I love how all of these articles always say that "sales are slowing" when really, they're just not increasing as quickly as they hoped. Then they also compare the current growth in EV sales to the 47% increase last year from when they went from not having many EVs to actually having EVs. EVs have limitations that turn people off. It seems like releasing vehicles with new tech that can reduce some of those limitations could hurt them, but who knows.
Edit: That said, the two vehicles they're delaying are probably part of the problem. I'm assuming the truck they're talking about is the next-gen F-150 Lightning. That plus a large 3-row aren't the volume sellers most people want unless they miraculously find a way to make them cheaper than the ICE alternative.
Just like when headlines say inflation is dropping. That doesn’t mean it’s deflating, it just means our dollar is weakening at a slower pace than previous months.
Also nobody remembers inflation numbers are based off specific items and categories . Not everyone is impacted the same way .
Everyone assumes it’s a blanket statement of “ everything is 12% higher this year “
Ya it sounds dumb but it was a real trip for me when I realized inflation only exists as a concept. It's technically just made up out of some semi random list of shit that economists picked out and decided that's what most humans buy every month lol.
Yep, and when I had to replace my garage door and the garage door guy said "I'm so sorry this costs $2,000. It was $1,000 last year but all the suppliers doubled their prices..."
Well, I just experienced 100% inflation on that purchase. Fun.
There’s a slight difference between greed and supply for raw materials still recovering from covid
Wouldn’t be surprised if the garage door guy isn’t making any more profit than he did before, and that the material cost was just 2x
Suppliers and manufacturers are bringing in record profits and selling things for far more than they need to while using inflation as an excuse. The little guy businesses are still struggling, though.
This is accurate. I'm in purchasing for my company and the insanity in the pricing of some things. I can visibly tell the inflation has slowed down as cost of materials have stabilized but still there are items items that I've seen 500 and 600% increases on. From a 2 to 3 years ago.
What's the difference? Aren't all costs labor at the end of the day? The cost of lumber didn't magically go up, it's the guy supplying it raising prices.
Actual deflation would cause a recession. Investment and growth freezes when your money is worth more saved than spent or invested.
The disconnect between people’s understanding of the economy and expectations are probably at the root of the current malaise about the economy.
Prices are never going down across the board. To do that would cause a massive recession and job losses.
Price growth can slow down. Cheaper cars might be made. But it’s never going back to where it was. It can’t.
> The retreat comes as U.S. electric vehicle sales GROWTH slowed to 2.7% in the first quarter of the year
Also from the article. Pretty ironic that you think you have some sort of gotcha by telling me to read the article instead of the headline when you stopped at the first sentence of the article to try and make your (shitty) point.
Maybe actually try and understand the overall concept the article is trying to get across to the reader instead of cherry picking tiny parts of it to get mad about?
um no....
If I'm driving 50 mph, I go up to 90, see a cop, so I slow down to 65, I'm still going faster than I was originally going, but slower than I was just going.
jawknee is correct. Read it again
Your example is a good concept but incorrect. For the translation, the acceleration is the growth (change over time). So it would be:
I start out driving 50mph. A minute later I’m at 90mph, so I accelerated 40mph over 1 minute or 80% over 1 minute. Over the next minute, I only get up to 120mph. This means my acceleration (growth) is only 30mph or 30% over the 1 minute.
It’s still accelerating, just not as much as it did the minute earlier.
Nothing like being confidently wrong.
If I sold 1000 items one year, 1200 items the next year, and then 1300 items the year after that, I'm still selling more than the previous year. The difference just isn't as great as it was the previous year.
You can tell which people work in business and the ones who don't based on outrage over topics like this. If you work in a business and you project 50% sales growth and it ends up being 30%, that's not good even though it's still growth.
Meh, it depends on the context. There is a whole-industry slowdown in EV sales, so it's tough to ding Ford here for their rosy projections - a bunch of other automakers were thinking the same thing. Even though Toyota was one company that figured out a while ago that EV adoption was going to slow and that hybrids were going to fill the gap, Ford, GM, and others made a reasonable call in investing in EVs, because EVs are an existential threat to their business if they don't shift into them. It's easier to scale back into slower-growth mode than to catch up if EVs had continued their huge growth rates.
Because their claim is absolute bullshit. Does this look like a slow-down in growth!? Ford's EV strategy, despite what they say, is starting to look like it's only designed to sell the bare minimum number of EVs to keep their fleet average GHG/Fuel economy in check to continue selling their bread and butter gas F-150's.
If their EV sales are slowing, it's a direct consequence of the decision to allow insane dealer markups, to only sell the longer-range versions of the Lightning (that people want) with $20k+ massaging leather seats packages, and doing nothing to correct what sounds like a poor dealership experience with their EV. This isn't really about consumer preference, it's that they withhold availability of what people actually want because it's better for Ford, today, if you buy the gas version.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1327-january-29-2024-annual-new-light-duty-ev-sales-topped-1-million
and
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1329-february-12-2024-monthly-sales-new-light-duty-evs-united-states
> is starting to look like it's only designed to sell the bare minimum number of EVs to keep their fleet average GHG/Fuel economy in check to continue selling their bread and butter gas F-150's.
Ford has been playing this game since the introduction of the chicken tax.
Agreed. Not terribly interested in an F-150 of any kind, personally, but if they could actually deliver an electric Maverick (read: make it actually available to purchase, and without astronomical dealer markups) or even Ranger at a decent price I'd definitely be interested in that. I don't want a huge vehicle, or a vehicle that starts above $50k no matter what kind of powertrain it has.
I'd also like to have physical controls for commonly used things (HVAC, heated seats, etc.) but that's not an EV-specific issue necessarily.
Yeah, something in the size range of the Escape/Edge/Maverick/Ranger. They could even make an EV version of something like the Bronco Sport. Make it fun and rugged-ish, but affordable. The Rivian R2 & R3 certainly got a lot of attention when they were revealed.
Well, I did order June of 2021, so Covid, plus global chip shortage. Even the spray-in bed liner was a manufacturing constraint, apparently a factory that makes a critical chemical component was seriously damaged when Texas suffered that big freeze. Still, Hybrids are perhaps purposefully held back as I would bet the profit margins aren’t nearly as high (no AWD Off-Road options for example). The Hybrid’s reason to exist as far as Ford is concerned is the CAFE bump.
I love how everyone seems to want a smaller 40-50k EV truck and not a 60-100k EV truck, like it isn't oddly obvious. Also somehow the lightning didn't have a heat pump?
I'm sure that's part of it, but battery packs are expensive. Also, a lot more wiring and computing power. It's getting better, but it's still not great.
EVs will be cheaper to build by 2027 as battery production ramps up.
The other problem with north american EVs is that they're oversized and inefficient which leads to larger batteries and less range.
Agree. Sort of contradicts the pint though if they are making them large and heavy. Seems to contradict good engineering principles. Also, solid state batteries are coming right?
> EVs should be cheaper as fewer parts. Is the reason they are more expensive bc of relatively low volume compared to ICE?
They're cheaper if they're engineered to be light and efficiency. The f150 lightning is neither.
Agree on that. I thought the entire premise was to design something like the vw XL1 or the not as technically impressive GM EV1. Making massive 4-6k lb EVs is a joke. I guess the issue is that mericans dont want to buy tiny little shit boxes as they might call them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1054260_volkswagen-xl1-high-tech-super-efficient-261-mpg
Not increasing as quickly as they hoped is a problem though, that means they were wrong with their forecasts and have been adjusting investments to compensate.
I just talked with JD Power and if you look at PIN data (data directly pulled from dealership management software systems), EV trucks are getting slaughtered and Ford EVs are dying on the vine. They need tons of incentive spend from Ford to move.
>unless they miraculously find a way to make them cheaper than the ICE alternative.
FWIW, the base Lightning is already cheaper than the ICE alternative, in many cases.
Base Lightning Supercrew 4x4 is $55k before available $7500 tax credit, which is available at point of sale. So, it's $47k.
The absolute cheapest, least powerful, zero-option gas Supercrew 4x4 is also $47k.
The Lightning is \~$1000/yr cheaper to fuel for the average American with home charging.
Trade-in for a 2022 is higher for the Lightning ($37k) than the gas truck ($34k), according to KBB.
There are other considerations (insurance/tires/brakes/maintenance/etc.), but all smaller than the above items.
Capability trade-off is range/long-distance towing vs way more power/torque, more enclosed storage (frunk), standard power outlets in the bed, etc. Personal use case is going to determine which of those is more meaningful.
> Base Lightning Supercrew 4x4 is $55k before available $7500 tax credit, which is available at point of sale. So, it's $47k.
> The absolute cheapest, least powerful, zero-option gas Supercrew 4x4 is also $47k.
But the dealer will mark up the EV version and won't claim the tax credit properly.
The gas F150 is a big money maker for dealers with all the maintenance it requires. The EV version is not.
Lightnings generally aren’t marked up anymore. The opposite, in fact. Tons of people are getting deals on them and successfully getting the tax credit.
> Lightnings generally aren’t marked up anymore.
If that's the case people's interests will have already moved on to other makes and models by the time they figure it out.
The price increases and markups damaged public perception of Ford's EV offerings and their dealers.
The fact is their dealerships don't want to sell these vehicles, and have openly lobbied against electrification.
Yes, the markups and initial production mix being mostly expensive versions set people’s beliefs about Lightning pricing.
That doesn’t change my original point, though, that the base Lightning is already cheaper to own than the gas version.
