Ford's Badly Needed Plan To Catch Up On Hybrid, Electric Cars (arstechnica.com) 181
Ford supposedly has a plan to adapt to the changing world of transportation. The company recently announced that it's "going all-in on hybrids," readying six new battery electric vehicles by 2022, with the first due in 2020, and adding more performance versions of its SUV line up. "Additionally, by the end of 2019, every new Ford will have 4G LTE connectivity, and the company is developing a new cloud platform that will deliver over-the-air updates," reports Ars Technica. From the report: New hybrids: "Hybrids for years have been mostly niche products but are now on the cusp of a mainstream breakout," said Jim Farley, Ford president of global markets. "The valuable capability they offer -- plus fuel efficiency -- is why we're going to offer hybrid variants of our most popular and high-volume vehicles, allowing our loyal, passionate customers to become advocates for the technology." So America's best-selling truck (the F-150) will get the ability to act as a mobile generator, something that should come in handy on job sites. Meanwhile, the Mustang will have performance to match the 5.0L V8 version but with more low-down torque, according to Ford. The company says that these new hybrids will be cheaper and more efficient than its current hybrids, via "common cell and component design and by manufacturing motors, transmissions, and battery packs."
New BEVs: We have to wait for those new BEVs, too. The first of these -- an electric performance SUV -- also shows up in 2020, but with five more planned between then and 2022. Ford says that it's "rethinking the ownership experience" as part of this and that over-the-air software updates to add new features will be part of the $11 billion investment plan.
More SUVs, more commercial vehicles, a super Mustang: Other new vehicles on the way include a reborn Ford Bronco SUV and an as-yet unnamed small SUV, but before then we'll get redesigned Explorers and Escapes, due in 2019. Next year, Ford will also bring a new Transit van to the US, and it says advanced driver-assistance systems, like automatic emergency braking and others, will be added to future commercial vehicles like the future E-Series, F-650, F-750, and F59-based vehicles.
New BEVs: We have to wait for those new BEVs, too. The first of these -- an electric performance SUV -- also shows up in 2020, but with five more planned between then and 2022. Ford says that it's "rethinking the ownership experience" as part of this and that over-the-air software updates to add new features will be part of the $11 billion investment plan.
More SUVs, more commercial vehicles, a super Mustang: Other new vehicles on the way include a reborn Ford Bronco SUV and an as-yet unnamed small SUV, but before then we'll get redesigned Explorers and Escapes, due in 2019. Next year, Ford will also bring a new Transit van to the US, and it says advanced driver-assistance systems, like automatic emergency braking and others, will be added to future commercial vehicles like the future E-Series, F-650, F-750, and F59-based vehicles.
So long as... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't need to call tech support while crusing down the road at 120kph for 2 hours until I get a connection to the internet in order to stop my car, we'll be good. (Read: FU Benz, FU).
Call me a luddite, but I much prefer cars that have mechanical linkages and less software. Generally speaking, the mechanical engineers have a few hundred years of mistakes and experience under their belt. Software developers on the other hand are drunk on the gold rush of disruption and won't stay up thinking about my safety after their nightly hookers and blow and government regulators won't put them in jail for fear of dampening the hysteria.
Re:So long as... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not really a software / hardware distinction, the problem is more how complicated it gets. When we switched from relay logic to software logic in the production lines I was working on in the 1980 and 1990 the fault rate went way down, because less things were able to break. Plus you didn't have to re-wire the entire cabinet when the logic changed, you could just copy over the software. But of course those processor maybe had 512 bits of input and 128 bits of output, and the software consisted of maybe a few thousand and/or logic instructions and perhaps 1028 bits of RAM to store intermediate results. (and yes, i *mean* 0/1 bits, not bytes or anything else)
But yes, anything that has anything that's even remotely in the the area of "over the air" ... something is *way* to complicated to be trusted with operating machinery in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
the grail (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:the grail (Score:5, Informative)
...would be a genuine low emissions, super high efficiency diesel engine under the hydrid package. Good electronics and battery tech mean you could optimize the diesel's operating parameters.
Diesels depend on being hot. They are utterly unsuited to a hybrid duty cycle. The only company that has a diesel worth using in a light car is Subaru, since they've got a Boxer and it doesn't have to be stupidly heavy to cancel vibrations because it does that naturally. And they have never bothered to sell it here in the states.
