150 mile range

[Bloggin]

The KIA SOUL is planned this year ,2014 with a 120 mile range. We will see how they do.

Nissan is surveying LEAF owners to see if they would pay extra for a 150 mile pack. They have their new deset battery coming out in April 2014 and have also been working on a 150 mile battery for 2015.

So far Tesla is the only Electric in the World in the 200-300 mile range area. Their new Gen III will be out in late 2015 with production in 2016 with a 200 mile pack. I think they will be the top of the list for range for a long time.

the Kia Soul EV is supposed to be at the Chicago show. the 120 miles is the full range, like the FFE has 100 miles. But EPA should be at least 90 miles. But the cost may be a challenge for Kia.

By the time Nissan has a 120 - 150 mile battery ready, Ford will also be there also, and with thermal protection. The next gen Focus, C-MAX and Fusion are all due MY2016 - MY2017. With Next Gen Focus set for 1st QTR 2017 production start.

 

[Zurc]

I mentioned the idea of an extra battery in an earlier post under 3 suggestions to ford.
No battery in the trunk. Put it down under like tesla did. And yes ford kinda came up a bit short on range.
They should have used an engineering rule of thumb and doubled what they think is the average commute and gone with the resulting range. It would have made the car a bit more useful.


Zurc

 

[v_traveller]

They should have used an engineering rule of thumb and doubled what they think is the average commute and gone with the resulting range. It would have made the car a bit more useful.Zurc

Did a quick google search, looks like the average commute is 16 miles one-way, so 32 mile round trip, which makes FFE's range well within that engineering rule of thumb.

Agree with you that more range would be nice... with no increase in price, of course.

 

[bb6lude]

I wouldn't mind that as the Focus is a commuter car for me. Primary driver, but I have another vehicle if I need to carry bigger things.

If Ford would offer increased range as an extra-cost option, I'd be very inclined to buy it. Even 120 miles is way better than 70-80

A version where the entire trunk area is filled with battery?

 

[cpwl]

I mentioned the idea of an extra battery in an earlier post under 3 suggestions to ford.
No battery in the trunk. Put it down under like tesla did. And yes ford kinda came up a bit short on range.
They should have used an engineering rule of thumb and doubled what they think is the average commute and gone with the resulting range. It would have made the car a bit more useful.


Zurc

A longer range, especially if it could be 150 miles, would almost definitely be everybody’s prime improvement recommendation for the FFE. But what seems to be missing in many of these posts, not just Zurc's which I have chosen as a starting point, is an acceptance of the fundamental limitations imposed on the FFE by its sharing a glider common to the Focus ICE. Safety considerations require that the batteries are located within the protected part of the chassis without any infringement into the crumple zones front or rear. So chances are that Ford have already put in pretty much the largest battery pack (by volume) that the glider can accept. And given the fundamental chassis design there is little if any opportunity to put additional battery volume and hence capacity under the floor of the FFE. One could consider “stacking” a second battery pack above the one already located in the hatchback but that would have adverse effects on vehicle dynamics resulting in compromised steering and braking behaviour and substantially compromising anti-rollover safety. Remember one of the reasons we love the FFE is it handling which is very similar to the Focus ICE. After considering the lack of available volume to add more battery packs or the compromises that stacking a second battery in the hatchback would impose significantly increasing the energy density of the current battery packs becomes pretty much the only opportunity to improve the vehicle range.

