jpd80
-
Posts
31,255 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
173
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by jpd80
-
-
4 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:
What we're seeing is Ford retreating to a high volume North American product, and a case can be made that Ford could survive at half it's current size on the F series alone. But that leaves the problem of half of Ford and it's employees with nothing to do with only F series around.
Seriously, Ford has been down/right sizing to market need ever since Mulally,
all of that is just code for building less and charging more and banking profit
from not expending as much labor and resources to get it. Like it or hate it,
that’s what Ford has become in its pursuit of %return on revenue.
4 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:It gets worse... What happens when the trend to smaller garages and high prices cuts F series sales in half and Ford hasn't kept the Ranger competitive with Tacoma et al...
Instead of worrying about what ifs that may be years to come, Ford prioritises
production of its most profitable models and costs production of other models
to make that happen (saw it with chip shortages and other parts supply issues).
Even when Ford fouls up, it makes sure that it’s poor sellers still get sold and they
just move on and try again with something else.
-
1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:
More then likely another plant will be consolidated here with its product down the road. I'm also guessing that EV versions of ICE products like the Bronco will move here next decade
1 hour ago, akirby said:That capacity can easily be reused.
Interesting……market is sluggish at the moment but won’t always be like that….
Wonder if the capacity could be used for more Super Duty Trucks, I’m probably not thinking the right way…
-
43 minutes ago, akirby said:
Again we agree just using different words.I think they did some process reengineering 2 yrs ago based on what they knew at the time and what they learned from Mach-e and Lightning but Farley thought there was more to be done including low cost EVs. So he formed the skunkworks team. But you can’t just sit back and wait 2 years to see IF they find something new that would apply to other programs.
There is risk in waiting for new processes and there is risk to moving ahead in parallel. If it only cost them 1 year on T3 then moving ahead was better than waiting 2 years to start.
We all know Oakville was the wrong products in the wrong plant at the wrong time. Period.
Yes and to reinforce your point, BEV Silverado seems to be having issues with those Ultium gel packs, am I wrong in thinking GM took a short cut with this technology that now seems to be biting them in the rear…
-
55 minutes ago, akirby said:
I don’t disagree with any of that. Were just looking at it from different angles.Thank you for being patient with me, and agree.
-
19 hours ago, akirby said:
They didn’t rush T3. They didn’t rush Mach-E or Lightning - they are good first effort vehicles and learning experiences and they’re doing ok with proper pricing. The only thing rushed was Oakville.On the contrary,
The vehicles for Oakville were transferred from Cuautitlan after being delayed two years and redesigned,
so by the time they arrive they will be delayed four years and hopefully, not only up to date but cutting edge.
Double the production cost,
Mach E was a massive redesign, so basically double the funding was thrown at it to correctnot only the styling error but also the inadequate battery and driveline which were simply
extensions of what was used in the previous E Focus. None of that was going to work.
Priority,
The need for a quickly developed Lightning meant that it went first while Ford delayed
it’s answer to the Silverado BEV. The current Lightning allowed Ford to get a BEV truckup and running faster, the lessons learned for the current Lightning are still continuing
which is why Ford is already revising T3 batteries, there much to be grateful about this
pull back as Ford was always going to struggle with battery range looking inadequate.
The biggest gift will be if the Cybertruck turns out to be a disappointment to the many
eager buyers …..hopefully Tesla plays its part and snatches defeat from the jaws of victory
Whats not mentioned anywhere is that Ford has had a good look under the hood of VW
and that MEB tool kit, deciding it didn’t need the over priced batteries, the VW controller
or the drives and motors……LOL, with the Ford top hats, there’s not much VW left in them…
Maybe I should have said this first….I probably sound critical of Ford and I apologise for the high horse attitude. I just want Ford
to be the best it can be and not settle for just good enough, get out in front and lead….
