| ▲ | Animats 3 hours ago |
| Although Ford's CEO now gets it, Ford's product line doesn't reflect it yet.
Farley has been bringing a few sample BYD cars to the US, for Ford people to drive around and to take apart. Farley dragged his executive team to China to see a BYD plant. They came back scared. But what Ford actually sells is 1) an F-150 converted to electric, 2) a Ford Mustang converted to electric, and 3) a Ford Transit converted to electric. They're all more expensive, and heavier, than their gasoline-powered versions. BYD shows that electric cars are cheaper if designed properly from the ground up.
The problem is that the US no longer makes many cars. Mostly giant trucks and SUVs.
Hauling all that mass around requires a huge battery, resulting in 3-ton vehicles. |
|
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| "Americans only want trucks and SUVs." (I hear people say.) Cool. Then allow BYD non-trucks, non-SUVs into the U.S. then. The Japanese back in the 70's showed U.S. automakers that price and mileage (in that decade anyway) were important to Americans. I suspect price is still important. |
| |
| ▲ | khannn an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I wish I could get a BYD Dolphin hatch for ~10k USD. Somehow my 12 year old Prius is worth 9k on KBB and that's insane. | | |
| ▲ | vel0city 36 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Dolphins don't sell for $10k outside of China. Dolphins in South/Central America are ~$22k. Even if there weren't tariffs on them I wouldn't expect to see them out the door for less than $25k in the US. | | |
| ▲ | energy123 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Why the 120% price difference between China and South America? | | |
| ▲ | vel0city 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Different government subsidies, different manufacturing costs, different regulatory requirements, and different markets have different market competition. Think about this concept. It costs you $1 to make a widget. It costs your competitors $1.25 to make a similar widget. They sell theirs for $5. Do you sell yours for $1.50 or $4.75? Obviously, other things could be in play for the market for widgets, but if you could sell all your widgets for $4.75 wouldn't you do that? If the cheapest car in the US is about $20k and is a complete POS, why would you sell your better car for $10k when you could still sell it for $22k and still sell just about all the ones you build? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lifty 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why would they allow it? It would destroy the remaining car industry in the US. Better to at least maintain a car industry, even if it’s inefficient. | | |
| ▲ | epistasis 11 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | A jobs subsidy program that focused on more productive industries would be better than subsidizing an auto industry that never aimed for international competitiveness. We have exceptionally productive fields in the US tumor are the envy of the world. If we can't be productive in auto manufacturing, devoting a ton of our workforce too it is a misallocation of our limited resources. If we are going to be subsidizing unprofitable industry fro national security purposes, we need to either 1) ruthlessly cut the least productive manufacturers from access to subsidies, or 2) nationalize it. Any other choices would be very inefficient. | |
| ▲ | newAccount2025 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why is that better? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | rootusrootus 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I've got a Lightning and I think I like the 'converted to electric' aspect. Everything that fits on a regular ICE F-150 fits on my truck. The interior is the same (okay, some trims have a big screen, but not all do). It would be nice if it had a bit more range, but when I look at the efficiency of an R1T or a CT, I don't see that being purpose-built would automatically be a win for Ford. Pickups are not ever going to be competitive with sedans and CUVs for efficiency. |
| |
| ▲ | Marsymars 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The problem with the Lightning is mostly that it's a money-loser for Ford. | | |
| ▲ | rootusrootus 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I've never seen a good number on this. Is it money losing per vehicle, or because of the amortized R&D included in the cost? The problem from my perspective is that it hasn't turned out as popular as they hoped -- truck buyers are a hard to convert bunch of people. Which is too bad, because my Lightning is my favorite of all the pickups I've owned over the years. It's a fantastic truck. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | darth_avocado 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Ford is a bad example because they’ve pretty much abandoned all their non truck and transit van segments for years. Even if EVs weren’t a thing, they do not compete in any of the segments and haven’t for almost a decade. First it was Japanese and German companies eating their lunch, now it’s the Chinese. Also, F150 lightening is such a failure. There was a recent video of it trying to haul very minimal load and it pretty much drained the battery in less than 100 miles. |
| |
| ▲ | Marsymars 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Also, F150 lightening is such a failure. There was a recent video of it trying to haul very minimal load and it pretty much drained the battery in less than 100 miles. Was that due to something specific with the Lightning, or was it just due to the intrinsic energy requirements of hauling loads? (Or in other words, does an EV even exist that's notably better at hauling loads?) | | |
