bzcat

There is no "EV crowd" here - just rperez817 and 1 does not make a crowd. But the is definitely an ICE goon squad here that lacks objectively. ? Most of us are talking about science and basic physics which is as objective as it can be. And it's not about battery which is just a storage medium. It is about energy and how some "solutions" for powering vehicles at scale are really nonsense. Like hydrogen (and syn fuel in general). Syn fuel is worthy of research. There are lots of niche applications where it will work. But it ultimately still rely on internal combustion, which is already near the edge of theoretical limit of efficiency. Roughly 30% of the energy input into internal combustion is converted into forward momentum to propel our vehicle. With syn fuel, that % is lower because you lose some energy in the process of making the syn fuel. Electricity converts about 80% of energy input into vehicle propulsion. You just cannot overcome this gap with wishful thinking.

LFP uses less rare earth minerals (e.g. Cobalt) than lithium Ion battery, it is cheaper and has lower child slave labor content. Nissan Leaf battery had low performance because it used air cooling instead of liquid cooling. Also, it wasn't a particularly well engineered car with rudimentary power management software so not nearly as efficient as later EVs like Tesla or Mach E.

I didn't say it is not worth researching. But what is the goal and objective? And what is the science? If you are concerned about powering legacy ICE, we still have lots of oil underground to power them for eons. Syn fuel is net energy negative no matter how you make it so fundamentally, it doesn't make sense to apply it at scale. This is not a theoretical point. If you think about it logically, converting all existing ICE to syn fuel will require so much more energy input it just doesn't make any sense. Much more logical to speed up replacement of ICE with EV if your goal is zero emission. But for hobbyist and enthusiast that still may want to drive ICE 50 years from now, absolutely, syn fuel is a possible but niche solution to driving your classic 2022 Porsche in 2072.

Syn fuel is just like hydrogen (in fact, hydrogen is a syn fuel, a spectacularly inefficient one). It's a niche solution for some specific application. It's not a feasible scalable solution for our transportation need. Even if you can make it from renewable energy, it still makes more sense to use those renewable energy to charge the battery. Batteries has MUCH better efficiency than any syn fuel. Fusion is the holy grail. We are now able to breakeven on energy extraction but still a long ways to commercially viable means of production. On the subject of Lincoln... I'm still skeptical that Ford will import anything from China. The 25% tariff makes the whole thing unprofitable which is why Geely stopped importing from China and GM scaled back Buick significantly. I think Ford did have plans to import Evos (as Fusion Active), Edge, and Nautilus from China but those plans must have gone sideways once it was clear that Biden is not going to lift the Trump tariff.

"Commodity" is just Ford speak for not profitable. Anything that Farley doesn't think will make money and takes up production space that could go to another vehicle is "commodity". Tesla doesn't think Model 3 is "commodity". Toyota doesn't think Prius or Corolla is "commodity". If you go by the real meaning of the word, the real commodity Ford product is F-150 and Transit which are high volume and common place as the word commodity implies. And those happens to be the most profitable vehicles in Ford's staple. Ford never said it will not do an EV sedan which is what this styling buck is showing. Ford also didn't say it was ending Focus in China. It is just ending the model in Europe... like the Mondeo. There is probably reasonable demand on worldwide basis for a compact-ish size EV sedan. Model 3 is clear demonstration of such demand.

The MEB sport crossover is well past the styling buck stage so probably not. Timing wise, this is probably a 2027 model so you have to think 4-5 years ahead. It's not gen 2 Mach E or Escape or anything that is already known. It's an EV replacement for an ICE that Ford hasn't announced. e.g. Focus or Escort given the size and shape.