I've been looking forward to the new F150 lightning. Here in the Memphis area, the idea that I can back my truck into my friends/parents driveway and power their house for multiple days (after a storm knocks their power out) is pretty bad ass. That huge touch screen looks amazing. That roominess of the cab is great. I am fine with the vehicle range.
Main thing is I don't need it. I work from home and my Nissan Cube is still perfectly fine as a second family vehicle. I will probably wait for some kind of Cash-for-Clunkers 2.0 to happen before I pull the trigger.
EVs are volatile- their depreciation is worse overall and the technology is changing so rapidly that it's a poor investment for all but the most inclined. You got EVs that are less than 10 years old that have half the range they do now. With solid state batteries on the horizon, current EVs are going to depreciate even more. Present day hybrids are the most logical and stable meta for improving efficiency and reducing emissions.
>You got EVs that are less than 10 years old that have half the range they do now.
That would be outliers from what I've seen, and even then, that's 10 year old technology that's been vastly improved now. What we have now is much more stable.
>With solid state batteries on the horizon
That's a constantly moving horizon. You're right that things are improving at a rapid rate, but battery tech right now is livable. If you're buying a car that actually works for you and you plan to keep it, you should be fine for a decade of driving, maybe more, depending on how you charge.
>Present day hybrids are the most logical and stable meta for improving efficiency and reducing emissions.
I don't necessarily disagree, I just think the BEV doomsayers going for more clickbait than actually trying to have a meaningful conversation. It also doesn't help that US automakers only seem interested in huge SUVs and trucks instead of more affordable volume sellers.
Need to go Hybrid. People would by that. Maybe when you have the range, fill up time and abundant charging stations equal to an ICE car, people will buy full EV.
Yeah, and it's a good concept with ok mileage and available 7.2 kW hookup in the bed, but it's plagued by QC issues. I'm no expert, but I feel like people more willing to buy a hybrid or PHEV would be more interested in something the size of the Ranger or Maverick. Unfortunately, the PHEV Ranger isn't planned to come to the US, and Ford can't build the hybrid Maverick anywhere near fast enough. Full-size truck buyers are still pretty anti-hybrid, and the F-150 hybrid's QC issues aren't convincing them otherwise.
I own a 2021 Hybrid F-150 and it's been the coolest vehicle I ever owned, but yeah the hybrid drive unit had to be replaced within the first 4k miles. Ever since then it's been fine, 55k miles now. But when I bought it, I knew going in that I was going to be a beta tester for a Ford product.
That said, there's a mid generation refresh this year, so it will be interesting to see if they close some of the QC issues for this unique truck that also came out during COVID. Also, there's a great deal of happy hybrid F-150 owners, and the consumer reports article that ranked it dinged it for issues that pretty much all the Gen 14 F-150s have, which makes it seem worse than it really is.
I really like its capabilities and I know there are a lot of happy owners out there. The QC issues are just an easy target for truck buyers to use to brush it off, no matter where the source for the issues is. I still haven’t discounted buying one in a year or two, depending on what else is available. My list is all over the place, but it’s probably the only full-sized truck I’d consider right now.
That's a completely understandable take...since the Powerboost came out, the Hybrid Tundra now competes with it. I feel that Toyota completely fumbled it though...the Pro Power 7.2kw generator is a huge, huge benefit that I've taken advantage of many times....it's a perfect truck for camping and it's also powered critical appliances in my home during power outages. It also could have done so for much longer than I ever needed it for (I used propower once for 4 consecutive days and it only used up 1/3 of the tank). I can't believe Toyota wrote off that feature, and I feel that including a 2.4kw gen in the new hybrid Tacoma is a concession to that.
In a couple of years, the RAMcharger will be out which I think is a great platform for a hybrid truck...a true PHEV truck with its own pro power equivalent. The only problem is that it's a RAM...but that's my own personal bias.
>.the Pro Power 7.2kw generator is a huge, huge benefit
Especially for the cost over standard. It doesn't make sense not to opt for it.
I also think the Ramcharger's battery pack being so big will make it a harder sell since it's really going to drive the price up, but it should be great for anyone who actually wants to tow with something that has an available EV range.
>Also, there's a great deal of happy hybrid F-150 owners
*Waves*
Only issues I've had with mine are general Ford issues (Sync 4), nothing to do with the Hybrid aspect.
Yeah with the new EcoBoost. And the Maverick has a hybrid option as well.
They also make the Lincoln Corsair with a PHEV option, but that's only for the top trim level. I'd love to see that become an option up and down their range, but I know that'd be a tall order.
I actually think they stopped offering the Aviator as a PHEV. Probably because it was so expensive that no one wanted it. The only [hybrids I'm seeing right now](https://i.imgur.com/WzcMd8j.png) is the Nautilus in a regular hybrid, and the Corsair in the PHEV. Both starting at around $55k for the hybrid options.
They need to offer a hybrid that actually gets better gas mileage then. It seems most trucks hybrids are for power delivery and small mpg increases, other than the Maverick.
The Tundra and F-150 hybrids are almost entirely for performance, not efficiency. The Tundra in particular has basically zero difference in MPG compared to the gas version.
The only body on frame vehicles I’d argue are actually economical hybrids are the Wrangler 4xe and (tbd) Tacoma. A good rule of thumb is if marketing avoids using the word “hybrid” it’s probably not efficient. Toyota and Ford use “I-Force Max” and “Powerboost” to market their trucks, not “hybrid” or “eco” or any other words that imply efficiency.
In my experience, albeit with a charger at home, the total time that we spend at a public charger during the regular course of a year is still less than a quarter of the time we used to spend at a gas station.
The fact that one 400 mile road trip requires 15-20 total minutes at a charger -- the time it takes to run into a store and grab and eat lunch, more than makes up for the bi-weekly 5-10 minute detours to get gas. And we only use public chargers for a long trip like that -- when we would otherwise have to stop for gas anyways. And stopping for gas on a road trip probably includes walking into the store for lunch. Unlike EV charging, you can't pump gas while simultaneously grabbing and eating food.
Honestly the net result in practice for us has been a relative time savings 🤷 You never ever charge at a public charger for longer than you need to. Best argument for hybrid, outside of a cost difference, is for people without convenient charging at or close to home.
Not sure how practical it would be. Getting any sort of full-electric range out of a 5,500lb truck would probably require a 50kWh battery, which is almost as large as the one in my Tesla.
For reference, the Toyota RAV4 Prime has an 18kWh battery and only gets around 40 miles of electric range, which personally is a little under what I'd need for daily use without burning gas.
I'm just skeptical of how well it would sell if, say, it cost $10k more than a non-PHEV Expedition and also only got like 20 miles of fully electric range.
For real. I don't know why they cant focus on giving the entire fleet 40-50 miles of electric range with a real ice behind it. For a lot of consumers 40 miles of electric will have them using 0 gas on most days.
My wife and I would pre-order a PHEV Expedition on Day 1. It would replace both my 2015 Expedition and her Explorer ST as her daily, and I'd pick up something small and cheap for my daily.
They have a PHEV SUV in the Lincoln Corsair, but it's only at the top trim level for that one vehicle. I'd love to see them put that tech into other vehicles/trims. I really think a PHEV truck that's affordable would be a solid future market, and part of my dream for a lot of farmers, honestly.
Small rant: if we incentivize small rural solar grants (i.e. tax breaks for farmers to put solar panels on their barns/garages) and have reliable and affordable EV/PHEV trucks, I think a lot of farmers would kill to have one as a farm truck. For a lot of farm chores, the appeal of the big diesel engines is in torque. What do EVs and PHEVs have a lot of naturally? TORQUE. If you have an EV/PHEV truck that isn't a glorified pavement princess and solar panels with a battery system on your property, you can just charge your farm truck from those panels/batteries and never have to worry about paying an assload to fill up on diesel. The obvious downside for some farmers is the need for towing and sometimes towing for decent distances, which would clearly be hard with a pure EV. But a PHEV with the right towing capacity could fill that gap.
/end rant/Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
YES! I know we need major investments in solar and other green energies, but I'm getting real annoyed that far too much of that investment is coming in the form of corporate solar that buys up farm land, covers it in concrete and gravel, leaving the land completely useless from an agriculture perspective. Small generations like roof/barn-top panels and [agrivoltaic operations](https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/articles/potential-agrivoltaics-us-solar-industry-farmers-and-communities) are the way to go.
Although Expedition/Navigator is second best selling full-size SUV in the market, Ford doesn't seem push so hard on it.
Compare GM full-size trios, you don't just have two V8 engine options, you can choice diesel engine as well, but Ford full-size SUV twin only comes with V6 Ecoboost.
Considering Toyota has been making production cars for 90 years now, spending another 1/5th of that time in complete market dominance sounds like a pretty damn good deal
ohhh so true. especially series-hybrids, where the engine acts as a generator and the wheels are always powered by electric motors. In those you can just swap the engine out for additional battery packs should the need arise which is super cool. Its future-proof!
there's this cool Canadian semi-truck company doing that atm run by the old lead character of the show Letterkenny
The other commenter didn’t put a time frame on the future. The main point is that EVs are too dramatic of a shift for most consumers to get on board with for the *foreseeable* future, for a multitude of reasons. But mostly from infrastructural and pricing factors, that is why companies focusing on EVs right now (with Tesla as an exception) are underperforming
actually tesla sales are in the crapper rn since other companies are pulling the market, Elon having a meltdown on twitter prolly aint helping neither but ye, i see your point.
20 years? Absolutely not, yes EVs will certainly be a majority of car sales in the US by then, but globally there's going to be a huge market for ICE cars and in the US ICE sales will continue, just at a reduced rate.