The cost of increasing the range by utilizing either more battery packs or higher energy density batteries will be significant. If we assume that the cost of the battery pack is 30% of the car’s production cost (and that is probably a conservative estimate) doubling the effective range – which is what we are really saying we want if we go from a nominal 80 mile range to a nominal 150 mile range through increasing the number of battery packs (cells), then the battery costs will for all intents and purposes double. Based on a retail cost of $32K then we could reasonably expect a 150 mile range FFE to cost approximately $41.6K. Are we really willing to pay an extra $9.6K for that range cushion which will be rarely utilized by 95% of prospective FFE owners.
We don’t really know how “stressed” or “energy optimized” the FFE battery packs are compared to a Tesla for instance. If the energy density is similar to that of the Tesla then then there is little opportunity to improve energy density as Tesla is generally considered to have the highest energy density cells in the industry. If however the FFE batteries are of a significantly lower energy density then there is a potential for increasing the FFE’s range through that venue but such an improvement would most probably follow a polynomial or exponential cost curve rather than the linear relationship of simply utilizing more battery cells. Such development costs could render the costs so high as to be prohibitive both to Ford in the production of such an FFE variant and to prospective consumers when purchasing the car. “There is no free meal” especially in a BEV. More range costs substantially more money up front as well as well as higher energy costs when that increased range is utilized in a BEV, one of the big differences (disadvantages) between BEVs and ICEs. (A bigger gas tank has much less significant cost impact on an ICE.)

We also have to realize that Ford would have done these studies and options analyses when the FFE was developed. In the end the battery capacity and consequent range rendered the FFE with a range competitive to the then extant competition of the Nissan LEAF and Mitsubishi MiEV at a price point where Ford thought it would be sufficiently successful to market and help the company meet overall fleet fuel economy regulations (compliance vehicle). I suspect that any range increase for the FFE would be cost prohibitive compared to its current competition. Now, if the Mercedes Benz B-Class electric proves to a commercial success starting at approx. $41,5K then, if technically feasible based on battery pack energy densities, cell numbers and form factors, Ford may be enticed to offer a longer range variant of the FFE. We can only hope!

Thanks and Cheers

Carl

 

[pjam3]

I mentioned the idea of an extra battery in an earlier post under 3 suggestions to ford.
No battery in the trunk. Put it down under like tesla did. And yes ford kinda came up a bit short on range.
They should have used an engineering rule of thumb and doubled what they think is the average commute and gone with the resulting range. It would have made the car a bit more useful.


Zurc

A longer range, especially if it could be 150 miles, would almost definitely be everybody’s prime improvement recommendation for the FFE. But what seems to be missing in many of these posts, not just Zurc's which I have chosen as a starting point, is an acceptance of the fundamental limitations imposed on the FFE by its sharing a glider common to the Focus ICE. Safety considerations require that the batteries are located within the protected part of the chassis without any infringement into the crumple zones front or rear. So chances are that Ford have already put in pretty much the largest battery pack (by volume) that the glider can accept. And given the fundamental chassis design there is little if any opportunity to put additional battery volume and hence capacity under the floor of the FFE. One could consider “stacking” a second battery pack above the one already located in the hatchback but that would have adverse effects on vehicle dynamics resulting in compromised steering and braking behaviour and substantially compromising anti-rollover safety. Remember one of the reasons we love the FFE is it handling which is very similar to the Focus ICE. After considering the lack of available volume to add more battery packs or the compromises that stacking a second battery in the hatchback would impose significantly increasing the energy density of the current battery packs becomes pretty much the only opportunity to improve the vehicle range.

The cost of increasing the range by utilizing either more battery packs or higher energy density batteries will be significant. If we assume that the cost of the battery pack is 30% of the car’s production cost (and that is probably a conservative estimate) doubling the effective range – which is what we are really saying we want if we go from a nominal 80 mile range to a nominal 150 mile range through increasing the number of battery packs (cells), then the battery costs will for all intents and purposes double. Based on a retail cost of $32K then we could reasonably expect a 150 mile range FFE to cost approximately $41.6K. Are we really willing to pay an extra $9.6K for that range cushion which will be rarely utilized by 95% of prospective FFE owners.
We don’t really know how “stressed” or “energy optimized” the FFE battery packs are compared to a Tesla for instance. If the energy density is similar to that of the Tesla then then there is little opportunity to improve energy density as Tesla is generally considered to have the highest energy density cells in the industry. If however the FFE batteries are of a significantly lower energy density then there is a potential for increasing the FFE’s range through that venue but such an improvement would most probably follow a polynomial or exponential cost curve rather than the linear relationship of simply utilizing more battery cells. Such development costs could render the costs so high as to be prohibitive both to Ford in the production of such an FFE variant and to prospective consumers when purchasing the car. “There is no free meal” especially in a BEV. More range costs substantially more money up front as well as well as higher energy costs when that increased range is utilized in a BEV, one of the big differences (disadvantages) between BEVs and ICEs. (A bigger gas tank has much less significant cost impact on an ICE.)

