Focus and fiesta may return as affordable evs

[Harley Lover]

5 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Now is the time for Ford to rethink everything they're doing, and to explore different ideas that Ford wouldn't have entertained in the past. 

 

Are you paying attention to what Farley claims is happening with the skunkworks EV team in California? This is exactly what he's said they're doing. Why post as though it's not happening?

[akirby]

You make up for the slow speed with more lasers and more units.  The one at czinger has 12 lasers and you could probably fit dozens in the same space as equivalent stamping machines.  So let’s say it can make 12 different parts in 8 hours.  With enough machines you can meet high volumes so then it becomes a cost issue.  As for reliability we’ll see but czinger is 3d printing their 7 speed dual clutch trans handling 1300 hp and I’m sure they’ve done a lot of reliability testing already.
 

They won’t build the whole vehicle this way.  May only be a few parts to start but this technology will be used in vehicle manufacturing.  Czinger is already partnering with Mercedes and Aston Martin and other unnamed OEMs (maybe Ford?) so this technology isn’t just for limited run supercars.   The benefits are too great to ignore.

[Flying68]

11 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

I'm not arguing-just that I've been around tech long enough that often the next big thing is oversold and about 5-10 years before it actually work effectively or makes money. We have metal 3D printers at work to make parts that manufactures that have long gone out business don't make any more and it works for that, but nor are these parts cleared for flight operations or for a direct swap out in mission critical roles. 

 

I just have my doubts that additive manufacturing will make sense for Ford to do on a product that will hopefully sell 250K+ units a year vs some company that is maybe making a handful of super cars every year. 

The biggest advantage with additive manufacturing technology is the ability to make complex shapes that can't be done efficiently or accurately enough with conventional manufacturing techniques (stamping, casting, machining).  Aerospace is making flight worthy parts now using additive manufacturing, but again, it is limited to application where traditional methods can't be used due to cost or ability.

 

44 minutes ago, akirby said:

You make up for the slow speed with more lasers and more units.  The one at czinger has 12 lasers and you could probably fit dozens in the same space as equivalent stamping machines.  So let’s say it can make 12 different parts in 8 hours.  With enough machines you can meet high volumes so then it becomes a cost issue.  As for reliability we’ll see but czinger is 3d printing their 7 speed dual clutch trans handling 1300 hp and I’m sure they’ve done a lot of reliability testing already.
 

They won’t build the whole vehicle this way.  May only be a few parts to start but this technology will be used in vehicle manufacturing.  Czinger is already partnering with Mercedes and Aston Martin and other unnamed OEMs (maybe Ford?) so this technology isn’t just for limited run supercars.   The benefits are too great to ignore.

Laser sintering is a cool technology, but the cost structure just isn't there yet for mass production.  It is great for very limited production because it doesn't require one-off tooling.  Until cost per unit comes way down, laser sintering will be limited to small batches of specialized parts.  The capability to print almost anything is there, but it doesn't mean it is "production" ready.  If your main job is prototyping parts for others, it is the perfect tool.  If you are trying to build 1000 units a year, you are better off figuring out how to manufacture it with conventional processes.

[DeluxeStang]

3 hours ago, Harley Lover said:

 

Are you paying attention to what Farley claims is happening with the skunkworks EV team in California? This is exactly what he's said they're doing. Why post as though it's not happening?

Because people familiar with the project are implying Ford is slipping back into their old habits. Jpd knows more than most of us about the program, and seems to be implying he doesn't believe Ford will meet their goal of a 25-30 grand EV. 

Edited August 8 by DeluxeStang

[rmc523]

1 minute ago, DeluxeStang said:

Because people familiar with the project are implying Ford is slipping back into their old habits. Jmd knows more than most of us about the program, and seems to be implying he doesn't believe Ford will meet their goal of a 25-30 grand EV. 

 

I think that's more based on reality and history....

 

What originally was 25-30 has been said to be "closer to 30" by Farley himself.

 

And like we've seen with Maverick, it'll likely launch with that $29,900 price to be "under $30k!", and then the next model year they'll drop that low model and/or bump its price up to $32k+

[Rick73]

On 8/6/2024 at 11:59 PM, tbone said:

Probably not the best place to slap this European explorer EV test, but I thought it was somewhat relevant to this conversation due to its size being similar to the Focus.   This is the first test I had read about this EV and it seems like a decent product, however it’s not particularly upscale, its is a compact vehicle, and it’s about $30,000 too expensive.  Trimming $30,000 from this size of vehicle must be massively challenging.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmorris/2024/07/28/test-driving-the-ford-explorer-an-affordable-electric-ford-at-last/

 

 

 

 

That review addresses the question of why the proper form factor is so important to designing an affordable BEV that will have enough range for buyers to buy in mass.  That reporter got 3.3 miles per kWh, and another in a video got 3.1 miles per kWh while driving sensibly due to strict speed limits.

