tbone

It didn’t really translate well did it.

I would rather have it for the once every three years I use it, than Ford save $60 bucks and still charge me the same.

I have stated many times on this forum about my aversion to decontenting, especially with the escalating vehicle prices. And let’s be real, that is what this is regardless of how Ford is spinning it to shareholders. I just don’t understand why Ford continually does these things that provide a negative perception for the customer, and not all shareholders are customers. If you want to make it option instead, I understand that, but to eliminate it to save a measly $60 at the expense of your customers just doesn’t make sense to me.

Here’s a Forbes article bringing this to consumer’s attention. Not a nice headline really… https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2024/02/09/ford-is-sending-future-looking-feature-to-the-scrap-heap/?sh=146b6a4b7bc9

There has been no mention of lowering the price for the customer.

I have had pretty good luck with the explorers that we’ve had, which have been built there. However, they are known for a lot of quality problems. Moving the explorer to OAC is an interesting concept though.

It’s always about getting what you want, no matter what the price is.

Sometimes it’s not about if you can pay for it, but do you find the value in it.

These kind of actions are really unforced errors that tarnish relationships with customers.

Ford is contractually obligated to put something in your plant for you guys to build correct? The solutions are there. See above post.☝️

You read my mind. They’re building a brand new 5+ billion dollar plant as we speak for production of the next GEN Lightning, The anticipating capacity of this plant is 500,000 vehicles. They’re having trouble selling 100,000 lightnings right now that are currently being built in another plant. Flex manufacturing has been the standard for a very long time, so I would anticipate this plant would be a flex plant like the rest. Why not consolidate all BEV production into this plant since they will have battery production on site, until BEV adoption becomes greater? They have been all over the place with their battery plant construction plans, but they certainly seem to need batteries, but more specifically hybrid batteries since their hybrid production always seems to be limited. Can anyone explain the difference between a hybrid battery and a BEV battery? Ford has shown they’re willing to stop construction on new plants in the past, however, I don’t think they’re going to do that with BOC. With that said, they certainly could stop their plans at OAC, and Switch to an alternative. As stated above the obvious consideration would be to move Chinese Nautilus production to this facility, along with the C2 based Chinese edge L, perhaps with some styling changes, although it has grown on me, but it does already exist. And put the dang Evos there as well already. People like the MME, but I think they would just prefer a gas version. I wonder if they’re still pumped about getting rid of all those ICE engineers? Ultimately, this has turned into a major debacle. If I care to guess nobody will be held accountable for it either.

One can only hope.

No kidding!!

That’s the problem I’m seeing with the statements I’ve read. It appears only Ford is saving money, as I didn’t see any mention of passing it down to the consumer. It continues to irritate me about Ford’s pay more get less mantra. It’s not a good look, and I have liked things they have deleted, which makes those things very noticeable to me.

I like the styling of both of these vehicles. Of the Korean siblings, Kia’s styling has been significantly better than Hyundai’s, IMO.

No, I cannot. I basically have to treat the car like someone who has no access to a charger. I charge at dealerships or other commercial chargers. The basis of my statement stems from when I had a 100% charge at -2 degrees, which only yielded 109 miles of range, which was not sufficient for me to conduct a round trip, resulting in me using my ICE vehicle to avoid the charging hassle.

I know there is more standard equipment, but those are not small price increases.

Well that certainly is not the case of the MME I drive, which is the basis of my understanding. I hope they will be achieve that or better in the near future, but in the meantime I won’t deal with all of the considerations necessary to conduct a roadtrip in an BEV.

It’s pretty close to the production model.

We do multiple road trips per year, well over 300 miles, and those were/are done with children as we continue today. Your description of how a road trip could go would be an absolute no go for my family. Our stops are quick and dirty and back on the road again. The people that travel in my circles are likely more like me regarding road trips, so I’m skeptical about peoples interest in sitting somewhere and charging for an hour.

Frankly, as a daily MME driver in a cold weather state, I really feel the range needs to be 500 miles so when it’s cut in half due to freezing temperatures you still have an acceptable range of 250 miles.

How far behind would you say you are now?

Disregard post. I didn’t see Fuzzy’s response above.

I definitely think this platform has been mishandled. The refresh should have come in late 23 as 24 model. I also hate buying early release model years such as a 2025 model being released at the beginning of 24, because it would likely make my vehicle high mileage vehicle at trade in time. This should have been a 2024 since it’s about in line with the 24 Ranger at this point.

The better question is why don’t they have any 24 models at the dealers. It’s February 2024 already.