How to use diesel in a hybrid (Score:3)
Diesels depend on being hot. They are utterly unsuited to a hybrid duty cycle.
The term "hybrid duty cycle" is extremely vague in your usage. No you wouldn't use a diesel like an Atkinson Cycle [wikipedia.org] engine on a Prius. You would use a diesel like you would on a locomotive. The diesel is running continuously and acts as the power source for a generator for the electric motors that actually turn the wheels. No direct drive from the diesel to the wheels. It should be an excellent way for large trucks (particularly long haul versions) to hybridize. You could have battery banks to power the
Re: (Score:2)
It is not used because it is inefficient. Diesel electric locomotives (and very large mining trucks) are this way because a conventional transmission would be far too large and heavy and would require the engine to be used in a large range of engine speeds. Smaller diesel trains do use a conventional transmission because the fuel consumption is lower.
New market blues (Score:3)
One would think that the diesel-electric designs that have existed for many decades on locomotives would be easily transferred to road truck designs.
I don't think it would be a direct application but the general concept would be very similar. I think the main obstacles are mostly economic ones. For it to become economical the hybrid system has to be manufactured at scale but until it is, it isn't cost competitive. My guess is that you'll probably first see it in some form of work truck like a pickup marketed towards construction workers. That's the biggest market I think so it's kind of the logical place to start. But right now we have a sort of ch
Re: the grail (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Subaru still exists?
Here in northern Arizona, Subaru has most of the SUVs that aren't Toyotas.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in The Netherlands, it seems as though they vanished from the Earth years ago. I see Lamborghinis and Ferraris more often than Subarus these days.
It probably has something to do with your taxation schemes. Subarus aren't expensive vehicles. If you have to pay a big lump of tax on your car, and you want AWD, you will be thinking about something more spendy — like an Audi. Or, I suppose, a Lamborghini-shaped Audi.
Re: (Score:2)
At least we need single drive train hybrids to ease us through the transition to pure electric. Why are today's hybrids so overcomplicated?
Re:the grail (Score:5, Interesting)
Hybrids are a waste of time at this point.
Bollocks.
Pure electric is the way forward, with a rapid charger network and a few ICE models for edge cases.
Yes, but that network won't be built rapidly.
What's going to happen — every single automaker is making it happen right now so it really is a foregone conclusion — is that more models will get full hybrid and plugin hybrid options, but virtually all models will become "mild" hybrids with a belt-driven 48V starter-generator-motor. It will be used for off-the-line acceleration, torque fill, and so on, and it will make auto-stop-start seamless and efficient. It enables regenerative braking during congested driving without requiring carrying a massive and heavy battery pack, or even making any substantial platform changes. And since it replaces both the starter and alternator with a single unit with complexity comparable to the alternator, it actually improves the reliability of the engine accessory components.
I agree that full EVs are the way forward, but the batteries have some way to go yet, and the grid has even further. I do believe that EVs already suit the needs of many people, but they also do not suit the needs of many people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's funny that Tesla built a massive network from nothing in a few years and people still insist that it's impossible to quickly build a massive network. And Tesla already said that they will share if other manufacturers want in on it. Not to mention that Nissan has built nationwide networks, Renault has been in on it, various independent networks exist...
Also, the Truck market is deal for home charging. People in city apartments are not the main customers of trucks, it's people in places where they have a
Re: (Score:2)
Massive? I just checked, there's exactly 1 Tesla supercharger within a 50 mile radius of me.
There are, however, 7 gas stations within a 2 mile radius.
That is an *incredible* gap to close. Yes, home charging means a lot less need, but it's also the case that relatively low volume is the only reason that current charging facilities are barely livable for current owners. I have a friend with a PHEV, and anywhere vaguely near an outlet is occupied by a BEV/PHEV already, so he almost always is on gasoline sin
Re: (Score:2)
Superchargers are not like gas stations. You mostly charge at home or at destination chargers (work, shops etc.) Superchargers are for long distance travel.
There are pretty much enough in Europe now. What is needed is more effort to have on-street charging in some places.
Re: (Score:2)
Your friend gets the first 30 miles every day on electric. For most people that is a significant fraction of their miles.
