Absolutely agree, Farley is keeping Ford on safe ground with smaller battery compact/Mid Sized BEV development
but remember that CE1 was developed in silence as a separate side bet, Ford could deny it project was a bust..
Again agree but for the moment, Ford has to recognise and accept the things it cannot do economically instead
of blindly forging ahead hoping something changes to make its larger vehicles somehow more cost effective.
The biggest fear Ford has is that its next Gen TE1 F Truck gets laughed off stage and doesn’t sell worth a lick.
It may as well keep evolving Lightning with better batteries, motors and control systems, use it as the test bed
until battery technology evolves to a point where it becomes more economical and a direct replacement for ICE.
I think the real answer is a next Gen solid state battery with much higher energy density, smaller size and weight.
Everything hinges on that more so than incremental efficiency gains and cost reductions in motors transmissions
and control systems, those are important bu to a less degree than the battery.
That’s a great innovation but the problem remains with actual charging stations, the quick high capacity power draw
required for public charge stations will be an huge ongoing challenge for power utilities and their distribution networks.
Fine to perfect the onboard power charging systems but the power supply has to be able to deliver maximum required.
Agree with everything you said above.
I’d like to expand on the basic energy requirements for trucks both gas and electric..
I think Ford’s problem is that it started with the idea of using the 5.0 coyote as a hybrid or range extender.
And that would be a natural conclusion if approached as a doubling of the 2.5 I-4 Hybrid but here’s the rub….
Once you get to a full sized 1500 pickup let alone super duty, something incredible happens with energy demand.
The moment people start using that towing capacity, say 7,000 - 10,000 lb, there is an immediate tripling of the
energy required to drive on reasonably flat roads. In the 5.0 F150, cruise fuel economy goes from 22 to 7 mpg,
in a Lightning, the range becomes an alarming one third of the advertised range. Now think what a long grade does…
For long grade towing energy usage, the only real testing I can find is TFL (Truck Fast Lane) tests on Ike Gauntlet,
a long eight mile climb at altitude that tests gasoline and diesel trucks, the atmos losing significant HP due to altitude.
What I noticed is something like the 5.0 F150 with maxed out towing gets something like 2.8 mpg up the climb or like
40% of the earlier 7 mpg towing fuel economy mentioned ……..that total effort is like 8 times the energy driving light.
Sorry for the long winded explanation but I think it’s important to see the task in front of Ford developing any sort
of electrified Super Duty, be that a hybrid, PHEV or EREV. Ford knows that increasing the engine /generator size
in it EREV will cure the range anxiety but maybe undoing other claims of added fuel efficiency benefits.
I suspect that part of the problem with a HEV/PHEV SD is that the electric motor in the 10R Trans cannot be made
big enough to supplement power when towing, especially as a power added going up long grades.
So the EREV using a 5.0 driving a generator that replaces the 10R transmission runs into a big problem towing
a loaded trailer up a long grade, it can’t replace enough of the electric energy and thus, depletes the smallish
battery at an alarming rate. If it doesn’t work properly, it will get hammered by the 2500/SD community.
Sales numbers for first half of 2024 are 31% growth for Tundra, 20% decline for Ram P/U. That's for 1500 and HD versions of Ram combined. Ram 1500 alone probably declined even more
Lets figure this out with Math.
The question is how much power is needed to tow X Mass Y distance
The Silverado EV towed a 6,500 lb car enclosed car trailer 232 miles on a charge
The Silverado used 204.9 KWh.
It consumed 1.13 KWh per Mile.
To match that with 80KWh with a Range Extender would look like 92 miles (80KWh) from the Battery+ 139 miles (120KWh) from the Range extender.
One gallon of gasoline equals 33.7 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity.
ICE engines are ~ 20-40% efficient
At 30% efficiency, the range extender would need 12 gallons of gas to generate 120KWh
If they averaged 65mph (65mph/232mph)*204.9KWh= an average of 57.4KW, or 77hp were used to pull that trailer.
If the steady-state energy requirements were doubled to ~154hp.
It makes sense to target the output of the Range Extender at 150-170hp (110-125 KW) close to 2x the Average power demand. Using the Battery to boost acceleration and capture the energy from deceleration.
Of course, this system could use many operational patterns. IMO, range extenders should be optimized to be used as a battery substitute, not to charge the battery.
My 2023 Ford escape hybrid with less than 5k miles is going into sleep mode to save the battery, canceling all remote features. They also thought it was electrical. I now believe it is the COMPUTER. I've taken it in twice for that and other smaller things like the dash computer screens constantly changing. Now my has mileage is now less than 30 mpg (it was about 40 just a few weeks ago). Suddenly they have no appointments available at GALPIN Ford!! I called my salesman and mentioned the LEMON LAW. I'm now waiting for his call back.
P.S. that flapping/ bouncing in the rear of your car or truck when going over 50 mph is the LIFTERS. I had that happen in a brand new ford years ago. They told me to open (or was it close) the back windows. I said No, NO, NO. Find out what is wrong and fix it! They did.
Ford's head honcho and the other big shots are scared as shit on how good them Chinese automakers are
The WSJ explains that the Chinese have managed to overturn the pecking order with “elegant, low-cost engineering” and by “using a low-cost supply base to undercut the competition on price,” namely the competition from Western automakers whose brand cache is no longer competitive against Chinese brands selling cheaper, well-made cars while “moving at light speed". And other Ford executives agree, admitting to Farley that Chinese EVs are, indeed, ahead of Ford and other domestic automakers in America.
Farley considers them an “immediate threat in Europe and other overseas markets, and a long-term risk in Ford’s profit engine of North America, regardless of protectionist measures.” Whereas global carmakers once hardly saw the Chinese as a threat, they are now gasping to catch up. That’s why Ford is paying more attention to its Chinese partners and rivals, and is no longer taking them for granted.
A pushrod v8 making the same hp makes way more tq at a lower rpm than a dohc v8. Even the ecoboost makes more tq than the coyote. It's an awesome engine for light cars and does pretty good in the 150, but don't act like it has the grunt needed for a superduty class vehicle.
Yea, Central Indiana Toyota dealerships are raking in the dough selling Tundras and Tacomas to people who used to own a Ford, Mopar, or GM truck. The conquest/defection ratio chart confirms this