EVs

[Rich]

Basically a Honda E?

Yuuup.

I get it, a small ev is difficult. It's easier to spread the weight of batteries over a larger vehicle and most people don't want small cars.


But I do

[r0tor]

I wish there was a small, cheap, RWD electric the size of a cooper. With ~150miles of range. If it had knobs and buttons I'd be in

I think Mazda tried it and they sold like 5 total

[MrH]

The Caterham Project V is probably what you're looking for.  Sadly, not many people want it, and EVs are just really expensive still.

[CaminoRacer]

I'd love to build a Factory Five hot rod truck EV. Motor on the rear axle and the battery pack split between under the hood and in the truck bed, to go for 50/50 weight balance.

No fenders so it can fit fat 315 or 335 tires all around for max grip.

Someday.

[shp4man]

EVs just currently have too many disadvantages. My dealership's used car department likes to stock upscale vehicles, I've processed some really desirable, low mileage cars. It really is a disportionate amount of EVs and hybrids, of all makes. Teslas, Volvos, Porsches, Mercedes, Lexus included that are being traded in. For stinking Fords...WTF?
 
There was a 2016 Miata, Soul Red, only 7600 miles, man, I wanted that car. They wanted 21K. It was basically a new car. Garaged, a toy...
But I digress...

I will say this. The Lightning F150 has literally neck snapping acceleration. The energy needed to pull a trailer can be used for other, more fun endeavors.

[AutobahnSHO]

I will say this. The Lightning F150 has literally neck snapping acceleration. The energy needed to pull a trailer can be used for other, more fun endeavors.

I wonder if those will replace the WRX for "very often wrecked". All that acceleration and mass doesn't equate to great handling and braking....

[MrH]

I'd love to build a Factory Five hot rod truck EV. Motor on the rear axle and the battery pack split between under the hood and in the truck bed, to go for 50/50 weight balance.

No fenders so it can fit fat 315 or 335 tires all around for max grip.

Someday.

A Lightning will be substantially cheaper and better.

[Rich]

The Caterham Project V is probably what you're looking for.  Sadly, not many people want it, and EVs are just really expensive still.

Something with a higher hip point and storage to use as a DD. Like you said, The Honda E Would have been perfect.

[MrH]

You basically want a RWD Bolt.  I think you'd like a Bolt a lot for a daily if you tried it.

[AutobahnSHO]

You basically want a RWD Bolt.  I think you'd like a Bolt a lot for a daily if you tried it.

Honestly it probably wouldn't be that hard to make a RWD Bolt. Easier front end, need to make a little room in the back end for an axle or just throw a motor on each side.

[SJ_GTI]

The VW ID.3 also seems about like what you'd want, but alas VW doesn't sell it in the US.

[Morris Minor]

I'd stay away from VW - the infotainment on their gassers is subpar and on their EVs the software & UI are a total & utter shitshow.

[SJ_GTI]

It's not an option anyway, it's not ever coming to the US.

Interestingly though I saw over on TCL that a former member here (can't remember his user name here, but he is CTK over there) bought an ID.4. He was always a Honda guy from what I recall but he seems to like the ID.4 (even though they had to replace the battery or something).

[MrH]

Honestly it probably wouldn't be that hard to make a RWD Bolt. Easier front end, need to make a little room in the back end for an axle or just throw a motor on each side.

The whole platform is designed as FWD only.  It's a torsion beam in the rear.

[r0tor]

Fiat 500e is a thing

[AutobahnSHO]

Ford is losing stupid money on EVs.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/24/business/ford-earnings-ev-losses/index.html

[ChrisV]

Ford is losing stupid money on EVs.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/24/business/ford-earnings-ev-losses/index.html

Such a BS article. "Ford's electric vehicle unit reported that losses soared in the first quarter to $1.3 billion, or $132,000 for each of the 10,000 vehicles it sold in the first three months of the year,"

That's not how amortization works, at ALL.

"Instead the losses include hundreds of millions being spent on research and development of the next generation of EVs for Ford" Again, you amortize R&D and plant building over the entire production run of all vehicles that USE that R&D and tech, now and into the future, and all the vehicles built in that new plant, now and into the future. You don't just amortize it over the first couple fucking months of production. This holds true for ALL manufacturing businesses, not just automobiles.

That's like saying that a real estate company that puts up a $10 million building and has rental income of one million the first year is "losing" 9 million dollars, or several hundred thousand per renter.


Just like for the Ford EVs, naysayers did the same thing with the Chevy Volt back in 2011.

"Now, "father of the Volt" Bob Lutz has weighed in via Forbes to confirm just that--that the true cost of each Volt is nothing like the numbers estimated--and that the car is "doing exactly what it was designed to do."

The Reuters report explained that when dividing the $1.2 billion development costs, each of the 21,500 Volts sold so far has cost GM $56,000 per car. Throw in the actual cost of production and, depending on who you believe, the total per-car cost could be between $75,000 and $88,000. Minus the car's purchase price and--theoretically--you have your headline loss figure.

The Reuters article was based on figures from several Michigan-based industry analysts, claiming that Chevy might be losing up to $49,000 on every Volt it makes."

