Electric Mustang E outsells gas model so far in 2021

[MrMiles]

i understand the times change and so do peoples preferences. however, an SUV with the mustang name is horrible and ford should be ashamed. 

 

if they wanted to call it the bronco, or the explorer or some other new name, then whatever. i dont care how fast it is, its not a mustang

 

[Richard Bartrop]

5 hours ago, Oldcarfan27 said:

I've always wondered why the huge push for electric, but no research for other alternative "clean burning" fuels.

Hydrogen is the cleanest. Put it in a fuel cell and it emits water as it's byproduct. 

Propane is already in use, why not improve it's use.

Chrysler's turbine engine ran on anything. Maybe it's time to reconsider that source.

A good question. Honda, Hyundai and Toyota all have production fuel cell cars, but hydrogen filling stations are few and far between.  Maybe if someone was wiling to invest in them the way Musk did with his Supercharger stations, that would make a difference.

The other thing you have to remember is that we don't have convenient reservoirs of hydrogen we can just pump out of the ground.  Currently the cheapest  ay to make is from natural gas, but if you're worried about green house gas, that's a problem.  You can also shoot electricity through water, but you do get losses when you do this.  You also get losses when your fuel cell turns it back into electricity, and even more losses if you decide to run it in an IC engine,  so you're going to be using even more electricity to run your vehicle than if you just stored it in a battery.   Whatever problem with the electricity grid that people think they'll have with battery powered vehicles will be even bigger if we go the hydrogen route.   On the other hand, batteries have their own limitations in charging time and energy capacity, and it's pretty obvious we can't run everything on batteries.

I suppose it comes down to what tradeoffs that people are willing to accept.

 

[Ace-Garageguy]

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 hour ago, Richard Bartrop said:

...Whatever problem with the electricity grid that people think they'll have with battery powered vehicles will be even bigger if we go the hydrogen route...

Not necessarily.

Hydrogen can be made in sufficient quantities to power the "average"  commute from a rooftop photovoltaic array.

In a fuel cell, it's the cleanest and most efficient of currently available tech, and puts zero additional load on the grid.

The research has been done, the numbers are in.

It works beautifully, and a business model that works by leasing the necessary equipment to consumers on a cost basis competitive with other forms of transportation energy has been developed. It does not require billions in additional infrastructure and generating capacity, and can be phased in gradually as market acceptance grows and costs come down.

It's a logical, permanent solution that really has no appreciable downside that can't be worked through.

So of course it won't be implemented.

 

[Richard Bartrop]

19 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Not necessarily.

Hydrogen can be made in sufficient quantities to power the "average"  commute from a rooftop photovoltaic array.

In a fuel cell, it's the cleanest and most efficient of currently available tech, and puts zero additional load on the grid.

The research has been done, the numbers are in.

It works beautifully, and a business model that works by leasing the necessary equipment to consumers on a cost basis competitive with other forms of transportation energy has been developed. It does not require billions in additional infrastructure and generating capacity, and can be phased in gradually as market acceptance grows and costs come down.

It's a logical, permanent solution that really has no appreciable downside that can't be worked through.

So of course it won't be implemented.

 

Please, show us your numbers.

[Ace-Garageguy]

15 minutes ago, Richard Bartrop said:

Please, show us your numbers.

I have before. For years. Every time this topic has come up. From wayyyyyy back when Harry was the moderator.

But see...there was actually a time when I cared enough to try to dispel some of the endlessly rebleated nonsense that's presented as facts.

In recent years, it has become rather like spooning water out of a pool that's being filled with a firehose.

And I no longer have sufficient motivation.

 

 

Edited July 29, 2021 by Ace-Garageguy

[Ace-Garageguy]

AN OVERVIEW OF THE POTENTIAL TO PRODUCE HYDROGEN COST-EFFECTIVELY FROM SOLAR

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/08/30/future-pv-the-feasibility-of-solar-powered-hydrogen-production/

[Richard Bartrop]

Thank you, this looks very interesting.

Though it does say that conversion losses are lower for batteries, so my initial point is still valid.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Richard Bartrop

[The Junkman]

2 hours ago, MrMiles said:

i understand the times change and so do peoples preferences. however, an SUV with the mustang name is horrible and ford should be ashamed. 

 

if they wanted to call it the bronco, or the explorer or some other new name, then whatever. i dont care how fast it is, its not a mustang

 

You sum up my view exactly.  Were I of a mind to buy an electric vehicle (living in a semi-rural area with significant distances between charging stations=nah) I would look hard at it.  But it is not and never will be a Mustang.  Ford was trying to generate interest in a new line at the expense of product identity of a long established one.  They did much the same thing, only the opposite a few years ago when they stopped calling it a Taurus and instead marketed it as a Ford 500.  No identity, no interest.  They went back to Taurus.