 

A lower cost RWD Explorer with 55 kWh battery (52 useable) is on way, but European EV Database has already estimated real-world range at 300 km; well below 200 miles with a battery at 100%.  Obviously even with smaller battery, vehicle cost won’t drop close to $30k.

 

Someone else mentioned that the new affordable Ford BEV needs to be around 250 miles of range with 50 kWh (5 miles kWh), and while very doable, it can’t have the form factor similar to Explorer or Bronco Sport.  That’s asking too much of present-day technology.

 

To achieve 5 miles per kWh today requires a compact, light, and aerodynamic car.  Chinese have various models, though their powertrain efficiencies seem a little low to me by comparison.  Mercedes on the other hand announced an EV version of CLA will be introduced that is very sleek and about size of Honda Civic or Tesla Model 3.  No doubt it will be luxury and expensive, but that type of fastback sedan form factor is what is required to achieve affordability while preserving enough range to make vehicle desirable at all, even if for modest percentage of buyers.

[silvrsvt]

46 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Someone else mentioned that the new affordable Ford BEV needs to be around 250 miles of range with 50 kWh (5 miles kWh), and while very doable, it can’t have the form factor similar to Explorer or Bronco Sport.  That’s asking too much of present-day technology.

 

To achieve 5 miles per kWh today requires a compact, light, and aerodynamic car.  Chinese have various models, though their powertrain efficiencies seem a little low to me by comparison.  Mercedes on the other hand announced an EV version of CLA will be introduced that is very sleek and about size of Honda Civic or Tesla Model 3.  No doubt it will be luxury and expensive, but that type of fastback sedan form factor is what is required to achieve affordability while preserving enough range to make vehicle desirable at all, even if for modest percentage of buyers.

 

It all depends on what people are willing to buy. Improved aerodynamics doesn't really impact range till your going over 50 MPH, so if your just commuting locally, a larger frontal area wouldn't make as much impact.

 

The other thing is battery improvements-a cheaper LFP battery would make say making a 75 kWh battery as cheap as a 50 kWh with only a hundred or two hundred pound increase would also factor into range/pricing.

 

If Ford goes whole hog into making the CE1 the most efficient EV ever made, it won't sell anything because the shape or size would be off-putting for most buyers. Its going to have certain trade offs-a 200-250 mile range is much more palatable if you can charge it up to 80% in 10-15 minutes at a fast charger, for example. 

Edited August 8 by silvrsvt

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

It all depends on what people are willing to buy. Improved aerodynamics doesn't really impact range till your going over 50 MPH, so if your just commuting locally, a larger frontal area wouldn't make as much impact.

 

The other thing is battery improvements-a cheaper LFP battery would make say making a 75 kWh battery as cheap as a 50 kWh with only a hundred or two hundred pound increase would also factor into range/pricing.

 

If Ford goes whole hog into making the CE1 the most efficient EV ever made, it won't sell anything because the shape or size would be off-putting for most buyers. Its going to have certain trade offs-a 200-250 mile range is much more palatable if you can charge it up to 80% in 10-15 minutes at a fast charger, for example. 

Perfectly stated, that's the issue, the hell of product design at times. That by giving people exactly what they want on paper, in execution, it's seen as too different and too off-putting to be appealing. The Ford three row is a perfect example of this, apparently very areo efficient, but stunningly odd looking according to people how saw it. 

 

If the first CE1 EVs are maverick and bronco, that's kinda a bad choice imo. It sounds good on paper, two highly desirable products transformed into highly desirable EVs, what could go wrong right? Except a major part of what buyers like about both those products is their chunky, squared off and conventional looking designs. Which, as you stated, is detrimental to areo. 

 

You leave them like that, the range will be pretty abysmal with a smaller battery. You slap some dodge Daytona style nose cone on them, and it's gonna look like ass and people are gonna hate it. I'm a maverick owner, I've spoken with quite a few maverick owners, they like now it looks like a handsome, but conventional truck. Some radical looking science project isn't gonna fly with them. 

[Harley Lover]

3 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Because people familiar with the project are implying Ford is slipping back into their old habits. 

 

Citation?

[akirby]

Just now, Harley Lover said:

 

Citation?

He’s talking about jpd80 but I don’t think that’s what he said.  

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

It all depends on what people are willing to buy. Improved aerodynamics doesn't really impact range till your going over 50 MPH, so if your just commuting locally, a larger frontal area wouldn't make as much impact.