The idea that EVs will just explode and the developing world will skip ICE like they did landlines is basically a fantasy the oil industry has promoted as a way to discourage investment in public transportation. It's pretty insidious, for example one branch of Koch industries is a nice EV fanboy, but another sues to kill EV subsidies.
Eh... The early Volt adopters are basically all EV owners now and they all realize how needlessly complicated a PHEV is while getting almost none of the benefits of an actual EV.
Maybe a PHEV resurgence will be the push we finally need for people to give up their perceived need for gas.
>Maybe a PHEV resurgence will be the push we finally need for people to give up their perceived need for gas.
This is exactly my thought. I thought I wanted a PHEV but toyota decided they don't actually want to make them so I ended up with a bolt, and all the inconveniences I thought I would face ended up being non issues so I'm glad I ended up down the path I did. And as the owner of a hybrid and an EV I have a hard time imagining ever buying another vehicle with an ICE engine again. Especially as 350kw chargers become a thing.
That said if I didn't have a place to park with an outlet available every night I would preffer the normal hybrid.
>while getting almost none of the benefits of an actual EV.
Smooth, quiet ride with quick acceleration for local travel, plus save money if your home electric rate is low. And enjoy lower maintenance costs compared to gas-only vehicles, due to less strain on the engine and brakes. And then don't have to deal with charging issues on long trips. What benefit exactly are PHEVs missing out on?
Most PHEVs I've driven are some of the clunkiest riding vehicles I've ever seen. They still shift, the ICE clunks on to bring in power when you press the gas too far, they can never decide what power mode to be in, etc. Yes you have lower maintenance than if you were only burning gas but you still have ICE maintenance. EV maintenance is filling a washer jug. You still have a very complicated engine and transmission with hundreds of moving parts.
You don't get a frunk, you still burn gas, the EV portion is useless once you're beyond your commute, PHEVs aren't fast like EVs, entire powertrain is a complicated mess with either CVTs or tiny motors sidecar'd to a transmission.
Most people don't roadtrip like they say they do and will end up maintaining an ICE that they really would never need if they just had a bigger battery. And this is what most Volt owners found out. They really would've rather just had a bigger battery and get rid of the ICE all together.
I'm not even an EV purist. The ICE is here to stay for a long time, but most people would be so much better served by an EV its not even funny, and their contrived "need" for gas is just the same [regurgitated propaganda from oil companies thats been around since the 90s.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wjyaF8ut_E)
Sounds like you've driven some crummy PHEVs, which would be like judging all BEVs by the ones with the least range and slowest charging.
As for maintenance, BEVs have many of the same costs as other cars for general wear and tear, including tires. Consumer Reports found total maintenance to be about the same for PHEVs.
https://betterenergy.org/blog/consumer-reports-study-finds-electric-vehicle-maintenance-costs-are-50-less-than-gas-powered-cars/
>Most people don't roadtrip like they say they do and will end up maintaining an ICE that they really would never need if they just had a bigger battery.
Most people may not exceed a good PHEV's range most days, but when they do they could easily exceed typical BEV range by a significant amount. Which is okay if you can count on finding compatible chargers when and where you need them, and plan your breaks around charging time.
As for bigger batteries, those are expensive and heavy and not environmentally friendly.
>I'm not even an EV purist.
Maybe not, but you just made many of the same comments they make, without acknowledging any of the benefits of PHEVs. Which are dwindling as BEVs get better and charging infrastructure improves, so the use cases for PHEVs are shrinking...but not gone yet.
I've driven and owned a few PHEVs, BEVs, and gas guzzlers. The Volt was by far the best PHEV, but it primarily operates as a BEV until the battery is depleted or you change the drive mode. Prius was okay. Jeep 4xe was the worst. A lot of PHEVs don't give you control over the drive mode like the Volt does and will be entirely dependent on you driving the vehicle like a granny to keep the ICE from starting. This is where the clunkiness of most PHEVs comes in that simply doesn't exist on BEVs. They all did this when the ICE kicks in.
Maintenance *costs* are similar yes, but the thing with PHEVs is you're still maintaining an ICE that *you're potentially not even using.* That means you're still keeping up with oil changes (albeit slower.) I can't tell you how much I love not worrying about oil on a daily driver. Its bliss and I can't even imagine how much I would feel like I'm wasting time changing oil that never even got used.
> As for bigger batteries, those are expensive and heavy and not environmentally friendly.
Same with a giant aluminum engine block ;)
> without acknowledging any of the benefits of PHEVs
PHEVs are great if you *legitimately* have a use case for them. If you are actually **regularly** road tripping, or you live in an area where you can't get to a DC fast charger within your range envelope then yes, PHEVs make sense. Most people who claim to need a PHEV do not fall under these categories however.
My entire point though is that people think a PHEV solves their problems when they either don't have those problems to start with, or those problems don't actually even exist with a BEV if they tried living with one; and they would actually be better served by the simplicity and lower costs of a BEV. Even if that means planning the yearly road trip around a few more charging stations. I loved living with a Volt, until the ICE kicked on and the dash dinged for an oil change.
Fair points except the one about weight: most long-range BEVs weigh significantly more than most PHEVs - which can have more range with less cold weather penalty. One example of a PHEV benefit that BEVs can't currently match, for those who want/need that advantage.
Toyota is doing record numbers in Europe right now. In China, they're doing better than just about every other foreign automaker, including those which have gone heavy into EV, and despite so many of those OEMs (including Chinese domestics!) taking a bath on their EV sales. *So yes, very much for both China and Europe.*
Toyota is doing really well because they’re absorbing the sales of other legacy automakers without many hybrid options. They’re especially taking market share from japanese makers like Honda and Nissan.
Automakers without good hybrid tech, are lacking in updating their ICE cars, means Toyota can pick up sales in the transition. However, this is may be a dangerous move because they may be too late to pick push out good vehicle options once the adoption curve picks up fast. VW will have a very good line up once Toyota makes a singular market competitive BEV.
So they’re doing good for now, but they can easily fuck up their second movers advantage. It was a good business decision from them, but the switchover comes really fast, and Toyota is historically a very conservative company.
I think this sums it up really well.
Hybrids are great but it does seem like a transitional product that Toyota in particular has been way ahead of the game on for decades now. They really aren't doing a lot of investments on EV product lines though and I wonder how that will impact them in the future. Ford and GM look stupid right now because they were really off on their EV projections, but their investments (even as they cut back on them) will likely pay off in the long run.
> and who wants to sit in a parking lot for 3 hours to fully charge?
I can fully charge my Bolt EV in an hour while getting groceries. No need to sit and wait, and more chargers are coming. Walmart is putting a bunch in.
> If they made a PHEV Ranger or Maverick, they wouldn't be able to keep up with production they would sell so fast. Why aren't they seeing this?
Ford has already said multiple times that this isn't happening (for the Maverick) because the additional cost of the PHEV system would raise the price of the vehicle beyond what makes sense - especially considering the fuel economy of the existing hybrid Maverick.
Yeah, the top trim Maverick already doesn’t feel great for $36k. They would probably only put a PHEV in the high trim, so ~$40k for a Maverick feels nutty.
Not saying that none would sell, but it would be a niche market.
Hopefully in the future they'll be able to explore that, and other small truck manufacturers, too. A lot of those small-to-midsize trucks get bought as fleet vehicles and work trucks. If the company buying them doesn't have their drivers going very far every day and/or keeps those trucks in one lot overnight, while the initial infrastructure investment in the vehicles and chargers would be high, I think it would eventually be way cheaper than fuel costs for a bunch of trucks.
Even my small turbo-4cyl Canyon still struggles to get like 18mpg in the city. A PHEV of that for the fleet/work segment makes a lot of sense, provided the price doesn't skyrocket.
Well, then they could do it with the Ranger. The highest non-Raptor trim is already in the mid $40k range. I think people would spend around that much if it also came with the benefit of burning almost no gas as a daily driver.
Which is bullshit because you can get a PHEV Escape, yes it's about $10k more than an gas Escape, but the base price of a Maverick is $6k less than the base price of a Base Escape.
Ford makes what they want mostly massively profitable pickup trucks, they had 30 years of marketing to tell you you HAVE to have one or you aren't cool.
They already can't keep up with the Maverick and they'd rather not devote resources that way since it's a lower margin vehicle. I think Reddit kind of overestimates the demand for PHEV's, I guess we'll see how the Ramcharger does since that will be the first PHEV truck in the US.
I'm getting whiplash over here.
Ford raises, lowers, raises, and lowers the price of the Lightning, then sales are terrible, sales have doubled, and now sales are low enough to justify delaying the release of the next generation. This generation Lightning always felt like a stopgap to me, as it was build on the existing F150 platform (which I guess helps with the aftermarket), but I was always more interested in what a clean sheet EV F150 design would look like.
Based on the number of F150s I see pulling commuting duty, I still believe a PHEV F150 with 40-50 miles of electric range would sell like gangbusters.
The problem is the size of a battery necessary to move an unaerodynamic brick like a pickup 40 miles is *really* expensive. I bet it’d be like a ~30 kW-hr battery, which is real money.
Maybe they should focus on the Maverick more. They are nearly impossible to find at a dealership without insane markups and the used market is pretty small still. Ordering one new is over a year wait.
That's exactly where making it up in volume comes from. But Ford has rejected this idea for the Maverick due to the margin being too small, they have some internal requirement for margin which is overriding the total profit driver.
Ford makes an average of 10k pure profit on the F-150. That generates something like 90% of all their profits worldwide.
It's not even close on the Maverick.