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, akirby said:
I agree with that. But I think we’re underestimating the impact of the changes from the skunkworks team. I think they are fundamentally changing the way Ford designs and builds EVs which will either give them a big cost advantage or at worst keep them on par with other industry leaders. You don’t need 100 people working for 2 years in secret just to redesign a couple of vehicles. It’s far more fundamental in my opinion especially considering the team members.And that’s exactly my point, Ford took off with large design teams developing their key vehicles but, the efficiencies from the skunkworks aren’t just this type of battery or that control system…Ford compared what was done between the developments and discovered that much of the efficiency gains comes from not doing the conventional development way that Ford did…they need someone to think outside of the box and show them where all the unnecessary, redundant steps are in the process and look at new way to do everything…..especially cutting the time to make vehicles. An ex Tesla engineering manager is the perfect person to show them how it’s done.
-
2
-
-
16 hours ago, akirby said:
The only problem with Lightning is price. T3 is the one BEV that Ford should be all in on right now given their leadership in the truck market. And building a new plant is the right way to do i pt instead of cancelling more existing products and getting caught with your pants down.Ford spent $700 million to build the Rouge Electric Vehicle Center, it’s now back to one shift
so Ford is barely using one third of the capacity…….Not sure what is supposed to happen
to this facility once T3 takes over in a few years but it’s clear that Ford is counting on a
huge change in future demand….
-
3 hours ago, Oac98 said:
I agree but there’s no changing course anymore. They made the moves they feel is best for the company. With the Edge on the way out we will see how much sales of their other crossovers and suvs increase.
I sense that Ford is still in denial with the continuing ned for gasoline vehicles…
I have a feeling that newly discovered efficiencies in manufacturing and equipment may be behinda lot of the product delays, maybe Ford is learning so much that emerging product needs to already
be redesigned lest it be DOA to customers.
-
I’m sorry but how many times has Ford tried this same idea, they now have an new plan
that lets them compete with brand x…only to find that the competition have also moved on….
God for them trying new things but it also shows just how much Ford rushed its roll out of BEVs,
everything now is curling up the moment the economy backs off, amazing how many $$$ they burn….
-
The way Ford is back pedalling with Lightning production at its present facility,
going forward with a new, big ass BEV plant mightn’t be the smartest idea.
but if that’s the hill Ford wants to die on, then so be it… -
14 hours ago, akirby said:
I give it a year. Musk’s ego won’t let him cancel it before then no matter how bad it is.The other alternative he has is to prioritise building the higher series versions, probably already doing that…
-
14 hours ago, akirby said:
I think it’s about time for Musk to sell the car business and be a battery system supplier.
Or just go play with his rocket….
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, silvrsvt said:
the US is more or less energy independent from the rest of the world at this point.
North American crude is mostly the light sweet, low sulphur type which is also very easy to refine.
The unfortunate part is that most of the refineries are set up to process the heavier less sweet crudeoil that’s normally imported from the Middle East.
We all hope for true oil independence but I fear it’s still a ways off…..
-
2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:
That is a bit of a leap there
The market in general has many different issue, with the biggest being pricing and interest rates along with the general feeling of uncertainty with the economy. With inflation cutting into peoples buying power, people are finally making more prudent purchasing decisions.
Plunging Pickup Truck Sales Threaten Detroit’s Profit EngineThen add in the uncertainty with consumers and EVs, the early adaptors won't have an issue, but people who are on the fence are going to be harder to convince, are you going to buy something that might have a 300-400 mile range in 20 minutes 2-3 years after you buy one? The EV market needs to mature more before people become comfortable in buying them. Hopefully the charging infrastructure still grows even as EV demand softens over the next few years to help mitigate that issue.
I get that but also understand that this delay now means that this vehicle has been delayed a total of four years.
