Ford is done with making boring cars

[DeluxeStang]

5 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Looks like a bad photoshop of the pre 2020 Escape greenhouse with the EU Explorer body/front end. Even the headlights aren't really correct-seems like Ford is going to use C-clamp style lights like on the Maverick or some of the Chinese CUVs on upcoming products. 

Yeah, I'm not really feeling it either personally. That's why I'm hoping these affordable EVs are slightly bigger, not massive, but maybe a foot or two long than that. Compact cars often have this squished look to them that doesn't do it for me.

 

I'm hoping these affordable EVs are moreso like a bronco sport, a cab forward truck, maybe an escort hatchback like the blue rendering I posted if they decide to bring back some sort of hatchback which seems likely. 

 

I want these affordable Ford EVs to be stellar all around products. Ford keeps talking about how differentiated they'll be, how different they'll look, how radical they are. If they come out and it's just a crossover that looks like a mushy potato or a cardboard box, I'll be really disappointed. 

 

I want these to be designs where you want to immediately run out and buy it after seeing it, which is not something you see very often with affordable vehicles, especially in the looks department. It's almost always "That's fine I guess, as long as it's cheap" give me a design that makes me say "That's badass". 

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, AM222 said:

That would be great but since Icon models are premium it would be nice if Ford can balance it out by having affordable B and C-segment models on the other end of its global range.

Something like this shelved affordable subcompact (below) would have worked for the rest of the world outside the USA & Canada. Even the current Puma would have worked as an affordable model if Ford built it in Thailand for the Asia-Pacific region, South Africa and Mexico.
 

 

I don't believe these affordable EVs need to be premium and upmarket, I've said it before, but maverick is a great example of what I think we'll get. The first time in a long time where someone making an affordable car actually cared about making it good. That's the maverick, and that's gonna be these EVs if I had to guess. Something that's still affordable, the only difference is it's gonna be things people actually want, so Ford won't have to stack money on the hood to move them off the lot. 

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

I want these affordable Ford EVs to be stellar all around products. Ford keeps talking about how differentiated they'll be, how different they'll look, how radical they are. If they come out and it's just a crossover that looks like a mushy potato or a cardboard box, I'll be really disappointed. 

For an ICEV it doesn’t make much difference on overall costs, but I think when it comes to BEVs, “mushy potato” offers real-world advantages over “cardbox box”.  Can’t you figure out how to make an aero potato look good? 😊 

 

P.S. — Assume by mushy potato you mean sleek or streamlined, opposite of box or brick.  If not, ignore above comment. 

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

For an ICEV it doesn’t make much difference on overall costs, but I think when it comes to BEVs, “mushy potato” offers real-world advantages over “cardbox box”.  Can’t you figure out how to make an aero potato look good? 😊 

 

P.S. — Assume by mushy potato you mean sleek or streamlined, opposite of box or brick.  If not, ignore above comment. 

By mushy potato, I'm thinking of things like that Mercedes EQS sedan or whatever it's called. That sort of shape where in pursuit of areo targets, designers create this lumpy blob on wheels. There's nothing wrong with sleek design if it's the Aston Martin approach, and not the devoid of all interesting design cues Tesla approach. 

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

By mushy potato, I'm thinking of things like that Mercedes EQS sedan or whatever it's called. That sort of shape where in pursuit of areo targets, designers create this lumpy blob on wheels. There's nothing wrong with sleek design if it's the Aston Martin approach, and not the devoid of all interesting design cues Tesla approach. 

Thanks for clarification.  Keep in mind Skunkworks program is led by ex-Tesla guy IIRC, so Tesla-like quest for efficiency would not be surprising.  I’m not familiar with Aston Martin BEVs or what they may look like if you’re referring to future models.

 

Mercedes EQS does not look great but it’s not bad either.  It does look quite aerodynamic, and I’ve seen Cd numbers that are pretty low.  However, the EQS is not particularly efficient due to its large size and heavy weight/mass.  Obviously for a luxury car that happens to be quite expensive, few prospective buyers probably care all that much if it needs additional battery capacity.  Comparing Tesla Model 3 and Mercedes EQS specs show that size really affects energy efficiency.  Tesla Model 3 driving range is slightly longer than EQS even though its battery is much smaller.  Size and weight do make a big difference, which is why I hope Skunkwork vehicles are relatively small.