 

The other thing is battery improvements-a cheaper LFP battery would make say making a 75 kWh battery as cheap as a 50 kWh with only a hundred or two hundred pound increase would also factor into range/pricing.

 

If Ford goes whole hog into making the CE1 the most efficient EV ever made, it won't sell anything because the shape or size would be off-putting for most buyers. Its going to have certain trade offs-a 200-250 mile range is much more palatable if you can charge it up to 80% in 10-15 minutes at a fast charger, for example. 

Frankly, I say pull some inspiration from the Ford gt, it's awesome looking, expensive looking and futuristic, but also designed to be very areo efficient. Obviously you can't use things like the flying buttress, but who's to say you can't use something like the nose shape on the gt as inspiration for some small crossover or hatchback. 

 

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

It all depends on what people are willing to buy. Improved aerodynamics doesn't really impact range till your going over 50 MPH, so if your just commuting locally, a larger frontal area wouldn't make as much impact.

 

The other thing is battery improvements-a cheaper LFP battery would make say making a 75 kWh battery as cheap as a 50 kWh with only a hundred or two hundred pound increase would also factor into range/pricing.

 

If Ford goes whole hog into making the CE1 the most efficient EV ever made, it won't sell anything because the shape or size would be off-putting for most buyers. Its going to have certain trade offs-a 200-250 mile range is much more palatable if you can charge it up to 80% in 10-15 minutes at a fast charger, for example. 

It's why for my own portfolio, I didn't start with this idea of taking an SUV, or truck, and trying to make it sleeker. I instead decided to take inspiration from supercars, a shape that's sexy, but very areo efficient, and basically built off that. Saying how do I take this exotic shape, and stretch the cabin to give you more interior space? How do I raise the ride height, keeping a good stance while also making it a lot easier to get in and out of? That sort of thing. 

 

Ford should start at the other end. Instead of taking a shape that isn't areo focused, and killing themselves making it look terrible trying to reach areo targets, why not start with a loved areo design, and ask yourself how to make it more practical? Like Jag's I-pace, a cab forward crossover that took more inspiration from Jags supercars than it did other utilities. 

Edited August 8 by DeluxeStang

[rmc523]

16 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Frankly, I say pull some inspiration from the Ford gt, it's awesome looking, expensive looking and futuristic, but also designed to be very areo efficient. Obviously you can't use things like the flying buttress, but who's to say you can't use something like the nose shape on the gt as inspiration for some small crossover or hatchback. 

 

It's why for my own portfolio, I didn't start with this idea of taking an SUV, or truck, and trying to make it sleeker. I instead decided to take inspiration from supercars, a shape that's sexy, but very areo efficient, and basically built off that. Saying how do I take this exotic shape, and stretch the cabin to give you more interior space? How do I raise the ride height, keeping a good stance while also making it a lot easier to get in and out of? That sort of thing. 

 

Ford should start at the other end. Instead of taking a shape that isn't areo focused, and killing themselves making it look terrible trying to reach areo targets, why not start with a loved areo design, and ask yourself how to make it more practical? Like Jag's I-pace, a cab forward crossover that took more inspiration from Jags supercars than it did other utilities. 

 

Eh, I found the i-Pace to be ugly lol.  Though I know it has its fans.

[DeluxeStang]

Just now, rmc523 said:

 

Eh, I found the i-Pace to be ugly lol.  Though I know it has its fans.

It's an acquired taste for sure 😆. But it was definitely unique, and more visually appealing than the hot potato styling on many other high end EVs imo. You're never gonna win everyone over with areo design, because by it's very nature, it's weird, it's unconventional, and a lot of people just don't like that sort of thing, no judgement there, completely understandable. 

 

Perhaps Ford could also lean into 80s retro styling. Something cyberpunk style wedge would be efficient, and could really appeal to a large audience with this boom of 80s/90s nostalgia going around. 

[rmc523]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

It's an acquired taste for sure 😆. But it was definitely unique, and more visually appealing than the hot potato styling on many other high end EVs imo. You're never gonna win everyone over with areo design, because by it's very nature, it's weird, it's unconventional, and a lot of people just don't like that sort of thing, no judgement there, completely understandable. 

 

Perhaps Ford could also lean into 80s retro styling. Something cyberpunk style wedge would be efficient, and could really appeal to a large audience with this boom of 80s/90s nostalgia going around. 

 

Eh, Hyundai is going that route.

[jpd80]

7 hours ago, akirby said:

He’s talking about jpd80 but I don’t think that’s what he said.  