Generally, it is not really worth it to charge a PHEV during the day, they are better off just sticking with home charging. Chasing down a public charging spot to only get 30 miles extra range is a bit pointless. If there happens to be one near where you are parking anyway, great, and if it gets you free parking as it does in some places, even better. If not, it is perfectly fine to just
Re: (Score:2)
They built a network everywhere people were buying their cars. More to the point, the fact that it took a few years is misleading because for most of that time, Tesla was a smaller company. Nearly a third of the number of Supercharger stalls that exist today were built since the Model 3 launch last summer. And now that Tesla has decided to raise supercharger rates to fund a faster expansion, that construction rate should increase yet again.
Re: (Score:2)
They built a network everywhere people were buying their cars.
People are buying their cars everywhere there's a network. You have it backwards. They built the network, then people bought the cars. They built the network where the most people who would buy EVs live, sure. But that's also where the most people live, period.
They can't build the network everywhere people would like to use it. But then, they can't build the cars fast enough, either.
Re:the grail (Score:5, Informative)
The half-million-long waiting list for the Model 3 says otherwise. That's equivalent to 2/3rds of a year of Ford F-series sales (not a specific F-series, but the whole series combined), sitting on a waiting list just to get one. To say nothing of those waiting for the Model Y. It has nothing at all to do with "consumers moving too slow", it has exclusively to do with the rate of production scaleup.
No matter how many times you write that, it won't make it true.
Tesla isn't a bond. You're referring to a specific bond offering, not even their last one. Their last bond offering got ratings as high as Aaa(sf) [googleusercontent.com] (prime, the highest ratings category). Orders on some of their bonds were over 14 times what the company wanted to issue.
Re: (Score:2)
The half-million-long waiting list for the Model 3 says otherwise. That's equivalent to 2/3rds of a year of Ford F-series sales (not a specific F-series, but the whole series combined), sitting on a waiting list just to get one.
And Ford will have sold about 4 years worth of F-series by the time they make a dent in that waiting list. And when the waiting list is gone F-series will continue to be the best selling vehicle in North America.
Ford is not, and has no reason to be, worried about competition from Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simply false, unless you're making up your own rate of delivery. The projected rate of delivery is:
2,5k/week by the end of Q1
5k/week by the end of Q2
Line 2 built over the course of Q3/Q4, to bring it up to 10k/week
Aka, 2019 starts with 500k/year. That's the projected rate. Now, you may not believe that, but don't call your personal beliefs "the projected rate"
While meanw
Re: (Score:3)
RE: delivery rates. Tesla has NEVER hit a projected delivery rate. Ever. Your faith is quite deep, however!
RE: margins. Tesla has NEVER had a positive margin for a year, and has only had one quarter in the last 5 years where it had a positive margin. I posted the graph, it's for profit margin [ycharts.com]. Margin is always negative. Your faith notwithstanding.
TSLA's bonds are junk-rated; their finance arm - a different legal company called Tesla Finance LLC, has good ratings. But that's because of the credit-wor
Re: (Score:3)
Hybrids are a waste of time at this point. Pure electric is the way forward
That's like saying SUVs are a waste of time at this point, and hatchbacks are the way forward. You completely ignore a whole lot of use cases that will always depend on a combustion engine backup.
Yes electric is the way forward. But you're brain is not functional if it comes up with the idea that it will cover every use case.
Re: (Score:3)
You completely ignore a whole lot of use cases that will always depend on a combustion engine backup.
No I didn't. Go check, I'll wait. I said keep around ICE for those relatively limited cases where pure EV isn't suitable.
Instead of investing all that money and effort into complex hybrid systems, throw it all at EVs and infrastructure. Many of the kind of people who really need ICE mostly don't want a complex hybrid system anyway, they want something simple that they can maintain and fix themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
they want something simple that they can maintain and fix themselves.
That ship has pretty much sailed a long time ago. You can do a lot, but some things are just out of reach. Basically everything you can maintain/fix yourself in a pure ICE drivetrain, is pretty much applicable to a hybrid drivetrain.
PHEV are a pretty good compromise given today's battery technology and lack of charging infrastructure, and even plain hybrids are valuable to recoup all that energy lost to braking.
