DeluxeStang Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 On 2/2/2025 at 8:11 AM, Harley Lover said: Agree, I took the mention of the 'commercial' EV (in the context of skunk works products apparently destined for Louisville) to be something distinct from any Maverick-based product (which presumably would be built in Mexico). Yeah, Farley has mentioned in several interviews how these affordable EVs are very advanced looking, and he doesn't know how people will react because they look so different. It wouldn't make sense to make those sorts of comments if these vehicles looked like a maverick and bronco sport in EV form. So they'll definitely be their own distinct designs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 24 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said: Yeah, Farley has mentioned in several interviews how these affordable EVs are very advanced looking, and he doesn't know how people will react because they look so different. It wouldn't make sense to make those sorts of comments if these vehicles looked like a maverick and bronco sport in EV form. So they'll definitely be their own distinct designs. I keep picturing goofy looking things like this, but maybe with a slight hood 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeluxeStang Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 1 hour ago, rmc523 said: I keep picturing goofy looking things like this, but maybe with a slight hood I wouldn't be too surprised 😂. Cab forward seems like the most likely choice if Ford wanted to make a compact truck with a ton a bed and cabin space, it would be a great small affordable fleet truck. But that sort of design could really alienate consumers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 (edited) 3 hours ago, DeluxeStang said: Yeah, Farley has mentioned in several interviews how these affordable EVs are very advanced looking, and he doesn't know how people will react because they look so different. As CEO, it is his job to make sure that styling of these important BEVs are attractive to buyers. If these are not styled properly, then they will go the same way as the three row BEV. Watch for statements where these vehicles will attract new types of buyers, normally that is marketing code for existing buyers won’t like them….. Edited February 3 by jpd80 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanatWork Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 I just worry about the lack of true entry-level vehicles in the fold. Getting the early/young customers is a step in the ladder of brand loyalty; but, the Fiesta/Focus are gone, the Escape is dying, and not every young person/couple/family wants a mini-pickup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 2 minutes ago, ZanatWork said: I just worry about the lack of true entry-level vehicles in the fold. Getting the early/young customers is a step in the ladder of brand loyalty; but, the Fiesta/Focus are gone, the Escape is dying, and not every young person/couple/family wants a mini-pickup. We’ve discussed this before and I don’t think brand loyalty exists any more with younger buyers especially when price is the major factor. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeluxeStang Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 2 hours ago, jpd80 said: As CEO, it is his job to make sure that styling of these important BEVs are attractive to buyers. If these are not styled properly, then they will go the same way as the three row BEV. Watch for statements where these vehicles will attract new types of buyers, normally that is marketing code for existing buyers won’t like them….. I can see it going either way. These affordable EVs can find a really attractive way to incorporate radical areo into their designs, while looking a lot more striking than the small, affordable cars people are used to which tend to be quite generic. Or they could be hideous. The guy who led the styling team for them is the same designer who worked on the most recent Ford gt, and the bronco, so that's made me cautiously optimistic. Just like with all things in life, you look back on your mistakes, and realize they helped you improve over time. The poor reception to the styling of the three row makes you think Ford would look at that, and take a more balanced approach to future EV offerings. Areo matters, but looks matter more, and the three row proved that. It doesn't matter how good the range is, if it's ugly, it's gonna hurt sales. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeluxeStang Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 1 hour ago, akirby said: We’ve discussed this before and I don’t think brand loyalty exists any more with younger buyers especially when price is the major factor. Hard to say, I don't think it really exists with commodity products, but for aspirational models, it's still there. For my generation, Tesla's are their dream cars, a lot of the time they won't even talk about other EVs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 (edited) 29 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said: I can see it going either way. These affordable EVs can find a really attractive way to incorporate radical areo into their designs, while looking a lot more striking than the small, affordable cars people are used to which tend to be quite generic. Or they could be hideous. The guy who led the styling team for them is the same designer who worked on the most recent Ford gt, and the bronco, so that's made