So I'm pretty sure Ford has given up on us...

[michael]

They didn't list anything from Ford.

To be fair Ford hasn't announced anything that would even be considered for that list (at least EV wise). Other than the GT, and the Focus RS which are on that list (http://www.caranddriver.com/features/25-cars-worth-waiting-for-20162019-feature ).

I think that is what has most of us frustrated with Ford: They haven't said a peep about any future EV plans (not even dropping a hint or two).

I'm guessing the stopper is: Mark Fields. When Mulally was in charge since he wasn't really "a car guy" he probably took a lot of advice from Bill Ford and we all know Bill is the big green driver in Ford. Mark Fields *is* a car guy and most likely takes less advice from Bill. Thus fewer plug-ins appear in the product lineup and more performance cars. The board is happy as long as Ford reaps profits so they probably also ignore Bill. Ok yeah pure speculation on my part but "informed" speculation .

What I was saying is that C&D didn't list anything from Ford as potential competition for the Bolt.

 

[SpecVStrom]

Well, I don't think it is so much that Ford has given up on us. Corporate Ford has never really been with us.
I believe that Ford top brass hates all EV's.
EV's do not make high profits.
California requires automakers to sell a minimum number of zero emission cars in this state. I'm not sure how many other states have the same requirement.
The FFE is, and always was, a compliance car!
Ford top brass instructed some engineers to satisfy the hated requirement.
I think those engineers did a good job. Much better than management wanted.
I am betting their original design had LED head and tail lights. Probably a heat pump for climate control also. very possibly all the design improvements we all want. But, I bet the brass made them replace them with inferior part designs. I bet the original FFE that the original engineers came up with was an awesome car!
But Ford doesn't want that.
The want to sell Hybrids.
Hybrids make lots of money.
They make people think they are 'green'.
While all the time profiting from the expenses of both an electric car, and a gas engine.
Starters, alternators, fuel pumps, radiators, mufflers... etc., etc., etc.
Selling replacement parts and repairing gas engines is a very profitable business.

The only thing that will really save the electric car is when people understand and admit that they could survive with a limited non-stop range.
And that range will be improved by bold companies with foresight and a conscience.
Most households have more than one car.
Have a short range electric, and a gas car for long trips.
I hope America has the intelligence to understand that.

So yes, Ford abandoned us before we even got our cars.
Kudos to those of us who leased. We have an out.
But my 75 mile range is working for me.
If I can buy my FFE after lease for less than the listed buyout, I would seriously consider it. But, I sure won't buy it at the stated buyout price.

 

[jmueller065]

I believe that Ford top brass hates all EV's.

Except for Bill and he is sitting at the very top of the pyramid and his name is on the side of every building.

Read this interview of Bill from back in 2010:
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/sustainability/building_a_sustainable_ford_motor_company_an_interview_with_bill_ford

 

[hybridbear]

The only thing that will really save the electric car is when people understand and admit that they could survive with a limited non-stop range.
And that range will be improved by bold companies with foresight and a conscience.
Most households have more than one car.
Have a short range electric, and a gas car for long trips.
I hope America has the intelligence to understand that.

I agree completely with this paragraph. This is exactly what we have done with the FFE & Fusion Energi. We can go months without burning a single drop of gas. But when we need to take a road trip we can drive 600-700 miles per day without worrying about charging. When we need to make 100-200 mile one-way trip within the state we can do it without worrying about charging. Then we can go back to driving only on electricity during our normal routine.

I believe that Ford top brass hates all EV's.

Except for Bill and he is sitting at the very top of the pyramid and his name is on the side of every building.
Read this interview of Bill from back in 2010:
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/sustainability/building_a_sustainable_ford_motor_company_an_interview_with_bill_ford

What someone says in an interview with the press & what that person actually believes & says behind closed doors can be very different.

 

[jmueller065]

What someone says in an interview with the press & what that person actually believes & says behind closed doors can be very different.

Ok then look at all he did when Bill was CEO:

• Green/living roof on F-150 plant
• Solar cells at Ford WHQ
• Escape Hybrid
• Ford produced its first "sustainability report" under his watch

Bill has been a lifelong environmentalist.

 

[michael]

The only thing that will really save the electric car is when people understand and admit that they could survive with a limited non-stop range.
And that range will be improved by bold companies with foresight and a conscience.
Most households have more than one car.
Have a short range electric, and a gas car for long trips.
I hope America has the intelligence to understand that.

