imo. Despite the mach-e's shortcomings, it's sold fairly well for an initial EV effort. It stands to reason an even less compromised second gen mach-e would do quite well. 

 

The smartest aspect of Ford's strategy was to focus on this idea of making their EVs aspirational. That's a theme that they should strive to carry into their CE1 EVs. 

[akirby]

27 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

 

What frustrates me is some insiders have hinted that there might not be a mach-e second generation, which would be a mistake imo. Despite the mach-e's shortcomings, it's sold fairly well for an initial EV effort. It stands to reason an even less compromised second gen mach-e would do quite well. 

Maybe they’ll do a true EV Mustang coupe first.

[Sherminator98]

2 hours ago, rmc523 said:

It'll be interesting to see how the move to use Chinese batteries will go...

It is a bit of hyperbole-they are building plants in North America using CATL as a partner along with LG (at BOC), so a Chinese and South Korean company. 

[mackinaw]

2 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

The idea wasn't, but the execution of them was. The decision to engineer them in a similar fashion to how Ford engineers everything else rather than rethinking the development process led to a lot of waste. 

 

Remember that the Mach-E was first announced in 2019 which means engineering probably started in 2016/2017.  EV's were a brand new world back then and it made total sense to base an EV on an existing ICE platform.  GM did the exact same thing with the first Chevy Bolt, which was based on the Cruze ICE platform.  Live and learn as they say, which is what both Ford and GM have done.

[rmc523]

2 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Which in turn means they've had years of experience with these products on the market. Meaning they've collected a lot of feedback and data from owners and reviewers that will serve to make the next generation of EVs even better. 

 

What frustrates me is some insiders have hinted that there might not be a mach-e second generation, which would be a mistake imo. Despite the mach-e's shortcomings, it's sold fairly well for an initial EV effort. It stands to reason an even less compromised second gen mach-e would do quite well. 

 

The smartest aspect of Ford's strategy was to focus on this idea of making their EVs aspirational. That's a theme that they should strive to carry into their CE1 EVs. 

I'm sure they'll have a product there, maybe they just want to move on from Mach E branding, thus no second gen, but there'll be an adjacent product?

 

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

It is a bit of hyperbole-they are building plants in North America using CATL as a partner along with LG (at BOC), so a Chinese and South Korean company. 

 

It'll be interesting to see where they source materials from though - I forsee screws getting tightened on all things Chinese.

[7Mary3]

I have a hunch Farley will be proven wrong about margins and customer preferences regarding EV's long term.  Short term this may succeed, but Ford will have a ton of competition.  

 

Part of Ford's quality nightmare because is the best and brightest in the company are all on the unprofitable EV side. 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, 7Mary3 said:

I have a hunch Farley will be proven wrong about margins and customer preferences regarding EV's long term.  Short term this may succeed, but Ford will have a ton of competition.  

He’s exactly right.  What is the cost difference between a v8 drivetrain in a F150 and an ecoboost I4 in a Maverick?  $2k? $5k?  The difference between a small battery pack and a huge one is more like $20k to get the same range and performance.  Thats a $20k premium (or more) on top of the actual vehicle cost.  So whereas today there might be a $10k difference between a Ranger and f150, with EVs that might be $25k just for the larger size with no increase in range or performance.  

The cost will come down over time but the difference remains.  It’s an interesting dynamic.

[rmc523]

33 minutes ago, akirby said:

He’s exactly right.  What is the cost difference between a v8 drivetrain in a F150 and an ecoboost I4 in a Maverick?  $2k? $5k?  The difference between a small battery pack and a huge one is more like $20k to get the same range and performance.  Thats a $20k premium (or more) on top of the actual vehicle cost.  So whereas today there might be a $10k difference between a Ranger and f150, with EVs that might be $25k just for the larger size with no increase in range or performance.  

The cost will come down over time but the difference remains.  It’s an interesting dynamic.

 

I wonder if we'll ever see the magical solid state batteries

[Texasota]

24 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

I wonder if we'll ever see the magical solid state batteries

Yes, Quantumscape is getting very close and just signed a licensing agreement with VW's PowerCo subsidiary.

Edited July 26, 2024 by Texasota

[DeluxeStang]

5 hours ago, akirby said:

Maybe they’ll do a true EV Mustang coupe first.

Perhaps, but isn't GE2 dead in the water to a degree? At least for the mustang, it seems like the logical choice is to develop an all new scalable architecture that can underpin everything from pure ICE, to hybrid and EVs, something the current platform can't do according to insiders. 