Anyone looking on would naturally wonder if a different vehicle could have been developed instead (opportunity cost)
and you know, given a decent ROI that could have been used to fund a future 3-row BEV…
-
4 hours ago, Oac98 said:
Farley never had any intention of continuing the commodity product Edge. He would rather have an assembly plant site idle til 2027 which is insane! I don’t believe this study bullshit.
Yeah and even if it was possible, ita good bet that Farley would have made sure the answer was no.
Extending the existing Edge would be a huge embarrassment after taking up new BEV products.
Its the same thing as when he ducked the dealer discussion, better to avoid a conversation altogether.
Like I said in the other thread, Ford is redesigning these BEVs for the third time……Yikes.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Oac98 said:
Still trying to process this 2027 crap.
It sucks man, Ford now has a huge hole in its product plans for the next few years.
I can’t believe that Ford basically let Oakville go over a cliff without a contingency plan,
almost compelling that their BEVs were probably so bad as to be hopelessly uncompetitive
and now they’re going to redesign these things for a third time? ..F*** my brown dog.
-
The ball ripping thing here is that OPEC is desperately trying to raise the price of crude to $100/barrel
and the US needs to fight this hammer and tong as it’s just the oil nations trying to bleed us all again.
If that Price jumped to $100/ barrel, I think diesel becomes more in play but it needs advanced modern
emission technology to drop emissions to super low levels. Bosch found the key after dieselgate but
it wasn’t able to be retrofitted to existing diesels. It basically uses all existing emissions equipment but
requires diesels to be run hotter and more importantly, the temperature controlled in a lot narrower range.
https://www.bosch.com/stories/new-diesel-engine-technology/
Wondering if smaller diesel Gen set and battery setup would work better in semi trucks but that’s another topic..
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:
Well guys it seems Cummins recognizes a need for a gasoline engine-think California/Oregon and Ford in their infinite wisdom says,,"nah, who needs that volume". How many cubes could you get oiut of a 300 six? I've seen some hyou tube videos where guys play with that engine and get big power out of it.
With respect, I think California’s legislation is going to impact Cummins engine sales more than Ford.
But you are right, Ford will wait until the last moment before deciding which way to go and whatever
costs them less is they way they will swing.
Would Ford entertain converting Powerstroke to 6.7 gas turbo or expand the Godzilla range with turbo?
Or would they do nothing……
-
21 minutes ago, Rick73 said:
Diesels are definitely under threat, so would not be surprising if Ford reacts to the new Cummins turbo gas engine in one way or another, particularly if they end up in a RAM SD pickup.Ford stroking the gas 7.3L V8 makes sense to a point in that it would provide greater low-end torque, but even if Ford stroked it to 9 liters (based on same stroke as Cummins), it would not equal the Cummins’ torque unless Ford added turbocharging; and if Ford was going the turbo route, then they wouldn’t need greater displacement than 7.3L to start with. For this reason I think you’re correct that a stroked 7.3L is very unlikely, though Ford has history with large-displacement truck-specific gas V8s. The huge 534 cubic-inch Super Duty V8 from the past is a reminder that larger gas engines are possible and can meet large-truck requirements.
If Ford follow Cummins lead, they may indeed develop a gas version of Power Stroke diesel V8, but as you say, that would likely cost more than stroked 7.3L. Another unlikely opinion would be for Ford to develop a large-truck heavy duty engine using EcoBoost technology. With DOHC and Dual VVT, Ford may be able to equal Cummins torque with smaller engine, and be more fuel efficient and with lower emissions; though hard to say how buyers would react or compare to a larger Cummings.
IMO all Ford new engine scenarios above are very unlikely because of low volume requirements.
Also consider that the Ford 7.3 was not developed as a 6.7 Powerstroke replacement but as an affordable
gasoline variant that is priced considerably less. The 7.3 MD is also an extension of the Super Duty application.
By contrast, Cummins looks to be in a different situation and developing the 6.7 gasoline engine for a different
purpose, as a replacement for the diesel version. It seems to have considerably more torque than the Ford 7.3,
much closer to the rating of the diesel version (keeping mind the conservative rating system in Medium Duty)
It looks like Cummins really needs the 6.7 gas engine to be a success in a much wider market…..