We also have to realize that Ford would have done these studies and options analyses when the FFE was developed. In the end the battery capacity and consequent range rendered the FFE with a range competitive to the then extant competition of the Nissan LEAF and Mitsubishi MiEV at a price point where Ford thought it would be sufficiently successful to market and help the company meet overall fleet fuel economy regulations (compliance vehicle). I suspect that any range increase for the FFE would be cost prohibitive compared to its current competition. Now, if the Mercedes Benz B-Class electric proves to a commercial success starting at approx. $41,5K then, if technically feasible based on battery pack energy densities, cell numbers and form factors, Ford may be enticed to offer a longer range variant of the FFE. We can only hope!

Thanks and Cheers

Carl

I honestly don't think Ford cared that much about the FFE. Out of all the companies, they are the one company who acts like it's just a compliance car. The ford is sold everywhere, but really sold nowhere. They don't market it, half the dealerships don't carry them or know much about them, and the are far more interested in pushing their C-Max or Fusion Energi hybrids. And being they've barely sold any of these cars and don't seem to have any interest of actually selling them, who is to say they will improve them.

We can say they looked at stats, but the reality is, Tesla has a car that gets 250 Miles and sells for 90-100K. And they are far more popular than every other Electric except the Leaf. And why does the Leaf sell so many and Ford practically none? The FFE is a better car than the Leaf I think, but nobody cares to buy one. When you sell 650 cars in a quarter, it's a failed experiment. And how much longer will they even bother making/selling them ?

Every other company seems to have a plan or upgrades to their cars, Ford seems to not care at all about the FFE.

 

[EVA]

The answer to all those questions posed is in the manufacturing videos. Go watch them, especially you Pjam. Look at how Ford built this car. Look at how Nissan, BMW, and Tesla built their electric cars. Do you see a difference?

Ford chose to replace the ICE parts of a successful compact car - the Focus - with electric gear. They manufacture the car on the exact same line as the Focus. In fact they can make 10 ICE Focus, then 1 FFE, then 10 more ICE - their line is that flexible.

Improvements in the FFE will follow absolutely 1 for 1 with the ICE Focus. As the Focus changes so will the FFE.

Why does Nissan sell so many Leafs? You've asked this question a thousand times - the answer is advertising. They had to advertise. They had to recoup their costs of dedicated manufacturing lines. Ford has NONE of those costs. NONE. They have strictly development costs. I would bet for Ford, the ability to sell cars in California, or whichever other state chooses to enact that same genius law, is more than enough return on their investment. Therefore, there is no need to waste money on advertising or marketing - or anything else for that matter.

@Zurc - why don't they put the battery in the floor? Because they can't given the design parameters. Take an existing car, make minimal modifications, and manufacture that car on the exact same line as the regular car. You sort of can't build the battery into the floor. They use the same battery for the Energi cars - so they got an economy of scale nobody else gets.

Frankly, the more I see about how Ford built this car and the Energi cars, they are geniuses.

 

[v_traveller]

Every other company seems to have a plan or upgrades to their cars, Ford seems to not care at all about the FFE.

Other than Tesla, who lives or dies by the success of their BEVs and sales of ZEV credits, Ford is the only company that I could find that has a long-term plan for BEVs, and has been achieving the goals they had set for themselves:

http://corporate.ford.com/microsites/sustainability-report-2012-13/environment-products-plan-overview

Where did you see plans for BEVs from every other company? I can't find them. Please provide links.

 

[WattsUp]

They should have used an engineering rule of thumb and doubled what they think is the average commute and gone with the resulting range. It would have made the car a bit more useful.