Those figures were estimated by working out the total cost of development of the Volt project, divided by the number of cars so far--a method which was a little spurious, and what caused Bob Lutz to respond:

From Lutz in Forbes:

"Let me provide a look at how a car company tracks profitability of a product program:  measured are material cost and labor, and these are deducted from the selling price. The positive difference is called "gross margin." Then, one allocates per-unit "fixed cost" (advertising, general overhead, etc.) plus per-unit depreciation and amortization of the initial investment, based on the TOTAL NUMBER TO BE PRODUCED OVER THE LIFETIME of the product. If the margin, after all deductions, is still positive, then we call it a "fully accounted profit," and the car is a winner."

Dividing the number of Lightnings sold for 2023 (20,000 as of the end of December) into the total development costs and factory building costs that apply to all Lightnings and Mach-Es past, present, and future is either dopey or intellectually dishonest.

You could as easily say that on the day the first Lightning was delivered to a retail buyer, it carried a stunning, incredible, unconscionable $1.5 BILLION in loss. You'd be doing the same thing: dividing by the number of Lightnings sold at that point: 1. Same as if you added up the total costs of developing and tooling up for Fords newest big block gas pickup engine, and then saying that the first engine off the line carried with it a $1 billion loss. That's not how it works. That's not how ANY of this works.

Ford is trying to show massive loss for tax reasons, but you cannot calculate total program loses until you're completely done with the total production run. Which they are not.

[SJ_GTI]

R&D cannot be amortized. It is a period expense.

That being said it is normally treated as an overall entity expense, not attributable to a single (or even several specific) product line(s).

To be fair to Ford, in their actual report they do note that by the second half of this year they are hoping to start making a variable margin on each EV product sold.

[GoCougs]

Such a BS article. "Ford's electric vehicle unit reported that losses soared in the first quarter to $1.3 billion, or $132,000 for each of the 10,000 vehicles it sold in the first three months of the year,"

That's not how amortization works, at ALL.

"Instead the losses include hundreds of millions being spent on research and development of the next generation of EVs for Ford" Again, you amortize R&D and plant building over the entire production run of all vehicles that USE that R&D and tech, now and into the future, and all the vehicles built in that new plant, now and into the future. You don't just amortize it over the first couple fucking months of production. This holds true for ALL manufacturing businesses, not just automobiles.

That's like saying that a real estate company that puts up a $10 million building and has rental income of one million the first year is "losing" 9 million dollars, or several hundred thousand per renter.


Just like for the Ford EVs, naysayers did the same thing with the Chevy Volt back in 2011.

"Now, "father of the Volt" Bob Lutz has weighed in via Forbes to confirm just that--that the true cost of each Volt is nothing like the numbers estimated--and that the car is "doing exactly what it was designed to do."

The Reuters report explained that when dividing the $1.2 billion development costs, each of the 21,500 Volts sold so far has cost GM $56,000 per car. Throw in the actual cost of production and, depending on who you believe, the total per-car cost could be between $75,000 and $88,000. Minus the car's purchase price and--theoretically--you have your headline loss figure.

The Reuters article was based on figures from several Michigan-based industry analysts, claiming that Chevy might be losing up to $49,000 on every Volt it makes."

Those figures were estimated by working out the total cost of development of the Volt project, divided by the number of cars so far--a method which was a little spurious, and what caused Bob Lutz to respond:

From Lutz in Forbes:

"Let me provide a look at how a car company tracks profitability of a product program:  measured are material cost and labor, and these are deducted from the selling price. The positive difference is called "gross margin." Then, one allocates per-unit "fixed cost" (advertising, general overhead, etc.) plus per-unit depreciation and amortization of the initial investment, based on the TOTAL NUMBER TO BE PRODUCED OVER THE LIFETIME of the product. If the margin, after all deductions, is still positive, then we call it a "fully accounted profit," and the car is a winner."

Dividing the number of Lightnings sold for 2023 (20,000 as of the end of December) into the total development costs and factory building costs that apply to all Lightnings and Mach-Es past, present, and future is either dopey or intellectually dishonest.

You could as easily say that on the day the first Lightning was delivered to a retail buyer, it carried a stunning, incredible, unconscionable $1.5 BILLION in loss. You'd be doing the same thing: dividing by the number of Lightnings sold at that point: 1. Same as if you added up the total costs of developing and tooling up for Fords newest big block gas pickup engine, and then saying that the first engine off the line carried with it a $1 billion loss. That's not how it works. That's not how ANY of this works.

Ford is trying to show massive loss for tax reasons, but you cannot calculate total program loses until you're completely done with the total production run. Which they are not.

lol no on most all that.

Ford invests tons in ICE vehicles too; why should EVs be exempt from the same calculus?

The point of the article (IMO) is that both EV units sold and revenue are down (WAY down on the latter) for the quarter.

And ford doesn't "try" to show a massive loss for tax reasons or w/e. Ford shows whatever is the reality.

[GoCougs]

Yikes, looks worse for Ford than it first sounded: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fords-first-quarter-adjusted-profit-falls-2024-04-24/.

Delayed launches, refocus on hybrids; IOW:

Ford is grappling with what CEO Jim Farley called "a huge drag not just on Ford, but on our whole industry": electric vehicle production.