Hacker News Reader

Comment by Animats | Hacker News Reader

Although Ford's CEO now gets it, Ford's product line doesn't reflect it yet. Farley has been bringing a few sample BYD cars to the US, for Ford people to drive around and to take apart. Farley dragged his executive team to China to see a BYD plant. They came back scared. But what Ford actually sells is 1) an F-150 converted to electric, 2) a Ford Mustang converted to electric, and 3) a Ford Transit converted to electric. They're all more expensive, and heavier, than their gasoline-powered versions.

BYD shows that electric cars are cheaper if designed properly from the ground up. The problem is that the US no longer makes many cars. Mostly giant trucks and SUVs. Hauling all that mass around requires a huge battery, resulting in 3-ton vehicles.

View on HN

"Americans only want trucks and SUVs." (I hear people say.)

Cool. Then allow BYD non-trucks, non-SUVs into the U.S. then.

The Japanese back in the 70's showed U.S. automakers that price and mileage (in that decade anyway) were important to Americans. I suspect price is still important.

The statement is likely to be justification propaganda from those companies that have focused on trucks and SUVs. There is still a car market in the U.S., and for that matter, in South America and Canada.

Something else that is not being told in the mainstream media, is the U.S. bias and negative attitude towards South American countries has left the door wide open to China. And China is firmly establishing itself there, where it is unlikely that the U.S. can compete for at least a decade, if not a generation.

Why would they allow it? It would destroy the remaining car industry in the US. Better to at least maintain a car industry, even if it’s inefficient.

A jobs subsidy program that focused on more productive industries would be better than subsidizing an auto industry that never aimed for international competitiveness.

We have exceptionally productive fields in the US tumor are the envy of the world. If we can't be productive in auto manufacturing, devoting a ton of our workforce too it is a misallocation of our limited resources.

If we are going to be subsidizing unprofitable industry fro national security purposes, we need to either 1) ruthlessly cut the least productive manufacturers from access to subsidies, or 2) nationalize it. Any other choices would be very inefficient.

Why is that better?

The historical track record of that kind of thing is terrible. You end up with a bloated, inefficient industry that produces bad products. Britain, pre-EU, did a lot of that. British Steel, British Rail, British Overseas Airways Corporation, British Petroleum, English Electric computers, etc. Then they needed bailouts. This resulted in what's called "lemon socialism" - the state owns all the dud industries.

I wish I could get a BYD Dolphin hatch for ~10k USD. Somehow my 12 year old Prius is worth 9k on KBB and that's insane.

Dolphins don't sell for $10k outside of China. Dolphins in South/Central America are ~$22k. Even if there weren't tariffs on them I wouldn't expect to see them out the door for less than $25k in the US.

Why the 120% price difference between China and South America?

Different government subsidies, different manufacturing costs, different regulatory requirements, and different markets have different market competition.

Think about this concept. It costs you $1 to make a widget. It costs your competitors $1.25 to make a similar widget. They sell theirs for $5. Do you sell yours for $1.50 or $4.75? Obviously, other things could be in play for the market for widgets, but if you could sell all your widgets for $4.75 wouldn't you do that?

If the cheapest car in the US is about $20k and is a complete POS, why would you sell your better car for $10k when you could still sell it for $22k and still sell just about all the ones you build?

Your post is so muddled. The cheapest new EV on the US market is a Nissan Leaf at ~30k MSRP new, but I found a used 2025 model with 1341 miles for $17,899 in a cursory search. Nissan has a dealership in my city so I know it can be serviced here or at worst the next largest city near here while a Chinese brand would be a crapshoot until it spreads to my medium-small city. I can only imagine the stink people will put on Chinese cars, even hybrids and American made EVs get poo-poo'd.

I imagine that a Chinese automaker such as BYD would price itself low, something like an EV at ICE prices, to get a foothold in the American market. I really wish BYD was around here so I could drive one and look at the build quality myself, it's almost like the domestic Automakers and the CIA are putting out hit pieces about the brand.