| ▲ | jsight 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | TBH, those tests are mostly marketing failures. EV trucks aren't really good at hauling trailers over large distances, as the aerodynamics produce a massive impact on range. Multiple tests have shown this by showing 50% or more range reduction from pulling lightweight, non-aerodynamic loads. The marketing failure is that the companies have allowed consumers to incorrectly extrapolate from this to thinking that heavy loads in the bed have the same issue. They actually don't as weight is a minimal impact on range. Unfortunately, every thread about carrying sheetrock, rocks, mulch, etc shows how misinformed the average consumer has become in this space. It has to be a significant impact on sales, given that in the US these are the only heavy loads carried by >50% of the half ton pickups sold here. | | |
| ▲ | AngryData 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yep, so many people think hauling weight kills your gas mileage, but it doesn't really have that big of an effect unless you are hauling a massive load through stop and go traffic while in a hurry. The vast majority of people do most of their hauling of things down the highway, not through the middle of cities, and 90% of the losses from hauling load is just wind resistance against the poorly aerodynamic trailer which is a lot while at highway speeds. If someone is traveling down the highway at 70 MPH in their SUV with 1500 lbs in the back hatch, the only extra fuel it takes over the same SUV being empty is a tiny amount of extra friction in the tires that comes out to a fraction of a MPG. |
| |
| ▲ | pixl97 31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I want an electric drive train with the engine that works like a generator at a fixed speed. Don't think anyone offers something like this. | |
| ▲ | Kirby64 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It’s an intrinsic issue with hauling loads, combined with the relatively low range of F150L. By comparison the the Chevy Silverado EV gets ~450mi of range unloaded and testing seems to have it able to tow ~250mi of range at 70mph, which seems plenty between stops: https://www.hotcars.com/chevrolet-silverado-ev-towing/ | |
| ▲ | vel0city 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Highway towing range hit is largely an aerodynamic drag issue. Any EV truck (or any car really, even gas cars have a big range hit) is going to get a massive ding in its range towing anything increasing it's aero drag even if it's an empty box. It's just with a gas truck you're starting with 300+mi often for a well equipped truck so you lose 100mi of range you're still over 200mi per tank. But an EV, on a long range road trip you're rarely charging to 100%, you're often going like 5%->80% because the charging speeds fall off a cliff after a certain percentage. So you start off with maybe 300mi, but not really because after the first leg you're only using 75% of it, but now you're also using like 25% more energy because of the massively increased drag. So what was 300mi on a full charge became maybe 150mi on a full charge once you're on that second leg. Coupled with the fact what used to be free energy (heating the cabin with waste engine heat) if you're towing in cold weather you're not even going to get that 150mi. | |
| ▲ | darth_avocado 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Probably both. It was a consumer review, so hard to say from an engineering perspective. |
| |
| ▲ | ErroneousBosh an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Ford is a bad example because they’ve pretty much abandoned all their non truck and transit van segments for years. Perhaps in the US. Here in the UK you see a lot of Focuses and Fiestas, especially the ST models, and the "ST Line" models, which have ST trim but boring engines. Quite often you see the latter on their side a surprisingly long way from the tarmac, surrounded by bits of obliterated cattle fence, with a very patient farmer rolling it back onto its wheels with the Manitou to make the recovery guy's day easier. |
|
|
| ▲ | bastawhiz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > a Ford Mustang converted to electric I agree with your comment, but I'll be a little pedantic for a minute: As a Charger Daytona owner, I'd love to call the Mach-E a mustang, but it's really just borrowing the brand. Ford has said unequivocally that they'll never make an all-electric muscle car, which is a real shame. The Mach-E is a great car if you're turned off by a Model Y, but you wouldn't choose it over a mustang GT or a charger Daytona or a Camaro. |
| |
| ▲ | lostlogin 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Ford has said unequivocally that they'll never make an all-electric muscle car What’s the thinking here? Pandering to some market segment? It sounds like they are organising the deck chairs in the titanic. Edit: I tried looking into the comment. It seems he was referring to Mustangs specifically, which is weird as they do make an electric one (assuming you agree it’s a ‘real’ mustang). I’m confused. | | |
| ▲ | bastawhiz an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The Mach-E isn't a muscle car. The comment was specifically around the Mustang sedan, which they do not have an electric version of. Honestly, it's befuddling to me. There's a lot of folks who could get talked into an electric muscle car, they just have to know how to sell it. I own a Charger Daytona and literally every car guy I show it to has interest; I genuinely think Dodge just doesn't know how to market and sell it. I'm 100% confident that the right marketing agency could sell 100k of these, but the cohort of "it'll never be a Mustang" is far louder than the "wow that thing rips" crowd. | |
| ▲ | grosswait 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s not though. Just borrowing the name as they said. | | |
| ▲ | lostlogin an hour ago | parent [-] | | That’s just it though. If the name doesn’t make it a Mustang, what does? |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | breve 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > a Ford Mustang converted to electric The Mustang Mach-e isn't like any other Mustang. It just has the Mustang branding. |
|
| ▲ | denimnerd42 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| the mustang mach e is a purpose built EV. not a mustang with a battery back stuck in. |
|
| ▲ | eptcyka 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The lightning isn’t selling, almost at all. |
| |