Seems they did that. The average car travels about 30 miles per day. They FFE's nominal range is about double that.

 

[twscrap]

Every other company seems to have a plan or upgrades to their cars, Ford seems to not care at all about the FFE.

Other than Tesla, who lives or dies by the success of their BEVs and sales of ZEV credits, Ford is the only company that I could find that has a long-term plan for BEVs, and has been achieving the goals they had set for themselves:

http://corporate.ford.com/microsites/sustainability-report-2012-13/environment-products-plan-overview

Where did you see plans for BEVs from every other company? I can't find them. Please provide links.

Proof is in the pudding - just cuz you can't find them doesn't mean that Nissan and BMW don't have long term plans for expansion of BEVs. BMW has sunk billions into R&D for Project i and while I'm not sure how much Nissan has spent on its electric program, both are clearly more committed to BEVs than Ford will ever be, regardless of that lame ass, three horizon with no timelines strategy.

 

[hybridbear]

Every other company seems to have a plan or upgrades to their cars, Ford seems to not care at all about the FFE.

Other than Tesla, who lives or dies by the success of their BEVs and sales of ZEV credits, Ford is the only company that I could find that has a long-term plan for BEVs, and has been achieving the goals they had set for themselves:

http://corporate.ford.com/microsites/sustainability-report-2012-13/environment-products-plan-overview

Where did you see plans for BEVs from every other company? I can't find them. Please provide links.

Proof is in the pudding - just cuz you can't find them doesn't mean that Nissan and BMW don't have long term plans for expansion of BEVs. BMW has sunk billions into R&D for Project i and while I'm not sure how much Nissan has spent on its electric program, both are clearly more committed to BEVs than Ford will ever be, regardless of that lame, three horizon with no timelines strategy.

Ford is more committed to electrification overall and PHEVs than anyone else except maybe Chevy with the Volt. However, Chevy only has one PHEV model and no real hybrids or EVs, just the compliance car Spark EV and some junk mild hybrids. Ford has created a 50 state BEV in the FFE, three excellent hybrids (MKZh, FFH & C-Max Hybrid) and two excellent plug-in hybrids (the other FFE, the Fusion Energi, and the C-Max Energi). Toyota is focusing on hybrids & fuel cells. Honda is focusing on fuel cells, so is Hyundai. Chrysler is doing nothing.

Nissan is all in a BEVs with no mainstream hybrid offerings. VW has talked about their plans to release EVs & PHEVs and has one mainstream hybrid. I've driven the Jetta Hybrid and it needs a lot of work. The drivetrain is not very refined.

I don't count BMW or Tesla because their cars are more expensive than the average person can afford. Tesla talks all about their 3rd gen "affordable" BEV, but they say that it will cost the same as a BMW 3-series and will compete against that. That is not an affordable car for the masses. If Tesla were to say that their 3rd gen BEV would be priced like a ICE-only Camry or Accord then I'd get excited about it.

For now we're just left with Ford as the automaker with the most complete package of hybrid, BEV & PHEV offerings. Ford was recently named #1 green brand worldwide. If you read their sustainability report it seems that Ford is interested in increasing efficiency across their operations to an extent greater than other manufacturers.

 

[twscrap]

Ford is more committed to electrification overall and PHEVs than anyone else except maybe Chevy with the Volt. However, Chevy only has one PHEV model and no real hybrids or EVs, just the compliance car Spark EV and some junk mild hybrids. Ford has created a 50 state BEV in the FFE, three excellent hybrids (MKZh, FFH & C-Max Hybrid) and two excellent plug-in hybrids (the other FFE, the Fusion Energi, and the C-Max Energi). Toyota is focusing on hybrids & fuel cells. Honda is focusing on fuel cells, so is Hyundai. Chrysler is doing nothing.

Nissan is all in a BEVs with no mainstream hybrid offerings. VW has talked about their plans to release EVs & PHEVs and has one mainstream hybrid. I've driven the Jetta Hybrid and it needs a lot of work. The drivetrain is not very refined.