Ford's price cut is mainly to make sure Mach E doesn't miss out on the tax credit because IRS for some reason think it is a car. You can't think of it as just moving the equlibrium on the supply and demand curve. It's actually a shift in the supply curve because all future competitor 5 seat EV will be priced below the $50k threashold in order to qualify for the tax credit. GM is not cutting price because the only model this affects is Lyriq and they are playing to a different audience competing with other luxury brands that are way over $50k anyway. You can bet your entire fortune that the upcoming Blazer EV starting MSRP will match Mach E and Model Y. The other important thing to remember is market share aqusition is important during the EV ramp up phase. Ford has strategic reason to maintain its number 2 position in the market. GM is not responding because like I said, it has nothing to sell in the price range right now. And VW is resorting to rebate ($7,500 is available across all VW/Audi/Porsche EV right now) so they are effectively lowering the prices too. Hyundai Ioniq 5 went from selling over MSRP to dealer begging people to take delivery in a matter of 3 weeks. You don't need to cut prices but doesn't mean you won't be selling at the new price point anyway.

It's actually a replacement for Passat. The proportion is playing tricks on our eyes - the taller profile (to hide the battery skate platform) is making the car look shorter but it is purely an optical illusion. VW already published the dimension for ID.7 and it is slightly longer than the outgoing Passat.

This thing looks kind of small and car-like... perhaps it is the replacement for Chinese Focus. Ford is ending production of Focus in Germany later this year so Ford China will be in charge of the next gen design. This is probably an early styling buck.

Z71 is trim level above LT/Trail Boss... like the old LTZ where as FX4 and Tremor are packages available across most Ranger trim levels. This is the major difference between Ford and Chevy... Ford lets you buy Lariat with or without FX4 (or Tremor) while on Chevy Z71 the suspension lift is bundled with higher equipment list. You can't even buy a Z71 2WD. Looking at the 2023 configurator, I think it is more like this: WT = XL LT = XLT Trail Boss = XLT FX4 Z71 = Lariat FX4 ZR2 = Lariat Tremor n/a = Raptor Of course Ford could change everything when it lanches the new Ranger so this is a bit of apples and oranges comparison right now.

I've seen a few Lyriq and Hummer and of course Bolt (which is not Ultium) is everywhere. The first big volume model is Equinox and it is launching this summer. Silverado is fall I believe (or maybe 2024?)

But is ZR2 really the competition for Raptor? ZR2 seems like it is more a Tremor competitor. There is no engine upgrade for example over the standard Colorado.

Very nice ?

This forum gets the future Ford product tea leaf reading right more than any other. In fact, I'm pretty sure Ford Authorities sometimes takes the theories we developed here and it turns into one of their "discoveries".

That's an 100 GWh plant, which is quite big. 500 GWh claim is just typical Elon bluster. That factory would have to be much bigger to be capable of delivery 500 GWh of battery.

Exactly... the interpretation of the tax credit likely means every EV from now on will have 3 rows of seat to qualify it as a "truck", no matter the size.

Storage, storage, storage. I can't repeat that often enough. We don't have problem generating renewable energy. It is the cheapest form of energy. The grid needs more storage to enable time shift to consumption, and Govt needs to provide financial incentives for power producers to shift to renewables early before the existing useful life of coal and gas plants expire. Our problem right now is not that we can't build new infrastructure. The problem is existing asset owners doesn't want to impair their assets on their balance sheet (it has financial implications). In order to rebalance that, we have to change the economic incentives and related accounting practice. This is why the fossil fuel industry to launching all out fake news assault on ESG financial reporting guidelines like they did with global warming.

Lincoln Star is a preview for a production car due in 2025. L100 doesn't have any production relevance but more of a brand building exercise.

The new Transit Courier was spotted: https://www.motor1.com/news/631301/ford-transit-courier-spied-production-body/ Looks bigger which means Ford is likely positioning it as a replacement for both the existing Transit Courier and the Transit Connect in Europe. The rebadged VW Caddy may stay only as a passenger van Tourneo Connect.

Lincoln has show two concept vehicles last year: Star and L100 Star is a preview of production 2025 EV CUV which could slot in between Aviator and Corsair. The few articles I've read suggested it is basically Lincoln version of gen 2 Mach E so that could be the Nautilus replacement. L100 is a sedan but it's hard to imagine Lincoln trying to do another Continental. But it does suggest that they have more products planned for Lincoln than what they are willing to tell us.

