Somewhat Ironically, the tariff increase against Chinese cars is mostly for political show. There are virtually no Chinese cars being sold in the US, and those that are sold are not chinese brands but American brands (e.g. Buick, Lincoln) manufactured in China. The reason there are no Chinese brands on the market is that the existing 25% tariff is already enough to make it very unattractive.
However Biden is hoping to win the support of United Auto Workers and the like, who are all afraid of losing their jobs to Chinese workers getting paid a tenth of what they make or w/e. Trump has been using the same talking points, suggesting tariffs on Chinese cars built in Mexico (I don’t think that’s a real thing at this point, just something that could happen). It’s all political theater.
I think it’s funny this news comes out just after they add a 100% tariff to Chinese EVs. I’d of course not want to see US automotive industry destroyed by cheap Chinese EVs but there’s no way the US cannot compete
I know a few people that work in a Ford plant. Just a week ago, they shut down to retool the place for electric vehicles. Initially expected to take eight months, it’s now about two years.
They might have cancelled some orders from a specific supplier, but it’s not like Ford is turning away from EVs as a whole.
What the heck are they doing wrong? If they sell an EV for 70k and still make a 130k loss on it, what are they doing to make the production cost 200k in the first place?
Buying and running the tools it takes to make the EV, running the factories and training the workers are all very expensive. So the losses implies they projected a LOT higher volume than they’re currently producing so all the expensive equipment sitting idle is spread over the smaller volume of cars. These are called NRE (non-recoverable expenses).
The problem they have is they’re trying to sell it for 200k. Maybe they didn’t try and sell it to so much money they’d actually make money paradoxically.
That’s what happens when you have to be a loss-leader to secure your position in the market. Even when the government steps in to protect you you still claim it’s a loss even though you’ve been crowned leader.
It’s basically the entire year cost divided by cars sold or something like that yes.
It’s a terrible way to do it.
For example, pre pandemic, Ford was actually just gross margin positive on the sale of the Mach E, which was quite impressive, but it was overall a loss due to all the R&D.
This is the same attack people used against Tesla early on as well. Since the Model S, Tesla was nearly always gross margin positive on their vehicles, but because of the massive R&D were still in the red.
At any moment, Tesla could have dramatically slowed growth and been profitable sooner, but you don’t grow and expand that way, so it was years of Tesla loses $X per car.
It was terrible then, it’s terrible now, it’ll always be terrible.
Ford will follow Toyota and make PHEV a good portion of their lineup.
The PHEV F150 and Maverick are perfect trucks. 80 miles will make sure you rarely use gas, and having 425bhp + not having to rely on charging stations will eliminate range anxiety.
PHEVs are kind of pointless because most consumers buying them tend to not actually flip to the electric mode during low-use periods, making the hybridized nature of the vehicle functionally useless.
Maybe I’m not like most consumers but my ford phev is on electric 80-90% of the miles I’ve driven on it.
Then again, I heard from a family member. With a 4xe that the dealer had to convince them to plug it in when the low battery for long periods of time was causing problems.
It’s a lack of awareness and training. People buying PHEV’s have the right mindset, they want to be more efficient and helpful to the planet, but at the same time nobody is teaching them how to use the car effectively.
PHEVs are also more expensive to manufacturer than a BEV, long term. Particularly once the huge new battery factories start hitting economies of scale.
Even if used “properly”, plug-in hybrids are a bad idea:
They are more complex than either a pure ICE or electric vehicle would be.
When used properly, the ICE plug-in will only activate during high load phases, e.g. highway travel. However, the engine at that point will be effectively cold-starting. Not only is thus the least efficient phase of generating energy from fuel, it also means the engine oil is not warm and fluid yet. This necessitates more expensive, less durable low viscosity engine oil. Also, engines deteriorate much quicker during irregular usage, especially during cold starts.
There’s really no upside except getting government subsidies whenever the lobbies manage to get their Plugin-Hybrid qualified for it.
It also has no bearing on what I was talking about. Start/stop automatic triggers when the vehicle is stopped, but only if the engine is warm already. This is exactly for the same reason as I pointed out above: starting a cold engine is bad. Starting an engine that is already close to its operating temperature takes very little effort and puts very little strain on the system.
That makes no sense. The electric motors are an entirely different, separate system from the ICE. As such, using the e-drive will not heat up or spin the pistons in the ICE at all.
The ICE is only connected to a generator to charge the battery while driving, thus providing extra charge for more range and/or peak torque/speed.
Absolutely true, but that still does not make phev the universal solution to climate friendly transportation :) .
It’s more of an awkward stop gap measure. It’s expensive and complex to make and maintain (!) and only really profitable for manufacturers due to subsidies as well.
I wish ford would do that but I don’t think they will. They’re only bringing the phev ranger to Europe, and iirc started they had no plans to make the maverick a plug in. And the f150 already has the electric version in the lightning.
Wtf are these crackheads doing? EV’s are insanely simple machines compared to combustion ones. How could you ever fuck your production cost so much as to get losses like that. This feels like a manufactured failure to get bailed out or to stir public opinion on the whole china EV situation.
Ford has been mismanaged and only kept alive through BS, anticonsumer protectionist policies for decades at this point. It’s my opinion that they genuinely don’t even know how to run a successful business because “going under” hasn’t been a real concern for them for longer than most of the executives have been at the company.