[DeluxeStang]

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/fast-fords-will-survive-electric-era

 

For anyone curious, fast Ford's is slang that generally refers to hot hatchbacks and other similar types of vehicles. So that's what they're referring to here most likely. Not much to go on, but interesting still. 

[rmc523]

9 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Thanks for clarification.  Keep in mind Skunkworks program is led by ex-Tesla guy IIRC, so Tesla-like quest for efficiency would not be surprising.  I’m not familiar with Aston Martin BEVs or what they may look like if you’re referring to future models.

 

Mercedes EQS does not look great but it’s not bad either.  It does look quite aerodynamic, and I’ve seen Cd numbers that are pretty low.  However, the EQS is not particularly efficient due to its large size and heavy weight/mass.  Obviously for a luxury car that happens to be quite expensive, few prospective buyers probably care all that much if it needs additional battery capacity.  Comparing Tesla Model 3 and Mercedes EQS specs show that size really affects energy efficiency.  Tesla Model 3 driving range is slightly longer than EQS even though its battery is much smaller.  Size and weight do make a big difference, which is why I hope Skunkwork vehicles are relatively small.

 

EQS (and their other EQ models) is a blob of melted soap, and a terrible design, IMO.

 

I think the Model S still looks good, though it's in need of a redesign.  It was the first EV model that showed people you could make a good looking EV without having to make it look like a science project.

[Rick73]

7 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

EQS (and their other EQ models) is a blob of melted soap, and a terrible design, IMO.

 

I think the Model S still looks good, though it's in need of a redesign.  It was the first EV model that showed people you could make a good looking EV without having to make it look like a science project.

I don’t see a science project in the EQS as much as I see aerodynamic efficiency, and to me they are not the same.  Granted it looks different than most cars but its superior aerodynamic function is like art, which can be a thing of beauty depending on one’s taste.  Anyway, the EQS’s large size at 60 inches tall, 76 inches wide, and 208 inches long, combined with hefty 5,500-pound weight is what I don’t like about it.  Its overall energy efficiency is poor if the primary goal of BEVs is to reduce GHGs in an attempt to slow global warming.  I suppose if compared to an S with V12 engine then it’s an improvement.  I know solution is not black and white. 😀

[rmc523]

24 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

I don’t see a science project in the EQS as much as I see aerodynamic efficiency, and to me they are not the same.  Granted it looks different than most cars but its superior aerodynamic function is like art, which can be a thing of beauty depending on one’s taste.  Anyway, the EQS’s large size at 60 inches tall, 76 inches wide, and 208 inches long, combined with hefty 5,500-pound weight is what I don’t like about it.  Its overall energy efficiency is poor if the primary goal of BEVs is to reduce GHGs in an attempt to slow global warming.  I suppose if compared to an S with V12 engine then it’s an improvement.  I know solution is not black and white. 😀

 

Sorry, I was referring to pre-Model S EVs like Leaf and similar that looked bizarre.

 

I don't like the EQS (or Mercedes EQ soap bar design in general), but wouldn't throw it into science project category.

[Rick73]

I personally prefer Tesla styling in general, and would buy or lease upcoming Model Y based on pictures I’ve seen if it wasn’t so large — it’s way larger than I need.  A 2-door 2+2 the size of new Robotaxi is what I hoped for, but with better looks.

 

 

The EQS above is not my thing (styling or price) but I could get used to it if only smaller.

[AM222]

22 hours ago, Rick73 said:

For an ICEV it doesn’t make much difference on overall costs, but I think when it comes to BEVs, “mushy potato” offers real-world advantages over “cardbox box”.  Can’t you figure out how to make an aero potato look good? 😊 

 

P.S. — Assume by mushy potato you mean sleek or streamlined, opposite of box or brick.  If not, ignore above comment. 

Kia's boxy 3-row EV9 has a 0.28 coefficient of drag, about the same as a Mach E. 


ICEV or BEV, there's a lot of room to design stuff between something as boxy as an EV9 and as curvy as a Mach E.

