EREV is not as bad as you think.

[Landscaper]

I’m not saying and EREV won’t be a solid stop gap to start converting customers but if a lightning EV can’t be profitable for Ford , how would manufacturing an EREV be cheaper to build ?

Maybe the savings from fewer battery modules is greater than the cost of a motor. Pure guess on my part

Sponsored

 

[Heliian]

Oil changes will now be every 6 months for erevs, more dealer visits!

As a mechanic, I will have ev's or ice vehicles in my garage. There is no point to hybrids anymore. The efficiency is overcome by the complexity and extra maintenance.

Irregardless , the internet bots who keep arguing against EV's won't be able to afford these either.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I did my 20 years with hybrids. For me, there's no value to returning to gas. I didn't care that Ford added the hybrid. It's nonsense that they cancelled the BEV. That bone-headed move is what people are annoyed with.

Ford won't have a new vehicle for me when I have to replace my Lightning.

And they likely won't have parts or engineering / technician experience or skills to maintain the Lightning for the long-term. They were already struggling with a lack of techs. And their supply chain was already falling apart.

 

[Maxx]

and now he is destroying the battery plants that he would need to have in order to compete with China's cheap EVs. Oddly enough they just announced a new EV for Europe.

Ford is trying to compete with Chinese EVs. Only it is in China. Check out the Ford Bronco EV in China. Ford is partnering with Renault to make EVs in France. Ford understands that they can not ignore EVs. It is just that U.S. May not be the best market for it at this time.

On EREV, To be frank, I wouldn’t mind spending 5 minutes to juice up the lightning at a gas station at less cost per mile than DCFC on a 2000 mile trip but one extra dealer visit to deal with gas engine component issues plus additional stop afterward to see my therapist will wipe out any savings of time or money.

 

[LiteNing]

People make EREV very bad.

Study Shows That Plug-In Hybrid Owners Aren't Plugging In

Important to remember that’s for a study in Europe. Lots more people over there drive company cars because it’s more tax-efficient to give an employee a car than it is to pay them more.

Couple other important factors:

1. Typically, the employee can select a car from a list of several options. There are several tiers of cars. Managers get different (nicer) set of options than ICs, for example. Within a tier, “green” cars usually have a higher trim level than ICEs (equivalent to an ICE from a higher tier). That incentivizes employees to pick an EREV, even if they never plan to plug it in.
2. Typically employees receive a gas card to go with the car (so driving on gas is free).
3. Typically employees do not receive any compensation for charging the car (so drive on electrons comes out of the employee’s pocket).

So Europe has this perfect storm of people driving EREVs who are financially incentivized to use only gas, and who may be driving an EREV only because it meant they got a nicer car. Not a good scenario if you want to them to plug in.

There are good reasons not to like EREVs, but I don’t think this is one of them. Like, how it’s annoying to get your EREV smogged every year, even though it burned less gas than your neighbor’s 2-stroke leaf blower.

Plenty of people over here purchased Volts and then never used gas, except for long trips. Back when I got mine, the only other “electrified” car that could reasonably make a >300 mile trip was something called a “Model S” from a little startup that nobody’d ever heard of, supposedly on the brink of bankruptcy. Today we are spoiled for choice of long-range BEVs.

 

[subseavet]

I was having a conversation with Grok about this weeks news and thought this response was entertaining

My last question: Ford mentioned that they aren’t able to turn a profit on the existing Lightning, so it doesn't seem like something with a gas generator would be much cheaper.