Re: (Score:2)
No I didn't. Go check, I'll wait. I said keep around ICE for those relatively limited cases where pure EV isn't suitable.
Yes you did, you just admitted it. You didn't mention hybrids, you mentioned ICE. ICE are a waste of time, Hybrids are precisely what the edge cases are for.
Don't make perfect the enemy of good (Score:4, Informative)
Hybrids are a waste of time at this point. Pure electric is the way forward, with a rapid charger network and a few ICE models for edge cases.
Not true at all. The "rapid" charge networks aren't rapid enough yet to displace gasoline in widespread use. I can refuel my car in under 5 minutes at any gas with enough fuel to travel >350 miles. Fully charging a Tesla Model S on a supercharger takes 75 minutes and even ~170 miles of range takes 30 minutes. Definitely good but not good enough, even allowing for the fact that EVs will be charged at home/work most of the time. Not to mention that these "rapid" chargers are no where near ubiquitous.
Don't make perfect the enemy of good. I share your enthusiasm for EVs and I think they probably will dominate like you suggest in the long run. But hybrids will play an important role in getting us there. Our fueling infrastructure like it or not is optimized for gasoline and recharge times for EVs still have to be improved to make them practical for long haul transport. We also would need a LOT more charging stations in a lot more places. Furthermore the electric grid is going to need to see MASSIVE upgrades for EVs to really take over significant market share. That will take time which hybrids do not require. I can see all of these upgrades and technological improvements happening but it's going to take a few decades to really come to fruition. In the mean time hybrids are a useful bridge.
Every EV that is just an ICE with an electric drive train fitted is crap.
I've driven plenty of those vehicles and could not disagree more.
Re: (Score:2)
I've driven plenty of those vehicles and could not disagree more.
Can you name one?
The eGolf and eUp are both fairly crap, the eUp in particular is a horrible compliance car. The Mercedes B class is a joke, can't even rapid charge. The Hyundai Ioniq is about the closest to being good, although it was actually designed for both EV and hybrid platforms from scratch so doesn't really count.
The electric Ford Focus is just a Ford Focus with the engine ripped out, like the eGolf it lacks most of the stuff that makes EVs good.
Oh, well the Kia Soul EV isn't bad actually, assuming
Re: (Score:2)
I've driven a Kia Soul, an eGolf and an Ioniq EV. Did not try the B Class or the Ford Focus.
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding. And I bet its specs and pricing will be fairly good... compared to vehicles that existed in 2018, not those that will exist by that point in 2020.
Re: (Score:3)
...would be a genuine low emissions, super high efficiency diesel engine under the hydrid package. Good electronics and battery tech mean you could optimize the diesel's operating parameters.
Don't say that word! That's the one word that the Knight of the Ni Automobile Industry can't hear right now!
Lots of folk have looked for the Holy Grail . . . and the results have been . . . well . . . not so great. When Ford says they are "going all-in on hybrids", it sounds to me like they are making a risky bet, with unsure hands. I'd rather hear them say something like, "we have solid plans for the long-term success of our coming hybrid products."
Taking risky bets is what business, especially vent
Path to EV success (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have any doubts that EV is the future . . . and I don't have any doubts that some automobile manufacturers will have tremendous success doing it.
I do, however, have doubts that Fiat, Ford and GM will be able to have success. They're still too stuck in the internal combustion engine world. Even if the boss says that they are going electric, there will be internal inertia and resistance . . . intentionally or unintentionally.
It kinda sort reminds me of how some folks inside IBM never accepted that
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of folk have looked for the Holy Grail . . . and the results have been . . . well . . . not so great. When Ford says they are "going all-in on hybrids", it sounds to me like they are making a risky bet, with unsure hands. I'd rather hear them say something like, "we have solid plans for the long-term success of our coming hybrid products."
So, you'd rather be lied to? Because that would be bullshit. Ford doesn't know how the growing popularity of mobility services (as opposed to vehicle ownership) is going to play out any more than anyone else does.
Yeah, bailing out GM was maybe a good idea . . . but the government did not force them to ditch the executives who made all the bad decisions. The same thing happened on Wall Street.
Well, Ford just changed its leadership, so you should be happy.
What's to say (Score:2)
It's dead, Jim.