me cautiously optimistic. Just like with all things in life, you look back on your mistakes, and realize they helped you improve over time. The poor reception to the styling of the three row makes you think Ford would look at that, and take a more balanced approach to future EV offerings. Areo matters, but looks matter more, and the three row proved that. It doesn't matter how good the range is, if it's ugly, it's gonna hurt sales. I’m not going to be overly negative here, my concern is that Ford would already have run early clinics and have results from them…. Why is saying that he’s not sure if buyers will like them? Maybe he’s just a little nervous about the enormity of these vehicles and nothing more to it. Edited February 4 by jpd80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 11 hours ago, DeluxeStang said: Hard to say, I don't think it really exists with commodity products, but for aspirational models, it's still there. For my generation, Tesla's are their dream cars, a lot of the time they won't even talk about other EVs. But the statement was you need entry level models to establish brand loyalty so they’ll be more likely to buy those aspirational models. I say they’ll buy those higher priced models regardless of which entry level vehicle they bought. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick73 Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 12 hours ago, DeluxeStang said: I can see it going either way. These affordable EVs can find a really attractive way to incorporate radical areo into their designs, while looking a lot more striking than the small, affordable cars people are used to which tend to be quite generic. Or they could be hideous. The guy who led the styling team for them is the same designer who worked on the most recent Ford gt, and the bronco, so that's made me cautiously optimistic. Just like with all things in life, you look back on your mistakes, and realize they helped you improve over time. The poor reception to the styling of the three row makes you think Ford would look at that, and take a more balanced approach to future EV offerings. Areo matters, but looks matter more, and the three row proved that. It doesn't matter how good the range is, if it's ugly, it's gonna hurt sales. Why only consider the extremes? Reality is that they don’t actually need “radical aero” look to be far more aerodynamically efficient than present affordable generic cars like Accord, Camry, Civic or Corolla that sell well and buyers are already used to. Attention to details can and have lowered Cd by 20% in many cases. Not sure why the word “radical” should play a role in design discussion. Just saying there’s a lot of middle ground between present-day cheap generic eco-boxes that have the aerodynamics of a brick and extreme science fiction look very few will buy. IMO they only need to lower Cd to 0.20~0.22 range to be competitive. Much higher than that and performance will hold them back compared to competition regardless of how good they look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanatWork Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 13 hours ago, akirby said: We’ve discussed this before and I don’t think brand loyalty exists any more with younger buyers especially when price is the major factor. Yes, we have, but as previous lower-end offerings were often seen as something akin to advertising investments...I think that it's a foolish gamble to essentially hand that market over to the Koreans (who seem to exploit it well), the established Japanese marques (who keep much of it viable, as they have for generations), and the other players that apparently didn't get the "brand loyalty = dead" memo. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted February 4 Author Share Posted February 4 12 minutes ago, Rick73 said: Why only consider the extremes? Reality is that they don’t actually need “radical aero” look to be far more aerodynamically efficient than present affordable generic cars like Accord, Camry, Civic or Corolla that sell well and buyers are already used to. Attention to details can and have lowered Cd by 20% in many cases. Not sure why the word “radical” should play a role in design discussion. Just saying there’s a lot of middle ground between present-day cheap generic eco-boxes that have the aerodynamics of a brick and extreme science fiction look very few will buy. IMO they only need to lower Cd to 0.20~0.22 range to be competitive. Much higher than that and performance will hold them back compared to competition regardless of how good they look. Because CUV type vehicles have a large frontal area that impacts aerodynamics that are tougher to make aerodynamic and there are buyers (normally of higher end vehicles) that want to look different then your every day boring sedans that you listed (see 1st gen Prius as an example) I think Ford is looking for something like the 1986 Taurus-something radical looking/functional but liked by the car buying public styling wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted February 4 Author Share Posted February 4 3 minutes ago, ZanatWork said: Yes, we have, but as previous lower-end offerings were often seen as something akin to advertising investments...I think that it's a foolish gamble to essentially hand that market over to the Koreans (who seem to exploit it well), the established Japanese marques (who keep much of it viable, as they have for generations), and the other players that apparently didn't get the "brand loyalty = dead" memo. The Japanese have decades of a reputation that doesn't really hold up over the past 5-10 years since they are bringing out newer stuff and there is a bit of Cognitive dissonance with buyers when they do have problems because more often then not they are buyers of other products that have had issues with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 14 hours ago, ZanatWork said: I just worry about the lack of true entry-level vehicles in the fold. Getting the early/young customers is a step in the ladder of brand loyalty; but, the Fiesta/Focus are gone, the Escape is dying, and not every young person/couple/family wants a mini-pickup. I think that's the goal of the new skunkworks models though - to have some more affordable models that skew more toward the entry level side of the portfolio. 