Nah, after this thread there must be at least 6 or 7 of us by now!
You certainly might be right. Time will tell.
On the contrary, that makes perfect sense to me. I want those things too! It's quite obvious those things would make BEV ownership a no-brainer. This has nothing to do with lack of "understanding," it has to do with this most unfortunate tether I have to reality (it's really annoying, it ruins all the fun!).
Hopefully they will have a BEV option relatively soon if battery prices come down. More available options to the consumer is always a good thing.
Nah, after this thread there must be at least 6 or 7 of us by now!
As for a step backward, I don't see it that way. I see it as a way of continuing the program. When a company is losing obscene amounts of money making a product, the reasonable thing to do is to stop the bleeding--cancel the whole product line. Giving EREVs a try to see if they can make it profitable is a way of continuing the product instead of stopping altogether.
You have to remember, EREVs are BEVs....just with some "extra stuff." They're developing the new chassis, the motors, the battery, the electronics--everything they need for the next BEV. When/if battery costs/performance improve to the point they think a BEV can be profitable, they can yank out the "extra stuff," slap the frunk back in and have an instant BEV option. They can do that at the drop of a hat any time in the future. That would never happen if they canceled the program completely, which is the only financially wise alternative.
The alternative seemingly being proposed by many here--that Ford simply be a charity for a small group of customers, continuing to sell a product to them at a much lower price than it costs to produce is not a sustainable business model.
You certainly might be right. Time will tell.
There's no data either way from Ford, of course. But we do have market indications from both Ram and Scout pre-orders that indicate many times more people are considering buying the EREV than were the BEV. Actual sales data doesn't exist yet so there's no "real" data yet.
Yes, the magic batteries that will be available next year...as has been said for the last 10 years or so. Don't get me wrong, they'll get here eventually, but I wouldn't place any large bets they'll be here in quantity, at a low price very soon. Even when they are, they are only solving the easy part of the problems to solve (see my above infrastructure comments).
That's what I was talking about as well. Have you compared the specs of your EREV to those of the RAM (Ford hasn't released detailed specs yet)? A whopping 84 HP 4-banger (you did say it sounded like a lawnmower, right?) 157 HP in EV mode, man, that must feel just like driving a Tesla, right? 16.5 kWh battery--to small for much usable EV range, much less having a buffer to ensure the vehicle has more than 84 HP at times. And all powered through that fantastic CVT automatic tranmission!
They also refuse to say how much money they are losing on each 9000lb Avalanche (that'll barely tow its own weight) they sell. Mary Barra is becoming the OG Carlos Tavares.
If you understood how the system worked, you'd know the engine doesn't need to produce enough power to tow a 14k lb trailer up a mountain. It only needs to produce the average power needed to go up and down the mountain and maintain on flat ground. That's the beauty of it--no Power Strokes required.
Of course if you keep the battery the same size the pure BEV will be cheaper. But nobody wants to buy those. Comparing it with a BEV with a battery of usable size, it will be cheaper. I'll let the CEO of Ram math for you:
The engine they chose for the genset is a pretty simple, old reliable one that is cheap as dirt to produce. It's been simplified even further for this application (missing some emissions equipment, nearly all of the engine driven accessories as the aren't needed anymore). You're looking at a production price significantly less than that of the standard battery BEV and dramatically cheaper than that of the big battery version (which is what those who want to tow would choose).
I wonder what the cost will be on the new EREV F-150. It has to be considerably high because you are adding a V-6 engine to the Lightning. Also wonder if Ford will do the classic bait and switch like they did with the Lightning. Advertise it for under $40K. Then do not produce any at $40K.
It’s not happening. Never has and never will. Erevs don’t make it, if they make it to market they come to the American market neutered or in a completely unrealistic setup to see the value. Think of the volt, the bmw i3, and think of the dodge ram charger or ram erev (because you have to think about it because everyone is still waiting). There’s a reason why the plug in hybrids all have similar electric only ranges. It doesn’t affect the oil and gas company profit and the upcharge gives the automakers a cool gadget to pass the cost on to the consumer with.
This is spot on with hindsight being 20/20 on Ford. There's a 50% chance it never sees the light of day.
You're completely correct. An EREV isn't going to be cheaper than a BEV with a small battery, and pretty close in cost to those with medium sized batteries.
This is also true. Only 70 kWh of that battery is "usable" by the user, on purpose. They only allow you to charge it to 97% actual SOC for battery longevity (I think the indicated SOC will actually say 100% at this level). When the indicated SOC reads "0%" and the generator kicks on (in the more normal modes) you'll still have about 17% of battery left actual SOC. This is so you never run into a reduced power situation--put your foot to the floor and it will give you all 650 HP, all the time, even at an indicated 0% SOC. When in Tow/Haul mode, it's even more extreme. I don't know if a final number has been set yet, but 35% has been thrown around which would be an actual 43% or so SOC. That's how it's able to go full speed up even the longest mountain passes towing 14K when the generator couldn't do that on its own. When you hit the top, the SOC will be reduced but will charge back up to 35% or more going down the other side.
It's true, on really long trips (even medium-long when towing) you're not going to save much, if any gas compared with an ICE truck.
I think this is to general of a statement. I believe "and I am sure others do as well" that the current ER version of the Lightning is perfect for the majority of truck owners. Most of my friends drive full size half tons and none of them tow with it more than a couple of times a year. The majority of their driving is to and from work, running kids to and from sports practices/games, the occasional road trip, and home deport runs. The lightning can accomplish most/all of that just as well as their current trucks. And in a much cheaper way.