I don't count BMW or Tesla because their cars are more expensive than the average person can afford. Tesla talks all about their 3rd gen "affordable" BEV, but they say that it will cost the same as a BMW 3-series and will compete against that. That is not an affordable car for the masses. If Tesla were to say that their 3rd gen BEV would be priced like a ICE-only Camry or Accord then I'd get excited about it.

For now we're just left with Ford as the automaker with the most complete package of hybrid, BEV & PHEV offerings. Ford was recently named #1 green brand worldwide. If you read their sustainability report it seems that Ford is interested in increasing efficiency across their operations to an extent greater than other manufacturers.

Fair enough, but the post I commented on referred specifically to BEVs. The fact is, PHEVs are likely to be a transition car to BEVs for many people. Most households will keep a PHEV in their driveway for the freedom it provides, but ownership of one will likely lead to a BEV purchase by most as their second car. Net result is there's one PHEV and one BEV in the driveway. This is where Ford is missing the boat - with their current offerings and plans as shown in that Strategy Map, the BEV in folks driveways ain't going to be a Ford.

In regards to Tesla's Gen 3 car, *if* they deliver what they have indicated (and that's a big if, considering the way their pricing has evolved with the MS), it will barely be above the current average price of a new car in the US. And considering that operating costs are a fraction of that average ICE, it is affordable - Americans just need to stop separating payment and fuel costs in their heads and look at the total cost per month.

 

[hybridbear]

Ford is more committed to electrification overall and PHEVs than anyone else except maybe Chevy with the Volt. However, Chevy only has one PHEV model and no real hybrids or EVs, just the compliance car Spark EV and some junk mild hybrids. Ford has created a 50 state BEV in the FFE, three excellent hybrids (MKZh, FFH & C-Max Hybrid) and two excellent plug-in hybrids (the other FFE, the Fusion Energi, and the C-Max Energi). Toyota is focusing on hybrids & fuel cells. Honda is focusing on fuel cells, so is Hyundai. Chrysler is doing nothing.

Nissan is all in a BEVs with no mainstream hybrid offerings. VW has talked about their plans to release EVs & PHEVs and has one mainstream hybrid. I've driven the Jetta Hybrid and it needs a lot of work. The drivetrain is not very refined.

I don't count BMW or Tesla because their cars are more expensive than the average person can afford. Tesla talks all about their 3rd gen "affordable" BEV, but they say that it will cost the same as a BMW 3-series and will compete against that. That is not an affordable car for the masses. If Tesla were to say that their 3rd gen BEV would be priced like a ICE-only Camry or Accord then I'd get excited about it.

For now we're just left with Ford as the automaker with the most complete package of hybrid, BEV & PHEV offerings. Ford was recently named #1 green brand worldwide. If you read their sustainability report it seems that Ford is interested in increasing efficiency across their operations to an extent greater than other manufacturers.

Fair enough, but the post I commented on referred specifically to BEVs. The fact is, PHEVs are likely to be a transition car to BEVs for many people. Most households will keep a PHEV in their driveway for the freedom it provides, but ownership of one will likely lead to a BEV purchase by most as their second car. Net result is there's one PHEV and one BEV in the driveway. This is where Ford is missing the boat - with their current offerings and plans as shown in that Strategy Map, the BEV in folks driveways ain't going to be a Ford.

In regards to Tesla's Gen 3 car, *if* they deliver what they have indicated (and that's a big if, considering the way their pricing has evolved with the MS), it will barely be above the current average price of a new car in the US. And considering that operating costs are a fraction of that average ICE, it is affordable - Americans just need to stop separating payment and fuel costs in their heads and look at the total cost per month.

That's true about the BEVs. Hopefully Ford will start making more of them in the future. But like Jamie points out. Their strategy with the FFE and the flexible production line is quite impressive. They haven't invested heavily like Nissan but they should have capacity to build 1000 BEVs a month should the market demand that many.