13 hours ago, DeluxeStang said: I can see it going either way. These affordable EVs can find a really attractive way to incorporate radical areo into their designs, while looking a lot more striking than the small, affordable cars people are used to which tend to be quite generic. Or they could be hideous. The guy who led the styling team for them is the same designer who worked on the most recent Ford gt, and the bronco, so that's made me cautiously optimistic. Just like with all things in life, you look back on your mistakes, and realize they helped you improve over time. The poor reception to the styling of the three row makes you think Ford would look at that, and take a more balanced approach to future EV offerings. Areo matters, but looks matter more, and the three row proved that. It doesn't matter how good the range is, if it's ugly, it's gonna hurt sales. The tricky part too is that what may not work styling wise for one segment (i.e. something too radical like Cybertruck) might work in another segment (i.e. a younger buyer looking at a smaller vehicle might like something more "spaceship" looking) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 19 hours ago, DeluxeStang said: I wouldn't be too surprised 😂. Cab forward seems like the most likely choice if Ford wanted to make a compact truck with a ton a bed and cabin space, it would be a great small affordable fleet truck. But that sort of design could really alienate consumers. I’m not an automotive engineer, but I suspect cab forward designs like this would be extremely difficult to meet crash safety standards. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick73 Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 21 minutes ago, Texasota said: I’m not an automotive engineer, but I suspect cab forward designs like this would be extremely difficult to meet crash safety standards. What he described sounds similar to a modern Euro-style van cab with a pickup bed added. I can’t find a picture of one with an automotive truck bed (recall one before), but from safety standpoint would not expect it to be all that different. Making it electric should be easier to design for front crash safety. Bed could be much shorter than picture below. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted February 4 Author Share Posted February 4 I found my old thread finally The Ford Press release https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2024/08/21/ford-broadens-electrification-strategy-to-reach-more-customers--.html Quote The plan includes adjusting the company’s North America vehicle roadmap to offer a range of electrification options designed to speed customer adoption – including lower prices and longer ranges. In its fully electric portfolio, Ford will prioritize the introduction of a new digitally advanced commercial van in 2026, followed by two new advanced pickup trucks in 2027 and other future affordable vehicles. Ford also realigned its U.S. battery sourcing plan to reduce costs, maximize capacity utilization, and support current and future electric vehicle production. Apparently the van is going into Ohio next year. According to other new reports the T3 has be delayed till later in 2027 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 43 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said: I found my old thread finally The Ford Press release https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2024/08/21/ford-broadens-electrification-strategy-to-reach-more-customers--.html Apparently the van is going into Ohio next year. According to other new reports the T3 has be delayed till later in 2027 To be fair, that was from August.....Ford's plan has likely changed at least 3 times since then lol. 2 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted February 4 Author Share Posted February 4 53 minutes ago, rmc523 said: To be fair, that was from August.....Ford's plan has likely changed at least 3 times since then lol. Your not exactly wrong either Quote Farley now has the company’s electric ambitions riding on two key plays. To better compete on price, a former Tesla executive and a small “skunkworks” team of Ford engineers and designers in California are developing a line of small EVs starting under $30,000. To ease drivers’ charging anxieties, Farley revealed in early January that Ford is engineering the base technology for extended-range electric vehicles, or EREVs. Those plug-in hybrids can lengthen a vehicle’s driving distance to as much as 700 miles by adding a small internal combustion engine that doesn’t drive the wheels and only acts as an onboard generator to recharge the battery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.