I don't think Ford will do LWB and SWB Explorer. But there will definitely be multiple sizes of GE2 models for sale. Gen 2 Mach E could have a long roof companion that could be called Edge. And I'm sure Lincoln will get a version of gen 2 Mach E too.

You are asking the right question but drawing the wrong inference. Renewable is cheapest on per KW basis but there is fixed costs for power producers to switch. It's a question of capital investment. US Govt policy hasn't favor renewable until fairly recently. For most of the 21st century, the US govt encouraged fracking and discouraged investment in wind and solar so gas generation predictably increased. Those newly installed gas capacity over the last 20 years has useful life of 30 years on average so they are not going to be phased out overnight. The Govt policy is now more balanced rather than lopsided in favor of gas so solar and wind capacity are growing much faster than other sources. And as I mentioned before, coal is basically regulated out of existence now so it will decline every year as old plants retire. So would gas's share of the total power generation as the plants retire.

It's unclear for sure. Mach E sales in Europe is constrained by how many Ford can ship over so I have to think that Farley is looking at building it in Europe. I suspect at the end, Ford will have the option to build any GE2 vehicles in Spain and they will all be on the table. And don't forget that Ford's arrangement with VW to supply Transit Connect in Europe is at best a temporary thing. I think Ford will want to produce its own vans in Europe again ASAP because they are key profit drivers for Ford Europe. So Transit Connect EV (GE2 based?) should land in Valencia.

The second Ford-SK battery plant in Georgia should be open in 2023. Perhaps that is why Ford is scheduling a 3rd shift for Maverick. They think they get now get enough batteries for some high in demand builds. Plant 1 opened in 2022 and supplies F-150 Lightning Plant 2 opens in 2023 and supplies ??? Plant 3 (Blueoval TN) opens in 2024 and supplies Explorer (that's a guess) Plant 4 (Blueoval KY) opens in 2025 and should have enough to supply 2nd gen Lightning, and perhaps Escape too Ford has separate investment planned with CATL to build batteries for 2nd gen Mach E for 2026. Was supposed to be in VA but who know where it will land. Current Mach E and Transit battery is supplied by LG Chem which doesn't figure into Ford's strategic plan but Ford will probably continue to buy battery from it as needed. If you are doing the math... Ford US should have 21.5 GWh of in-house battery capacity by end of 2023. Triple that to about 65 GWh by end of 2024, and more than double again by end of 2025 to 150.5 GWh. The CATL investment will add even more to the 150.5 GWh. These numbers seem abstract so here are some comparison... From January 2021 to September 2022 (so 21 months total), Tesla delivered 1.85 million EV equal to 133 GWh of battery worldwide. So if you are trying to put into context what Ford is thinking, basically it is scaling up to compete with Tesla.

Nothing official but we can probably read the tea leaf just like we did before with MEB. Ford said it will end ICE sales in Europe by 2030 so no new ICE model likely in the works given the development timeline. It's doubtful that Ford will renew the ICE Kuga without ICE Escape and vice versa. And we know no new ICE Escape is planned for North America. Kuga is build in Valencia which is switching to Ford's own (unspecified) EV platform, but it is most likely GE2 because the other one is TE1 and that ain't going to be build in Europe. The MEB CUV in Cologne is roughly the same size as ID.4 which as you noted, is almost identical to Escape in size. So my guess is MEB EV will go on sale in 2024 but Ford will keep Kuga in parallel for a few years because Valencia is not quite ready to switch to EV yet. Also Kuga is currently one of the top selling PHEV in Europe so might as well cash in while they still can. The question is what is Ford building in Valencia in a few years time... is it Explorer EV or gen 2 Mach E? Also keep in mind that Cologne MEB is actually two models... the conventional CUV is replacing (or in addition to) Kuga. The Sport Crossover is replacing Focus completely which is ending production in 2024.