Update to the Ford EV Roadmap. No impact to Mustang Mach-E

[dalola]

IMO, the maverick should’ve been the one offered as an EV variant in the first place over the Lightning.

Didn’t the Maverick come out around the same time too? They should’ve went with a maverick hybrid and EV as an option. Then, later on down the line, use the experienced gained from the maverick to fold that into the rest of the lineup.

The lightning is a great EV truck, but when it comes to price and most EV prospective buyers/owners, I’m not quite sure why the maverick wasn’t the choice.

I would say cost & architecture would disqualify the Maverick as an EV, as compared to it's market intent, which was an entry level priced small truck. It's a gateway model to get new customers into the truck category. Not only was it successful at that, but it also captured a lot of truck down-sizing sales, folks no longer needing their F150's, but still wanting a smaller, capable truck. The Maverick has been a huge success for that reason. Now that it's established, I could see an EV variant down the road, but at it's launch (in '22), it was the perfect model at the right time.

Sponsored

 

[GreaseMonkey]

750 miles of range is utterly ridiculous. Heck, 500 miles is ridiculous. 300-400 is the sweet spot for any powertrain. The solution is in designing cars with better aerodynamics, faster charging, better winter efficiency, and better infrastructure. Not dumb gas engines and MASSIVE fuel tanks.

We need to educate the public, not design around their stupidity.

 

[music_cities]

We love our 22 MME GT. And our 2017 Ecoboost Mustang. I work from home and put less than 2K a year on the Ecoboost, so I won't be replacing that anytime soon. And we expect 10 years out of our MME. If that plan works out (fingers crossed), we'll be in the market for our next vehicle in 2032. I HOPE FORD GETS THEIR EV ACT TOGETHER BY THEN.

My next EV will be even more sporty. Either I'll somehow materialize enough money to buy a Taycan, or some other manufacturer will make one that appeals to me. I usually keep my cars for 15-20 years, so I can be patient.

 

[VegasWeezy]

750 miles of range is utterly ridiculous. Heck, 500 miles is ridiculous. 300-400 is the sweet spot for any powertrain. The solution is in designing cars with better aerodynamics, faster charging, better winter efficiency, and better infrastructure. Not dumb gas engines and MASSIVE fuel tanks.

We need to educate the public, not design around their stupidity.

I completely agree. For a while I thought I wanted specs similar to the Lucid Air that can get 400-500 miles of range. But I had to remind myself… how often would I actually be traveling more than 150 miles in a day? Maybe 3-5x per year at most, with almost all of those trips being a one charge stop trip at most.

I now realize the real sweet spot for me would be a vehicle with a range around 350 miles, that is efficient (think a minimum of 3.5mi/kwh), and a great fast charging curve (10-80% in 18 minutes would be fast enough for me, but quicker would obviously be nice).

I love my MME, as great as it is though, it falls short of those three goals for my sweet spot. Hoping a Gen 2 gets made and hits those targets.

But to your point, super long range is overrated. Efficiency (especially in the winter), fast charging, and infrastructure are far more important.

 

[matwlev]

When I got my Mach E (my first EV) I was really worried that I’d made a mistake. Only 230 miles of range?! The TDI I had before could go 600 miles on a tank of diesel! I decided to take the plunge anyway and quickly realized that the 600 miles of range only mattered because it meant I didn’t have to go to the gas station more than once a week. With my EV, I’m at 200 miles every morning, which is more than enough and I never have to go to a gas station! I’ll take the slight inconvenience of having to stop more frequently and longer the relatively few times a year I take a longer road trip.

 

[PJV]

Hi Mustang Mach-E owners,

You may see headlines today, or perhaps you’ve been lurking over in the F-150 Lightning forum where the news just went live. I’m coming to you today to share an update on our product roadmap.

There is a lot of news flying around, so I want to give you the facts straight from Ford, explain what is changing for our electric trucks. There is no impact to Mustang Mach-E. Mustang Mach-E is a great success story and is now available in almost 60 markets across the globe. It continues to be a standout electric SUV and plays an important role in the Ford portfolio.

The News: A Shift for F-150 Lightning​

With the F-150 Lightning, we proved an electric truck could be a hit, and it has remained the best-selling electric pickup. Let’s be real about what we’ve learned from you, the owners, and the market over the last few years. You love the electric performance, smoothness, and the tech, but for those that drive long distances, take frequent trips or tow heavy loads across state lines often, an F-150 Lightning might not be the truck for them. And we want it to be.

To solve that, we are shifting the next-generation F-150 Lightning to an Extended-Range Electric Vehicle (EREV) architecture. For those who aren’t familiar with EREVs, this isn't a traditional plug-in hybrid. This is an electric vehicle with an on-board generator. It’s designed to give you the electric capability you enjoy around town, but with range and towing confidence. It will be assembled right here in Dearborn at the Rouge Electric Vehicle Center.