I  just have reservations about the price of finished vehicles, not the processes that Ford is using to get there, bringing in new blood from outside as in ex Tesla staff is exactly the right move. What I can never determine is whether Ford is developing vehicles for today’s market or is it trying to leapfrog the BEV manufacturers with different approach, compact vehicles that competitors are not even looking at……also what’s needed for European markets to replace MEBs.

Edited August 9 by jpd80

[tbone]

I just can’t believe there cannot be an attractive aerodynamically efficient vehicle. I also believe that people don’t have a problem buying EVs in sedan form factor as long as they’re attractive, which is what’s going to be necessary to achieve those kind of numbers.

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, tbone said:

I just can’t believe there cannot be an attractive aerodynamically efficient vehicle. I also believe that people don’t have a problem buying EVs in sedan form factor as long as they’re attractive, which is what’s going to be necessary to achieve those kind of numbers.

Depends on what the consumer wants at the end of the day. I will say when Fords own CEO is having "If we make a new sedan" discussions, and Ford of Europe is saying there's definitely room for more car models in their EV lineup, I think it's possible. It seems like Ford has softened on their car stance in recent years, they use to shut discussions on any future car models down so fast. 

 

But with Farley saying if Ford can improve their quality and make profitable EVs that a sedan could happen, that's promising. Something with styling from the gen 1 Tarus could be an interesting throwback. 

[AM222]

Here's something interesting... 

Ford Sales Are Tanking in Europe. And It's Clear Why
People still want cars. Too bad Ford is killing all of them.
-Ford Sales Are Tanking in Europe. And It's Clear Why (motor1.com)

"Overall, the segment increased by 5.7 percent to 956,865 superminis. That's an extra 51,392 cars compared to H1 2023, despite the Fiesta's cancellation. With Ford's small hatchback gone from the lineup, customers decided to buy something else, and then some."

Ford's rush to electrification in Europe was clearly wrong and Ford has to deal with the consequences. It killed its ICE Fiesta which belongs to a hot segment. No ICE Fiesta and no EV Fiesta. No affordable Ford.  

Unlike the USA and Canada, subcompact (B-segment) cars/CUVs and compact (C-segment) cars/CUVs are important segments for Rest-of-the-world markets.

[akirby]

29 minutes ago, AM222 said:

Here's something interesting... 

Ford Sales Are Tanking in Europe. And It's Clear Why
People still want cars. Too bad Ford is killing all of them.
-Ford Sales Are Tanking in Europe. And It's Clear Why (motor1.com)

"Overall, the segment increased by 5.7 percent to 956,865 superminis. That's an extra 51,392 cars compared to H1 2023, despite the Fiesta's cancellation. With Ford's small hatchback gone from the lineup, customers decided to buy something else, and then some."

Ford's rush to electrification in Europe was clearly wrong and Ford has to deal with the consequences. It killed its ICE Fiesta which belongs to a hot segment. No ICE Fiesta and no EV Fiesta. No affordable Ford.  

Unlike the USA and Canada, subcompact (B-segment) cars/CUVs and compact (C-segment) cars/CUVs are important segments for Rest-of-the-world markets.

Does no good to sell small cars if you can’t make a profit.  Hopefully they can get their costs under control and reenter the market.

[AM222]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Does no good to sell small cars if you can’t make a profit.  Hopefully they can get their costs under control and reenter the market.

This whole "can't make a profit from small cars" philosophy probably only applies to the USA. It clearly works for the rest of the world and it clearly works for Ford's rivals. 

Ford really needs to make a profit from vehicles like the Expedition and F-series because they only sell in high numbers in the USA and Canada. The few global markets that get them, they're treated as low volume niche luxury vehicles.

Edited August 9 by AM222

[tbone]

It’s clear that Ford has made some very strategic blunders as of late. I would love to be a fly on the wall to hear some of the conversations that are occurring in the boardrooms. I hope they’re treating it as an emergency situation because I really believe it is. It’s evident they don’t have the right products for each of their respective markets with the exception of their obvious profit makers. I personally don’t think they have a lot of time to resolve this before things could get ugly.  

[silvrsvt]

19 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Perfectly stated, that's the issue, the hell of product design at times. That by giving people exactly what they want on paper, in execution, it's seen as too different and too off-putting to be appealing. The Ford three row is a perfect example of this, apparently very areo efficient, but stunningly odd looking according to people how saw it. 

 

If the first CE1 EVs are maverick and bronco, that's kinda a bad choice imo. It sounds good on paper, two highly desirable products transformed into highly desirable EVs, what could go wrong right? Except a major part of what buyers like about both those products is their chunky, squared off and conventional looking designs. Which, as you stated, is detrimental to areo. 