> The cheapest new EV on the US market is a Nissan Leaf

I said the cheapest car not the cheapest EV. And of that I meant new car. That would be the Nissan Versa, which has an MSRP of $18,385. After TTL, depending on your market you're probably looking at something around $20k out the door.

A lot of this makes sense. But why would South America's consumer market be less competitive than China? If China's low prices are caused by, say, 3 Chinese brands competing with each other, why can't those 3 Chinese brands also compete with each other in South America?

Chinese brands are in a horrible price war ATM in China, with many cars being sold at losses (and tricks to get around government imposed price controls, like selling a new car as used!). In a less competitive market where they have more pricing power, they simply aren’t going to do that. And even if 3 brands have enough resources to go abroad, they left 10+ brands behind that couldn’t (every 3rd or greater tier city has their own brand, so even saying 10 is probably an underestimate, heck you have cities like Liuzhou that aren’t even 3rd tier!).

They will also sell higher end configurations abroad to make it worth their time. They won’t sell the absolute bare bones option that comes with almost no profit (if not a loss).

When BYD makes an affordable clone of the Crown Vic that doesn’t phone home to the PRC, I’ll look at them.

Why the Crown Vic? Even Ford doesn't make them anymore!

I've got a Lightning and I think I like the 'converted to electric' aspect. Everything that fits on a regular ICE F-150 fits on my truck. The interior is the same (okay, some trims have a big screen, but not all do). It would be nice if it had a bit more range, but when I look at the efficiency of an R1T or a CT, I don't see that being purpose-built would automatically be a win for Ford. Pickups are not ever going to be competitive with sedans and CUVs for efficiency.

The problem with the Lightning is mostly that it's a money-loser for Ford.

I've never seen a good number on this. Is it money losing per vehicle, or because of the amortized R&D included in the cost? The problem from my perspective is that it hasn't turned out as popular as they hoped -- truck buyers are a hard to convert bunch of people. Which is too bad, because my Lightning is my favorite of all the pickups I've owned over the years. It's a fantastic truck.

> Is it money losing per vehicle, or because of the amortized R&D included in the cost?

Certainly the latter, but I don't think it was ever going to be money-making, even in the Ford's best-case sales/production scenario it was really a gen1 platform (along with the Mach-E) to get their foot in the door with EV production, supply chains, sales, etc.

Then they got hit with various external events (low gas prices, higher electricity prices, EV credit cancellations, higher tariffs, etc.) that made their numbers even worse.

FWIW I'm also a fan of the Lightning - it's obviously not a drop-in replacement for 100% of things an F150 can do, and the pricing is tough, but just on its own merits it's a very nice truck. (I was recently car shopping, but had no need/inclination for a full-size truck, so ended up with a hybrid Maverick instead - very impressed with that too so far.)

> the pricing is tough

Ford certainly didn't do themselves any favors, that's for sure. Even today, the street price is not commonly known -- I talk to people all the time who think it's a 70K+ truck even though it's been continuously available for 15-20K less for a year or more. I'm guilty of that myself, I was going to settle for a used hybrid powerboost F-150 for about 55K before someone casually mentioned that the Lightning could be had for just over 50K brand new (and not the base model!). Dodged a bullet on that one I think, the powerboost has an awful reputation for reliability.

> ended up with a hybrid Maverick instead

That's a very solid choice. When my kids move on with their own lives in a few years, I'll be very open to a smaller truck. Maybe not Maverick small, but it's still very appealing (and doubly so if Ford makes an electric version). I am hoping Ford has plans for an electric Ranger.

Ford is a bad example because they’ve pretty much abandoned all their non truck and transit van segments for years. Even if EVs weren’t a thing, they do not compete in any of the segments and haven’t for almost a decade. First it was Japanese and German companies eating their lunch, now it’s the Chinese.

Also, F150 lightening is such a failure. There was a recent video of it trying to haul very minimal load and it pretty much drained the battery in less than 100 miles.

> Ford is a bad example because they’ve pretty much abandoned all their non truck and transit van segments for years.