Yes, exactly. That's why our family drives FFE and Volt. Vanishingly little gasoline consumed but the ability to go anywhere on the few occasions that it is needed.

Look at my actual fleet stats: 70,000 miles total; 8,000 of them on gasoline, about 200 gallons total, 350 MPG overall. EV purists will complain, but I think that's pretty good for something that has:

1. Saved money
2. Not inconvenienced us in any way
3. Has given us superior, quieter, smoother driving
4. Has allowed us to be completely oblivious to the price of gasoline

Every day I pass by tens of thousands of cars burning gas needlessly because their owner might want to drive to Las Vegas some day.

 

[Tom French]

SpecVStrom

I totally agree with you.
Had a Volt for 3 years, then went to the FFE in July, WOW what a nice difference.
My wife has a Fusion so we have an ICE.

I have a 35 mile drive to work every week day, on I-4 in Orlando, usually get home with 45 miles left.
That is at speeds of 55-75mph

 

[hybridbear]

The only thing that will really save the electric car is when people understand and admit that they could survive with a limited non-stop range.
And that range will be improved by bold companies with foresight and a conscience.
Most households have more than one car.
Have a short range electric, and a gas car for long trips.
I hope America has the intelligence to understand that.

Yes, exactly. That's why our family drives FFE and Volt. Vanishingly little gasoline consumed but the ability to go anywhere on the few occasions that it is needed.

Look at my actual fleet stats: 70,000 miles total; 8,000 of them on gasoline, about 200 gallons total, 350 MPG overall. EV purists will complain, but I think that's pretty good for something that has:

1. Saved money
2. Not inconvenienced us in any way
3. Has given us superior, quieter, smoother driving
4. Has allowed us to be completely oblivious to the price of gasoline

Every day I pass by tens of thousands of cars burning gas needlessly because their owner might want to drive to Las Vegas some day.

Excellent points 1-4! This weekend I will be participating in an EV Owners Panel Discussion at the MN State Fair & will also be volunteering in the Eco Experience building's display about EVs. I would like to use these 4 points as a basis for starting discussions with State Fair guests about the benefits of driving an EV. Especially point # 4. Since we buy gas only about once every 2 months I have no idea what it costs any more. And since when we buy gas we usually have between $1.20 & $1.50 per gallon in fuel rewards from a local grocery chain we are often paying only about $1.00/gal for the small amount of gas we use in the Energi.

 

[cpwl]

As SpecVStrom has stated it probably is more the fundamental case of “Ford never really having been in with us”! To the extent that the FFE was originally developed by Magna and it appears reasonably clear that Ford adopted it for production simply to comply with California’s CARB requirements, Ford’s commitment to BEVs seems pretty tenuous at best. Frustratingly, it seems that Ford will only become seriously interested in BEVs after the market for them has matured and demonstrated profitability at which point it will be extremely challenging for Ford to earn a market share that one would expect to be commensurate with Fords overall market share and the “jump start” that the FFE represents, or at least should represent.

It is quite a remarkable that this “laissez-faire” attitude and passive waiting for market maturity is being exhibited by the same company that literally defined and exploited the consumer SUV market. While there were some heavy duty off road vehicles (e.g. the original Bronco and Chevrolet Suburban) available to industrial clients such as railroad companies who required access to their rights of way via poorly developed and maintained dirt roads there was no real equivalent for the consumer who wanted off-road capabilities for hunting, fishing etc.. That was pretty much the exclusive domain of pick-up trucks. The then extant Jeep and Land Rover models were in truth small niche market vehicles that were really quite rudimentary in terms of their capabilities, especially when compared to today’s SUVs, and certainly lacked in the “creature comforts” now common place in the SUV market. But in the late 1980’s there was neither a significant market for nor a product that provided the capabilities of what we now refer to as an SUV. While there was certainly some market research pointing to potential success Ford “stepped up” and accepted no small measure of risk in the development and marketing of the Explorer and virtually single-handedly defined, developed, opened and facilitated the exponential growth of the mid-sized family SUV into the major market share it represents today. That was a company with a vision of the future, a company that was willing to expand its product line and risk the development costs of an entirely new classification of vehicle (at least when pertaining to the general domestic consumer). That Ford was a manufacturing leader.

