Many news outlets and Tesla fanboys have declared that Ford is dead already but too stupid to know it. I think that is nutty see:


I have always maintained that while EV's will take over the consumer market within 15 years, it is so huge that many companies will be successful. That likely includes Ford, GM, Mercedes, and many other so called legacy car builders.

What do you think? Is Ford toast in 10 years or will they still be a power house (pun intended!)

 

Ford has not be around for 100 years because they don't know what they are doing. Mistakes... lots of them... and some big ones, but I think they are on the right track here and that Trucks are a natural for electrification.

see: https://www.partisanissues.com/2018/...-for-electric/

but electrification for real trucks is likely to be in the form of hydrogen, not battery electric.

see:
Battery Electric = gas
Hydrogen = diesel

Thoughts?

 

Very interesting on both video's. I would gladly with open arms take a Hydrogen fueled vehicle for the simple fact it will be much quicker to "refuel" than plug in electric, even if it isn't as quick as filling up with gasoline. I have ran Propane powered vehicles before and fueling with hydrogen should be about the same process.
TJ

 

I think it will take another 10 years to be where battery electrics are today, (3% of the market), but it will happen because it is so cheap and easy. I think big-rigs will be at 30%+ by the early 2030's.

This is a company I have been following for years and I really think they could change the world. I think they are going public next year and have made some big deals in the last year. Super interesting and very common sense tech:

 

See the many quirks that set the electric F-150 Lightning apart from Ford's gas trucks (msn.com)

 

Looking at the Ford Start up Battery Company along with KD to start up in 2025 ?
Ford, battery supplier to spend $11.4 billion to build new U.S. plants (cnbc.com)

One important fact is Nickle. There is virtually no Nickle in the USA. The Battery is designed for more available power but also lower Voltages than Tesla's.

 

So one interesting point, for me at least, is the whole renewals vs petroleum argument in and of itself. The arguments of "we are running out of fossil fuels", "greener is better for the environment", etc, when looked at honestly are represented in both processes. It's true, we may eventually run out of economically feasible recoverable fossil fuels, but at the same time, the sun won't last forever either. Argumentatively, the sun will last longer, but both have a shelf date. Additionally, we will be having the same argument about economically feasible recovery about the materials needed to harness solar energy as we currently having with fossil fuels. We are simply swapping what it is we are mining for. The majority of electronics, including those for EV batteries/solar panels, utilize rare earth metals (REE), which while not necessarily rare, can be difficult to separate. It could be argued that the mining practices required to recover REE is as, if not more so, destructive to the the earth than the advancements made in petroleum recovery. The point of all this is, in movement to EV types, we are simply trading one mining/recovery process for another, all of which have a finite source.

That said, I would expect that we would see advancements in REE mining, just as we have seen in petroleum, that lessens the impact of such, but it doesn't discount what is stated above. While the solar/wind may be "renewable", the equipment needed to collect and distribute the power of that rss is not. Same game, different players. Add into that, the variability of need/requirements, infrastructure required to support, the predictability and consistency of the power source, etc all weigh in as factors as whether something is acceptable to the mass majority. I say mass majority because, EVs, as they exist today, have a demographic that will support the technology. Mostly, short, consistent commutes, typical for large urban inhabitants, but it does not support the rural, long commute, heavy towing, etc demographic. Even within the supported demographic, there are complications with the technology. As I generally like to point out to people when having this discussion, I will ask a rhetorical question for them to answer: If you received a call at 10:00 PM that a family member was severely injured and that you needed to get to them as quickly as possible, and if that family member was 1200 miles away, which vehicle would you rely on to make that trip? An EV or ICE? Once asked, that usually ends the conversation with all but the most ideological diehards. Until alternates to ICE can provide me the same peace of mind to take that trip and be reasonably guaranteed that I could make it in the least amount of time, ICE will be my answer.

 

1st of all rhetorical questions do not require an answer. 2ndly, if my family member were 1200 miles away the smart thing to do is call 911 and let local emergency responders handle it. 3rdly if it's more than 300 miles away I'm flying.

To finish this up, if you have no plans to buy an ev, why are you visiting forums dedicated to them except to simply troll others.

 

[QUOTE=RLXXI;20492948]1st of all rhetorical questions do not require an answer. 2ndly, if my family member were 1200 miles away the smart thing to do is call 911 and let local emergency responders handle it. 3rdly if it's more than 300 miles away I'm flying.

1st point: The definition of a rhetorical question is "a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to necessarily get an answer". So you can ask a rhetorical question and still get an answer, but the point of such a question is to make a point, which mine does, but I love the fact that your first response was to try and be the grammar police instead of challenging the content.

2nd Point: Read my statement again. This isn't a "burglar in the house" scenario, but more, your father had a heart attack, someone is in a bad accident and in the hospital on life support. So in this scenario, it's assumed that emergency responders have already been involved. Maybe I could have worded that different to be more clear and stop these kinds of comments before they started, but, again, I appreciate you trying to do an end around the statement than addressing the content.