To be transparent, that means that we will end production of the current generation F-150 Lightning at the end of this year. We will prioritize multi-energy powertrains for our large SUVs, trucks and vans, and have also made the decision to no longer produce the next-generation full-size electric truck, also known as “T3”.

"Okay Brian, but what about my Mustang Mach-E?"​

I know seeing "production ending" for the Lightning might cause some swirl here. I want to be clear: This strategic shift is specific to F-150 Lightning and “T3” truck. The Mustang Mach-E continues to be a successful product for Ford, competing to attract new customers to the brand in the growing two-row electric SUV segment. Mach-E also has the highest conquest / loyalty rate in the Ford showroom. We know that for this segment (performance SUVs, commuters, and daily drivers) pure battery electric is fantastic.

At the same time, we are still investing in pure EVs. We are doubling down on the technology that powers them, including multi-energy powertrains.

• The Universal EV Platform: We are deep in development of our new Universal EV Platform (UEV) platform. This flexible architecture will underpin a new family of smaller, more affordable, and cost-efficient vehicles—starting with a midsize pickup in 2027. We believe the future of the EV market is affordable, high-volume vehicles, and that is exactly what this platform is engineered for. The UEV platform is more important than ever for Ford.
• Battery Tech: We are repurposing our Kentucky plant for grid storage and focusing our Michigan plant on LFP cells (which many of you already have in your newer Mach-Es).

No one could have predicted how the EV landscape would change in the U.S., which has impacted the industry. We took a bet, produced amazing products that so many people love, and now we must make some hard decisions in response to evolving market realities, consumer preferences, and the regulatory environment. Regardless, we are so proud of the current F-150 Lightning.

For the BEV purists, I know the EREV truck news might be tough to hear. We have a huge opportunity to get more people driving electric – whether that be plug-in hybrid, extended-range electric or pure electric vehicles, and our plans set us up to succeed in this mission.

You can read the press release on this news here. I’ll be in the comments later to answer what I can.

Brian from Ford

Thanks for the great summary. Obviously a very difficult decision with a huge write-down to ensure Ford is profitable in the Future. I know two owners with Lightnings and the biggest complaint is the lack of towing capability so Ford has directly addressed that issue while staying with an electric architecture. I'm looking forward to seeing the new Lightning. Super happy that the Mach-e lives on!

 

[Sikkun]

I now realize the real sweet spot for me would be a vehicle with a range around 350 miles, that is efficient (think a minimum of 3.5mi/kwh), and a great fast charging curve (10-80% in 18 minutes would be fast enough for me, but quicker would obviously be nice).

Just drove from FL to TN the other day with 3.5mi/kwh on that trip. Have done close to 300 without stopping before.

But there are other people on the forums that apparently can’t do 140 miles without stopping to charge so I get confused (other than they are probably the people flipping in and out of traffic and going 20-30 over the speed limit).

 

[Rustic Roads]

On the odd chance that @Ford Motor Company is still paying attention, I'll chime in my 2 cents for what it's worth....

I'm a recent Mach-E owner, having picked one up in mid-September. We leased because we knew that the EV situation is more tech industry than car industry. One is very mature, while the other thrives on change and chaos to drive innovation at a pace that is unrecognizable and, frankly, uncomfortable in comparison. After 35+ years in the tech industry, I recognize that EVs are not that different from any leading edge tech product segment. The hard part is that the cost of an EV is orders of magnitude greater than the typical tech investment.

We decided that leasing was a better choice, as it locked in my trade-in value while giving me a way to enjoy an EV for a set period of time, with the ability to buy it out or turn it in and get something that has the latest and greatest tech innovations.

My choice of the Mach-E was based on years of following the industry, admittedly my attraction to all things Mustang, and more than anything, comparisons to other vehicles. We knew we wanted to avoid gas if at all possible. We've been very happy with our 2015 Explorer, and I really wanted an EV version of it.

I drove the Lightning for a day as a loaner from a local dealership, and it was an incredible vehicle. It was just so much more than I need on a regular basis. As much as my masculine ego would have been very happy with it, my practicality said that it was way too much vehicle, it wouldn't fit in the garage very easily, and my wife refused to drive something that large. I was so disappointed when Ford announced that the EV Explorer was cancelled, as I would have gone that route in a heartbeat. Instead, we shopped the Mach-E against the Honda Prologue and Cadillac Optiq. It won out because of an attractive lease deal, as the other two vehicles were better in some respects and were great choices.

