Ford's advanced EV-and-tech chief (Doug Field) to leave the company

[Shawnson]

I had no trouble hitting 240 miles of range with 20% to spare in 110F heat, 70-75MPH between Tucson and El Paso. I lose maybe 10% of my range when cranking the A/C and honestly, I think most of that is for the HVB. Using A/C right now (90's) I have no change in efficiency. Only when baking in the parking lot at 100+ do I see a slight drop. Nothing like a drop in range due to severe cold.

And in the cold, yes there is a range drop, but I’d argue the experience is substantially more enjoyable than that in an ICE vehicle.

Sponsored

 

[CoolViper777]

That's encouraging, thanks for sharing that.

I had no trouble hitting 240 miles of range with 20% to spare in 110F heat, 70-75MPH between Tucson and El Paso. I lose maybe 10% of my range when cranking the A/C and honestly, I think most of that is for the HVB. Using A/C right now (90's) I have no change in efficiency. Only when baking in the parking lot at 100+ do I see a slight drop. Nothing like a drop in range due to severe cold.

 

[djwildstar]

There are a LOT of negatives with EV's, just as there are a LOT of positives, same with ICE and even Hybrids.

Overall, I agree that all powertrain types have a role. It is a huge disappointment to me that Ford cannot somehow manage to produce both BEV and EREV F-150 pickups at the same time. Having all the power train options (gas, diesel, hybrid, PHEV, EREV, and BEV) for the F-150 should have been the plan from day one.

However, most of the points you raise are anti-EV propaganda talking points. They say that better is the enemy of good enough, and current EV technology is good enough to meet the needs of roughly two-thirds of the individual (meaning not business, commercial, or fleet) car and light truck buyers in the US. There's no need to wait for solid-state or sodium batteries.

EVs are currently unsuitable for use cases that include frequent long-distance towing (the horse show circuit is an example that comes to mind), frequent long-distance road trips, specific markets where gasoline is significantly cheaper than electricity, locations that are not served by utilities and where solar is impractical (such as the Alaskan wilderness), and situations where rapid refueling or in-the-field refueling is a mission requirement (for example, some off-road, fire/rescue, and military applications).

Hybrids (either conventional, plug-in, or EREV) are typically the best answer when EV technology isn't suitable, while pure gas and diesel power trains are best when total vehicle weight or payload are paramount concerns.

Charging infrastructure is still an issue, and lack of home charging options is definitely an obstacle to EV ownership for the roughly one-third of Americans who don't own their homes. Infrastructure can be built out.

 

[IdaHome]

Overall, I agree that all powertrain types have a role. It is a huge disappointment to me that Ford cannot somehow manage to produce both BEV and EREV F-150 pickups at the same time. Having all the power train options (gas, diesel, hybrid, PHEV, EREV, and BEV) for the F-150 should have been the plan from day one.

However, most of the points you raise are anti-EV propaganda talking points. They say that better is the enemy of good enough, and current EV technology is good enough to meet the needs of roughly two-thirds of the individual (meaning not business, commercial, or fleet) car and light truck buyers in the US. There's no need to wait for solid-state or sodium batteries.

EVs are currently unsuitable for use cases that include frequent long-distance towing (the horse show circuit is an example that comes to mind), frequent long-distance road trips, specific markets where gasoline is significantly cheaper than electricity, locations that are not served by utilities and where solar is impractical (such as the Alaskan wilderness), and situations where rapid refueling or in-the-field refueling is a mission requirement (for example, some off-road, fire/rescue, and military applications).

Hybrids (either conventional, plug-in, or EREV) are typically the best answer when EV technology isn't suitable, while pure gas and diesel power trains are best when total vehicle weight or payload are paramount concerns.

Charging infrastructure is still an issue, and lack of home charging options is definitely an obstacle to EV ownership for the roughly one-third of Americans who don't own their homes. Infrastructure can be built out.

I also feel that disappointment. FWIW, I believe that whoever has a quality BEV full-size truck and SUV in 3-5 years wins the US market big. Look at the best selling vehicles in the US (and for Ford). That's what has to be BEV in that time frame. Don't try and out Chinese the Chinese in the smaller car market. Play to your strengths and the interests of the US market. Ford, sadly went the wrong direction in making that happen with its decision to cancel and not iterate the Lightning to make it technically better, simpler, and more profitable. Why not play the long game for the bigger win?

 

[djwildstar]

FWIW, I believe that whoever has a quality BEV full-size truck and SUV in 3-5 years wins the US market big. Look at the best selling vehicles in the US (and for Ford). That's what has to be BEV in that time frame.

I agree with you. US car buyers have always liked full-size cars, pickups, and SUVs: the best-selling vehicle in the US has nearly always been a "full-size" vehicle for its day and age, going all the way back to 1908 and the Model T. The exceptions I can think of are 1972-1976 when fuel shortages helped vehicles like the VW Beetle, Chevy Vega, Ford Pinto, and Plymouth Valiant take the sales crown, and helped Japanese automakers get a foothold. The F-150 has been the best-selling pickup since 1976, and the best-selling vehicle since 1982.

Certainly the carmaker that is building a quality full-size BEV pickup will get my business circa 2032, because by then my Lightning will be 9 years and 150,000 miles old and I will likely be shopping for a new truck.

I really don't think it would take much. One of the things I love about the Lightning is that it's an F-150 in all aspects except for the power train. There's no need to redesign the concept of a pickup truck (as Tesla did) or even engineer a new but similar-looking vehicle (like GM did). Straightforward iterations would include:

• Moving to an 800V architecture to allow higher peak and average charge rates. A ~25 minute 10% to 80% charge is a lot more marketable than a ~40 minute stop.
• It would be nice to find space for more battery storage, allowing Ford to follow GM and Rivian's lead and offer 3 range options (standard, extended, and max). For an easy iteration, this could be 240, 320, and 400 miles; it is possible that a redesign could push the max range out to over 450 miles.
• Moving the standard-range truck to LFP batteries to reduce battery pack costs by roughly one-third.
• Move the extended (and max, if offered) trucks to LMR batteries as they become available, to get similar cost benefits.

Ford, sadly went the wrong direction in making that happen with its decision to cancel and not iterate the Lightning to make it technically better, simpler, and more profitable. Why not play the long game for the bigger win?

I think that the answer to your ultimate question is "Wall Street" and also "Jim Farley". It is normal for shareholders to demand return (in the form of dividends and rising stock prices) on their investment. So their focus is on "what will drive up stock prices in this quarter?" and "how can we maximize the dividend this year?" rather than what would be best for the company 3, 5, or more years down the road. One of the key jobs of the CEO is to look ahead, do that strategic planning, sell their long-term strategy to the board of directors and shareholders, and then successfully execute it.

Sponsored