Your comment is true for someone going from a $30k SUV to a $30k BEV. I just forget because I'm used to our situation. We hardly spend anything on gas so for us our total monthly cost is car & insurance. So for us a $40k Tesla gen 3 would be much more expensive than what we have now. I guess I forget that my wife & I are unique in our situation.

 

[cpwl]

Ford is more committed to electrification overall and PHEVs than anyone else except maybe Chevy with the Volt. However, Chevy only has one PHEV model and no real hybrids or EVs, just the compliance car Spark EV and some junk mild hybrids. Ford has created a 50 state BEV in the FFE, three excellent hybrids (MKZh, FFH & C-Max Hybrid) and two excellent plug-in hybrids (the other FFE, the Fusion Energi, and the C-Max Energi). Toyota is focusing on hybrids & fuel cells. Honda is focusing on fuel cells, so is Hyundai. Chrysler is doing nothing.

Nissan is all in a BEVs with no mainstream hybrid offerings. VW has talked about their plans to release EVs & PHEVs and has one mainstream hybrid. I've driven the Jetta Hybrid and it needs a lot of work. The drivetrain is not very refined.

I don't count BMW or Tesla because their cars are more expensive than the average person can afford. Tesla talks all about their 3rd gen "affordable" BEV, but they say that it will cost the same as a BMW 3-series and will compete against that. That is not an affordable car for the masses. If Tesla were to say that their 3rd gen BEV would be priced like a ICE-only Camry or Accord then I'd get excited about it.

For now we're just left with Ford as the automaker with the most complete package of hybrid, BEV & PHEV offerings. Ford was recently named #1 green brand worldwide. If you read their sustainability report it seems that Ford is interested in increasing efficiency across their operations to an extent greater than other manufacturers.

I doubt any of us can really speak on Ford’s behalf regarding their commitment to BEVs. The anecdotal evidence we see in terms of FFE production numbers and Ford’s apparent lack of a significant marketing effort for the FFE certainly doesn’t give me a strong feeling that they are committed to any further adoption of the BEV platform. They will of course continue to produce and sell the FFE because of the legal requirement to do so in CA and other CARB states. Beyond that though, as far as I can see Ford has certainly not given any indication that they have any intention of taking a market leadership position and expanding their line of BEVs. This is in spite of the technical success represented by the FFE which I feel could be readily leveraged into the Fusion and MKS platforms, albeit with attendant investment requirements.

Ford certainly does appear to be committed to PHEV given the number of models in which the Energi drive train is available. But is this really a corporate choice and leadership role or is it just a response to market conditions? Most people want to reduce vehicle ownership and operating costs and for many people a PHEV will be a step in the direction of reducing operating costs (fuel) because for most people short distance in-town trips represent a vast majority of their driving mileage. This is exactly the operating profile where PHEVs can and do realize a savings over traditional ICE mechanical drive platforms. Owners of these PHEVs can readily realize these operational savings and as such these platforms are much easier and readily marketed by Ford and any other manufacturer who produces them. But there are nevertheless significant limitations as to just how much saving can be realized by the PHEV architecture and they will always fall well short of the operational savings that can be readily realized by a BEV. And of course once one enters the long distance highway driving operating profile the PHEV actually penalizes fuel economy due to the extra weight of the batteries compared to the ICE-only platform of the specified model, whereas the BEV, within its operational range, continues to reap the greatest mileage and overall operational savings.

The flexible production line could actually be Ford’s greatest strengths going forward with the current generation BEV development. As long as any potential BEVs versions of the Fusion and MKZ share a production glider with their ICE counterparts the infrastructure investment in producing BEVs will be minimal which would help any internal BEV champions leverage from the FFE experience and keep overhead costs to a minimum. (I pick these two models as I think they would be ideal choices for expanding the Ford BEV production as they hold the potential to foster the introduction and adoption of the BEV platform to a significantly wider market demographic than that represented by the FFE.)