As has been noted earlier in this thread Ford is developing new vehicles, or at least new variants of the product line primarily focusing on the high performance genre. They are not stagnant in what is being produced and those new product variants are neither easy nor inexpensive to develop and bring to market. Nor is their commercial success guaranteed. The current depression in oil prices certainly benefits the commercial success of those projects and, to the short sighted, makes BEV investment more risky. But it is clear that in the medium term (10-15 years) for a summation of various reasons BEVs are the future of personal transportation for a significant proportion of the vehicle-owning public. There are certainly challenges related to production costs and hence profitability, vehicle range, charging infrastructure required for intercity travel, vehicle performance, supply chain security of the battery and in overcoming the public perception of BEV capabilities and reliability. And BEVs will never completely replace ICE vehicles and to suggest so is naïve, but for Ford, or any other major vehicle manufacturer to ignore the future market potential (certainty) of BEVs stands them into significant danger of losing both market share and currency in the automotive sector. But the BEV is poised to become at the very least the next Explorer scale market breakthrough..

At the very least Ford need to be meeting GM’s lead and developing vehicles that can compete with the 2016 Volt and the expected 2017 Bolt (yes the uncertainty regarding the feasibility of that release date is acknowledged). At the very least a Fusion Energi with an all-electric range of 55 miles should be eminently manageable for developed and release as a mid-2016 model or at the very latest a 2017 model. And given that the Lincoln MKZ shares the same platform the MKZ Hybrid should become a PHEV of the same all-electric range capability. Producing a BEV that can compete with a 200 mile range Bolt or the Tesla Model 3 will be much more challenging but is equally essential if Ford have any illusions of challenging GM for overall North American market share or perhaps even maintaining their relative market share. In my opinion Ford is a better managed and more responsible company than is GM and builds, on the whole, a better product line. However ignoring the BEV market does them no favours. It fails to leverage the technical success that the FFE represents and it highlights how Ford have let the FFE wallow without a real measure of advertising support which has precluded it from becoming the market success it deserves. The FFE is a technically better car than both the Leaf and Smart Electric Drive but both outsell the FFE by substantial margins.

In many ways it does seem that Ford was “never really in with us” and are simply using the FFE to meet their legal requirements necessary to remain an active participant in the California market. To this diehard Blue Oval fan who bleeds blue when cut it really is quite heart-rendering to see such a competent and once visionary company become mired in current technology, albeit enthralling in some cases, with little if any visible commitment to new technologies and products which address the many challenges facing the automotive industry as a whole.

Sorry for rambling on so long but I find Fords apparent lack of interest in future BEV development so damned frustrating. They are a capable and industry leading company when they choose to be and the BEV is such a superior vehicle whose time, if not already here is urgently pending and yet Ford seems to be quite satisfied to dispense with the lessons learned through the FFE programme and cede any long term BEV market share to others! Maybe the real solution is for Magna to develop the Fusion/MKZ 240 mile BEV in such a way that it can be built on the same line as their ICE counterparts as is the FFE.

Thanks and Cheers

Carl

 

[jmueller065]

Wow! Well said!

 

[Lithium]

It's quite simple. People who get promoted at Ford come up through the powertrain engine development part of the company. The true investment in technology by current car makers is in the engine. If you spent your whole career developing and managing expertise in this area, why would you give up that knowledge to go manage something you know nothing about, electric motors. You make yourself obsolete. Out of a job in no time. Top brass are engine builders. It's what they know how to do. The rest of the knowledge is outsourced to suppliers and contractors. Unions don't know. The more complex the better for protecting your area of expertise.

It's a corporate culture thing. So let's outsource to the Magna group the FFE build so we can build engines and sell more trucks, which is what we know.

 

[jmueller065]

It's quite simple. People who get promoted at Ford come up through the powertrain engine development part of the company.

They may make a trip through powertrain but I'm not so sure that is true.

Bill Ford was managing trucks before he was promoted and Mark Fields was running Europe and Asia before coming back to run North America.

 

[hybridbear]

And BEVs will never completely replace ICE vehicles and to suggest so is naïve, but for Ford, or any other major vehicle manufacturer to ignore the future market potential (certainty) of BEVs stands them into significant danger of losing both market share and currency in the automotive sector. But the BEV is poised to become at the very least the next Explorer scale market breakthrough...