Re: (Score:2)
Ill bet Ford's real plan was to buy Tesla after using it's media partners, the ones it pays all those ads for, to futz with the Tesla share price. Crap, didn't work 'er' lots of hybrids is the new plan. Just guessing of course ;D.
And FCA (Fiat Chrysler), what's in their pipeline? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that FCA includes Jeep, which they've spent a lot of money trying and failing to make "cool" in Europe.
And Jeep is all that's keeping FCA afloat right now. Nobody wants their shitty FWD van, everyone who wants a 500 already has one... Jeep isn't cool in Europe because everyone over there already has their own classic 4x4 (e.g. Land Rover, UNIMOG, Pinzgauer, etc.) and/or has memories of enemies rolling into their country in G.I. Jeeps.
4G LTE OTA updates (Score:3)
lots of mention of how they keep car s/ware patched ... no mention of what else they might use the 4G connection for -- maybe slurping data, like where I have been and sell that data on. They will have an interesting time coping with the upcoming EU GDPR [wikipedia.org].
Re:4G LTE OTA updates (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for hybrid and electric vehicles, but I'm really not happy that every industry is going to over-the-air update models.
There are of course the security issues, but there is also the more insidious side effect that it promotes a "ship it now" mentality instead of "ship it when it's ready" mentality.
I'm hoping the "right to repair" movement maintains its momentum and also includes "right to not require connectivity."
Re: (Score:3)
Even today such data collection is illegal without permission in the EU.
My Leaf asks me if I agree every time I turn it on, and if I don't it works fine but doesn't send the trip data up to the cloud service. I mostly decline since I don't use that service.
Turbines (Score:2)
Re:Turbines (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure why you said turbine... Turbines are lightweight and reliable, but they are fuel hogs... In the aircraft I fly, turbines burn about twice the fuel of a piston engine of the same HP. They also have limits on how many times you can start them up, so they're not great for frequent start/stop operation. You might be thinking of a co-gen turbine system, but that's not mobile...
These guys [achatespower.com] on the other hand make an engine that might work well, or of course you have BMW with their motorcycle engine in the i3 Rex.
My other comment on the big automakers in general is that when they say Hybrid, a lot of them mean "mild hybrid" i.e. a 48 volt hybrid system. It's a quick and dirty way to get some of the benefits of a hybrid grafted onto existing cars without a major redesign, my worry is that with the state of global warming a 15-25% increase in fuel economy isn't sufficient. I'm of the opinion that we need a combination of BEV and PHEV (like the Volt) to radically decrease the amount of fuel we're burning. I'm concerned that a 15-25% decrease, while automotive use seems to be increasing, may help stop the increase in carbon emissions, but won't help decrease it by the amount we need to be thinking of.
Here's an article on mild hybrids [jalopnik.com] and here is the Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] on mild hybrids.
My experience so far has been with a BEV (Honda Fit EV) and PHEV (Chevy Volt First Gen). Of the two, I liked the Fit the best. However, my daughters did not. The main problem was, as a pilot I'm used to figuring out ahead of time where I'll be going, where I'll refuel, etc. But the average driver (like my daughters) just wants to hop in and go, and when the little gauge says "E" to just find a nearby gas station and top off. They don't want to have to plan the trip.
The Volt works out very well for them, in that they can drive typically 35-40 miles on the battery, and then the gas motor kicks in, and they don't have to do any planning unless the gauge reads "E". So, in many ways a great compromise between pure electric and pure gas, and I would think a great way to transition people into electric vehicles... but I wish the battery range was more like 100 miles.
What I don't like about the Volt (and mostly I think it's a good car):
1) Especially in the winter, a lot of trips end up running the gas engine. If it's below freezing, the car often will not use the battery at all (it just flashes a message that it's using the gas engine because of the temperature). In the winter the car simply doesn't have the range - the battery range drops to about 20-25 miles which is NOT enough to complete most trips that aren't just around town.
2) The fuel economy when the engine runs isn't that great... about 40-42 mpg. I think that's because they put in an engine big enough to keep the vehicle moving at highway speeds once the battery is depleted.