As recently as this past weekend, I was talking up the Lightning to relatives that were asking about how I liked the Mach-E. For those that want/need a full-sized pickup, I felt that it was a great choice. Of course, for anyone that is hauling horses up a mountain every week in sub-zero temperatures in a charging desert, no EV pickup is going to fit that need perfectly to my knowledge. That's why gas and diesel trucks are available, but few people actually use their pickup trucks for more than commuting. Choose your tool accordingly, I say.

Given all that, I think that Ford's news is not only a disappointment, but also a mistake. My first reaction was that of "well, if this gets people off gas vehicles eventually, so be it" but the more I think about it, the less I think that the EREV Lightning will ever happen. I think it's news to talk about in the absence of anything else to discuss in Ford's lineup.

The new EV platform isn't even ready to talk more about, much less show off in any way, so what else will Ford hang their hat on? How will this news not be seen for the grand mistake of past decisions and capitulation to national politics that it is? The EREV F-150 is vaporware and my guess is that we will have a much greater chance of seeing an EREV F-250 come to market. The energy grid battery use sounds like a way to make a bunch of battery investments not look like a waste of money rather than a concerted effort to enter a new product segment in a meaningful way.

Ford was making bold moves when it introduced the Mach-E and the Lightning, and way-bold when they tried to restructure their dealership model for the future. Ford led the way and got the market to adopt J3400 and opened the Tesla Supercharger network to other manufacturers. Then the market shifted with climbing interest rates which made expensive vehicles hard to buy, dealerships showed Ford who's really the boss, and a politician made a technology into a political volleyball.

Giving up on Rivian in 2021 will go down in history as a bad move, as Rivian now looks like a strong competitor in the marketplace and Ford is back on its heels.

While I can't blame Ford for reacting to these new conditions, I'm sad that they're rolling over so easily. Ford is a significant force in the industry (at least for the meantime), and its moves in the recent years show that boldness is only a luxury the company enjoys when the spreadsheets allow it.

When our lease is up in three years, it will be interesting to see where the industry is at. Maybe Ford will have more than one EV by then, maybe not. I'm glad that I have the options I do when that time comes. It's up to Ford to decide if it wants me as a customer again.

Does Ford want me as a customer? Does it want to continue to be a leader in the industry?

The next two years will be very telling and very consequential.

 

[Tosh]

We need to educate the public, not design around their stupidity.

If only it were that easy!

Yes, I'd like to see better education of the public ..... on many topics. Nevertheless, people vote with their wallets and the market provides what it (hopes) will sell.

 

[GreaseMonkey]

If only it were that easy!

Yes, I'd like to see better education of the public ..... on many topics. Nevertheless, people vote with their wallets and the market provides what it (hopes) will sell.

This is literally what we spend $400 billion a year doing. Advertising.

 

[Zardoz]

750 miles of range is utterly ridiculous. Heck, 500 miles is ridiculous. 300-400 is the sweet spot for any powertrain. The solution is in designing cars with better aerodynamics, faster charging, better winter efficiency, and better infrastructure. Not dumb gas engines and MASSIVE fuel tanks.

We need to educate the public, not design around their stupidity.

I get what you're saying, but keep an open mind. There are more use cases for vehicles than just commuting and moving people. Some people like to tow toy haulers (motorcycles, snow mobiles side by sides), horse trailers, RVs, boats, etc. They may have a side business. They may just have a large family and appreciate the versatility and space an F-150 size vehicle offers. They may not have the stomach for messing up a $70k SUV with drywall/plywood in the back. They may do ALL of these things. No one wants to spend big money on a vehicle that doesn't solve their regular use cases. And they don't have the means to have multiple vehicles for different use cases.

Don't get me wrong. There are people who have large vehicles and never or very rarely use them appropriately. We aren't going to change those people, no matter how much we want to. I personally love the lifted trucks with lighting effects, low profile tires, and huge wheels. Barf. Complaining about these people is yelling into the wind. We all need to yell into the wind occasionally.

This horse hasn’t had enough, let me get my stick…. Here's an example (ALL estimated). Towing an RV 400 miles, not unheard of. Lightning with 325 miles of range, towing cuts range in half. 170 miles of range. Assume 10-80% charging means you lose another 30% of range. That’s now 120 miles. Round trip, traveling at 70 MPH, 11.5 hrs of driving, 7 stops, 4.5 hours of charging, 16 hrs on the road. you’ll have to stop every 1 hr 45 minutes for 40 minutes. That sucks.

Another! Same estimations, 100 miles one way to go snowmobiling. Same 120 miles of range from before, but now winter. That range could be 85. That’s three stops, maybe 3 hours of driving and 2 hours of charging. If there are chargers on the way to your snowmobile park. This possibly just doesn’t work.

I do not have many of these use cases, but many do. The current Lightning is not capable. People will not rent for these uses, that’s an awful solution. And they still have to get to work. Would you rather have them drive an ICE F150 or F250 everyday or an EREV? I know which I would pick for them.