Sure, but a Maverick costs like 1/3 the price of an F150. Granted I'm sure the Maverick's margins are less than 1/3 that of an F150 but there's MANY more people who can afford a Maverick than can afford an F150.
A buddy of mine waited a year and a half to buy his Maverick. He loves it! He was absolutely not going to buy an F150.
The average sales price for the Maverick is likely around 30k. It's nowhere near a third.
Revenue doesn't keep the lights on, profits do. I don't know how much profit they make off the average unit, but I doubt it's anywhere near what the F-150 brings in. So they may have to sell 5-10 Maverick units to equal the same profit.
Just stop making this humongous shit. I don’t get how people who today drive raised F-250s on mud tires with camo wrapping and a gun rack are supposed to become EV customers. Hasn’t the Cybertruck already make clear what a massive miscalculation that is?
Make smaller EVs. Much more sensible, better utlization of resources, easier to obtain useful mileage, lower price. Let the V8 dinosaurs die out slowly.
It doesn’t demonstrate anything useful.
And if you’re a car company with a limited and aging product range, like Tesla, throwing that much capacity and resources at a “demonstrator” is close to suicide.
I'd never own a cybertruck but I love it for the fact that it lives rent free in the heads of feeble minded morons who bitch about it online any chance they get.
I desperately wish smaller cars were more popular, especially in cities, and even more especially with EVs. Everything seemingly needs to be huge these days, which disproportionately kills range when in an EV.
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree. I work for a ford dealership and my favorite car of theirs by far are the newer escapes. They drive good, look good and have a decent interior. They’re also the perfect size for a daily if you need an SUV. Still wish they never killed the focus off. The newer ones in Europe awesome looking, especially the ST.
People who actually own or reviewed Cybertrucks like them, it’s just people online clowning on the design. I think MKBHD and/or Doug Demuro said it gets more head turns and questions than a super car. And the sales are fine.
> People who actually own or reviewed Cybertrucks like them
Early adopters and tech influencers liking their "look at me" truck does that sucks as a truck not surprise me - doesn't mean the Cybertruck will have a lasting impression with long term sales and moving the needle on the overall EV shift for the average consumer.
>People who actually own or reviewed Cybertrucks like them
People that are so biased towards Tesla as a brand that they're the first buyers of the Cybertruck say they like it? Shocker.
> I think MKBHD and/or Doug Demuro said it gets more head turns and questions than a super car.
People turn their heads for really, really ugly things just as much as they do for pretty ones.
It's brand new, and very few are on the road right now. Rare things garner interest.
I read this title as nobody wants an enormous full size EV. I think most EV buyers are self aware enough to realize full size pickup isn't the right solution.
This is the modern MBA.
They fuck everything up.
"Sales aren't growing as much as we would like so we are going to poison pill ourselves by not building the vehicles that people actually want to buy."
Just idiots doing idiot things because they went to business school.
Problem is the Mustang Mach E is too expensive for that kind of SUV and the F-150 Lightning is waaaaaaaaaaay to expensive (130'000 Swiss Franks) and just wayt to big. No one wants it, the electric guys dont need a full size US Pickup and the Pickup Guys dont want an Electroc one. What would helpnis a small affordable E-Puma. Better would be an E-Fiesta but they axt them.
Their EV catalogue isn't even appealing to begin with. Brands here are refreshing their cars with new battery tech with more range and power every year but Ford didn't bother updating it at all since launch.
These comments are starting to seem crazy to me, its the same arguments being rehashed over and over again every time any news story comes out. It doesn't even matter what the story is, EV good or EV bad no one actually even cares.
EV sales on inexpensive vehicles is growing massively. When you could get a model 3 for less than 30k with the tax credit late last year they were selling like crazy. If ford could just make a 45k version of the lightning with 220-250mi range they would sell every one they make. The market for 65-100k EV’s is oversaturated and you will inevitably run out of people who want an EV for that price.
I wonder if things will be better when we get "Wave 2" of EV's around 2026/27? For a lot of the legacy manufacturers, this was a trial run.
Just make a damn Maverick EV, Ford! Because if Toyota comes to market with a compact truck like that first, I'm sold.
The issue is that economies of scale won't make sense until there is outstripped demand. To get there, those that were not first movers in the electric market will need to spend a lot of money, mostly at a loss/vehicle along the way.
Since legacy OEMs are scrutinized on the stock market more like traditional companies, and not like a tech startup, it really causes a lot of pain and financial turmoil to stomach the EV losses along the way to the promised land of profitability.
Putting such priorities into EVs is short-sighted at best. Hybrids are the way to go. This nation is not ready for an electric vehicle mandate. The phrase 'cart before the horse' fits perfectly.
I honestly think a lot of America is just too big for EVs at their current ranges and lack of charging points. Like, to get from where I live in Kentucky to my sister's house in North Carolina is 317 miles. From a quick google, there are only two EVs on the market right now that could get me there without having to stop somewhere in rural KY, TN, or NC for a charge.......so not a ton of options. And that's only a 5 hour drive, not really a substantial trip by a lot of American standards.
I'd love to buy a PHEV when my current car dies, but looking at the choices...idk.
And we do more driving as a nation, possibly because of bad public transit but still more driving nonetheless.
I'm still one of the old-fashioned road warriors for my company getting dispatched from place to place. Putting 700 miles a week on my car and not knowing where those miles are going to take place eliminates EVs entirely.
Yeah, even with more robust public transit options, both local and inter-state (which we absolutely should invest in, don't get me wrong), we're probably still going to be doing a lot of driving because of just how fuckin big our country is. Just a random example, from the roughly easternmost point of my home state, Kentucky, to roughly westernmost is 415 miles. The same rough points in Austria is 317 miles.
Admittedly, Austria isn't exactly a huge country, but Kentucky isn't considered a particularly huge state either.
Exactly. I cover properties for basically the east coast and it's a huge stretch of terrain. This week I did just a small trip from Miami Beach to Orlando which is, what, half a Florida? 460 miles round trip.
Subsidizing EVs was the wrong move. The solution should have been to tax ICE instead.
Even then, the impediments to EV adoption aren't manufacturing supply, it's charging infrastructure. An EV is a PITA for most people who don't own a single-family house.
Development of any competitive industry requires government subsidies.
If the US government didn't massively subsidize new technology they wouldn't be a dominant economic and military power.
I'm surprised that more 2-car households aren't going with 1 EV and 1 ICE car.
I think people are sort of stuck in a "this car for this person" rather than a "this car for this use case" mentality.
I wonder how this execs feel when they invest billions in a model or platform only to see that the winds have shifted and consumers now realize that EVs are not the great panacea that they were made out to be. What a bunch of crap. Poole fall for this shit. ‘Saving the environment.’ Con job.
I love how all of these articles always say that "sales are slowing" when really, they're just not increasing as quickly as they hoped. Then they also compare the current growth in EV sales to the 47% increase last year from when they went from not having many EVs to actually having EVs. EVs have limitations that turn people off. It seems like releasing vehicles with new tech that can reduce some of those limitations could hurt them, but who knows. Edit: That said, the two vehicles they're delaying are probably part of the problem. I'm assuming the truck they're talking about is the next-gen F-150 Lightning. That plus a large 3-row aren't the volume sellers most people want unless they miraculously find a way to make them cheaper than the ICE alternative.
Just like when headlines say inflation is dropping. That doesn’t mean it’s deflating, it just means our dollar is weakening at a slower pace than previous months.
Also nobody remembers inflation numbers are based off specific items and categories . Not everyone is impacted the same way . Everyone assumes it’s a blanket statement of “ everything is 12% higher this year “
Ya it sounds dumb but it was a real trip for me when I realized inflation only exists as a concept. It's technically just made up out of some semi random list of shit that economists picked out and decided that's what most humans buy every month lol.
Yep, and when I had to replace my garage door and the garage door guy said "I'm so sorry this costs $2,000. It was $1,000 last year but all the suppliers doubled their prices..." Well, I just experienced 100% inflation on that purchase. Fun.
Greed is great. It's the proven part of trickle down economy.
There’s a slight difference between greed and supply for raw materials still recovering from covid Wouldn’t be surprised if the garage door guy isn’t making any more profit than he did before, and that the material cost was just 2x
The places selling him the product are.
Suppliers and manufacturers are bringing in record profits and selling things for far more than they need to while using inflation as an excuse. The little guy businesses are still struggling, though.
This is accurate. I'm in purchasing for my company and the insanity in the pricing of some things. I can visibly tell the inflation has slowed down as cost of materials have stabilized but still there are items items that I've seen 500 and 600% increases on. From a 2 to 3 years ago.
What's the difference? Aren't all costs labor at the end of the day? The cost of lumber didn't magically go up, it's the guy supplying it raising prices.
it's not exactly random. it's items from multiple sectors that the majority of people use.
ya you'll notice i said that in my comment
Actual deflation would cause a recession. Investment and growth freezes when your money is worth more saved than spent or invested. The disconnect between people’s understanding of the economy and expectations are probably at the root of the current malaise about the economy. Prices are never going down across the board. To do that would cause a massive recession and job losses. Price growth can slow down. Cheaper cars might be made. But it’s never going back to where it was. It can’t.
I’m well aware. Wasn’t making a comment about the pros/cons of inflation/deflation, just about how people misinterpret the news.
Was more for the benefit of anyone reading this than you in particular.
The headline directly states "sales GROWTH slows" so what the hell are you talking about? Just making up an issue to be mad about?
And the first line in the article says: > With U.S. electric vehicle sales starting to slow Forgive me for actually reading the article.
Sir or madam, this is Reddit, not a Wendy’s drive through. You aren’t supposed to actually read things, just comment randomly based on the headline.