I think this is why Ford is focused on the Energi vehicles. I agree 100% that BEVs will not replace ICE vehicles 100%. The energy density of gasoline cannot be matched by a battery pack. The infrastructure for gasoline distribution & refueling will not be matched by DCQC stations. Thus, IMO, pure BEVs will really only suffice as part of a multi-car family. Tesla is an exception, but only because they have been building their own network. No other BEV can be taken on a cross-country trip. And even 200 mile EVs, like the Bolt, cannot be taken on a cross-country road trip with the infrastructure that is expected to be in place when they are released. An no one seems really interested in building a network like Tesla has. Thus, I think Ford is smart to not go all in on BEVs like Nissan has.

I think that to gain acceptance in the marketplace you need BEVs with a variety of levels of range & PHEVs with a variety of levels of range. But I think they should be within the same product line. What if you could get a Fusion Energi with the current level of range for $25k after incentives or a Fusion Energi with a 50 mile EV range for $28k after incentives? Then buyers could choose which option is best for them. Or what if you could get a Focus Electric with the current level of range for $23k after incentives, add DCQC capability for $1k extra, or a FFE with 150 miles of range & DCQC capability for $26.5k? Or maybe you could get an MKZ BEV with a 275 mile range for $35k after incentives. What would you choose?

At the very least a Fusion Energi with an all-electric range of 55 miles should be eminently manageable for developed and release as a mid-2016 model or at the very latest a 2017 model.

I agree. It would be nice to see more range. IIRC the Fusion is due for a refresh in 2017. The first gen FFH only had a 3 year lifecycle before it was replaced with an improved hybrid system, including the PHEV Fusion Energi. If MY2017 brings an updated Fusion Hybrid & Fusion Energi that would mean that this generation had a 4 year lifecycle. I'm hoping to hear about an updated Energi with an EV range of at least 40 miles coming for MY17.

 

[cpwl]

H-Bear, what you say is perfectly correct, no challenge to that but as we all know BEVs are a fundamental change from most current logistical practises that support driving. By their very nature BEVs have both inherent advantages over and inherent deficiencies to ICE vehicles. As EV converts we revel in the advantages (typically performance, ride quality and environmental aspects) and have accepted the deficiencies (predominantly range, charging rate, charging infrastructure and weather sensitivities) and learned to make the appropriate adjustments. Those adjustments were noticeable and perhaps a bit of an issue when we first got our cars but are now simply second nature and are generally not even noticed unless someone else poses questions or comments on what we do.

It is really only those who drive long distances daily whose travel would be compromised by the summation of low energy density of a battery pack and the current incomplete status of the DCQC network. That market is in all probability going to remain ICE for an extended period if not indefinitely as will be the market in particularly cold regions. (That being said Norway has embraced BEVs to a particularly exemplary degree). The rest of us simply don’t need battery packs that match the energy density of gasoline nor do we need DCQC systems which match the refueling times of a gasoline pump. Furthermore, the EV community as a whole does not need the DCQC network to match the gasoline distribution and sales infrastructure. Charging at home is and always will be the primary means for charging BEVs (and PHEVs) and for the vast majority of our local travels home charging frees us from a dependence on the fueling infrastructure. DCQC is in truth the intercity travel solution that has little if any real applicability to 99% of local driving. (Building to the “corner conditions” incurs exorbitant costs and production delays for a minimal increment in versatility.)

Your mention of Tesla and their SuperCharger network highlights the disparate and wholly uncoordinated efforts of manufacturers and their self-serving unwillingness to come to a common standard (the BEV equivalent of the VHS/Beta conflict except in our case there are 3 predominant formats)! As noted in previous posts I’m a big Tesla fan and would readily buy a Model S today if I could afford one but I cannot. And while their SuperCharger format and network may not be perfect, the fact remains that it is more developed and integrated into the general highway systems of North America and Europe than any other and is continuing to grow at an impressive rate. While probably not perfect this system however could and in my opinion, should be the core of the wider BEV intercity solution. The patents are open for widespread use and I for one would readily pay the up-front $2000 fee for unlimited access to this network and other reasonable costs that would relate to making the Ford battery compliant with the Tesla protocols and a nominal administrative fee that Ford or Tesla might charge to accommodate non-Tesla vehicles. There is no reason to have competing DCQC standards and no reason to duplicate the resources and monies already expended by Tesla. Ford, Nissan, GM, Mercedes, Kia etc., were all “late-to-the-game” so rather than petulantly taking their ball away and starting their own game they need to cooperate for the benefit of the BEV consumer which will of course ultimately benefit the manufacturers.

