Jump to content

How EVs Could Kill Gasoline Cars Starting In The 2020s


Recommended Posts

The Problem for Ford is that They have never developed an PEV in-house, and FORd has only one hybrid drive system.

 

GM has developed 2 PEVs in house as Well as multiple PHEVs and HEVs using different technologies in house. and has shown the ability to Scale that technology form Small cars into larger vehicles and trucks.

 

no matter what anyone thinks of EVs Ford cannot afford to be left behind in this technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

you right, thus the Title of the thread is.

EVs Could Kill Gasoline Cars Starting In The 2020s

It isn't EVs Could Kill Gasoline Cars Starting tomorrow.

 

You simply cannot deny the progress that has been made in 5 years. a 40k EV in 2011 went 80 miles and took 8 hours to charge while today a 40k EV takes you 200 miles and takes 30 minutes to reach 80% charge.

 

the first manufacture to take full advantage of the simplicity of EV assembly will be able to mainstream EVs for good.

 

with EVs he complexity is in the Code not the manufacturing.

Ford is engaged in Electrification, it's just not in the form you want. The reason for that is that tech is almost,

almost there but not quite. The expectation is that starting an EV design now will catch the next four to five years

of battery improvements at the right time but in the meantime, having broad based sales of hybrids and PHEVs

gets the ground work ready.

 

Forget the idea that first to market with an EV wins, this will be a slow development with most manufacturers

switching when costs are at reasonable levels to execute broad based transition to EV in mass production.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Problem for Ford is that They have never developed an PEV in-house, and FORd has only one hybrid drive system.

 

GM has developed 2 PEVs in house as Well as multiple PHEVs and HEVs using different technologies in house. and has shown the ability to Scale that technology form Small cars into larger vehicles and trucks.

 

no matter what anyone thinks of EVs Ford cannot afford to be left behind in this technology.

And yet they still do not have a desirable electric vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Problem for Ford is that They have never developed an PEV in-house, and FORd has only one hybrid drive system.

 

GM has developed 2 PEVs in house as Well as multiple PHEVs and HEVs using different technologies in house. and has shown the ability to Scale that technology form Small cars into larger vehicles and trucks.

 

no matter what anyone thinks of EVs Ford cannot afford to be left behind in this technology.

 

The form of hybrid system that GM developed for their larger vehicles would be trivial to implement for a company that had already built a fully parallel hybrid system and it was barely more efficient than using various less expensive strategies to achieve better fuel economy. Their Volt hybrid system ended up being vastly different than its original conception.

 

That GM has engineered more hybrid systems is not a self-evident demonstration that they have engineered better hybrid systems.

 

As far as Ford's failure to develop a true electric vehicle, that's almost but not quite a fair point. In the first place, the mechanisms used to recover coast-down/braking energy are already well developed, the software is probably less complex than that required to manage both an ICE and a motor, and the software required to monitor/manage battery storage is probably best left to the battery vendor.

 

What that leaves in terms of EV software is a set of challenges not dissimilar from those required to extend the EV range of a PHEV.

 

There are other economic realities at work here as well.

 

First, it would be absurd to assume that EVs will be 'mainstreamed' by a single manufacturer in the absence of a distinct cost advantage to the consumer. The Prius is, indeed, popular. But hybrids are, at this point, far from mainstream. Far from mainstream. If one's definition of mainstream is that which is most common, or even a significant plurality of the overall market, hybrids aren't there yet.

 

Secondly, if/when there is a sea change in propulsion systems, it should not be assumed that the earliest EV adopters will be the biggest winners because when the market shifts, the propulsion system will not be the primary deciding factor in terms of purchase--anymore than it is today.

 

You can't apply niche market thinking (which is when someone buys a Tesla because it's a Tesla) to the broader market. In the "EV future" people will buy an EV because they like the interior goodies, or they like the styling, not because it's an EV. And how the various companies get to that point is largely--but not entirely--irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The form of hybrid system that GM developed for their larger vehicles would be trivial to implement for a company that had already built a fully parallel hybrid system and it was barely more efficient than using various less expensive strategies to achieve better fuel economy. Their Volt hybrid system ended up being vastly different than its original conception.

 

That GM has engineered more hybrid systems is not a self-evident demonstration that they have engineered better hybrid systems.

 

As far as Ford's failure to develop a true electric vehicle, that's almost but not quite a fair point. In the first place, the mechanisms used to recover coast-down/braking energy are already well developed, the software is probably less complex than that required to manage both an ICE and a motor, and the software required to monitor/manage battery storage is probably best left to the battery vendor.