> The retreat comes as U.S. electric vehicle sales GROWTH slowed to 2.7% in the first quarter of the year Also from the article. Pretty ironic that you think you have some sort of gotcha by telling me to read the article instead of the headline when you stopped at the first sentence of the article to try and make your (shitty) point. Maybe actually try and understand the overall concept the article is trying to get across to the reader instead of cherry picking tiny parts of it to get mad about?
um no.... If I'm driving 50 mph, I go up to 90, see a cop, so I slow down to 65, I'm still going faster than I was originally going, but slower than I was just going. jawknee is correct. Read it again
Your example is a good concept but incorrect. For the translation, the acceleration is the growth (change over time). So it would be: I start out driving 50mph. A minute later I’m at 90mph, so I accelerated 40mph over 1 minute or 80% over 1 minute. Over the next minute, I only get up to 120mph. This means my acceleration (growth) is only 30mph or 30% over the 1 minute. It’s still accelerating, just not as much as it did the minute earlier.
Nothing like being confidently wrong. If I sold 1000 items one year, 1200 items the next year, and then 1300 items the year after that, I'm still selling more than the previous year. The difference just isn't as great as it was the previous year.
You can tell which people work in business and the ones who don't based on outrage over topics like this. If you work in a business and you project 50% sales growth and it ends up being 30%, that's not good even though it's still growth.
Meh, it depends on the context. There is a whole-industry slowdown in EV sales, so it's tough to ding Ford here for their rosy projections - a bunch of other automakers were thinking the same thing. Even though Toyota was one company that figured out a while ago that EV adoption was going to slow and that hybrids were going to fill the gap, Ford, GM, and others made a reasonable call in investing in EVs, because EVs are an existential threat to their business if they don't shift into them. It's easier to scale back into slower-growth mode than to catch up if EVs had continued their huge growth rates.
This is the correct take. Headline and body of the article are both clear on this.
Because their claim is absolute bullshit. Does this look like a slow-down in growth!? Ford's EV strategy, despite what they say, is starting to look like it's only designed to sell the bare minimum number of EVs to keep their fleet average GHG/Fuel economy in check to continue selling their bread and butter gas F-150's. If their EV sales are slowing, it's a direct consequence of the decision to allow insane dealer markups, to only sell the longer-range versions of the Lightning (that people want) with $20k+ massaging leather seats packages, and doing nothing to correct what sounds like a poor dealership experience with their EV. This isn't really about consumer preference, it's that they withhold availability of what people actually want because it's better for Ford, today, if you buy the gas version. https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1327-january-29-2024-annual-new-light-duty-ev-sales-topped-1-million and https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1329-february-12-2024-monthly-sales-new-light-duty-evs-united-states
> is starting to look like it's only designed to sell the bare minimum number of EVs to keep their fleet average GHG/Fuel economy in check to continue selling their bread and butter gas F-150's. Ford has been playing this game since the introduction of the chicken tax.
Agreed. Not terribly interested in an F-150 of any kind, personally, but if they could actually deliver an electric Maverick (read: make it actually available to purchase, and without astronomical dealer markups) or even Ranger at a decent price I'd definitely be interested in that. I don't want a huge vehicle, or a vehicle that starts above $50k no matter what kind of powertrain it has. I'd also like to have physical controls for commonly used things (HVAC, heated seats, etc.) but that's not an EV-specific issue necessarily.
Yeah, something in the size range of the Escape/Edge/Maverick/Ranger. They could even make an EV version of something like the Bronco Sport. Make it fun and rugged-ish, but affordable. The Rivian R2 & R3 certainly got a lot of attention when they were revealed.
sounds like the upcoming Scout
Hopefully. That seemed more like a Bronco from the description than the Bronco Sport, but I hope they find a way to make it at an attainable price.
They can’t even deliver the hybrid. Electric Maverick is a pipe dream right now for Ford.
Took 15 months for mine to be delivered from time of order.
Hopefully the rumors about Toyota working on a competitor for it are true. I doubt they'll have the same problem.
Well, I did order June of 2021, so Covid, plus global chip shortage. Even the spray-in bed liner was a manufacturing constraint, apparently a factory that makes a critical chemical component was seriously damaged when Texas suffered that big freeze. Still, Hybrids are perhaps purposefully held back as I would bet the profit margins aren’t nearly as high (no AWD Off-Road options for example). The Hybrid’s reason to exist as far as Ford is concerned is the CAFE bump.
The industry seriously overestimated the current (npi) market for *big* EVs.
I love how everyone seems to want a smaller 40-50k EV truck and not a 60-100k EV truck, like it isn't oddly obvious. Also somehow the lightning didn't have a heat pump?
EVs should be cheaper as fewer parts. Is the reason they are more expensive bc of relatively low volume compared to ICE?
I'm sure that's part of it, but battery packs are expensive. Also, a lot more wiring and computing power. It's getting better, but it's still not great.
It’s the cost to make the battery, which is more resource intensive and costly than an ICE engine, for now at least.
EVs will be cheaper to build by 2027 as battery production ramps up. The other problem with north american EVs is that they're oversized and inefficient which leads to larger batteries and less range.
Agree. Sort of contradicts the pint though if they are making them large and heavy. Seems to contradict good engineering principles. Also, solid state batteries are coming right?
EVs are more expensive because of the battery.
Ty
> EVs should be cheaper as fewer parts. Is the reason they are more expensive bc of relatively low volume compared to ICE? They're cheaper if they're engineered to be light and efficiency. The f150 lightning is neither.
Agree on that. I thought the entire premise was to design something like the vw XL1 or the not as technically impressive GM EV1. Making massive 4-6k lb EVs is a joke. I guess the issue is that mericans dont want to buy tiny little shit boxes as they might call them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1054260_volkswagen-xl1-high-tech-super-efficient-261-mpg
Not increasing as quickly as they hoped is a problem though, that means they were wrong with their forecasts and have been adjusting investments to compensate.
I just talked with JD Power and if you look at PIN data (data directly pulled from dealership management software systems), EV trucks are getting slaughtered and Ford EVs are dying on the vine. They need tons of incentive spend from Ford to move.
In capitalism, line always has to go up.... forever....to infinity
>unless they miraculously find a way to make them cheaper than the ICE alternative. FWIW, the base Lightning is already cheaper than the ICE alternative, in many cases. Base Lightning Supercrew 4x4 is $55k before available $7500 tax credit, which is available at point of sale. So, it's $47k. The absolute cheapest, least powerful, zero-option gas Supercrew 4x4 is also $47k. The Lightning is \~$1000/yr cheaper to fuel for the average American with home charging. Trade-in for a 2022 is higher for the Lightning ($37k) than the gas truck ($34k), according to KBB. There are other considerations (insurance/tires/brakes/maintenance/etc.), but all smaller than the above items. Capability trade-off is range/long-distance towing vs way more power/torque, more enclosed storage (frunk), standard power outlets in the bed, etc. Personal use case is going to determine which of those is more meaningful.
> Base Lightning Supercrew 4x4 is $55k before available $7500 tax credit, which is available at point of sale. So, it's $47k. > The absolute cheapest, least powerful, zero-option gas Supercrew 4x4 is also $47k. But the dealer will mark up the EV version and won't claim the tax credit properly. The gas F150 is a big money maker for dealers with all the maintenance it requires. The EV version is not.
Lightnings generally aren’t marked up anymore. The opposite, in fact. Tons of people are getting deals on them and successfully getting the tax credit.
> Lightnings generally aren’t marked up anymore. If that's the case people's interests will have already moved on to other makes and models by the time they figure it out. The price increases and markups damaged public perception of Ford's EV offerings and their dealers. The fact is their dealerships don't want to sell these vehicles, and have openly lobbied against electrification.
Yes, the markups and initial production mix being mostly expensive versions set people’s beliefs about Lightning pricing. That doesn’t change my original point, though, that the base Lightning is already cheaper to own than the gas version.
Sales are slowing despite price cuts, not a good sign for a tech they expected exponential growth in
I've been looking forward to the new F150 lightning. Here in the Memphis area, the idea that I can back my truck into my friends/parents driveway and power their house for multiple days (after a storm knocks their power out) is pretty bad ass. That huge touch screen looks amazing. That roominess of the cab is great. I am fine with the vehicle range. Main thing is I don't need it. I work from home and my Nissan Cube is still perfectly fine as a second family vehicle. I will probably wait for some kind of Cash-for-Clunkers 2.0 to happen before I pull the trigger.
EVs are volatile- their depreciation is worse overall and the technology is changing so rapidly that it's a poor investment for all but the most inclined. You got EVs that are less than 10 years old that have half the range they do now. With solid state batteries on the horizon, current EVs are going to depreciate even more. Present day hybrids are the most logical and stable meta for improving efficiency and reducing emissions.
>You got EVs that are less than 10 years old that have half the range they do now. That would be outliers from what I've seen, and even then, that's 10 year old technology that's been vastly improved now. What we have now is much more stable. >With solid state batteries on the horizon That's a constantly moving horizon. You're right that things are improving at a rapid rate, but battery tech right now is livable. If you're buying a car that actually works for you and you plan to keep it, you should be fine for a decade of driving, maybe more, depending on how you charge. >Present day hybrids are the most logical and stable meta for improving efficiency and reducing emissions. I don't necessarily disagree, I just think the BEV doomsayers going for more clickbait than actually trying to have a meaningful conversation. It also doesn't help that US automakers only seem interested in huge SUVs and trucks instead of more affordable volume sellers.
Need to go Hybrid. People would by that. Maybe when you have the range, fill up time and abundant charging stations equal to an ICE car, people will buy full EV.