3) You're carrying a full sized engine around all the time. I think the BMW i3 has the better idea... have a much smaller engine just barely big enough to recharge the battery. In fact I think I'd like the option to go even further than the i3: instead of an engine which can keep the car moving at highway speed (except on a steep hill) give me a really small range extender engine, one that won't move the car much faster than 25 mph... Here's my reasoning:
Most of the time I charge at home, do a trip, and hopefully get home, all on battery. Sometimes I'll drive further and I'll plan on charging at some point during the trip so that I can make it home without having to use gas. But sometimes there's no place to charge, and that's where it's great to have the gas engine.
But instead of hauling around a full size engine all the time, or even a motorcycle engine like the BMW i3, how about a really small engine that can act li
Low Tech (Score:3)
It's not all that bad of an idea. You're really just mitigating the risk of not finding a charging station, which in the early days might be often. I've been looking at a rather expensive electric, but I have trouble getting past the whole 100 or even 200 mile range, and that is if you can find a charging station.
However conceivably you could just buy an all electric, then throw an electric generator in the trunk, and some gas containers, and that would offset the risk a bit if you do take a long trip somep
Hybrids (Score:4, Insightful)
Not interested (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't want over-the-air updates for my car.
I want a reliable car that works when I get it, doesn't need troubleshooting, doesn't need patching, because it works. Treat my car like a fucking computer and not an engine powering a frame and wheels and I'm going to find a different car.
Re:Not interested (Score:4, Insightful)
I just want the built-in navigation system to get automatic map updates, instead of requiring over $100/year for updates. Yes, I'll mostly use my phone for navigation anyway (because the navigation is horrible in my Nissan), but it would be nice if I didn't feel like the car company was always trying to suck more money out of me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nissan uses SD cards with their DRM feature to prevent them from being used more than once. It's nasty.
Re: (Score:2)
I just want a bigger screen and a hook up to my phone. Give me an Android and iPhone app that'll broadcast my phone screen to the vehicle screen. Now, my maps are always updated (via phone), and I don't have to do squat with the car. The car screen can still play the radio or backup cam, etc.
How is this NOT a thing already?
Re:Not interested (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is, OTA updates can give you material improvements. For example, a while after Tesla started shipping dual motor Model S's, an engineer had the idea of "Torque Sleep", wherein you automatically sleep one of the two motors (which have different gear ratios) in low torque demand times, then instantly wake it when traction or accelerator pedal needs require it. Since you have three separate choices on motor operating conitions (double torque on the front motor, double torque on the rear motor (different RPM), or balanced torque between the two), you have three choices of efficiencies, and can choose the most efficient combination. When they pushed out this update, overnight people with dual motor configs got a dozen miles more range.
Here's another: when Model Ss started being rolled out, there obviously wasn't many years of data available about how all of these motors would hold up in the real world, so Tesla had to make conservative assumptions about power limits. Years later, once the data was available, Tesla used OTA updates to raise the limits on a lot of their slower models, improving their acceleration.
Autopilot of course has a huge amount of software development going into it every year. OTA updates deploy this to all owners. Trust me, owners *much* rather this situation than the alternative situation where nobody is allowed to have Autopilot until some unknown future date when it's "flawless" on all roads in all situations and never makes the driver take control. The reality is that there never will be some sort of date when it's "perfect"; there will always be continuous improvements, and you want those improvements in your vehicle.
OTA updates are a good thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not interested (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, OTA updates can give you material improvements.
No: *updates* can give you material improvements. There is no reason for them to be OTA. OTA, while maybe more convenient for some, opens the gate to a whole slew of abuses and risks. When you car has OTA access you can be tracked by everybody and their dog, you can be hacked, and you have no control over the updates (and if some update proves to be buggy, tough noogies. Just wait for the next one,which will,fix the problem, we promise).
Instead of OTA, updates should be done via a DVD or USB. To me, the mild inconvenience of having to download an update to an USB and stick it in the entertainment system is trivial compared to having the choice to apply the update on my own schedule and being safe from bored teenagers who buy an exploit off the dark Web and think it would be cool to disable your brakes or from criminals who lock your car and ask for a Bitcoin payment to get it unlocked. Add to this the fact that Google, the insurance companies and any number of other nosy outsiders don't get to know every breath I take and every move I make, and the decision is clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Treat my car like a fucking computer and not an engine powering a frame and wheels and I'm going to find a different car.