 

What that leaves in terms of EV software is a set of challenges not dissimilar from those required to extend the EV range of a PHEV.

 

There are other economic realities at work here as well.

 

First, it would be absurd to assume that EVs will be 'mainstreamed' by a single manufacturer in the absence of a distinct cost advantage to the consumer. The Prius is, indeed, popular. But hybrids are, at this point, far from mainstream. Far from mainstream. If one's definition of mainstream is that which is most common, or even a significant plurality of the overall market, hybrids aren't there yet.

 

Secondly, if/when there is a sea change in propulsion systems, it should not be assumed that the earliest EV adopters will be the biggest winners because when the market shifts, the propulsion system will not be the primary deciding factor in terms of purchase--anymore than it is today.

 

You can't apply niche market thinking (which is when someone buys a Tesla because it's a Tesla) to the broader market. In the "EV future" people will buy an EV because they like the interior goodies, or they like the styling, not because it's an EV. And how the various companies get to that point is largely--but not entirely--irrelevant.

I disagree.

 

There is no substute for experience. And while there are some areas of commonality between PHEVS and BEVs there are key differences in assembly and design that GM Has demonstrated more skill than ford, mainly the ability to develop and execute the custom floorplans that are required to make HEVS more attractive to customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my opinion but where "One Ford" unification of global platforms fell down was in the lack of foresight

to preserve sufficient space for decent battery storage - without compromising existing trunk space.

 

Everytime I see those hybrids and PHEVs, it's like a great idea was executed on a car with insufficient preparation.

And yes, until that very essential redesign is executed, those electric vehicles with decent range remain as far off as ever.

 

Surely, provisioning for a large flat battery pack below the floor pan would become a priority

on the next evolution of C1 and CD4 to cover as many vehicles as possible.

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I wouldn't be using GM as an example of efficient development of electrification and EV platforms,

its Voltec floor pan and "T" shaped battery pack was widely criticized as limiting the Voltec

to a four seater.. and the new Malibu stores batteries beneath the trunk floor so not

that imaginative...

 

Again, GM could have chosen any sized EV it wanted to build, yet chose Bolt to keep prices down.

Is that the sensible thing to do for an initial BEv offering or should it have been a larger vehicle with

longer range and higher price, maybe base it on a popular Utility that sells +20K/mth?

That would be a game changer..

 

It's likely that Ford has made back more money on electrification than GM has thrown away,

we quickly forget how Volt set out with such great ambitions only to crash and burn under

the weight of Chevrolet buyers conditioned to years of no risk leasing ($149/mth).

Those buyers refusal to pay for that technology that put GM in a hole with volt

and Cadillac buyers just ignored the $75K ELR.

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...to keep prices down.

Is that the sensible thing to do for an initial BEv offering or should it have been a larger vehicle with longer range and higher price, maybe base it on a popular Utility that sells +20K/mth?

That would be a game changer...

thumb.gif

tho/just-imho (& that's all it is)

a $10k drivetrain only belongs in a vehicle-class that can support it price-wise

- Lux**

- performance**

- I do not know if that $10k e-drivetrain would be sufficient for a large/heavy Utility-or-truck, nor if doubling it would work/sell

 

 

** the intersection of those 2 categories explains the favorable perception of the Model S imho

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no substute for experience. And while there are some areas of commonality between PHEVS and BEVs there are key differences in assembly and design that GM Has demonstrated more skill than ford, mainly the ability to develop and execute the custom floorplans that are required to make HEVS more attractive to customers.

 

But GM has yet to have a successful Hybrid or EV...just because they've done it more doesn't mean they've been successful with it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  thumb.gif

tho/just-imho (& that's all it is)

a $10k drivetrain only belongs in a vehicle-class that can support it price-wise

- Lux**

- performance**

- I do not know if that $10k e-drivetrain would be sufficient for a large/heavy Utility-or-truck, nor if doubling it would work/sell

 

 

** the intersection of those 2 categories explains the favorable perception of the Model S imho

Yeah, I was actually thinking Equinox sized Utility, something with enough sales and price momentum

to justify the added expense of electrification in return for a big perceived gain in efficiency.

 

I get that GM chose a smaller more efficient and elss costly vehicle to launch as BEV,

just thinking this is more a showcase vehicle than a practical solution for the masses.

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an example where being first is not smart, not when the fast charge network is still in its infancy.

