Dealership installation of L3 (fast DC) and L2 chargers-

[dbsb3233]

It won't be 100% one or the other. It'll be a mix of BEV, ICE, and hybrids for likely decades. Even the experts predict only about 30% market share for BEV by the end of the decade. (Of course, a dramatic improvement in battery technology greatly increasing range and shortening charge times would accelerate that some.)

If the F-150 BEV doesn't sell in high % to rural buyers, it won't be because it's an F-150, it'll be because it's the BEV version. For the reasons I stated above.

ICE isn't going away anytime soon. But it will gradually decrease as BEV share gradually increases. Ford will follow that reality just as most of the others will.

Sponsored

 

[Billyk24]

The wording is "up to 100%"- eligible costs of studying, planning, promoting or deploying electric transportation technology and projects in Oregon. Washington/California reads: : Grants for electric vehicle charging infrastructure can cover up to 100% of the eligible costs to purchase and install charging stations.

 

[dbsb3233]

"Flagship" implies they have 10 BEV models or something. No, the MME is pretty much their ONLY BEV. The F-150 BEV version is 2 years away as their 2nd consumer BEV (the Transit will be mostly commercial). Combined they'll be just a few% of Ford sales until more BEVs come out years down the road (there might be one Lincoln in there too).

If Ford thought installing their own L3 network was justified for that few% of their sales, they would. Seems they don't. I can completely see why.

 

[dbsb3233]

It would take a dramatic improvement in batteries to get that far for BEV market share in the US IMO. Which is possible, but not something I'd count on. With modest improvements to current batteries, 30% is a pretty widely expected estimate by 2030.

But that's just for BEVs. There should be even bigger growth in hybrids. PHEVs are likely to be bigger than BEVs. That solves the road trip and slow charger issue, but still has most of the "green" benefit since most miles driven annually are near home, not on long road trips. Meaning most miles will be on battery, with infrequent use of the gas engine.

Those that really want to see the most serious shift to more miles being driven on electric should really be cheerleading for PHEVs. Because deeper market penetration is likely with those. The US could get to maybe 70% of total miles driven on electric with a mix of 30% BEV sales and 50% PHEV sales by 2030.

 

[dbsb3233]

Cars aren't cell phones. Cell phones represented a dramatic new functional capability that didn't exist before. BEVs don't. It the same basic functionality (a car) to the consumer than they had with an ICE car. Functionally it's actually a step back in some ways, with less range and sloooow refueling times, less flexibility and more compromise.

Problems that PHEVs solve.

Again, the real hingepin is batteries. If they see dramatic breakthroughts in energy density and charging speed that can translate to mass production at cheaper prices, then yes, BEVs have a much higher ceiling. Currently they have a lower ceiling. It all comes down to if/when the battery breakthroughs happen.

 

[Billyk24]

PHEVs are dead and dying, and for good reason. ----show the data that your statement is true.

 

[Sweetwater]

A lot of good thoughts about chargers at dealerships. Yes we do need them.
You can not just install chargers anywhere you think they should be put.
Think of it as if it was your home. So many of you do not have enough amps
or space in panel that you must do an upgrade. Same goes for dealerships
and farmers. Electric service at these places was figured to cover their load.
Many do not have enough power to add on chargers. There is more cost
than just "adding chargers. "

 

[dbsb3233]

You're right, we sure disagree.

ICE, PHEV, and BEV are all CARS. Functionally the do the same thing. The only thing "revolutionary" about BEVs is the fuel. 95% of the product is exactly the same.

That 5% difference to the user is in how and when you refuel. If you can refuel at home all the time, it's a benefit. But if you have to refuel on the road, it's a significant detriment. And that detriment forces compromise.

The only thing we partially agree on is the 2nd paragraph where the performance of the vehicle suffers some because including both powertrains adds weight and space and takes away a little from each. It upsets the purists, but they're not the bulk of the mainstream market.

But just like much better batteries are making BEVs better than they used to be, they're making PHEVs better too. There's a lot of new PHEV models coming out by various manufacturers. Including Ford.

Sponsored