That's okay if you're willing to drive something old, like my 1982 300SD. The only part that makes decisions for you is the transmission, and it makes those decisions mechanically. But what if you want niceties like... safety? It was a stunningly safe car for its day, but it doesn't have airbags or pretensioners (those became standard in 1985 or 1986, not sure which.)
Just Ford? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
West Virginia. They've started making cars now, didn't you know? Need to do something now that nobody's burning coal....
Re: (Score:2)
Another new transit van? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The full size Transit is something of a replacement for the old Econoline vans, but Ford forgot to market them so they aren't really selling (and they are only supposed to be sold directly to commercial buyers for no obvious reason).
When people have a choice, they buy a Sprinter. We bought our 2006 T1N Sprinter from a plumber who was selling it only because he couldn't get commercial insurance for it any more for some reason. It's got strobes, even. (I have disabled them so I don't strobe by accident.) He hates his Transit and it's been in the shop twice as much as the Sprinter was by the same time. In addition, while the diesel Sprinter regularly delivers OVER the EPA estimate, the Ecoboost sprinter always underdelivers. Ford isn't bo
Wait It Out (Score:2)
Badly needed plan? (Score:2)
Where are the pickup trucks? (Score:2)
Re:Ford sells too many trucks (Score:5, Interesting)
The vast majority of people who buy pickup trucks just do it because it's macho.
They don't need a big engine, they don't tow anything, they don't need a work truck, they don't have to haul anything, they just want to look cool.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, they don't need a truck. They like to say 'Well, I need a truck because sometimes I have to haul things!' and you ask one of these works-in-an-office, has-no-outdoor-hobbies, doesn't-do-their-own-landscaping bozos 'So when's the last time you hauled something that would've have fit in a car?' and you get an answer like 'Uh, 2003'.
Some people do need a truck. A lot of people with trucks, don't. They're a fashion item.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the states, they're "Macho Minivans."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. If you don't want to spend every weekend at Walmart, I'm not sure spending every other weekend is a massive improvement.
2. Unless your family is really gigantic (in both senses), I don't see what you could possibly be buying that wouldn't fit into a normal car's trunk and back seats.
Re: (Score:2)
They like to say 'Well, I need a truck because sometimes I have to haul things!'
Offtopic, but I liked it.
Saw a bumper sticker awhile ago: "Yes, this is my truck. No, I will not help you move."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It depends on where you live. If you live on a farm, then you need a pickup truck. If you live in the suburbs...well, it's occasionally convenient. If you live in the city...unless you need it for business, you've got it for show.
Most people live in the cities, and the next largest number live in the suburbs. So most of the pickups sold are sold as status or image objects. But this doesn't mean that most near where you live are status or image objects, because I don't know where you live. And it doesn
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ford sells too many trucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Trucks are ideal to be made electric. Plenty of space for batteries, loads of torque at low speeds, and priced right to absorb the battery cost.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Trucks are ideal to be made electric. Plenty of space for batteries, loads of torque at low speeds, and priced right to absorb the battery cost.
The problem is towing long distances, the batteries are just too expensive to do that at this point. For most people, though, a truck is a fashion accessory and they'll be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plug-in hybrids are not an option? There must be a sweet spot where you save most money by going for part-electric operation.
They aren't because once you run out of battery power, your towing capacity will be reduced. Mild hybrid systems make sense on basically all vehicles, because they don't add mass. The starter/generator/motor is about the same mass as the starter plus the alternator. They do make the vehicles more expensive, but it's happening now because the engineering work has been paid for and the mileage mandates are making it necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people use the Model X to tow. Even the 75kWh model is fine with a network of superchargers.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people use the Model X to tow. Even the 75kWh model is fine with a network of superchargers.
Which returns to the facts that the superchargers are only available along narrow corridors, and that the Model X isn't towing the kind of loads that pickups are capable of these days either. Stop trying to claim that EVs will do everything right now, because they won't.
Re: (Score:2)
You said: "The problem is towing long distances, the batteries are just too expensive to do that at this point."
I said: "A lot of people use the Model X to tow"
You replied: "Stop trying to claim that EVs will do everything right now"
I'm not sure how you got from "a lot of people do that" to "EVs will do everything right now". What is the logic connecting those statements?