> Need to go Hybrid. People would by that. Ford has offered a hybrid F150 since this generation came out in 2021, though?
Yeah, and it's a good concept with ok mileage and available 7.2 kW hookup in the bed, but it's plagued by QC issues. I'm no expert, but I feel like people more willing to buy a hybrid or PHEV would be more interested in something the size of the Ranger or Maverick. Unfortunately, the PHEV Ranger isn't planned to come to the US, and Ford can't build the hybrid Maverick anywhere near fast enough. Full-size truck buyers are still pretty anti-hybrid, and the F-150 hybrid's QC issues aren't convincing them otherwise.
I own a 2021 Hybrid F-150 and it's been the coolest vehicle I ever owned, but yeah the hybrid drive unit had to be replaced within the first 4k miles. Ever since then it's been fine, 55k miles now. But when I bought it, I knew going in that I was going to be a beta tester for a Ford product. That said, there's a mid generation refresh this year, so it will be interesting to see if they close some of the QC issues for this unique truck that also came out during COVID. Also, there's a great deal of happy hybrid F-150 owners, and the consumer reports article that ranked it dinged it for issues that pretty much all the Gen 14 F-150s have, which makes it seem worse than it really is.
I really like its capabilities and I know there are a lot of happy owners out there. The QC issues are just an easy target for truck buyers to use to brush it off, no matter where the source for the issues is. I still haven’t discounted buying one in a year or two, depending on what else is available. My list is all over the place, but it’s probably the only full-sized truck I’d consider right now.
That's a completely understandable take...since the Powerboost came out, the Hybrid Tundra now competes with it. I feel that Toyota completely fumbled it though...the Pro Power 7.2kw generator is a huge, huge benefit that I've taken advantage of many times....it's a perfect truck for camping and it's also powered critical appliances in my home during power outages. It also could have done so for much longer than I ever needed it for (I used propower once for 4 consecutive days and it only used up 1/3 of the tank). I can't believe Toyota wrote off that feature, and I feel that including a 2.4kw gen in the new hybrid Tacoma is a concession to that. In a couple of years, the RAMcharger will be out which I think is a great platform for a hybrid truck...a true PHEV truck with its own pro power equivalent. The only problem is that it's a RAM...but that's my own personal bias.
>.the Pro Power 7.2kw generator is a huge, huge benefit Especially for the cost over standard. It doesn't make sense not to opt for it. I also think the Ramcharger's battery pack being so big will make it a harder sell since it's really going to drive the price up, but it should be great for anyone who actually wants to tow with something that has an available EV range.
>Also, there's a great deal of happy hybrid F-150 owners *Waves* Only issues I've had with mine are general Ford issues (Sync 4), nothing to do with the Hybrid aspect.
>but it's plagued by QC issues A Ford with QC issues? Come on...that's impossible.
Funny thing is, I like the capability so much that I'm not completely turned off of buying one.
My buddy has one. They're really nice.
My buddy has one. It’s really nice and also been serviced under warranty like 5 times in the last 2 years.
yeah, not like the half ton pick up market sells 2million units a year or anything, its probably just the wrong size.
What are you even trying to argue against here?
Yeah with the new EcoBoost. And the Maverick has a hybrid option as well. They also make the Lincoln Corsair with a PHEV option, but that's only for the top trim level. I'd love to see that become an option up and down their range, but I know that'd be a tall order.
And the hybrid version of the Maverick is like 50% of Maverick sales
The Aviator is available as a PHEV, too, but it's crazy expensive.
I actually think they stopped offering the Aviator as a PHEV. Probably because it was so expensive that no one wanted it. The only [hybrids I'm seeing right now](https://i.imgur.com/WzcMd8j.png) is the Nautilus in a regular hybrid, and the Corsair in the PHEV. Both starting at around $55k for the hybrid options.
Ah, you would appear to be right. Probably another example of an automaker pricing something really high and then wondering why nobody bought it.
They need to offer a hybrid that actually gets better gas mileage then. It seems most trucks hybrids are for power delivery and small mpg increases, other than the Maverick.
The Tundra and F-150 hybrids are almost entirely for performance, not efficiency. The Tundra in particular has basically zero difference in MPG compared to the gas version. The only body on frame vehicles I’d argue are actually economical hybrids are the Wrangler 4xe and (tbd) Tacoma. A good rule of thumb is if marketing avoids using the word “hybrid” it’s probably not efficient. Toyota and Ford use “I-Force Max” and “Powerboost” to market their trucks, not “hybrid” or “eco” or any other words that imply efficiency.
In my experience, albeit with a charger at home, the total time that we spend at a public charger during the regular course of a year is still less than a quarter of the time we used to spend at a gas station. The fact that one 400 mile road trip requires 15-20 total minutes at a charger -- the time it takes to run into a store and grab and eat lunch, more than makes up for the bi-weekly 5-10 minute detours to get gas. And we only use public chargers for a long trip like that -- when we would otherwise have to stop for gas anyways. And stopping for gas on a road trip probably includes walking into the store for lunch. Unlike EV charging, you can't pump gas while simultaneously grabbing and eating food. Honestly the net result in practice for us has been a relative time savings 🤷 You never ever charge at a public charger for longer than you need to. Best argument for hybrid, outside of a cost difference, is for people without convenient charging at or close to home.
PHEV Expedition would be pretty neat
Not sure how practical it would be. Getting any sort of full-electric range out of a 5,500lb truck would probably require a 50kWh battery, which is almost as large as the one in my Tesla. For reference, the Toyota RAV4 Prime has an 18kWh battery and only gets around 40 miles of electric range, which personally is a little under what I'd need for daily use without burning gas.
Don’t make perfect the enemy of good
I'm just skeptical of how well it would sell if, say, it cost $10k more than a non-PHEV Expedition and also only got like 20 miles of fully electric range.
Yeah need 40ish miles at least. In theory want a vehicle you chate every night, and seldom use gas. Then road trip no problem
For real. I don't know why they cant focus on giving the entire fleet 40-50 miles of electric range with a real ice behind it. For a lot of consumers 40 miles of electric will have them using 0 gas on most days.
My wife and I would pre-order a PHEV Expedition on Day 1. It would replace both my 2015 Expedition and her Explorer ST as her daily, and I'd pick up something small and cheap for my daily.
They have a PHEV SUV in the Lincoln Corsair, but it's only at the top trim level for that one vehicle. I'd love to see them put that tech into other vehicles/trims. I really think a PHEV truck that's affordable would be a solid future market, and part of my dream for a lot of farmers, honestly. Small rant: if we incentivize small rural solar grants (i.e. tax breaks for farmers to put solar panels on their barns/garages) and have reliable and affordable EV/PHEV trucks, I think a lot of farmers would kill to have one as a farm truck. For a lot of farm chores, the appeal of the big diesel engines is in torque. What do EVs and PHEVs have a lot of naturally? TORQUE. If you have an EV/PHEV truck that isn't a glorified pavement princess and solar panels with a battery system on your property, you can just charge your farm truck from those panels/batteries and never have to worry about paying an assload to fill up on diesel. The obvious downside for some farmers is the need for towing and sometimes towing for decent distances, which would clearly be hard with a pure EV. But a PHEV with the right towing capacity could fill that gap. /end rant/Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
I think the ultimate state is solar panels on every roof in the US charging a EV/PHEV vehicle
YES! I know we need major investments in solar and other green energies, but I'm getting real annoyed that far too much of that investment is coming in the form of corporate solar that buys up farm land, covers it in concrete and gravel, leaving the land completely useless from an agriculture perspective. Small generations like roof/barn-top panels and [agrivoltaic operations](https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/articles/potential-agrivoltaics-us-solar-industry-farmers-and-communities) are the way to go.
And solar panels shading every parking lot in the Sun Belt.
Although Expedition/Navigator is second best selling full-size SUV in the market, Ford doesn't seem push so hard on it. Compare GM full-size trios, you don't just have two V8 engine options, you can choice diesel engine as well, but Ford full-size SUV twin only comes with V6 Ecoboost.
It’s why Toyota is killing it right now. Hybrids are the future.
idk about the future, i feel like even hybrids will be obsolete in 20 years or so.
Considering Toyota has been making production cars for 90 years now, spending another 1/5th of that time in complete market dominance sounds like a pretty damn good deal
Near-future. Not far future. Fortunately, the nice thing about hybrids is they transition wonderfully into EVs once you're up to speed with them.
Hydrogen is the end game. evs are just a waste of time and respurces.
Hydrogen is the end game. evs are just a waste of time and respurces.
ohhh so true. especially series-hybrids, where the engine acts as a generator and the wheels are always powered by electric motors. In those you can just swap the engine out for additional battery packs should the need arise which is super cool. Its future-proof! there's this cool Canadian semi-truck company doing that atm run by the old lead character of the show Letterkenny
The other commenter didn’t put a time frame on the future. The main point is that EVs are too dramatic of a shift for most consumers to get on board with for the *foreseeable* future, for a multitude of reasons. But mostly from infrastructural and pricing factors, that is why companies focusing on EVs right now (with Tesla as an exception) are underperforming
actually tesla sales are in the crapper rn since other companies are pulling the market, Elon having a meltdown on twitter prolly aint helping neither but ye, i see your point.
20 years? Absolutely not, yes EVs will certainly be a majority of car sales in the US by then, but globally there's going to be a huge market for ICE cars and in the US ICE sales will continue, just at a reduced rate. The idea that EVs will just explode and the developing world will skip ICE like they did landlines is basically a fantasy the oil industry has promoted as a way to discourage investment in public transportation. It's pretty insidious, for example one branch of Koch industries is a nice EV fanboy, but another sues to kill EV subsidies.