Response: Yeah, exactly, adding a gas engine, generator, exhaust, cooling, and fuel tank actually makes the truck more expensive to build than the pure EV one was. Ford’s problem wasn’t that the Lightning cost too much to make in absolute terms; it was that they were losing about thirty to forty thousand dollars on every single one they sold because of battery prices, low volume, and all the rebates eating into margin. A range-extended version will probably have a sticker even higher (think eighty-five to one hundred ten thousand before incentives), but Ford figures: - They can use a much smaller battery pack (maybe forty to sixty kWh instead of ninety-eight to one hundred thirty-one kWh), which saves a ton of money even after adding the gas stuff. - People are way more willing to pay a premium when they get seven hundred-plus miles of range and no range anxiety on tow days. - They’ll sell a lot more units at that price point than they ever did with the pure EV, so the volume finally gets the plant profitable. So yeah, it’ll cost more up front, but Ford thinks the total cost per truck will finally be in the black. Crazy how the cheapest way to make a profitable electric F-150 apparently involves… a gas engine.

I mean, this is not wrong. Sadly.

 

[ZeusDriver]

So yeah, it’ll cost more up front, but Ford thinks the total cost per truck will finally be in the black. Crazy how the cheapest way to make a profitable electric F-150 apparently involves… a gas engine.

Odd how little things have changed over the last 15 years since i built my little PHEV. The logic then was that the cost (and weight) of the engine and its generator was less than the cost (and weight) of a much larger battery pack (and even then, getting really useful range would have been be difficult.) (I still have some of those batteries, LFP, which seemed new and risky at the time -- but they have lasted longer than I could have dreamed. In fact, they have little green lights on the bms modules, and those little lights have been on, glowing non-stop, for 15 years.)

Still... all these years later... getting the range that many of us would be happy with (450 miles) is prohibitively expensive for a mass market truck (or even car). At least in China they are building small EV cars for less than the price of small ICE cars.

My little PHEV, and then the Volt, had 40 mile range. Now, many PHEVs have much less! (The Ranger PHEV is barely over half that.) Progress?

 

[ZeusDriver]

Plenty of people over here purchased Volts and then never used gas, except for long trips. Back when I got mine, the only other “electrified” car that could reasonably make a >300 mile trip was something called a “Model S” from a little startup that nobody’d ever heard of, supposedly on the brink of bankruptcy. Today we are spoiled for choice of long-range BEVs.

Of course, there were those who did not plug in in the US too. I bought my Volt from a dealership where the wife of the owner used the Volt as her personal car, and never plugged it in! They had even lost the 120V charger for it. I think things will change in the US market when 450 mile range is common. Now, the only vehicles that achieve that are hideously expensive. That range means that, for a day-long trip of 600 miles, you only need to stop once to charge, and have a lot of flexibility re timing and location of that charge.

 

[hturnerfamily]

I think the reality of how people view necessary 'range' is very, very subjective.. .and, probably not really based in actual life experiences and usage, i.e... the amount of range that we think would be 'enough' for our next EV purchase.

Some will say that "well, if FORD could just give me a truck with 350 miles of range, I'd be happy"... and, yet, they would still 'stretch out' their trip to that very edge, having to stop and fast charge, just the same... still being concerned with range, and, still dealing with 'charge anxiety'.

Afterwards, they say "well, if FORD had just built a truck with 500 miles of range, I'd actually REALLY be happy"... although, now, stretching out the trip to try to get the 'most miles without stopping', creates the same effect - where to stop to charge.

It seems to never end.

While we want a battery pack to take us all the way, it's actually most effective to have fast charging OPTIONS all along the way - that's the rub. A battery pack is ALWAYS going to eventually get to ZERO, but, regardless, if you have a 'gas station' every mile, it's no worry.

The Charging Infrastructure, and speeds of charging, is the real answer.
Our 2014 Nissan Leaf with 50-70 range could even make that work.

 

[PJnc284]

I think the reality of how people view necessary 'range' is very, very subjective.. .and, probably not really based in actual life experiences and usage, i.e... the amount of range that we think would be 'enough' for our next EV purchase.

Some will say that "well, if FORD could just give me a truck with 350 miles of range, I'd be happy"... and, yet, they would still 'stretch out' their trip to that very edge, having to stop and fast charge, just the same... still being concerned with range, and, still dealing with 'charge anxiety'.

