The FORD Lounge

[Gary Lewis]

A range of 500 miles would have worked for the most recent trip, and probably would have for the one a few years ago to the back-of-beyond in Colorado.  However the re-charging strategy would have to have been developed before leaving as we went from here to Raton NM, which is 515 miles by the shortest route and we didn't go exactly that way.  So we would have had to re-charge in Woodward along the way.

So if an electric vehicle with a 500 mile range was comparably priced and a reasonable infrastructure was in place we would consider it if we were in the market for a new vehicle - which we aren't and don't plan to be for many years, if ever.

But renting adds significant cost to a vacation.  So the only way that math works is if the cost of ownership, including fuel and maintenance, of the EV is sufficiently lower than that of the ICE to cover the difference.  I've not put finger to keyboard to figure that out, but it might be possible.

However, we may be mixing terminology.  I said "unplanned" and you said "planned".  My meaning was that we planned to go but weren't exactly sure where.  In the latest trip we knew were were leaving on a given day and had no reservations until the next night in New Orleans.  But we wanted to travel the back roads through SE OK and into LA.  Then, along the way we decided to head for Monroe and go to Natchez the next day and from there to New Orleans.  And with this scenario an EV currently doesn't work.  But renting an ICE would.  Is that what you meant?

[ArdWrknTrk]

It is.

Cost of ownership is well addressed by lack of ongoing maintenance and the much smaller cost per mile over gasoline.

[Ray Cecil]

Electric cars = NO VROOM VROOM. I dont care how fast it is, if it doesnt make me feel like a million bucks, I dont spend money on it.

I totally understand the utility. I dont drive for utility. I drive for enjoyment. Electric jelly beans dont make sense for ME. I need toxic fumes, stinky grease, and parts to replace. Its just in my soul I guess.

I will appreciate the tech, but I dont have to pay for it.

[Danny G]

ArdWrknTrk wrote

TheScatch wrote

"Recent breakthroughs in chemistry and physics have made the creation of hydrogen with electrolysis very economical and greenhouse gas free."

Absolute BS.

When the laws of thermodynamics are broken, you let me know.  

We'll all be flying around like the Jetsons, and nobody will need hydrogen as a combustible fuel.

what if your powering those coils creating the hydrogen with solar power?

[salans7]

Ray Cecil wrote

I will appreciate the tech, but I dont have to pay for it.

That's why building a new vehicle these days is annoying. I know what I want in a truck, so don't tell me I have to delete this to get that, or add this package to get this specific option. I want a bare bones truck with a few extra options that suit my needs, not what Ford or Dodge thinks I need.

[ArdWrknTrk]

Where is the "recent breakthroughs in chemistry and physics"

Selenium solar cells have been around since the 1800's.
Electrolysis longer than that.
Water hasn't changed in billions of years.

Nothing in that sentence is true, unless you're buying into some of Kellyann's 'Alternative Truths'....

[ArdWrknTrk]

Shaun,
I agree with you 100%>

Truth is Dodge or Ford often won't put in the harness for Z unless you get X and Y as well.

Stripes, trim, mirrors, whatever.. they want to profit on the bling that accompanies the functional part, and they're not going to hear your pleas through the dealer network that profits from it too.

[salans7]

Nope, and that's why I'm building a thirty year old F350 so that I can put harness X with harness Y and get package B without having to also add package C.

[Ray Cecil]

salans7 wrote

That's why building a new vehicle these days is annoying. I know what I want in a truck, so don't tell me I have to delete this to get that, or add this package to get this specific option. I want a bare bones truck with a few extra options that suit my needs, not what Ford or Dodge thinks I need.

Amen to that.

[ArdWrknTrk]

X 1000

[ArdWrknTrk]

I wish I could drive for enjoyment.

Instead I battle traffic and run all over trying to expedite and manage jobs.
It's what I have to do... and I hate it.  

My days of having toys and time to drag them to tracks (and the downfall of ANY tracks near me) has left the enjoyment of four wheel drifts, banging gears at the limiter, and occasionally whoopsie! is far behind me.

ETA: of course a modern Hyundai Elantra could kick my '85 5.0 GT into the weeds, but it is a LOT more fun to drive a slow car fast, than to drive a fast car slow.

[ArdWrknTrk]

The glycerol-niobium fuel cell is interesting technology.
Butanol from biodiesel waste was always a good gasoline substitute.
But now, being able to use it* to directly produce electricity could be epic.
I guess the issue would be viscosity in freezing temperatures.

*it being the glycerin that is basically a waste product from bio oil and soap production

[ArdWrknTrk]

If we want to get back to the cybertruck.
My opinion is anything with four doors and a four foot bed (like a Ridgeline) is a car with no trunk lid, not a truck at all.
'70's Lincoln's and Caddies fit right in here.

50x60 minimum floor space IMHO.
(So as to not alienate the Shortbed and Flareside owners)

And I'm not shilling for Tesla.
I just think they have the spotlight and are at the forefront of EV's today.
So it's easy to hold them up and say "look at this"
I don't like their attitude towards right to repair, nor their data gathering.
I do appreciate that they own "our product is not perfect" and are forthcoming with the data when one of their vehicles is involved in a publicized accident.

[Gary Lewis]

Yes, back to the cybertruck.  

[Rembrant]

You guys may have seen this before, but it popped up in my Google searches for other stuff. Kinda neat.

[Gary Lewis]

Neat!  But, why explain about the new, lighter, etc trucks on the 2nd year?

[85lebaront2]

You realize that plant (a) opened when the Model T was in production and (b) had the best quality record of any Ford assembly plant in the US. An N in the plant code was a selling point. Unfortunately neither super cab nor crew cabs were built there. I wanted to order a 1994 F250 HD with a diesel in a super cab but could not get it built in Norfolk.

[Rembrant]

Gary Lewis wrote

Neat!  But, why explain about the new, lighter, etc trucks on the 2nd year?

That's a good question! Impressive though that they were building 480 of them a day.

[ArdWrknTrk]

So, one a minute for eight hours, or one every four minutes, 24 hours a day?

[85lebaront2]

If you listen to the coverage, Ford was thinking of closing Norfolk Assembly after the 1979 model year. The decision to keep it open was probably partially due to the union. After the decision was made, the plant had to be retooled for the different frame configuration, body parts etc. Remember there was a major body and frame change from 1979-1980. The 1979 frame wasn't that far removed from the 1965 Twin I-beam frame, the 1980, steering box was moved, engine moved back and down, dash was plastic instead of steel, inner fenders plastic etc.