The whole EV product and support network has to grow together, the charge stations are made necessary by the EVs

but the EVs can't grow in popularity unless buyers are confident of a Fast charge network as common as gas stations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where did Nissan get all that "experience" that enabled them to build Leaf? They didn't even have a regular hybrid - they bought it from Toyota.

 

Where is Toyota's dedicated PEV platform?

 

BMW had no prior experience before I3 and I8.

 

Ford has been building vehicles with batteries since 2005. They'll be just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where did Nissan get all that "experience" that enabled them to build Leaf? They didn't even have a regular hybrid - they bought it from Toyota.

 

Where is Toyota's dedicated PEV platform?

 

BMW had no prior experience before I3 and I8.

 

Ford has been building vehicles with batteries since 2005. They'll be just fine.

 

 

I think the point is that GM, Nissan, and BMW have now each put out a dedicated EV platform and have 10's of thousands of copies out on the road in the US (over 100k for the Leaf worldwide) accumulating tons of mileage and all of them sending valuable data back to home base, and automakers learning valuable lessons about what works, what doesn't, and getting feedback from owners. The question is whether Ford will be able to come to the affordable 200-mile EV game with something competitive, but I think I generally agree that it's still early enough that Ford won't be left out of anything by the time the volumes really start to have a bigger impact on the automaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford has been selling plug-in hybrids that run on battery power alone for several years now. As for learning how to package the batteries better, I'm sure they've already disected a leaf and a volt. This isn't rocket science folks. In fact there is a good chance that Ford leapfrog's them with their new design having the benefit of seeing the competition's solutions first.

Edited by akirby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soon the mass will realize that EVs aren´t that good for the environment that they say.

EVs must be charged with electricity and that electricity it mainly made by burning oil or coal. In China 82 % of all electricity is produced by burning fossils.

Using EVs in that case is like shooting you in your own foot. Fuel cells are driven by hydrogen. Currently, the majority of hydrogen (∼95%) is produced from fossil fuels. A fillingstation for hydrogen cost about 1,5 mill dollars.

Analyze and act according that analyzis.

 

:jump_earth::jump_earth:

Much better to save fuel in a OPOC-engine that´s 30 % more efficient than a common diesel och gas engine. Much lighter and cheaper.

 

http://www.ecomotors.com/

 

Never mind the mining damage done to get to the heavy metals used in batteries. Then recycling said batteries isn't cheap.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soon the mass will realize that EVs aren´t that good for the environment that they say.

EVs must be charged with electricity and that electricity it mainly made by burning oil or coal. In China 82 % of all electricity is produced by burning fossils.

Using EVs in that case is like shooting you in your own foot. Fuel cells are driven by hydrogen. Currently, the majority of hydrogen (∼95%) is produced from fossil fuels. A fillingstation for hydrogen cost about 1,5 mill dollars.

Analyze and act according that analyzis.

 

:jump_earth::jump_earth:

Much better to save fuel in a OPOC-engine that´s 30 % more efficient than a common diesel och gas engine. Much lighter and cheaper.

 

http://www.ecomotors.com/

 

Also it takes more fossil fuel and energy to produce the hydrogen than it would take for a car to burn fossil fuel itself. Hydrogen fuel cells cause more damage to the environment.

 

Maybe in the future this could be produced more efficiently, after all in the 70's and 80's no one thought you could produce a 300 hp car that could get 30mpg fuel economy either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EVs must be charged with electricity and that electricity it mainly made by burning oil or coal.

In the US, it's mostly coal and natural gas; oil is just a bit player in electricity generation.

 

 

 

Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2014:
  • Coal = 39%
  • Natural gas = 27%
  • Nuclear = 19%
  • Hydropower = 6%
  • Other renewables = 7%
    • Biomass = 1.7%
    • Geothermal = 0.4%
    • Solar = 0.4%
    • Wind = 4.4%
  • Petroleum = 1%
  • Other gases < 1%

Source: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a lot of interesting research being done with nuclear fission technology, specifically liquid fuel molten salt reactors. These reactors are inherently safe by design and can use alternative fuels like thorium and even spent uranium fuel (waste) from conventional light or heavy water reactors. Spent fuel is dangerously radioactive because only 3% of the fission energy has been extracted from it. As a result the energy is slowly released over hundreds of thousands of years through radioactive decay. The molten salt reactors can extract up to 96% of the fission energy resulting in less waste product that is dangerously radioactive for only hundreds of years. It's easier to design and maintain waste nuclear fuel containment infrastructure for a 500 year period than for 500,000 years.

 

Hopefully down the road fusion nuclear power becomes a reality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...