PS: The Kia EV9 is roughly the same size as an Explorer.

Edited October 30 by AM222

[Rick73]

13 minutes ago, AM222 said:

Kia's boxy 3-row EV9 has a 0.28 coefficient of drag, about the same as a Mach E. 


ICEV or BEV, there's a lot of room to design stuff between something as boxy as an EV9 and as curvy as a Mach E.

PS: The Kia EV9 is roughly the same size as an Explorer.

I know it’s all relative, though lower Cd is only part of the solution.  When we include frontal area to come up with drag area, a tallish and usually wider SUV will have much greater aerodynamic drag at steady 65~75 MPH than a sleek sedan with not only a Cd as low as 0.20 but also much smaller frontal area.  At highway speeds a boxy SUV or pickup often consumes approximately twice as much energy per mile than a Lucid Air Pure or Tesla Model 3 RWD.  Not taking sides on this, just stating my perspective on energy.  If buyers want large electric SUV or pickups they should be able to buy them.

[DeluxeStang]

5 hours ago, AM222 said:

Kia's boxy 3-row EV9 has a 0.28 coefficient of drag, about the same as a Mach E. 


ICEV or BEV, there's a lot of room to design stuff between something as boxy as an EV9 and as curvy as a Mach E.

PS: The Kia EV9 is roughly the same size as an Explorer.

That Kia design looks so terrible lol. I like certain elements, like the lines that define the wheel arches, but the front end is hideous. They didn't know what to do with it and it shows. 

[T-dubz]

On 10/29/2024 at 4:09 PM, DeluxeStang said:

I want these affordable Ford EVs to be stellar all around products. Ford keeps talking about how differentiated they'll be, how different they'll look, how radical they are. If they come out and it's just a crossover that looks like a mushy potato or a cardboard box, I'll be really disappointed. 

 

I want these to be designs where you want to immediately run out and buy it after seeing it, which is not something you see very often with affordable vehicles, especially in the looks department. It's almost always "That's fine I guess, as long as it's cheap" give me a design that makes me say "That's badass". 

I wish I was as optimistic as you. I’m in the “believe it when I see it” side of things. Very rarely is something both affordable and bad ass. And when something comes along that is, it doesn’t stay affordable for long. I can’t recall any ford in recent memory being badass besides the bronco. I’m not counting the GT or performance trims like the raptor because those are the opposite of affordable. Even a moderately equipped bronco pushes the limits on affordability.
 

There’s lots of ev’s out there now. Here’s a list of the 11 cheapest. The problem is the cheaper ones (30-35k) have terrible range. To get good range, prices are 40k and above, again pushing the limits on affordability. None of them are particularly exciting and some are pretty terrible (looking at you ioniq 6😆). The model 3 and Mach e are the best looking of the bunch. Id be very surprised if ford can deliver exciting design, good range, and  affordable (my definition of that is low to mid 30’s but your definition will vary). I have a really hard time seeing that happen considering no other automaker has done it yet. 

 

https://www.cars.com/amp/articles/here-are-the-11-cheapest-electric-vehicles-you-can-buy-439849/

 

[DeluxeStang]

41 minutes ago, T-dubz said:

I wish I was as optimistic as you. I’m in the “believe it when I see it” side of things. Very rarely is something both affordable and bad ass. And when something comes along that is, it doesn’t stay affordable for long. I can’t recall any ford in recent memory being badass besides the bronco. I’m not counting the GT or performance trims like the raptor because those are the opposite of affordable. Even a moderately equipped bronco pushes the limits on affordability.
 

There’s lots of ev’s out there now. Here’s a list of the 11 cheapest. The problem is the cheaper ones (30-35k) have terrible range. To get good range, prices are 40k and above, again pushing the limits on affordability. None of them are particularly exciting and some are pretty terrible (looking at you ioniq 6😆). The model 3 and Mach e are the best looking of the bunch. Id be very surprised if ford can deliver exciting design, good range, and  affordable (my definition of that is low to mid 30’s but your definition will vary). I have a really hard time seeing that happen considering no other automaker has done it yet. 