 

[dan_meh]

Less fanfare:
https://insideevs.com/news/781969/ford-louisville-assembly-plant-shut-down-ev/

I think it’s important to see all these moves together.

I am aware of the sad symbolism. Ford is ending production of a vehicle that supported hybrid and plug in hybrid variants. I would have preferred the end to the Ford bronco full-sized, the expedition, or the raptor family. But I understand that I neither run Ford nor have fun at parties. Eat your vegetables rarely sells vehicles.

 

[VegasWeezy]

Just drove from FL to TN the other day with 3.5mi/kwh on that trip. Have done close to 300 without stopping before.

But there are other people on the forums that apparently can’t do 140 miles without stopping to charge so I get confused (other than they are probably the people flipping in and out of traffic and going 20-30 over the speed limit).

I can only assume that you had pretty fair weather and a relatively flat route. Getting 3.5mi/kwh is pretty damn hard to achieve at highway speeds if you have any sort of cold weather or decent elevation changes. I recently made the trip from Las Vegas, NV to Rio Rancho, NM and back. It’s 600 miles each way and it requires 4 charge stops in each direction. Each leg varied between 2.4 to 3.1mi/kWh, as there was some cold weather and a lot of elevation change through the mountains. The highway is 70mph along that route for the vast majority of the trip. There is no way I could achieve 3.5 on that route.

 

[GreaseMonkey]

I get what you're saying, but keep an open mind. There are more use cases for vehicles than just commuting and moving people. Some people like to tow toy haulers (motorcycles, snow mobiles side by sides), horse trailers, RVs, boats, etc. They may have a side business. They may just have a large family and appreciate the versatility and space an F-150 size vehicle offers. They may not have the stomach for messing up a $70k SUV with drywall/plywood in the back. They may do ALL of these things. No one wants to spend big money on a vehicle that doesn't solve their regular use cases. And they don't have the means to have multiple vehicles for different use cases.

Don't get me wrong. There are people who have large vehicles and never or very rarely use them appropriately. We aren't going to change those people, no matter how much we want to. I personally love the lifted trucks with lighting effects, low profile tires, and huge wheels. Barf. Complaining about these people is yelling into the wind. We all need to yell into the wind occasionally.

This horse hasn’t had enough, let me get my stick…. Here's an example (ALL estimated). Towing an RV 400 miles, not unheard of. Lightning with 325 miles of range, towing cuts range in half. 170 miles of range. Assume 10-80% charging means you lose another 30% of range. That’s now 120 miles. Round trip, traveling at 70 MPH, 11.5 hrs of driving, 7 stops, 4.5 hours of charging, 16 hrs on the road. you’ll have to stop every 1 hr 45 minutes for 40 minutes. That sucks.

Another! Same estimations, 100 miles one way to go snowmobiling. Same 120 miles of range from before, but now winter. That range could be 85. That’s three stops, maybe 3 hours of driving and 2 hours of charging. If there are chargers on the way to your snowmobile park. This possibly just doesn’t work.

I do not have many of these use cases, but many do. The current Lightning is not capable. People will not rent for these uses, that’s an awful solution. And they still have to get to work. Would you rather have them drive an ICE F150 or F250 everyday or an EREV? I know which I would pick for them.

EVs will not cater to all use cases. No tech will. I’m not worried about the 5% of extreme use cases where someone is hauling an RV or a boat. That person needs to stick to diesel. I’m focused on the middle 90%, which will unlock a huge market for EVs. I think people use range as an excuse to not consider EVs. And it is a shame.

By the way, according to ChatGPT, no Ford truck is capable of reliably delivering 750 miles of range. How the hell did that become a market mandate?

 

[Sikkun]

I can only assume that you had pretty fair weather and a relatively flat route. Getting 3.5mi/kwh is pretty damn hard to achieve at highway speeds if you have any sort of cold weather or decent elevation changes. I recently made the trip from Las Vegas, NV to Rio Rancho, NM and back. It’s 600 miles each way and it requires 4 charge stops in each direction. Each leg varied between 2.4 to 3.1mi/kWh, as there was some cold weather and a lot of elevation change through the mountains. The highway is 70mph along that route for the vast majority of the trip. There is no way I could achieve 3.5 on that route.

Started at 48 ended at 22.

I did not run the heat (other than while charging), but yes FL and GA are flat.

When I go to Ohio on the other hand that’s 527 miles and I do it in 2 stops (I could do one). And that is much less flat.

My OBD calibrated ABRP reference consumption is 4.09 over a couple thousand miles of longer trips. I know the RWD gets slightly more range but I didn’t think it’s that crazy of a difference.

Sponsored