I didn’t have this much trouble with the Subarus I had before this, but at least I can get the touch up paint for free using my Fordpass points.

The presentation they had earlier this year about the technology of the platform I don’t recall quoting a specific range number but they did say that they chose LFP as the base in part because it would make longer range options on any other chemistry easy to implement. Basically it should offer ~300 on base LFP and a lot more on NMC or sodium or whatever.

I can't find it but I think Ford recently said it would be 300 or close to it.  I'm sure that whatever the base range is there will be longer range options.

I would be very surprised if it doesn’t have 300 miles of range, since it seems that a lot of the design of this thing is an optimization problem of “how little LFP can we use to get 300?”. It just wouldn’t make sense for it to have less than that.

We're almost there, I believe Farley said it would be revealed later this year, so it won't be long until we see it. Giving Ford credit where it's due, it has been a rough road to get here, but I believe they're finally on the right path with EVs.    Earlier moves with large, expensive EVs, we can kinda see the reasoning behind it. They were Ford's most popular, profitable, successful models. So we can kinda see why Ford may have thought offering electric versions of said models made a lot of sense.   The issue is we now know no-one wants large, heavy, expensive EVs. Maybe that'll change decades down the road, but for now, they're selling very poorly. Partially because EV tech as it currently stands isn't well suited to the use case of a heavy duty truck, or large SUV. It's much better for a commuter style vehicle.    Additionally, the people who tend to be able to afford more expensive vehicles are often on the older side. Not all, but a sizable portion of older individuals are very anti tech. They don't want to have to relearn the car ownership process, how to charge at home, differences in driving styles, and so on. They also tend to be skeptical of newer tech. Again, that's not everyone, I know people like Akirby are examples of matured individuals who embrace new kinds of technology and consumer experiences, I'm just saying it's not as common with older generations as a whole even if there are exceptions.    Whereas these new EVs are affordable vehicles, making them obtainable to younger buyers who have been proven to be more accepting of EVs and willing to buy them if the opportunity presents itself. I also believe people are far more willing to take a chance on a new kind of product if the financial risks are minimal. Buying an 80k EV is a huge risk because if you buy it, hate it, and want to sell it, you're gonna lose tens of thousands in depreciation most likely.    Whereas with these 25-40 grand EVs, realistically you could buy one, try it for a year, and not lose a ton of money due to depreciation. That's gonna encourage more consumers to try EVs who've never owned one before. 

It’s important to understand Farley’s position at the moment, there is no choice for Ford but to be up beat and positive about the coming mid sized BEV pickup. To do otherwise would simply undo and traction that’s being made with credibility.   The flip side to all of that is to understand that ever since Mark Fields was fired in 2017, Ford CEOs have been directed by Bill Ford to advance plans for BEVs and bring them  to market as soon as possible. For the most part both Jim Hackett and Jim Farley have played the cards before them with mixed success and a ton of “experience”…….   In a nut shell, Farley is asking people to believe that this time, Ford’s BEV plans will be successful…….the very same spiel the company has been saying for the past five years.   It’s time for Ford to put up or shut up and start showing us more about this amazing vehicle or it risks potential buyers going off the boil with interest….

Other than the luxury makes-this is true for just about everyone.

To be fair, I think it's time to rethink priorities and requirements as we try to get back to affordable vehicles. Range is one of those areas. I feel like everyone wants cheap vehicles but doesn't want to accept cheap vehicle compromises like a smaller battery with less range.    It depends on how bad the range is. If this thing comes out and it has like 150 miles of range, it'll be DOA. But if it has 250-300, maybe even more, then I don't see an issue. The head engineer during the bounties video kinda implied a 300 mile range, or close to it.    The main concerns I have are range and styling, but it's starting to seem like it's a pretty compelling product on both of those fronts. I believe we were learning that test clinics were responding a lot better to the styling than they did with the three row for instance. 

The biggest contribution to an easy sell is extra internal space, be that added canopy area or extra width or both. I like Maverick but in another universe, could such a pickup have been built on two widths for a wider audience.   I’m often reminded of the difference between the current T6 Ranger high series versus the added luxury interiors on the older Explorer Sport Trac - there’s a lesson to be learned. And I think that sort of High series /luxury pack would work well in Maverick with Escape going away

I dunno why they’re saying limited range when the while thing is designed otherwise, but the charging is probably because 400V architecture