In my opinion the sharing of a glider with the ICE, PHEV, HEV versions of the car really makes the FFE and any potential BEV versions of the Fusion, MKZ first generation BEVs. The initiation of a dedicated production line for a purpose designed and built BEV would mark/define the introduction of a second generation BEV. The resultant BEVs from such an investment and corporate acceptance of BEVs would be a “no compromise” efforts and mark a true embracing of a future where BEVs become a significant, if not majority, production and sales capacity. For that to be acheived though there would have to be a fundamental change in the corporate view of BEVs and the efforts allocated to their marketing.

Thanks and Cheers

Carl

 

[jmueller065]

But is this really a corporate choice and leadership role or is it just a response to market conditions?

Corporate choice: Don't forget who is holding the CEO's leash: Bill Ford jr. Bill has always lead the way for Ford in "green" initiatives (who do you think it was that wanted to put that living roof on top of the F-150 plant in Dearborn?).

 

[cpwl]

Fair enough, but the post I commented on referred specifically to BEVs. The fact is, PHEVs are likely to be a transition car to BEVs for many people. Most households will keep a PHEV in their driveway for the freedom it provides, but ownership of one will likely lead to a BEV purchase by most as their second car. Net result is there's one PHEV and one BEV in the driveway. This is where Ford is missing the boat - with their current offerings and plans as shown in that Strategy Map, the BEV in folks driveways ain't going to be a Ford.

In regards to Tesla's Gen 3 car, *if* they deliver what they have indicated (and that's a big if, considering the way their pricing has evolved with the MS), it will barely be above the current average price of a new car in the US. And considering that operating costs are a fraction of that average ICE, it is affordable - Americans just need to stop separating payment and fuel costs in their heads and look at the total cost per month.

I agree with the statement that PHEVs will likely be a transition car but for a different reasoning. PHEVs will be the consumer’s intermediate step between the ICE-mechanical drive platform to the BEV platform. It will be people’s way of “dipping their toes in the water” to begin experiencing what a BEV can do for them. Most PHEVs give an EV range in the 21 to 35 mile range which for a vast majority of people will represent one way of their commute. So if they drive to work on the EV capability alone the drive home on ICE capability will quite forcefully illustrate the difference between the BEV and ICE platforms. That will be further reinforced if they can charge at work and drive home on the EV capability as well. After experiencing the fuel cost savings and other BEV advantages the transition to BEVs will be that much less “traumatic” and the characteristics/limitations of BEV driving will be more thoroughly understood and readily accepted. For most people the transition from a PHEV to BEV will be into something such as the FFE or its immediate competition which have a range of approximately 80-100 miles. That common range may increase somewhat over the next 5 years but the 200+ mile BEV range will in all probability remain the realm of Tesla who just might be joined by BMW and Mercedes Benz.

The result of this Transition from ICE to PHEV and ultimately commuting range BEVs will be a continued requirement for a second long range family vehicle. I can’t really see that second long range vehicle being a PHEV because of their reduced fuel economy on highways. Consumers needing a long range second car will be very cognisant of the fuel economy and I expect that for the most part ICE mechanical platforms will remain the primary choice for this purpose. There may well be a period where the PHEV/BEV combination is common but once those PHEVs need replacement the long range car will, I think, be an ICE platform.

YMMV

Thanks and Cheers

Carl

 

[hybridbear]

Or the long distance vehicle could be a diesel. We're going to be a household with one BEV & one hybrid soon instead of being a two hybrid household as we have been. The BEV will be the primary car driven as much as possible & the hybrid will be used for times when we need to use two cars at the same time & for long distance trips. In the future I would choose to go BEV & diesel since the non-BEV will receive minimal use in the city. Diesel highway fuel economy would likely be better than the hybrid.

 

[twscrap]

The result of this Transition from ICE to PHEV and ultimately commuting range BEVs will be a continued requirement for a second long range family vehicle. I can’t really see that second long range vehicle being a PHEV because of their reduced fuel economy on highways. Consumers needing a long range second car will be very cognisant of the fuel economy and I expect that for the most part ICE mechanical platforms will remain the primary choice for this purpose. There may well be a period where the PHEV/BEV combination is common but once those PHEVs need replacement the long range car will, I think, be an ICE platform.