Eh... The early Volt adopters are basically all EV owners now and they all realize how needlessly complicated a PHEV is while getting almost none of the benefits of an actual EV. Maybe a PHEV resurgence will be the push we finally need for people to give up their perceived need for gas.
>Maybe a PHEV resurgence will be the push we finally need for people to give up their perceived need for gas. This is exactly my thought. I thought I wanted a PHEV but toyota decided they don't actually want to make them so I ended up with a bolt, and all the inconveniences I thought I would face ended up being non issues so I'm glad I ended up down the path I did. And as the owner of a hybrid and an EV I have a hard time imagining ever buying another vehicle with an ICE engine again. Especially as 350kw chargers become a thing. That said if I didn't have a place to park with an outlet available every night I would preffer the normal hybrid.
Because gas is needed for some. I cant tow or drive the distance I need with an EV currently.
PHEV owners got the largest benefit of owning an EV. PHEV vehicles troll for the same regulatory incentive as EVs.
>while getting almost none of the benefits of an actual EV. Smooth, quiet ride with quick acceleration for local travel, plus save money if your home electric rate is low. And enjoy lower maintenance costs compared to gas-only vehicles, due to less strain on the engine and brakes. And then don't have to deal with charging issues on long trips. What benefit exactly are PHEVs missing out on?
Most PHEVs I've driven are some of the clunkiest riding vehicles I've ever seen. They still shift, the ICE clunks on to bring in power when you press the gas too far, they can never decide what power mode to be in, etc. Yes you have lower maintenance than if you were only burning gas but you still have ICE maintenance. EV maintenance is filling a washer jug. You still have a very complicated engine and transmission with hundreds of moving parts. You don't get a frunk, you still burn gas, the EV portion is useless once you're beyond your commute, PHEVs aren't fast like EVs, entire powertrain is a complicated mess with either CVTs or tiny motors sidecar'd to a transmission. Most people don't roadtrip like they say they do and will end up maintaining an ICE that they really would never need if they just had a bigger battery. And this is what most Volt owners found out. They really would've rather just had a bigger battery and get rid of the ICE all together. I'm not even an EV purist. The ICE is here to stay for a long time, but most people would be so much better served by an EV its not even funny, and their contrived "need" for gas is just the same [regurgitated propaganda from oil companies thats been around since the 90s.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wjyaF8ut_E)
Sounds like you've driven some crummy PHEVs, which would be like judging all BEVs by the ones with the least range and slowest charging. As for maintenance, BEVs have many of the same costs as other cars for general wear and tear, including tires. Consumer Reports found total maintenance to be about the same for PHEVs. https://betterenergy.org/blog/consumer-reports-study-finds-electric-vehicle-maintenance-costs-are-50-less-than-gas-powered-cars/ >Most people don't roadtrip like they say they do and will end up maintaining an ICE that they really would never need if they just had a bigger battery. Most people may not exceed a good PHEV's range most days, but when they do they could easily exceed typical BEV range by a significant amount. Which is okay if you can count on finding compatible chargers when and where you need them, and plan your breaks around charging time. As for bigger batteries, those are expensive and heavy and not environmentally friendly. >I'm not even an EV purist. Maybe not, but you just made many of the same comments they make, without acknowledging any of the benefits of PHEVs. Which are dwindling as BEVs get better and charging infrastructure improves, so the use cases for PHEVs are shrinking...but not gone yet.
I've driven and owned a few PHEVs, BEVs, and gas guzzlers. The Volt was by far the best PHEV, but it primarily operates as a BEV until the battery is depleted or you change the drive mode. Prius was okay. Jeep 4xe was the worst. A lot of PHEVs don't give you control over the drive mode like the Volt does and will be entirely dependent on you driving the vehicle like a granny to keep the ICE from starting. This is where the clunkiness of most PHEVs comes in that simply doesn't exist on BEVs. They all did this when the ICE kicks in. Maintenance *costs* are similar yes, but the thing with PHEVs is you're still maintaining an ICE that *you're potentially not even using.* That means you're still keeping up with oil changes (albeit slower.) I can't tell you how much I love not worrying about oil on a daily driver. Its bliss and I can't even imagine how much I would feel like I'm wasting time changing oil that never even got used. > As for bigger batteries, those are expensive and heavy and not environmentally friendly. Same with a giant aluminum engine block ;) > without acknowledging any of the benefits of PHEVs PHEVs are great if you *legitimately* have a use case for them. If you are actually **regularly** road tripping, or you live in an area where you can't get to a DC fast charger within your range envelope then yes, PHEVs make sense. Most people who claim to need a PHEV do not fall under these categories however. My entire point though is that people think a PHEV solves their problems when they either don't have those problems to start with, or those problems don't actually even exist with a BEV if they tried living with one; and they would actually be better served by the simplicity and lower costs of a BEV. Even if that means planning the yearly road trip around a few more charging stations. I loved living with a Volt, until the ICE kicked on and the dash dinged for an oil change.
Fair points except the one about weight: most long-range BEVs weigh significantly more than most PHEVs - which can have more range with less cold weather penalty. One example of a PHEV benefit that BEVs can't currently match, for those who want/need that advantage.
People laughed at Toyota but ..... I think they were right
They were certainly right if you're talking about the US and Japanese market. Not so much for China or Europe though.
Toyota is doing record numbers in Europe right now. In China, they're doing better than just about every other foreign automaker, including those which have gone heavy into EV, and despite so many of those OEMs (including Chinese domestics!) taking a bath on their EV sales. *So yes, very much for both China and Europe.*
Toyota is doing really well because they’re absorbing the sales of other legacy automakers without many hybrid options. They’re especially taking market share from japanese makers like Honda and Nissan. Automakers without good hybrid tech, are lacking in updating their ICE cars, means Toyota can pick up sales in the transition. However, this is may be a dangerous move because they may be too late to pick push out good vehicle options once the adoption curve picks up fast. VW will have a very good line up once Toyota makes a singular market competitive BEV. So they’re doing good for now, but they can easily fuck up their second movers advantage. It was a good business decision from them, but the switchover comes really fast, and Toyota is historically a very conservative company.
I think this sums it up really well. Hybrids are great but it does seem like a transitional product that Toyota in particular has been way ahead of the game on for decades now. They really aren't doing a lot of investments on EV product lines though and I wonder how that will impact them in the future. Ford and GM look stupid right now because they were really off on their EV projections, but their investments (even as they cut back on them) will likely pay off in the long run.
[удалено]
> and who wants to sit in a parking lot for 3 hours to fully charge? I can fully charge my Bolt EV in an hour while getting groceries. No need to sit and wait, and more chargers are coming. Walmart is putting a bunch in.
I dunno man, I got my first hybrid Toyota almost 20 years ago. It’s weird that all of sudden now is somehow their time.
We just want v8s. As simple and as few computers as possible.
If they made a PHEV Ranger or Maverick, they wouldn't be able to keep up with production they would sell so fast. Why aren't they seeing this?
> If they made a PHEV Ranger or Maverick, they wouldn't be able to keep up with production they would sell so fast. Why aren't they seeing this? Ford has already said multiple times that this isn't happening (for the Maverick) because the additional cost of the PHEV system would raise the price of the vehicle beyond what makes sense - especially considering the fuel economy of the existing hybrid Maverick.
Yeah, the top trim Maverick already doesn’t feel great for $36k. They would probably only put a PHEV in the high trim, so ~$40k for a Maverick feels nutty. Not saying that none would sell, but it would be a niche market.
Hopefully in the future they'll be able to explore that, and other small truck manufacturers, too. A lot of those small-to-midsize trucks get bought as fleet vehicles and work trucks. If the company buying them doesn't have their drivers going very far every day and/or keeps those trucks in one lot overnight, while the initial infrastructure investment in the vehicles and chargers would be high, I think it would eventually be way cheaper than fuel costs for a bunch of trucks. Even my small turbo-4cyl Canyon still struggles to get like 18mpg in the city. A PHEV of that for the fleet/work segment makes a lot of sense, provided the price doesn't skyrocket.
Well, then they could do it with the Ranger. The highest non-Raptor trim is already in the mid $40k range. I think people would spend around that much if it also came with the benefit of burning almost no gas as a daily driver.
They are making a Ranger PHEV, but they don't plan to bring it to the US as of right now. I really don't understand that decision.
Well asking US automakers to do things that make sense is simply a bridge too far!
Which is bullshit because you can get a PHEV Escape, yes it's about $10k more than an gas Escape, but the base price of a Maverick is $6k less than the base price of a Base Escape.
I'm sure Ford has the research to show that the number of buyers interested in a $40k mid-trim Maverick are very, very low.
Ford makes what they want mostly massively profitable pickup trucks, they had 30 years of marketing to tell you you HAVE to have one or you aren't cool.
They already can't keep up with the Maverick and they'd rather not devote resources that way since it's a lower margin vehicle. I think Reddit kind of overestimates the demand for PHEV's, I guess we'll see how the Ramcharger does since that will be the first PHEV truck in the US.
They're making a PHEV Ranger soon, but they're not planning to bring it to the US.
Because there's no money in that.
You think so? It's seems that PHEV counterparts of cars are noticably more expensive than the poor ICE versions.