Re: (Score:2)
You said: "The problem is towing long distances, the batteries are just too expensive to do that at this point."
Yes, we are talking about pickup trucks, and you chose this time to talk about a totally different kind of vehicle because you cannot put Elon's dick down for even one second. That people are doing kiddie-level towing with their Model X does not speak to the subject at hand even slightly.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean you didn't notice those times I was extremely critical of Musk?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean you didn't notice those times I was extremely critical of Musk?
I sure didn't. But let's stay on topic. The Model X can not tow even 1/3 as much illegally as an F350 can tow legally... for hundreds of miles before a refill. It can not tow 1/3 as much legally as an F150 can tow legally. It's not safe to tow that much with it, and if you made it safe, it wouldn't be the same vehicle at all.
For that majority that doesn't really use their pickup truck, an electric pickup will be more than fine once the charging network is in place. But there are no EVs on the market today c
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Where are you getting that? There's only a couple places in the world where I'd describe Superchargers as forming a narrow "corridor" rather than a dense grid - Trondheim to Tromso (but there's nothing really to go to to the east of that route, and to the west is the ocean); Beijing to Harbin; maybe the route from Vancouver to Edmonton (although it has some branching); the Australian coast (but that's where pe
Re: (Score:2)
Model X isn't towing the kind of loads that pickups are capable of these days either
What
world
are
you
living
in?
A world in which 5,000 pounds is fuck-all for a light pickup. The least capable F-Series will tow 6,000 pounds legally. The most capable will tow 18,000. Meanwhile, that Tesla weighs at least 5,185 lb and has no more than 6,768 gvwr, which means it can legally tow only 1,600 lb. It might be able to handle 5,000 pounds if nothing bad ever happens, but it's not safe to tow more than 1,600. You're promoting grossly unsafe behavior, and it's illegal to boot.
Re: (Score:2)
Not according to Ford. [ford.com].
Please learn how GVWR limits work before talking about them. GVWR is the max for loaded vehicle weight plus tongue weight, not entire trailer weight. The tongue weight is generally 9-15% of the trailer weight. So for a 5000 pound trailer, that's 450 to 750 pounds, meaning that a tow vehicle with a 6768lb
Re: (Score:2)
Road test towing for the Model X [edmunds.com]. Basically going 100 miles, stopping for an hour to recharge, then going another 100 miles to the next supercharger. And this was at 55 MPH, which - while the law in California, is essentially completely ignored by everyone. Rarely do you find a towed vehicle (or any truck) only doing 55 MPH on the freeway.
So the end result:2:1 ratio of tow-to-charge time, 500+ Wh/mile, and a range of about 100 miles between required stops. I guess you'd like that long weekend getaway t
Re: (Score:2)
Check out Bjorn Nyland's videos on YouTube. He regularly tows in very poor weather and 100 miles to a charge is totally unrealistic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
564Wh/mile is pretty much worst case. That's all I'm saying, their test is an edge case. Valid if you need to tow very un-aerodynamic trailers for long distances.
Re: (Score:2)
Like the ultra-lightweight, rounded trailer [happiercamper.com] they used, for 100 miles at a shot. Yeah, totally worst case!
But I suggest you look at Bjorn's own data [insideevs.com]. It supports the exact same finding as Edmunds - about a 100 mile (160 km) range, at 55 MPH (Bjorn does 80 kph, about 50 MPH), for about the same size trailer (medium, 1100 pound trailer) gets about 600 Wh/mi. I think the issue isn't the data - it is consistent. The issue is that you don't like what is found by either Edmunds or Nyland, and thus have somehow
Diesel electric trucks (Score:2)
The problem is towing long distances, the batteries are just too expensive to do that at this point.
A problem neatly solved by designing a power train that resembles that of a locomotive. Diesel engine runs and provides the power to turn the electric motors. Batteries are present to facilitate short haul movement and acceleration and allow the diesel to run at a constant speed where it is optimized but they don't have to be massive batteries like in the Tesla semi.
Re: (Score:2)
Who are you to tell someone they'll be fine? I spend my money how i see fit and damn you to hell for telling me otherwise.
Calm down, son. That's not what happened. I said most people should be fine. If you won't be fine with an electric truck, then that message was not directed at you, and you can just go ahead and keep moving.