Marketplace acceptance of BEVs is, I think, a rather complicated issue due far more to public perception than technical capabilities. Regarding the vehicles themselves I view the PHEV as a relatively short to medium term interim format for the general public who are reluctant to make the single step transition from ICE to BEV in the vast majority of cases. There is and will remain a market share for PHEVs in single car families who want EV benefits but can’t afford both a local range BEV and an intercity ICE. I expect that there will also be another market share (albeit smaller) for PHEVs in areas where implementation of the DCQC network will be a very protracted process. In any case I think a PHEV all-electric range must be 60-65 miles or greater to make them practical and beneficial to the general public. Perhaps that is more an issue of “range comfort” than a technical requirement but it is nonetheless critical to a population used to having the extended ICE range ”in case I want to go somewhere on short notice”. At that range yes I’d pay $28K - $30K after incentives for a Fusion Energi, I would not buy the current sub-20 mile all-electric range Fusion Energi at $25K or at any price for that matter and would recommend such all-electric range PHEVs be discontinued as soon as the 50 mile range variants are developed and released! If there was an option for a 100 mile all-electric range Fusion Energi that would be worth $33K - $35K after incentives for me. Your numbers for a current range FFE at $23K with a $1K optional DCQC (SAE Combo/ChaDeMo) and a 150 mile range FFE with DCQC at $26.5K after incentives are pretty much spot on but probably not realistic from Ford’s point of view. The 150 mile DCQC equipped FFE would probably come in closer to $29K after incentives. Even at that price it would still be quite acceptable just not the exceptional deal $26.5K would represent. As for the 275 mile BEV Fusion/MKZ at $35K, I’d jump all over that one faster than any car I’ve ever bought before but again I couldn’t see that being any less than $42K, just maybe $40K if the stars, planets and moon all aligned in our favour! Now make that 275 mile MKZ well-equipped and make it compatible with the Tesla SuperCharger network as well as SAE Combo/ChaDeMo DCQC then $45K or so would still be a pretty quick sell to me.

Your comments on the MY 2017 Fusion refresh are extremely interesting as it would represent a “natural” opportunity to increase the all-electric range. If Ford is serious about the PHEVs and their market share in that segment as many have postulated in this thread, then they really have to equal the Volt’s all-electric range. Even if the all-electric range matches or marginally exceeds that of the Volt the problem will be that it is still a year behind the 2016 Volt which could earn a disproportionate market share simply by virtue of its earlier availability. And from what we are beginning to read the 2016 Volt is a fairly decent vehicle overall. Ford needs to re-invigorate their BEV and PHEV programmes to remain current and competitive in these market sectors.

My thoughts at least…..

Thanks and Cheers

Carl

 

[michael]

I think it's useful to distinuish PHEV cars (such as Energi) from EREV cars such as Volt and BMW with Rex
. In my mind the distinctions between the two are:

1. An EREV delivers full performance without use of the ICE; and

2. An EREV has a minimum all electric range in excess of some value. In my mind that AER threshold used to be about 35 miles (as set by the old Volt) and now will be around 50 miles. This number will increase with time. Clearly the BMW meets this threshold.

In my opionion, 20-mile class cars like Energi are great and represent improved hybrids, but they are not electric cars.

A further distinction needs to be made between EREVs which are fully or almost fully capable when running on ICE (Volt doesn't have quite the power on gas as on battery but is entirely usable) and those in which the ICE is basically a helper engine with very limited range and inability to climb long grades at highway speeds (BMW)


I think those who drive long distances are served very well by EREVs with full or near full ICE capability at present and in the near future. Presumably increased range and quick charging will make EVs suitable eventually.

I think PHEVs serve a good purpose of saving fuel, even compared to hybrids, and of letting people find that a car with electric capability represents no sacrifice. I think in most cases they will conclude that more electric capability would be a benefit, and they will give EREVs and EVs a try next time.

I think the concern for quick charging is misplace in most cases. The Spark, for example, comes with 3 kW and DCQC. What's the point? 99% of the time, it's stuck at 3 kW.

I think we as EV drivers would get better flexibility from a site with eight 6kW charging spots rather than a single 50 kW spot. With multiple spots, we have the confidence that charging will be available. If it's necessary to take a long trip, take the EREV. if we have 150 mile class cars, there are fewer cases where we need additional charge during the course of a normal day.