 Change my mind.

Edited July 29, 2021 by The Junkman

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 hour ago, Richard Bartrop said:

Though it does say that conversion losses are lower for batteries, so my initial point is still valid.

 

All right...but it's a moot point.

When the potential is there to cost-effectively fuel or recharge a vehicle at point-of-use from essentially free sunshine, continuing to harp on the rest of the equation is rather like endlessly debating what form of balloon would be best for air travel...after the invention of heavier-than-air flight.

EDIT: Quoting from the referenced article:

"The entire efficiency question loses importance with the energy regime we’re moving into. We’re coming from a mentality where we are used to thinking about energy as a limited resource. If you have a barrel of oil, it’s extremely important to use it efficiently. However, you can use it across several days or years. Whatever you don’t use one day, you still have it for the next day. Whereas when we look at renewables, you have to use them when they’re there. We have to look at energy with new eyes. What matters is what does it cost? It’s not necessarily all about the total efficiency. Prices are low enough to make hydrogen and distribute it to fueling stations at costs that are comparable to what we’re used to today with gasoline and diesel. If you charge your car from your rooftop solar at  home, it’s obviously more efficient than converting it to hydrogen first, but you won’t see people driving their electric vehicles to a solar farm far from their homes to charge whenever it’s really nice and sunny outside. That is why the two technologies will live side by side and complement each other."

Edited July 30, 2021 by Ace-Garageguy

[Brian Austin]

FWIW,  cities and towns have been experimenting with various alternative fuels for their municipal and transit fleets for years.

 

And as far as the MUSTANG nameplate goes, it's not the 1960s anymore.  :-)

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 hour ago, Brian Austin said:

...it's not the 1960s anymore.  

More's the pity.

[Richard Bartrop]

It's not the first time Ford has tried to tried to make a connection between its sporty models, and its more prosaic offerings.

And of course the purists howled when they added two more seats to the Thunderbird,  but it turned out very well for Ford, and eventually even the purists decided that some of them weren't all that bad.

[Ace-Garageguy]

   

[Force]

I'm not against electric cars, not at all because they are powerful and you get full torque immediately.

But I'm also totally convinced, like Jules Verne was, that Hydrogen is the future because it's the most abundant matter in the universe, we have plentiful of it on our planet and it will never end, allthough most of it is bound in water so it has to be split with electricity, but the advantage is that you can do it in advance with environment friendly power sources like wind or solar or whatever, and it goes back to water again when it's used so it's the most and easiest renewable source we have.
I see the hydrogen gas as a "battery in gas form" and the biggest advantage is that the car makes it's own power in a fuel cell, it's easy to refill when it runs out so it's really like the fossil burning cars we have today and the gas stations can convert to hydrogen stations so the logistics is allredy there.
You don't have to build millions and millions of charge stations everywhere both at home, at work and all over beside all the roads because one charge car needs at least two or more of them to be useful, you don't have to upgrade the power grids as much wich are not nearly enough if we all go over to charged electric cars and we also need more powerplants to produce the electricity for them, and if you burn coal or oil in them the environmental gain with an electric car is gone by far and you are better off using the car you have today.
You don't need as many batteries in a hydrogen car as charge cars...and most of all, the hydrogen gas returns to water when combined with oxygen in a fuel cell or when it's burned so the exhaust is water vapor.
Another thing, the materials for the batteries used in charge cars are definately not from an infinit source and will end up sooner or later, no one really knows how to take care of the used up batteries yet...so I see the charge electric cars as a transition to something better and more user friendly as the ones we have has to much limitations to be a good substitute to the cars we have today.

My 2 cents in this.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Force

[ozmodeler]

On 7/30/2021 at 8:11 AM, Ace-Garageguy said:

Not necessarily.

Hydrogen can be made in sufficient quantities to power the "average"  commute from a rooftop photovoltaic array.

In a fuel cell, it's the cleanest and most efficient of currently available tech, and puts zero additional load on the grid.

The research has been done, the numbers are in.

It works beautifully, and a business model that works by leasing the necessary equipment to consumers on a cost basis competitive with other forms of transportation energy has been developed. It does not require billions in additional infrastructure and generating capacity, and can be phased in gradually as market acceptance grows and costs come down.

It's a logical, permanent solution that really has no appreciable downside that can't be worked through.

So of course it won't be implemented.

 

100% ,I know this is not the forum for alternative modes of powering personal transport, but EV's are a ridiculous solution to reducing co2 emission.Only practical for city & short distance commutes. Hydrogen is a much better solution in the long term.