Perhaps in the US. Here in the UK you see a lot of Focuses and Fiestas, especially the ST models, and the "ST Line" models, which have ST trim but boring engines.

Quite often you see the latter on their side a surprisingly long way from the tarmac, surrounded by bits of obliterated cattle fence, with a very patient farmer rolling it back onto its wheels with the Manitou to make the recovery guy's day easier.

> Also, F150 lightening is such a failure. There was a recent video of it trying to haul very minimal load and it pretty much drained the battery in less than 100 miles.

Was that due to something specific with the Lightning, or was it just due to the intrinsic energy requirements of hauling loads? (Or in other words, does an EV even exist that's notably better at hauling loads?)

TBH, those tests are mostly marketing failures. EV trucks aren't really good at hauling trailers over large distances, as the aerodynamics produce a massive impact on range.

Multiple tests have shown this by showing 50% or more range reduction from pulling lightweight, non-aerodynamic loads.

The marketing failure is that the companies have allowed consumers to incorrectly extrapolate from this to thinking that heavy loads in the bed have the same issue. They actually don't as weight is a minimal impact on range.

Unfortunately, every thread about carrying sheetrock, rocks, mulch, etc shows how misinformed the average consumer has become in this space. It has to be a significant impact on sales, given that in the US these are the only heavy loads carried by >50% of the half ton pickups sold here.

Yep, so many people think hauling weight kills your gas mileage, but it doesn't really have that big of an effect unless you are hauling a massive load through stop and go traffic while in a hurry. The vast majority of people do most of their hauling of things down the highway, not through the middle of cities, and 90% of the losses from hauling load is just wind resistance against the poorly aerodynamic trailer which is a lot while at highway speeds. If someone is traveling down the highway at 70 MPH in their SUV with 1500 lbs in the back hatch, the only extra fuel it takes over the same SUV being empty is a tiny amount of extra friction in the tires that comes out to a fraction of a MPG.

Not to be nitpicky, but that's only really true if you're driving down a perfectly flat, straight highway at a constant speed. Any hills or traffic slowdowns and your car or truck is doing more work the more it weighs.

True, but regenerative braking eliminates most of that as well.

> EV trucks aren't really good at hauling trailers over large distances, as the aerodynamics produce a massive impact on range.

Maybe I'm being stupid, but how could that possibly just be a problem for EVs? The aerodynamic physics don't care what's powering the car so the impact on range should be roughly the same.

Or is the problem that even if EV range impact is similar to fossil fuel range impact, the extra time required to recharge vs refuel makes that range impact more, uh, impactful for drivers?

Yes, that's exactly it. A lot of people have shown that gas trucks suffer range loss as well, but they start off with higher range and get refilled in <5 minutes.

The EVs lose enough range that they often need to be charged deep into the pack to make it to the next station, which leads to >40 minute charging sessions every 100-120 miles.

Highway towing range hit is largely an aerodynamic drag issue. Any EV truck (or any car really, even gas cars have a big range hit) is going to get a massive ding in its range towing anything increasing it's aero drag even if it's an empty box. It's just with a gas truck you're starting with 300+mi often for a well equipped truck so you lose 100mi of range you're still over 200mi per tank.

But an EV, on a long range road trip you're rarely charging to 100%, you're often going like 5%->80% because the charging speeds fall off a cliff after a certain percentage. So you start off with maybe 300mi, but not really because after the first leg you're only using 75% of it, but now you're also using like 25% more energy because of the massively increased drag. So what was 300mi on a full charge became maybe 150mi on a full charge once you're on that second leg. Coupled with the fact what used to be free energy (heating the cabin with waste engine heat) if you're towing in cold weather you're not even going to get that 150mi.

It’s an intrinsic issue with hauling loads, combined with the relatively low range of F150L.

By comparison the the Chevy Silverado EV gets ~450mi of range unloaded and testing seems to have it able to tow ~250mi of range at 70mph, which seems plenty between stops: https://www.hotcars.com/chevrolet-silverado-ev-towing/

I want an electric drive train with the engine that works like a generator at a fixed speed. Don't think anyone offers something like this.