What crack are you on? Ford makes money hand over foot making the best trucks for a while now. That’s why they are alive despite a few (and I believe you’re exaggerating) management missteps.
I honestly hate a lot of Toyotas and Japanese cars in general. Very sterile, boring, but their reliability and repairability is just a known fact, which is why I would only recommend the brand to people who only need a car as an appliance. I am an unapologetic fanboy of vintage Volvos though.
He literally said there is no reason to ever buy any other vehicle than a Toyota.
I said that I’d never recommend anything maker other than Toyota for a new car buyer, which I wouldn’t. There are no other makers right now with as strong of offerings as Toyota left. Some makers have competitive models, but no brand has as solid of a reputation.
Also wrong about the second part, I said that the stick Tacoma was more fuel efficient than the automatic, which I’ll admit is not the case anymore
Japanese cars were great in the 1990s, and phenomenal in the '80s, but now not so much. American automotive manufacturers have generally cut up with Japanese automakers in technology and reliability. Can be a lot more exciting too.
Everyone has recalls when you are selling millions. Ford has average reliability while being the most capable truck and having the features the owners buy. The f150 has the best interior, infotainment, and has the best ride. It’s the second best hauler only beaten by the ram.New car owners have warranties and fin not care about most recalls. They drop off the car, get a free rental, and come back the next day in most cases.
If you’ve ever even purchased a new vehicle, much less a new truck, you clearly are an edge case in how you rate trucks and have no clue what is going on in the head of most potential truck buyers.
Well which one is it? I’ve literally only seen suburban LARPers who can’t even thread a ratchet strap buy or defend Ford trucks. I’ve spent decades of my life on construction job sites. You wanna know how to separate the serious career guys from the burnout cons? The smart ones are driving paid off Toyotas and the idiots have light duty domestics.
most potential truck buyers
Most potential truck buyers are car buyers who get upsold on the lot.
You clearly know nothing of the market and buyers nor a willingness to understand. You just want to lecture buyers who have different priorities and needs and don’t religiously follow /r/personalfiances buy a used Toyota take.
You fundamentally have misunderstood why Ford is successful, run your mouth about it, and then argued that the buyers are idiots. 👏👏👏
Ah, yes, the American consumer. Famous for their great financial judgment and ability to live within their means.
You fundamentally have misunderstood why Ford is successful
Protectionist policies, corporate lobbying, hostage market, historical opposition to union labor, and outsourcing production to Mexico and China? I understand those reasons well.
You type like you’re from Twitter (currently X) and I recommend you go back.
Ford sold 200,000 pickup trucks in Q1 2024 while Toyota sold 50,000 so those links alone do not tell the whole story. Those recalls are relatively small compared to Ford’s market.
Also, Fords are typically easier and cheaper to buy and there are more service centers for them. This is also related to them being the most popular fleet vehicle. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to have a Toyota, but there’s a reason why you pay more for the “Toyota tax”.
How could you ever fuck your production cost so much as to get losses like that.
It’s because there is a lot of fixed cost being divided into a relatively small number of units. For instance “Ford Blue” is Ford’s ICE division and in Q1 it moved about 626,000 units while “Ford Model e” is Ford’s EV division and it only moved about 10,000 units in Q1. Source.
So if Ford Blue spends a Billion dollars that’s a per vehicle cost of $1,597. If Ford Model e spends a Billion dollars its a per vehicle cost of $100,000.
So yeah, Ford has spent the GDP of some small countries shifting to EV production and when you divide those very large sums into a very small number of vehicles you get upside down real quick.
I think the problem for Ford is that they bet on economic improvements that didn’t manifest. Both their current EVs are “premium” models, and that market is tapped, especially with new car loans costing 8%, and people can’t afford housing and groceries and a car payment.
Lightly used MachEs sell well at $25k. Which tells you that there is a price point for a new Focus electric. F150s are work trucks, not status vehicles, so more XL trims and fewer platinums, or better yet electric mavericks and rangers.
They should make a Lincoln MK Lightning if they want the truck to stay premium, but aim Fords to the working class like always and price them accordingly.
I dont think it would be fair to call that a loss per vehicle then. When they built their first vehicles long long ago they also mustve been in the red for a while. Thats called “investing in company infrastructure” and not “selling at a loss”.
The money is paid, the loss of money is over. Surely they are making a per vehicle profit already and it will just take some time to go overall positive for their investment.
I dont think it would be fair to call that a loss per vehicle then.
It’s common to break down the cost of Fixed Asset Investment to per unit produced by the investment. I won’t comment on whether it’s “fair” or not but it is common and it’s how the article arrived at this eye popping “loss per vehicle” number.
Ok i guess thats how it is, still weird because you rarely see a per product profit value in this sort of format. Seems like they enjoy crying over losses and staying silent over profits.
Seems like they enjoy crying over losses and staying silent over profits.
It’s not in the actual report put out by Ford. It’s a creation of the Journalist who wrote the article. So you are unhappy with Julian van der Merwe, the author of the article.
This is why the incremental cost of a unit are often a better measure for longer term profitability and decision making than the unit average cost, especially when you aren’t factoring in the market size and ability to repurpose sunk costs in that unit average cost.
Add comment