[CapSat 6]

On 7/29/2021 at 11:27 AM, Oldcarfan27 said:

I've always wondered why the huge push for electric, but no research for other alternative "clean burning" fuels.

Hydrogen is the cleanest. Put it in a fuel cell and it emits water as it's byproduct. 

Propane is already in use, why not improve it's use.

Chrysler's turbine engine ran on anything. Maybe it's time to reconsider that source.

I read somewhere that Volvo created a concept car about 15 years ago which was an electric/ turbine hybrid. It had a small turbine unit that you could drop almost anything combustible into that could recharge the battery if needed. It got a chilly reception in the US because it was not zero emissions. 

What killed turbines for Chrysler was that while they could run on pretty much anything, and they had fewer moving parts, they could never get decent gas mileage out of turbines, especially as mileage became more important as the ‘70’s wore on. If a turbine is there more or less as a backup for the electric power plant, then fuel efficiency becomes much less of a problem. 

Until the range problems are minimized, like many have stated in this thread, people in the US will be leery about electric cars. At least the hybrid arrangement, even with a turbine allows better range and capability until infrastructure and/or range catch up. 

[PatW]

The Mustang E is selling well here in the UK. It has just completed a Lands End to John-o-Groats efficiency run and broken a previous record set by a Tesla.

A friend was telling me last week that the Ministry Of Transport here has put a stop to further development on Hydrogen cars as they can't work out the road tax cost for owning one yet, that's been on hold for nearly ten years!

Gas conversions, not petrol to us but gas, are popular for those with big cars, Range Rover etc, as per litre that is still only 35pence. The tanks is a pressurised cylinder and normally in the boot/trunk space. The cars have to stay as fundamentally a petrol powered vehicle with the gas as a backup fuel source.    

[Brian Austin]

FWIW:  https://insideevs.com/features/388374/debunk-electric-vehicle-myths/

[Ace-Garageguy]

9 hours ago, Brian Austin said:

FWIW:  https://insideevs.com/features/388374/debunk-electric-vehicle-myths/

And of course an article written by a company that makes accessories for Teslas wouldn't be the least bit self-serving:

EDITOR'S NOTE: This article comes to us courtesy of EVANNEX, which makes and sells aftermarket Tesla accessories. The opinions expressed therein are not necessarily our own at InsideEVs

Edited August 9, 2021 by Ace-Garageguy

[peteski]

6 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

And of course an article written by a company that makes accessories for Teslas wouldn't be the least bit self-serving:

With the information overload from online sources, how do you separate the truth from "alternate facts"?  It is really tough to find totally unbiased info (plus we have all become jaded, not believing anything we see out there).  At least this article cites some sources of info.  While the info was mostly about lithium, nobody hit on the facts that the EVs are still mostly charged with "dirty" energy.  But without a question we will eventually end up weaning ourselves from fossil fuels. It will likely not be in my lifetime though.

[Richard Bartrop]

9 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

And of course an article written by a company that makes accessories for Teslas wouldn't be the least bit self-serving:

EDITOR'S NOTE: This article comes to us courtesy of EVANNEX, which makes and sells aftermarket Tesla accessories. The opinions expressed therein are not necessarily our own at InsideEVs

And of course, the critical ones are motivated by the purest altruism.  

Sure, they're going to put the best possible spin on things, but that in itself doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

The fact is, everyone has an ax to grind, and it doesn't mean you can't check their assertions for yourself.  I think it does suggest you're on the right track when sources that are critical to your position still end up proving you right.

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by Richard Bartrop

[Ace-Garageguy]

4 hours ago, peteski said:

... While the info was mostly about lithium, nobody hit on the facts that the EVs are still mostly charged with "dirty" energy...

Bingo.

And that's the single most obvious thing the rabid sky-is-falling proponents of immediate and total replacement of IC-engined vehicles with electrics fail to recognize.

 

[Ace-Garageguy]

4 hours ago, Richard Bartrop said:

And of course, the critical ones are motivated by the purest altruism.  

Sure, they're going to put the best possible spin on things, but that in itself doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

Of course not.

But damm near everybody who pontificates one way or the other has some skin in the game...political-posturing for power or an economic interest (discounting the largely ignorant rebleaters, of course).

[Richard Bartrop]

16 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Of course not.

But damm near everybody who pontificates one way or the other has some skin in the game...political-posturing for power or an economic interest (discounting the largely ignorant rebleaters, of course).

Of course they do, and some people are a little too close too the problem.  Otherwise smart, well-educated people can develop tunnel vision, and they need to be made aware of other arguments

And a member of a group of Hydrogen advocate, backing his arguments with info from a person who himself is a hydrogen promoter doesn't in itself mean we shouldn't listen to him.