 

https://www.cars.com/amp/articles/here-are-the-11-cheapest-electric-vehicles-you-can-buy-439849/

 

I can't comment on the design, but this affordable Ford EV skunkworks truck supposedly will start at around 30k, and have a 300 mile range give or take, at least, that's what Farley hinted it. For an affordable EV, 300 miles isn't bad. 

[rmc523]

15 hours ago, Rick73 said:

I personally prefer Tesla styling in general, and would buy or lease upcoming Model Y based on pictures I’ve seen if it wasn’t so large — it’s way larger than I need.  A 2-door 2+2 the size of new Robotaxi is what I hoped for, but with better looks.

 

 

The EQS above is not my thing (styling or price) but I could get used to it if only smaller.

 

They have the EQE - basically the same melted soap look in an "E-class" size:

[Rick73]

 

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

 

They have the EQE - basically the same melted soap look in an "E-class" size:

Interesting you mention the E series because Mercedes also offers an SUV option, and somewhat not all that surprising the EPA range rating is not all that different than the sedans’ driving range.  However, I believe this is a great example of how EPA ratings can be misleading unless buyer looks into details or does independent research.

 

Also interesting that Mercedes shares coefficient of drag for both vehicles, with sedan at 0.22 and SUV at 0.26.  The SUV is also  taller so has larger frontal area.  The EPA rating which is done at relatively low speeds doesn’t show SUV range much different per kWh, but I expect Interstate driving at 75 MPH like Car and Driver tests would paint a different picture.

 

For what it’s worth, the even smaller EQB SUV costs much less but range is only 251 miles, so not bad for city driving but not practical for any real road trip IMO.

 

https://insideevs.com/news/723459/2024-mercedes-eqe-suv-epa-range/

 

[T-dubz]

10 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

I can't comment on the design, but this affordable Ford EV skunkworks truck supposedly will start at around 30k, and have a 300 mile range give or take, at least, that's what Farley hinted it. For an affordable EV, 300 miles isn't bad. 

300 mile range for 30k would be great. Is there anything on the market that comes remotely close to that? The only one I can think of was the Bolt, but it’s range was closer to 250 and it’s design was 👎🏻. 

[Rick73]

3 hours ago, T-dubz said:

300 mile range for 30k would be great. Is there anything on the market that comes remotely close to that? The only one I can think of was the Bolt, but it’s range was closer to 250 and it’s design was 👎🏻. 

Precisely.  There is no solid evidence on how close any manufacturer has actually come to a profitable $30k vehicle with +/- 300 miles of range, at least that I’m aware of.  Whether GM Bolt or any Ford, Nissan, Hyundai/Kia, etc., we don’t know how much loss these manufacturers are taking by pricing them low enough to sell; given they can be subsidized by ICE and hybrids.  Tesla is likely lowest-cost and also profitable EV manufacturer outside of China and even their lowest car as of today is not near $30k (before tax credit).

 

In fairness to Farley, IIRC he did suggest that new Skunkworks vehicles would be profitable after a time period (I don’t recall exact duration), which implies they could  be sold at a loss initially.  So maybe a $30k small truck is possible but it doesn’t necessarily mean it will be profitable at that price.  I can see price going up gradually over a few years much like Maverick has done already.

[DeluxeStang]

5 hours ago, T-dubz said:

300 mile range for 30k would be great. Is there anything on the market that comes remotely close to that? The only one I can think of was the Bolt, but it’s range was closer to 250 and it’s design was 👎🏻. 

Yeah, that would be impressive. Of course, this is just pure speculation. But that's going off of Farley saying in an interview about how desirable affordable EVs with good styling and around 300 miles of range would appeal to a broader audience. Who knows if it'll hit those targets, but that sounds promising coming directly from the CEO. 

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Precisely.  There is no solid evidence on how close any manufacturer has actually come to a profitable $30k vehicle with +/- 300 miles of range, at least that I’m aware of.  Whether GM Bolt or any Ford, Nissan, Hyundai/Kia, etc., we don’t know how much loss these manufacturers are taking by pricing them low enough to sell; given they can be subsidized by ICE and hybrids.  Tesla is likely lowest-cost and also profitable EV manufacturer outside of China and even their lowest car as of today is not near $30k (before tax credit).