Afterwards, they say "well, if FORD had just built a truck with 500 miles of range, I'd actually REALLY be happy"... although, now, stretching out the trip to try to get the 'most miles without stopping', creates the same effect - where to stop to charge.

It seems to never end.

While we want a battery pack to take us all the way, it's actually most effective to have fast charging OPTIONS all along the way - that's the rub. A battery pack is ALWAYS going to eventually get to ZERO, but, regardless, if you have a 'gas station' every mile, it's no worry.

The Charging Infrastructure, and speeds of charging, is the real answer.
Our 2014 Nissan Leaf with 50-70 range could even make that work.

I think the big thing that gets most people are the inherent nuances of EV's and lithium-ion batteries. Generally speaking when you buy an ICE vehicle, the highway range is pretty close to what you can expect at interstate speeds. With the lightning, you'd need almost 2.5mi/kWh to get the quoted 320 miles on an ER which isn't happening anywhere other than around town so you basically lose 30% off the top if you're going 75. Then add in that most aren't charging above 80% or going below 10% on a road trip so that 320 miles ends up being more like 170. And this all assumes good weather and flat ground. So telling someone they need to stop every 2 hours or so for 40 minutes ends up being a turn-off. Personally I start getting restless and need a bathroom break at the 2-3 hr mark anyway

 

[02Reaper]

selling more solves all problems... many, many more...

They could have sold more lightnings if they would have stuck to the original price and produced a lot more early on. I never believed and still don't believe that Ford was losing what they said they were on every lightning sold.

 

[Landscaper]

They could have sold more lightnings if they would have stuck to the original price and produced a lot more early on. I never believed and still don't believe that Ford was losing what they said they were on every lightning sold.

Yes I’m sure they lied so they can go to jail for fraudulent accounting and reporting. All part of the plan they had in beginning.

 

[02Reaper]

Yes I’m sure they lied so they can go to jail for fraudulent accounting and reporting. All part of the plan they had in beginning.

You sure missed the point on that, but your right, companies never lie. Especially not Ford.

 

[Landscaper]

You sure missed the point on that, but your right, companies never lie. Especially not Ford.

You’re *

I didn’t miss the point at all. The subject has been beaten to death already

 

[nwdiver93]

Important to remember that’s for a study in Europe. Lots more people over there drive company cars because it’s more tax-efficient to give an employee a car than it is to pay them more.

Couple other important factors:

1. Typically, the employee can select a car from a list of several options. There are several tiers of cars. Managers get different (nicer) set of options than ICs, for example. Within a tier, “green” cars usually have a higher trim level than ICEs (equivalent to an ICE from a higher tier). That incentivizes employees to pick an EREV, even if they never plan to plug it in.
2. Typically employees receive a gas card to go with the car (so driving on gas is free).
3. Typically employees do not receive any compensation for charging the car (so drive on electrons comes out of the employee’s pocket).

So Europe has this perfect storm of people driving EREVs who are financially incentivized to use only gas, and who may be driving an EREV only because it meant they got a nicer car. Not a good scenario if you want to them to plug in.

There are good reasons not to like EREVs, but I don’t think this is one of them. Like, how it’s annoying to get your EREV smogged every year, even though it burned less gas than your neighbor’s 2-stroke leaf blower.

Plenty of people over here purchased Volts and then never used gas, except for long trips. Back when I got mine, the only other “electrified” car that could reasonably make a >300 mile trip was something called a “Model S” from a little startup that nobody’d ever heard of, supposedly on the brink of bankruptcy. Today we are spoiled for choice of long-range BEVs.

Not just Europe. My neighbors had a PHEV. Not once did they ever plug it in. I even offered to let them use my charger. Their response was 'we don't need it... it charges itself when we drive'. Like energy is magic. It's likely that a scary percentage of Americans honestly believe energy is magic. And the only reason we put gas into cars is some kind of oil company conspiracy.

Sponsored