Printable View
In addition to slowing rollout of EVs, Farley aligns with Toyota on hybrid strategy: "You're going to see a lot more hybrid systems from us." He says Maverick is more than 60%; F-150 is 10%+; major change compared to crosstown rival GM, which has said it's going all-electric.
I think k we're going to see more and more deviation between those focussing solely on EV's and those taking the hybrid route.
The emergence of sustainable fuels such as those intending to be adopted by F1 and a lack of resources for ramping up enough scale of battery production for electrification, amongst other infrastructure concerns is going to have to lead us down a different path.
Not necessarily a bad thing, just confirmation that we have been a bit optimistic in what we believed was possible and utilising a different means to the same end goal.
A LOT of senior Automotive people have consistently said EV is the wrong solution, and Hybrid/alternative fuel ICE is a smarter option.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donut King
Ford have lost so much money on EVs (price premium motivation) its staggering.
I watched a video that was so negative it seemed like a contest to get as many doom words in a sentence.
I believe the F truck has had significant cuts in pricing and Ford are hopeful a switch the profit can occur in 2026.
These losses are in the billions so any profit is a very significant change.
Personally, and I had a great conversation with Steve on this, politicians who won’t be around to be held accountable for targets have not done the cause much good.
Diversification to me has always been a smart path to take. Infrastructure can’t wag the dog. You have to lead with it and setting unrealistic timelines only undermines the path you want to take people on.
There are even murmurs now the UK and requires a longer time frame.
100% agree that the hybrid/synthetic fuel pathway is the way to go. It gives governments time and flexibility with infrastructure,but also provides options for rural markets where EV is hard to justify and also harder to market. For me personally also means that manufacturers can keep that ICE noise which helps keep people like me engaged in the "emotion" of the car.Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Vman
The govts are running us all to a cliff when there's staircases either side....Quote:
Originally Posted by Perko
In recent days the head of AMG addressed the speculation that certain models were headed back to V8 power via way of a hybrid power addition.
I reported it, in this era of fake news i perhaps should have known better but never the less i got sucked in in pretty much the same way that I genuinely believed Ford had a hybrid V8 ready to go with S650.
It’s only been the last few days that a hybrid explorer has been spotted in the US and this come on the back of Jim saying one way forward for Ford was to move further into hybrid vehicles.
Let me pause here and explain what net zero or nearly anything means.
Companies like mine can come to absolute zero in a sort or even medium term. It’s even debatable over the long term. Zero anything is a real challenge and often comes at the expense of factors that are less sexy, ones that don’t make the public eye because they aren’t sensitive enough to get traction.
Much has been made of Ford being able to continue with ICE on the back of their EV product portfolio from which they are judged and governed from a totality stance.
Critics would rightfully point at that whatever Ford do as a company footprint wise, they aren’t being responsible by continuing with ICE and especially so V8s. End the V8 and whatever that number is, improves and that’s the expectation.
Not everything about a zero approach is logical. For example, blockading roads and causing traffic to come to a stop while engines continue to run has to fall not just under the heading of stupidity but ironic to the understanding of the greater good.
Equally unrealistic is the expectation that a hybrid V8 in mustang would be affordable. It was romanic in equal parts wishful thinking in wanting to be socially responsible. Or reduce guilt.
Very recently Jim Farley drove a Ford EV to learn what the real world EV experience was like. I loved this but wondered that such an undertaking seemed to be a bit late coming.
It was wonderful to follow and see what a leader he has become for our beloved brand but in the days that followed saw the release of the GTD. When will all these contradictions end?
If the EV experience requires works in his words and this is echoed by many famous YouTubers, one who has sensationally labelled California a disaster, surely the answer as nearly always is the case, is balance.
Personally I don’t believe 100% EV is feasible and certainly not with the current battery technology. I have a genuine problem with the amount of raw materials required for cars in EV form when you take into consideration the resources already required in manufacturing as we currently know it.
Hybrid is a foot in both camps and i guess the wishy washy approach to a real problem but at the same time I don’t think we can be overtly critical of wider solutions. Everything should be on the table and embraced as a step forward albeit most likely not at the pace many might wish.
This week a diesel tuner was hit with a million dollar fine. Ford have supposedly locked out the after market from a number of their products, a move we debated a few years back about the appropriateness of undoing the work that’s largely about compliance.
Australia has even been cited by politicians as a dumping ground for environmental wrecking balls. Cars and and companies taking advantage of us sand our lack of a policy that reflects toughness.
Taking mustang as an example, we take a power cut that’s probably not specifically about emissions but at the same time when the UK DH losses 50hp i think if for ICE products to continue on the bar needs to be at the highest standard across the widest range of environmental considerations.
It’s ok for a company like ford to claim the V8 will live on until consumers say enough. That’s not likely to happen if the backlash to BMW and AMG is an indicator. What is likely is political intervention in the name of the greater good.
But Ian isn’t that being walked back?
Maybe. The time frame undertaken was never realistic in my mind. Something yo0u can do when your own job is on the line via popular sentiment and where you know you wont be around to answer to the consequences.
The UK has made murmurings about walking back the 2030 and 2035 time frames and yes I’m not as convinced of out right political interference as i once was but it would be nice that where ice engines are concerned the foot forward should be towards individual gains and not a corporate free kick by virtue of a product line that is currently risking the companies very existence.
here here for MB.