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

He’s exactly right.  What is the cost difference between a v8 drivetrain in a F150 and an ecoboost I4 in a Maverick?  $2k? $5k?  The difference between a small battery pack and a huge one is more like $20k to get the same range and performance.  Thats a $20k premium (or more) on top of the actual vehicle cost.  So whereas today there might be a $10k difference between a Ranger and f150, with EVs that might be $25k just for the larger size with no increase in range or performance.  

The cost will come down over time but the difference remains.  It’s an interesting dynamic.

Good post.
And it’s the exact reason that Ford needs to pivot away from an over reliance on T3 mass roll out.

Not a criticism of Ford but a big discovery of the new reality of battery cost vs vehicle size/profit.

Where exactly is the sweet spot, is it compacts or perhaps a well designed mid sized?

Vehicle design and space efficiency are going to be big factors going forward

and you’re right, a whole rethink of how Ford and buyers perceive vehicles.

 

Wondering about midsize because Maverick’s interior room is pretty close to Ranger but it’s a lot lighter,

maybe that example of  C2 space efficiency will shine a light or be a eureka moment for Ford BEVs.

We should be optimistic about Ford’s success/failures, early days and still getting things right while

ICE sales are still strong and support the company. It’s not like mass BEVs are needed tomorrow…..

[7Mary3]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

He’s exactly right.  What is the cost difference between a v8 drivetrain in a F150 and an ecoboost I4 in a Maverick?  $2k? $5k?  The difference between a small battery pack and a huge one is more like $20k to get the same range and performance.  Thats a $20k premium (or more) on top of the actual vehicle cost.  So whereas today there might be a $10k difference between a Ranger and f150, with EVs that might be $25k just for the larger size with no increase in range or performance.  

The cost will come down over time but the difference remains.  It’s an interesting dynamic.

 

I think the advance of battery technology will make that disparity a short term phenomena.  As soon as the gap in price between 'small' and 'large' EV batteries narrows, consumers will opt for larger vehicles with longer range even if they are still somewhat more expensive.  As I said it may be true short-term but I don't expect it to be the norm in the future.  Battery technology is advancing to fast.    

[balthisar]

While price is a concern and people complain about the Mustang moniker, as a Mach E customer on his second Mach E (my Rally arrived this week to replace my 2021 Premium), one of the things that I appreciate most is that it's essentially an conventional car that happens to have an electric powertrain.

 

While I don't have and would never have a Tesla product, I'm very acquainted with them due to various benchmarking activities that I participate in. If "EV" means "austere," then I don't want that type of EV, despite how many idiots are suckered into Elon's reality distortion field.

 

If you try to re-imagine an EV to a "Smart" car, then I don't want it. Make it a car that I'd like anyway as an ICE, and you've got a winner.

 

I love my Mach E. It doesn't do 100% of what I want out of a car, but there's not a car in existence that does. It's why I have, for example, a trailer tow vehicle and Home Depot runner and family road trip vehicle – it supplements the Mach E.

 

 

[jpd80]

8 hours ago, mackinaw said:

 

Remember that the Mach-E was first announced in 2019 which means engineering probably started in 2016/2017.  EV's were a brand new world back then and it made total sense to base an EV on an existing ICE platform.  GM did the exact same thing with the first Chevy Bolt, which was based on the Cruze ICE platform.  Live and learn as they say, which is what both Ford and GM have done.

Mach E began as E-Max, a LWB electrified S-Max, so an extension of C1 to save costs on construction.

Ford starting with a Minivan was a mistake when Euro markets were already moving on to Utilities.

Hackett & Farley then doubled down, spent more money and turned a bland EV  int the Mach E.

Fingers crossed third time is the charm and CE1 is finally affordable and profitable compact BEVs.

 

Not saying that Mach E isn’t a great vehicle, I just think that if Ford had it’s time over again,

it would have electrified Focus and Escape as a pair of good BEVs instead of needing to go

to VW MEB which is looking like another blind alley of two expensive compact BEVs.

and it’s understandable why…..

GM chose to electrify Bolt platform after the disaster of the  Volt that shared nothing with

its compact ICE stable mates. Lutz started Volt as a BEV on a unique platform but then he

added a range extender ICE to get it past the GM board, so there went the $28k target

price and any chance of it ever turning anything but a loss. Cadillac ELR version was all

about spreading the losses over another division, a mistake to hide an even bigger one.

Edited July 27, 2024 by jpd80