3rd Point: Because, based on the scenario above, flying may not be an option. Why do I say this? Because this happened to me. I had limited time to get to my father before he passed and getting a plane flight would have taken more time than just driving thru the distance. I had an overwhelming desire to say good bye to my father and wasn't willing to risk any amount of time more than the least amount of time required to get there and do so. Your mileage may vary, but doesn't discount the scenario. However, again, I appreciate you trying to find fault with the statement instead of challenging the content.

Lastly, you made a very unintelligent/uninformed assumption on "me not being interested in an EV vehicle". Quite to the contrary. I am very interested in EVs, hybrids, LNG/LP enhanced vehicles and ways to improve them and make them ready for mainstream use. However, there are a lot of considerations, talking points, regarding all of these alternatives that do not get put out there, or flat out ignored by those heavily invested, either from a ideological or predisposed concept in one opinion or the other. I've very interested in owning an EV, as there are use cases where it MAY be beneficial to me, hence the reason I am on these boards and actually engaged in other conversations (albeit more productive than this one) about such vehicles.

I was putting out an opinion around some of the major talking points regarding EVs and hoping for 1. A healthy discussion on the statements I made 2. A challenge to those statements that maybe I hadn't thought about. 3. A discussion about what potentials may be around some of the caveats I stated. Instead, I got from you, Grammar policing, counter to a statement as being unfeasible without attempt at clarification, and assumption that because I didn't 100% tow the line that EVs are infallible, that I must simply be a troll. So, thank you for reaffirming my belief that the ability to have adult, intelligent conversations on most topics is now a dying art.

I wish you a great day.

 

Nice back peddle. My answers remain the same.

 

LOL. Not a back peddle at all. Just simply statements made. Based on your first response, I didn't expect a single thing to change with you.

However, for the sake of decorum and the rest on this thread, I'll stop the argument here.

Again, have a great day.

 

I think this is actually a fair question in order to get people to think. The first answer was to simply book a flight on an aircraft that burns hundreds of gallons of JP fuel per hour. I don't see anything in this entire post that makes this person against the evolution of EV's but rather quite the opposite. America must stand up and force the EV manufacturers to produce electric cars that are priced the same and enjoy the same convenience as their ICE siblings. I don't feel that's too much to ask.

I'll wager that 99.9% of those who own an EV also own an ICE vehicle too. I'd love to own an EV just for my short 32 mile per day round trip commute to work and home but with the price difference and different tax rates, I can buy a lot of petro.

 

Be nice... They are a fairly new member on the FTE and may not be aware of your conversational tactics.

Perhaps they are looking for answers to the questions in their head concerning EV's, like 100's of millions of others are.

I have family that lives 2500 miles away in ID and I live 2.5 hours from the busiest airport in the world. Flying is often not the fastest or most convenient mode of transportation for anyone involved, even when traveling that far and for an emergency or unexpected death. Especially with the recent turmoil within the aviation industry.

Stating that the individual expressing their concerns is here to "simply troll others" does nothing but promote hostility and deter a constructive discussion. The moderators do a good job on the FTE and we as a community are proud that the FTE is not in the toilet like so many other social media platforms.

For reference: Site Guidelines

 

One of the reasons that alt energy/EVs/etc are appealing to me is because my other car is a Super Duty. We live on a 50 acre farm out in the middle of nowhere and have to go 35+ miles just to get to the grocery store. Our Costco trips for are over 90 miles one way. So when I go somewhere, it means long distances or I'm hauling something heavy and in a Super Duty, I'm not getting great MPG. So yeah, I'm extremely interested in a vehicle that will get me good mileage for those times when we are just going to town and not needing to haul anything.

We are currently building a shop that will hold solar panels for us, as we want to be as self sufficient as possible, due to the fact that our remoteness generally makes us the last in line when things like weather cause power outages. EV seems like it would be a natural fit for us. The real concern there is the range. I believe the final EPA ranges on the Lightning are between 230-320 miles on a charge. 300 is right at the bottom of the minimum range for us due to the fact that temperature and weather affect range and we do get very cold temps where we live. The range would absolutely be acceptable for the trips that we need to make to the nearest town (grocery store, dr's visits, etc), but for visiting friends, Costco visits, etc that take us to the next major town, it's iffy. For us, 400-500 miles would be the sweet spot, as that would allow for the derate of range that happens in extreme temperatures while still giving us the ability to run errands above straight to costco and back. However, the only EV that has that kind of range (that I know about) is the Lucid Air Sedan and we worry about having the room necessary to fit the supplies we buy.

If Ford ever gets to that kind of range, I would probably drop the money on one, especially when you look at the things like the Ford Intelligent Backup that you can get as an option. Imagine how handy that would be out on the property for multiple reasons. What if they could put that on a Super Duty and/or make super duty a hybrid? However, I can only imagine what that would do to the cost of an already expensive vehicle, so I'm going off into pipe dream land now.

 

I was being nice and my answers remain the same. Just because they aren't to your liking does not invalidate them so mind your own business.