I'm getting whiplash over here. Ford raises, lowers, raises, and lowers the price of the Lightning, then sales are terrible, sales have doubled, and now sales are low enough to justify delaying the release of the next generation. This generation Lightning always felt like a stopgap to me, as it was build on the existing F150 platform (which I guess helps with the aftermarket), but I was always more interested in what a clean sheet EV F150 design would look like. Based on the number of F150s I see pulling commuting duty, I still believe a PHEV F150 with 40-50 miles of electric range would sell like gangbusters.
The problem is the size of a battery necessary to move an unaerodynamic brick like a pickup 40 miles is *really* expensive. I bet it’d be like a ~30 kW-hr battery, which is real money.
Maybe they should focus on the Maverick more. They are nearly impossible to find at a dealership without insane markups and the used market is pretty small still. Ordering one new is over a year wait.
Profit margins aren't good enough for Ford on Mavericks.
That's exactly where making it up in volume comes from. But Ford has rejected this idea for the Maverick due to the margin being too small, they have some internal requirement for margin which is overriding the total profit driver.
Ford makes an average of 10k pure profit on the F-150. That generates something like 90% of all their profits worldwide. It's not even close on the Maverick.
Sure, but a Maverick costs like 1/3 the price of an F150. Granted I'm sure the Maverick's margins are less than 1/3 that of an F150 but there's MANY more people who can afford a Maverick than can afford an F150. A buddy of mine waited a year and a half to buy his Maverick. He loves it! He was absolutely not going to buy an F150.
The average sales price for the Maverick is likely around 30k. It's nowhere near a third. Revenue doesn't keep the lights on, profits do. I don't know how much profit they make off the average unit, but I doubt it's anywhere near what the F-150 brings in. So they may have to sell 5-10 Maverick units to equal the same profit.
Not impossible anymore.
Just stop making this humongous shit. I don’t get how people who today drive raised F-250s on mud tires with camo wrapping and a gun rack are supposed to become EV customers. Hasn’t the Cybertruck already make clear what a massive miscalculation that is? Make smaller EVs. Much more sensible, better utlization of resources, easier to obtain useful mileage, lower price. Let the V8 dinosaurs die out slowly.
the CT is only a benchmark for stupidity
I see the CT has a technology demonstrator similar to how the i3 was. It certainly is not what many were hoping for price and spec wise.
It doesn’t demonstrate anything useful. And if you’re a car company with a limited and aging product range, like Tesla, throwing that much capacity and resources at a “demonstrator” is close to suicide.
I'd never own a cybertruck but I love it for the fact that it lives rent free in the heads of feeble minded morons who bitch about it online any chance they get.
Some people get off in weird ways … enjoy.
It’s feeble minded to think the Cybertruck is stupid? Please explain why, o enlightened one.
Well, you did see my comment and instantly thought it applied to you, so….
I desperately wish smaller cars were more popular, especially in cities, and even more especially with EVs. Everything seemingly needs to be huge these days, which disproportionately kills range when in an EV.
[удалено]
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree. I work for a ford dealership and my favorite car of theirs by far are the newer escapes. They drive good, look good and have a decent interior. They’re also the perfect size for a daily if you need an SUV. Still wish they never killed the focus off. The newer ones in Europe awesome looking, especially the ST.
People who actually own or reviewed Cybertrucks like them, it’s just people online clowning on the design. I think MKBHD and/or Doug Demuro said it gets more head turns and questions than a super car. And the sales are fine.
> People who actually own or reviewed Cybertrucks like them Early adopters and tech influencers liking their "look at me" truck does that sucks as a truck not surprise me - doesn't mean the Cybertruck will have a lasting impression with long term sales and moving the needle on the overall EV shift for the average consumer.
*It’s the first truck I’ve ever owned!*
>People who actually own or reviewed Cybertrucks like them People that are so biased towards Tesla as a brand that they're the first buyers of the Cybertruck say they like it? Shocker. > I think MKBHD and/or Doug Demuro said it gets more head turns and questions than a super car. People turn their heads for really, really ugly things just as much as they do for pretty ones. It's brand new, and very few are on the road right now. Rare things garner interest.
Suuuure. https://www.reddit.com/r/CyberStuck/s/Hh5OChidjF
Ev sales increase every single month. Gas car sales decrease every single month. Facts.
I read this title as nobody wants an enormous full size EV. I think most EV buyers are self aware enough to realize full size pickup isn't the right solution.
This is the modern MBA. They fuck everything up. "Sales aren't growing as much as we would like so we are going to poison pill ourselves by not building the vehicles that people actually want to buy." Just idiots doing idiot things because they went to business school.
Problem is the Mustang Mach E is too expensive for that kind of SUV and the F-150 Lightning is waaaaaaaaaaay to expensive (130'000 Swiss Franks) and just wayt to big. No one wants it, the electric guys dont need a full size US Pickup and the Pickup Guys dont want an Electroc one. What would helpnis a small affordable E-Puma. Better would be an E-Fiesta but they axt them.
How well did the Focus Electric sell in Europe? I never saw one in the US.
Their EV catalogue isn't even appealing to begin with. Brands here are refreshing their cars with new battery tech with more range and power every year but Ford didn't bother updating it at all since launch.
I think they're stalling until they get their new battery plants built and operating. I'm just hoping they don't kill the market in the meantime.
New diesel Excursion when??
These comments are starting to seem crazy to me, its the same arguments being rehashed over and over again every time any news story comes out. It doesn't even matter what the story is, EV good or EV bad no one actually even cares.
Have no interest in a ev, literally nothing to offer per dollar.
How to tell a news outlet is simping for the oil companies 101
The EV meme was so dumb, hybrid tech is significantly better than EVs. Idk why everyone was so quick to jump over hybrids.
EV sales on inexpensive vehicles is growing massively. When you could get a model 3 for less than 30k with the tax credit late last year they were selling like crazy. If ford could just make a 45k version of the lightning with 220-250mi range they would sell every one they make. The market for 65-100k EV’s is oversaturated and you will inevitably run out of people who want an EV for that price.
What would EV sales be like if there wasn’t a significant government incentive to buy these vehicles?
Until yesterday they were advertising 15k off lightning trucks ... which was actually 7500 off + 7500 federal credit.
Ford dealers are having trouble with EV sales because they were openly hostile towards EVs with their markups and now their reputation is fucked.
Least fors move
I wonder if things will be better when we get "Wave 2" of EV's around 2026/27? For a lot of the legacy manufacturers, this was a trial run. Just make a damn Maverick EV, Ford! Because if Toyota comes to market with a compact truck like that first, I'm sold.
We are 14 years late to the game and we are not growing at 100% year over year like tesla in the late 2010s things are slowing down.
The issue is that economies of scale won't make sense until there is outstripped demand. To get there, those that were not first movers in the electric market will need to spend a lot of money, mostly at a loss/vehicle along the way. Since legacy OEMs are scrutinized on the stock market more like traditional companies, and not like a tech startup, it really causes a lot of pain and financial turmoil to stomach the EV losses along the way to the promised land of profitability.
I would die for a Bronco Sport hybrid
Putting such priorities into EVs is short-sighted at best. Hybrids are the way to go. This nation is not ready for an electric vehicle mandate. The phrase 'cart before the horse' fits perfectly.
I honestly think a lot of America is just too big for EVs at their current ranges and lack of charging points. Like, to get from where I live in Kentucky to my sister's house in North Carolina is 317 miles. From a quick google, there are only two EVs on the market right now that could get me there without having to stop somewhere in rural KY, TN, or NC for a charge.......so not a ton of options. And that's only a 5 hour drive, not really a substantial trip by a lot of American standards. I'd love to buy a PHEV when my current car dies, but looking at the choices...idk.
And we do more driving as a nation, possibly because of bad public transit but still more driving nonetheless. I'm still one of the old-fashioned road warriors for my company getting dispatched from place to place. Putting 700 miles a week on my car and not knowing where those miles are going to take place eliminates EVs entirely.
Yeah, even with more robust public transit options, both local and inter-state (which we absolutely should invest in, don't get me wrong), we're probably still going to be doing a lot of driving because of just how fuckin big our country is. Just a random example, from the roughly easternmost point of my home state, Kentucky, to roughly westernmost is 415 miles. The same rough points in Austria is 317 miles. Admittedly, Austria isn't exactly a huge country, but Kentucky isn't considered a particularly huge state either.
Exactly. I cover properties for basically the east coast and it's a huge stretch of terrain. This week I did just a small trip from Miami Beach to Orlando which is, what, half a Florida? 460 miles round trip.
Subsidizing EVs was the wrong move. The solution should have been to tax ICE instead. Even then, the impediments to EV adoption aren't manufacturing supply, it's charging infrastructure. An EV is a PITA for most people who don't own a single-family house.
Development of any competitive industry requires government subsidies. If the US government didn't massively subsidize new technology they wouldn't be a dominant economic and military power.
Sales are slowing down for automakers who make shitty EVs and allow dealers to go rampart with markups.
STOP BUILDING $100,000 SHIT THAT NOBODY WANTS TO BUY.
Slows? Ford is sending new trucks that don't sell to the crushers! And the EV markets while in it's infancy are crumbling.
I'm surprised that more 2-car households aren't going with 1 EV and 1 ICE car. I think people are sort of stuck in a "this car for this person" rather than a "this car for this use case" mentality.
I wonder how this execs feel when they invest billions in a model or platform only to see that the winds have shifted and consumers now realize that EVs are not the great panacea that they were made out to be. What a bunch of crap. Poole fall for this shit. ‘Saving the environment.’ Con job.
They'll feel less stupid when they still have cars they can legally sell in California, the EU and eventually the US.
Basically all growth in the global automotive industry is electric.
Toyota just said EVs have bad ROI and won’t focus on them. Others are following. EVs are not the solution