Some hybrid cars almost work this way. I know at least Honda's hybrids basically do what you're suggesting but at constant highway speeds will directly couple the engine to the drive wheels. They presumably could use electric motors powered by the engine in all driving scenarios, but I believe direct engine drive at highway speeds is more energy efficient.

This is probably why most hybrid systems I'm aware of don't only use electric motors to power the drive wheels. The idea sounds cool and I've also wondered why you can't buy something like that in the US (I think it exists elsewhere), but the math doesn't really work out. Even in terms of engineering complexity, because the engine is only directly driving the wheels at certain speeds, you can get by without a lot of the mechanical drivetrain components like transmissions.

They exist, but I don't think there's currently any new models for sale in the US. I think they're generally called "series hybrid," or sometimes it's marketed as an electric vehicle with range extender.

I believe the Chevy Volt worked this way - you can see used ones for sale for around $15k.

That's the BMW i3 with range extender. It works pretty good for long trips. Probably 95% of my miles are electric though.

I think Dodge is planning a serial hybrid truck called RAM charger.

Probably both. It was a consumer review, so hard to say from an engineering perspective.

The Lightning really isn’t meant for towing a horse trailer cross country. It’s meant for hauling a new vanity or a couple sheets of drywall from Home Depot. It does that suburban warrior stuff quite competently.

> a Ford Mustang converted to electric

I agree with your comment, but I'll be a little pedantic for a minute:

As a Charger Daytona owner, I'd love to call the Mach-E a mustang, but it's really just borrowing the brand. Ford has said unequivocally that they'll never make an all-electric muscle car, which is a real shame. The Mach-E is a great car if you're turned off by a Model Y, but you wouldn't choose it over a mustang GT or a charger Daytona or a Camaro.

> Ford has said unequivocally that they'll never make an all-electric muscle car

What’s the thinking here? Pandering to some market segment? It sounds like they are organising the deck chairs in the titanic.

Edit: I tried looking into the comment. It seems he was referring to Mustangs specifically, which is weird as they do make an electric one (assuming you agree it’s a ‘real’ mustang).

I’m confused.

The Mach-E isn't a muscle car. The comment was specifically around the Mustang sedan, which they do not have an electric version of.

Honestly, it's befuddling to me. There's a lot of folks who could get talked into an electric muscle car, they just have to know how to sell it. I own a Charger Daytona and literally every car guy I show it to has interest; I genuinely think Dodge just doesn't know how to market and sell it. I'm 100% confident that the right marketing agency could sell 100k of these, but the cohort of "it'll never be a Mustang" is far louder than the "wow that thing rips" crowd.

It’s not though. Just borrowing the name as they said.

That’s just it though. If the name doesn’t make it a Mustang, what does?

If I take a Ford Focus and call it a Mustang, is it? Arguably, no. Mustangs have a distinctive style, feel, feature set, intended audience. It's a matter of what people expect when they buy the thing.

The Mach-E kind of snuck in. I believe they intended to make more electric Mustang-branded cars, but things changed internally and priorities shifted. Lots of women really like Mustangs, and the Mach-E is positioned to appeal to many of the same people: it makes sense to use it as a kind of Trojan horse to ease folks into EVs with a brand they already like. But if you took a Mach-E and hid the name and asked folks "is this a Mustang?" The answer you'd get is "No".

Nothing, thats the problem. The Ship of Theseus can't have all of its parts replaced at the same time in order to still be called the Ship of Theseus.

> a Ford Mustang converted to electric

The Mustang Mach-e isn't like any other Mustang. It just has the Mustang branding.

the mustang mach e is a purpose built EV. not a mustang with a battery back stuck in.

You’re mischaracterizing the Mustang Mach-E which never should have been named that because it has nothing to do with the ICE Mustang at all aside from the horsey badge.

The lightning isn’t selling, almost at all.

> resulting in 3-ton vehicles

And a surge in road deaths.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com