I personally use about 20 kWh a day. if I had a 35 kWh class car, I'd never worry about finding charge during the day. As it is, I jockey for a spot at the workplace charger every day.

 

[triangles]

I think it's useful to distinuish PHEV cars (such as Energi) from EREV cars such as Volt and BMW with Rex
. In my mind the distinctions between the two are:

1. An EREV delivers full performance without use of the ICE; and

2. An EREV has a minimum all electric range in excess of some value. In my mind that AER threshold used to be about 35 miles (as set by the old Volt) and now will be around 50 miles. This number will increase with time. Clearly the BMW meets this threshold.

I agree with you about the usefulness in distinguishing PHEV and EREV. However I am more of an EV purist when it comes to the distinction between the two:

I define an EREV as a vehicle that has a purely electric drivetrain and an onboard range extending ICE generator. In other words only an electric motor is connected to the wheels thru a gear box to turn the wheels and the ICE is solely used as a generator with no mechanical link to the drivetrain.

With this definition there is no need to assign some arbitrary, ever increasing minimum range.

The Volt fails my definition of an EREV and I could argue it fails your definition as well. I don't classify the Volt as an EREV since it does at times use the ICE to mechanically propel the car down the road. The Volt comes very close to being a true EREV but unfortunately it's drivetrain is more similar to a Prius than a BMW with Rex. The main difference between the Volt and Prius being the roles that the electric motor and ICE play are reversed.

I really like what Mazda did with the Demio in Japan adding a 330cc rotary ICE generator to boost the range to 300km (186mi). I was glad to see BMW follow with something similar in creating the i3. I'd like to see Mazda do something similar to the Demo/330cc range extender with the mazda6 platform and priced it at about $30K

 

[michael]

I do see your point, but from the perspective of the operator there is no difference. In both the BMW and Volt, when there is enough battery power, the car runs 100% electric. When the battery is depleted, it's a hybrid. As I understand the Volt, only with a depleted battery and speeds above 70 MPH does this coupling exist, and it's done to improve efficiency. Would the Volt have been more elegant and pure if this increase in efficiency were omitted?

The reason i added the AER mileage was to disqualify cars such the the plug-in-Prius with pointlessly small batteries. in other words, it would need enough AER to be useful and not merely gimmicky. I see the PIP as a gimmick to get carpool stickers and tax rebates.

 

[triangles]

Michael,
I'm not trying to knock on the Volt. It's a brilliantly engineered vehicle but it's just not what I look for in a vehicle.

I'm an engineer and I tend to look at things from a slightly different perspective than most people. To me a car is simply a tool to transport my cargo and I from point A to point B. I keep my cars until they are completely used up and every one I've owned has gone to the junkyard when I'm done with it. As such simplicity of design, the ease of repair, and expense of repairs are very high on my list of considerations for a new car. I'm probably opposite of how other's approach vehicle purchases. The first thing I do is look under the hood at the drivetrain, then passenger/cargo capabilities, then styling etc etc.

Now as far as the Volt is concerned, IMHO as a mechanical engineer the Volt has a brilliantly designed and executed hybrid drivetrain. If you disabled the ability of the engine to engage the wheels then I would have to call it a grotesquely over complicated and poorly designed EREV with an extremely oversized ICE. I almost bought a volt before I learned how they work. I was hoping they would be more EREV and less hybrid in nature. There are many mechanical points of failure due to the drivetrain's complexity that would be very difficult and likely too expensive to fix. I admit my fears may be unfounded. Who knows maybe it will be typical for the volt to go 250K miles and 15 years without a drivetrain issue. If I were to only lease the car for a few years then the added complexity doesn't matter and I'd probably have a Volt instead of a FFE.

 

[Tom French]

I had a Volt for 3 years, the last 6 months of the lease, the drive train broke.
This was at 29k miles.

So glad I now have a FFE.

 

[michael]

I take a different approach with electric cars. In the past, I held onto cars for a long time. My BMW 740 went 200K+ miles before it became uneconomic. As you can see from my signature I keep vintage cars in operation.

But EVs I am presently leasing and then returning since there is so much progress and price reduction. I let the warranty do the worrying. My FFE lease runs to 58,500 miles so I bought an ESP. I'm less worried about the electric drive systems than about the electronics, etc. They can be insanely expensive to repair. Similarly, the Volts are good for three years then it's no longer my worry.