-
54 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:
I'm excited, in terms of what this affordable EV platform will underpin, it sounds like almost nothing is off the table. Influential people associated with the program said it was basically being designed to be all things to all people, with a very wide range of top hats.
He specifically mentioned trucks, SUVs and vans, and then got all cryptical and said amongst other things. I'll have to try and track down the quote. But that amongst other things comment makes me hopeful for some sort of sedan or coupe. Trucks, and SUVs need to be given development priority, higher sales volume and all that, but I'm sincerely hoping Ford's at least toying with the idea of doing some sort of car form factor.
And what a refreshing change that would make to the way Ford traditionally does product envelopes,
it’s like every project was deliberately limited so it could fit under an anticipated funding level…
If the rumours are true, it could spell a massive paradigm shift at Ford but I won’t hold my breath..
If this architecture is as broad as I suspect, it’s no wonder why many projects have been delayed.
If I could plagiarise FDR,
”The only thing Ford has to fear is Ford itself.”
-
2
-
-
The whole point to Ford setting up a skunkworks to develop small BEVs was to design and develop them
with the kind of efficiency seen at Tesla and at a faster time line than possible as a Ford project.
With a small team, it is possible that some existing projects and be reviewed either junked or vastly improvedby using a different approach….maybe this is the real reason behind many current BEV projects being pushed back.
Sometimes a brutal review of projects is good for business…-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, ExplorerDude said:
Next gen has been delayed and pushed back.
Word is that everything (BEV) is now getting pushed back, so maybe some “missing hybrid” versions
of existing vehicles now become possible in the next year or so…
Remember that this is Ford and like most things will probably overcompensate in another direction
to act as a distraction from the mess that’s piling up on the Model E side…..
A small wager that perhaps Model E will be used to bundle up a ton of BEV losses that can be
written off over the coming years…while transferring continuing projects back under Ford Blue
where expenses can be better managed as extensions under existing platform cost centres.
Remembering that if the skunkworks vehicles are a big financial success, a lot of the BEV
engineering and development section under Model E then becomes redundant as smaller
BEV teams show much better efficiency and quicker delivery times.
-
17 minutes ago, Ares said:
Not to go off topic, but since it was mentioned here, what are the odds that CD6 will ever be used for anything beyond the current Explorer/Aviator? Weren’t the original Edge/Nautilus redesigns going to utilize the platform? I wonder if there’s any regrets scrapping those since the EV delays.
Zero chance, CD6 Edge/Aviator was a late scrapping because the styling had serious issues
so, money already spent plus extending CD4 until now, that boat has well and truly sailed.
Its sad but the money that was wasted on developing CD6 should have gone into Aussie Falcon / Territory
line of vehicles that could have supported everything from Mustang, Falcon, Fairlane to Edge /Explorer
as well as a pickup but Mulally would have none of it.
-
3
-
-
(this view external to USA)
Another annoying part of that data was that up until dieselgate, the European Union was quite happy tocontinue with the use of small capacity diesel engines but once VW was revealed as cheaters, the whole
shooting box was thrown out to be replaced by gasoline hybrids. So then manufacturers began switching
to hybrids and PHEV right about the time the green evangelists took hold in Euro politics and without any
consultation decided to move the goalposts to a full electric future…from that time forward, ICE has been
demonised to the point of being responsible for millions of deaths each year….
So yeah, the whole conversation is rigged towards eliminating ICE ASAP instead of considering an orderly
transition. The zealots won’t have a bar of it…..
-
2
-
1
-
Tesla to Lay Off More Than 10% of Workforce, Report Says
in E.V. Central
Posted
In other news, entitled billionaire wonders why Tesla buyers don't like him anymore after he started calling them woke…