I think it depends on the actual 'long' range need. If it's because one person's commute is 120 miles per day, I would agree. But those folks are few and far between. If it's just to have the freedom to go beyond battery range periodically and to take on 'longer' road trip vacations, I think a PHEV becomes a lot more likely.

 

[cpwl]

And considering that operating costs are a fraction of that average ICE, it is affordable - Americans just need to stop separating payment and fuel costs in their heads and look at the total cost per month.

This is one of the, if not the single-most important factor in the purchase of consumer goods and in this case by extension the adoption of a new technology, the BEV. To date, most people have considered the “buy-in” cost as the biggest factor in deciding purchases. And as cars are usually the second most expensive purchase we will ever make (behind the family house), a price tag increase of 10% let alone 20 or 25% is often enough to move that choice out of the pre-determined price range and causes the consumer to either buy the less expensive model or simply not buy at all and continue to operate an already obsolete and high operating cost poorly performing vehicle. In general, reduced life cycle cost – the complete cost of ownership from purchase to disposal – often depends on purchasing a higher quality and hence higher cost item. Thereafter maintenance and operating costs will be less such that over the now average 7-8 year ownership span, the total cost of ownership is often less than the lower priced version. This rarely works out to be the case if people only own their vehicle for 2 -3 years or if they keep it for an inordinately long period such as 15 or more years. Depending on mileage driven, while some 25% more expensive that the FF Titanium ICE, the FFE can cross the threshold for lower life cycle cost as soon as 4 years but more commonly at years 5 or 6.
For various reasons not everyone can afford the BEV “buy-in” premium. It can be as simple as not being able to raise the required credit or not having sufficient remaining life on their ICE to save up for the premium price of the FFE compared to a FF ICE. This cost premium will be one of the primary reasons that BEVs will take a long time to gain a large market share and quite perversely will be a primary reason why people continue to buy and operate ICE platforms which over the vehicle’s life cycle will cost them more than would a BEV operated for the same life span and overall mileage.
The purchase price cost premium cannot be avoided nor can it be dismissed when prospective clients investigate the purchase of a BEV. Advocates and sales staff as well as corporate marketing campaigns will need to promote these vehicles not only on their capabilities but equally importantly on their life cycle cost savings based not only on fuel cost savings but also on reduced maintenance requirements. Unfortunately the reduced maintenance aspect is in direct opposition to the maintenance profit model of most dealerships and will hence be a “hard sell” at the corporate level.

Thanks and Cheers

Carl

 

[cpwl]

Or the long distance vehicle could be a diesel. We're going to be a household with one BEV & one hybrid soon instead of being a two hybrid household as we have been. The BEV will be the primary car driven as much as possible & the hybrid will be used for times when we need to use two cars at the same time & for long distance trips. In the future I would choose to go BEV & diesel since the non-BEV will receive minimal use in the city. Diesel highway fuel economy would likely be better than the hybrid.

Good review and this is exactly how I see a "commuter range" BEV being used in a multi-vehicle family, it will become the defacto primary car no matter the capabilities of the second car. But your diesel alternative is still an ICE and will most certainly give better fuel economy than the PHEV version of the same car model on the highway. Additionally, a properly maintained ICE version of the same model will neverthess give better fuel economy than the PHEV version on the highway, probably not what a diesel version will realize but better than the PHEV version. You just can't avoid the physics of hauling around some 300-500 pounds of PHEV battery which isn't helping you at highway speeds once you have exceeded the EV range! Granted, if you do a rigorous review of fuel economy and range there will be a short range window after the PHEV exceeds it's EV range where its overall fuel economy is still better than the ICE version but it will be small and most of that EV range will be expended getting to the highway for most people. Until legacy manufacturers develop "highway range" BEVs, the ICE version of any given car model will continue to give the best highway fuel economy for trips exceeding the range of a BEV.

Thanks and Cheers

Carl