 

You leave them like that, the range will be pretty abysmal with a smaller battery. You slap some dodge Daytona style nose cone on them, and it's gonna look like ass and people are gonna hate it. I'm a maverick owner, I've spoken with quite a few maverick owners, they like now it looks like a handsome, but conventional truck. Some radical looking science project isn't gonna fly with them. 

 

I think the aero issue might be overstated to a point with chunky vehicles-There are some older vehicles that have mods done to them to make them more aero efficient and some of things are radical (like covered wheels) but I think the primary factor is making surfaces smoother and gaps tighter, which in turn drive up manufacturing costs. If say Ford said a 12-15mm gap between panels was fine in an ICE vehicle, but a 6-8mm gap would be better for aerodynamics. That might be another thing to look at. 

 

 

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, AM222 said:

Here's something interesting... 

Ford Sales Are Tanking in Europe. And It's Clear Why
People still want cars. Too bad Ford is killing all of them.
-Ford Sales Are Tanking in Europe. And It's Clear Why (motor1.com)

"Overall, the segment increased by 5.7 percent to 956,865 superminis. That's an extra 51,392 cars compared to H1 2023, despite the Fiesta's cancellation. With Ford's small hatchback gone from the lineup, customers decided to buy something else, and then some."

Ford's rush to electrification in Europe was clearly wrong and Ford has to deal with the consequences. It killed its ICE Fiesta which belongs to a hot segment. No ICE Fiesta and no EV Fiesta. No affordable Ford.  

Unlike the USA and Canada, subcompact (B-segment) cars/CUVs and compact (C-segment) cars/CUVs are important segments for Rest-of-the-world markets.

Worth repeating from the interview, and article above, where Farley seemed sincere.  To what degree he’s allowed to pursue smaller vehicles, or whether he can build them profitably is another discussion.

 

 

In an interview with CNBC at the Aspen Ideas Festival in late June, Ford's head honcho said: "We have to start to get back in love with smaller vehicles. It's super important for our society and for EV adoption. We are just in love with these monster vehicles, and I love them too, but it's a major issue with weight."

 

 

A big difference in North America that doesn’t help is that many prospective buyers may love smaller vehicles because they are fun to drive, easy to park, and generally more affordable, particularly as second or third vehicle in family, but fear driving smaller cars for safety reasons.  I know many people who truly fear a wreck with huge pickup or SUV.  When roads are heavily populated with large and heavy vehicles, it will prevent adoption of smaller ones.  In my opinion transition to “smaller” vehicles in NA would need to occur over time while also discouraging unnecessarily large vehicles.  I’m not sure that’s really possible unless penalties are imposed as done in some other countries.  I’m not suggesting penalizing large vehicles, just stating that more buyers would buy smaller ones if there were not so many large ones on roads.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, AM222 said:

This whole "can't make a profit from small cars" philosophy probably only applies to the USA. It clearly works for the rest of the world and it clearly works for Ford's rivals. 

Ford really needs to make a profit from vehicles like the Expedition and F-series because they only sell in high numbers in the USA and Canada. They few global markets that get them, they're treated as low volume niche luxury vehicles.

It’s not the market.  Ford’s costs are too high everywhere but especially in Europe where they lost money even when sales were good.  Too many new platforms and powertrains on top of internal inefficiencies.  Companies that make money on small cars use cheap platforms and powertrains amortized over decades with only minor changes.

[Rick73]

11 hours ago, tbone said:

I just can’t believe there cannot be an attractive aerodynamically efficient vehicle. I also believe that people don’t have a problem buying EVs in sedan form factor as long as they’re attractive, which is what’s going to be necessary to achieve those kind of numbers.

BMW and Mercedes have aerodynamic ICE sedans that look OK to me, though aesthetics is very subjective.  Also very subjective is what is considered “aerodynamic” versus what many refer to as a “brick”.  Frontal area is also just as important, which hurts SUVs and pickups when compared to sedans. 
 

Hyundai, as an example, makes a variety of vehicles, including BEV SUVs.  One of their newest compact SUV is roughly 20% larger in frontal area (much taller) than common 5-passenger sedan, and has reported coefficient of drag of 0.288.  Compared to best BEV sedans, it requires around 50% more energy to travel the same distance at real highway speeds.  So manufacturer have to add a lot of battery, and cost, or else buyer has to settle for much less range.  EPA and WLTP efficiency ratings make the distinction clear, though real highway difference is understated.  Roughly speaking, in US sedans can be around 4.5 miles per kWh, while SUVs are closer to 3.0 miles per kWh.  I think the new Ford skunkworks platform will support both sedans and SUVs, so buyers will decide what they value most (space vs range vs cost, etc.).