 

In fairness to Farley, IIRC he did suggest that new Skunkworks vehicles would be profitable after a time period (I don’t recall exact duration), which implies they could  be sold at a loss initially.  So maybe a $30k small truck is possible but it doesn’t necessarily mean it will be profitable at that price.  I can see price going up gradually over a few years much like Maverick has done already.

I believe Farley said the goal for these affordable EVs is to be profitable within the first year of production. When it comes to price, it's worth noting that just like anything related to technology and engineering, it constantly improves. If there's one thing I know due to my experiences with a family of engineers, it's that engineers are constantly better themselves, and their work. If you give talented engineers enough time, freedom, and resources, they'll do things that genuinely amaze you. 

 

So while a 30k EV may have been less feasible a decade ago when the model 3 was in development, the entire game has changed since then. 

[jpd80]

22 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

I believe Farley said the goal for these affordable EVs is to be profitable within the first year of production. When it comes to price, it's worth noting that just like anything related to technology and engineering, it constantly improves. If there's one thing I know due to my experiences with a family of engineers, it's that engineers are constantly better themselves, and their work. If you give talented engineers enough time, freedom, and resources, they'll do things that genuinely amaze you. 
 

And that fast pace of evolving design is exactly why Ford’s earlier work on its

Gen 2 electric vehicles is now quietly being discontinued in favour of CE1.

The very thing that now makes CE1 up to date and cutting edge is arguably 

already being offered by Chinese manufacturers that appear to be getting

“walled off” or at least subjected to high scrutiny due to apparent

heavy Chinese government support.

 

22 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

 

So while a 30k EV may have been less feasible a decade ago when the model 3 was in development, the entire game has changed since then. 

Remember that in 2021 Lightning was promoted by Ford and Jim Farley to have

a $39,990 starting price but by the time it arrived, that price was north of $50,000.

 

I don’t have a problem with corporations eagerly promoting their coming products 

with what amounts to blue sky prices but by the same token, don’t complain when

 interest in those products suddenly evaporates with higher prices.

It’s ok to play “Farley said” and it may be true but history has taught us to understand 

that things can and do change. 

 

Edited November 1 by jpd80

[DeluxeStang]

We discussed the maverick's unusual development process, and how that could be applied to other affordable passion products, I wonder if the reason we haven't has to due with the quality/reliability of the maverick. It seems like there are quite a few things that Ford would have caught had they developed it for a few more years. Things like the axles and the weak 12V battery issues. 

 

Mines been flawless, but I've thought about selling it. Just because it seems like the list of the could happens is growing larger by the day. I thought going in the hybrid system for instance was just a tweaked 2.5 duratec hybrid setup which has been super reliable in every other Ford. But apparently, someone said the 2.5 duratec isn't in the maverick hybrid, and it's an all new motor design. So I have no idea what I bought. It's kinda hard to describe, but enough time on the maverick forums has made me feel like my battery is gonna stop working whenever it's cold, or the CV axles are gonna break if I hit potholes or drive in gravel for a mile or so. Or even things like how my engine could blow up, or the e-cvt could fail.

 

I love the truck, I don't want to sell it, but it's starting to keep me up at night even though mine's had zero issues. I feel like mines an anomaly. 

Edited November 2 by DeluxeStang

[pictor]

Remember for the most part you only hear the bad things on the forums, very few people take the time to report boring non issues.  Can you imagine a forum with “ yep, everything is great, just filled up the tank and nothing happened”.  Check all the different Car forums and you will stick riding a bike instead because nothing is perfect.

 

[DeluxeStang]

3 hours ago, pictor said:

Remember for the most part you only hear the bad things on the forums, very few people take the time to report boring non issues.  Can you imagine a forum with “ yep, everything is great, just filled up the tank and nothing happened”.  Check all the different Car forums and you will stick riding a bike instead because nothing is perfect.

 

I'd just be curious to see the reliability data on things like Ford e-cvts and the 2.5 duratec, the big ticket items. I'm ok with swapping in something like a better battery, or better axle components. But if the 2.5 is gonna shit the bed, or the transmission, I'm gonna be pissed.