jpd80

Now that GE2 has been delayed again, I suspect that it will be quietly killed and never spoken about CE1 vehicle development program has shown Ford a much better more efficient way to develop vehicles. Maybe a skateboard BEV set up under S650 rather than develop a whole new vehicle? something that might be able to built with the existing gas Mustang instead of dedicated plant.

Mach E began as E-Max, a LWB electrified S-Max, so an extension of C1 to save costs on construction. Ford starting with a Minivan was a mistake when Euro markets were already moving on to Utilities. Hackett & Farley then doubled down, spent more money and turned a bland EV int the Mach E. Fingers crossed third time is the charm and CE1 is finally affordable and profitable compact BEVs. Not saying that Mach E isn’t a great vehicle, I just think that if Ford had it’s time over again, it would have electrified Focus and Escape as a pair of good BEVs instead of needing to go to VW MEB which is looking like another blind alley of two expensive compact BEVs. and it’s understandable why….. GM chose to electrify Bolt platform after the disaster of the Volt that shared nothing with its compact ICE stable mates. Lutz started Volt as a BEV on a unique platform but then he added a range extender ICE to get it past the GM board, so there went the $28k target price and any chance of it ever turning anything but a loss. Cadillac ELR version was all about spreading the losses over another division, a mistake to hide an even bigger one.

What’s the driving factor in Ford changing it processes to avoid recalls? A. Public embarrassment…………Bssst B. Fear that customers may never return………..Bsst C. A $2 billion enema every quarter that destroys profit………….Ding Ding Ding. Seems like Ford only changes when the pain of financial loss is so incredibly overwhelming. That applies to Warranty costs, bad product investments and failed projects/business ventures. All we can hope for is that Ford gets on top of the root cause of those losses and stems the bleeding.

Good post. And it’s the exact reason that Ford needs to pivot away from an over reliance on T3 mass roll out. Not a criticism of Ford but a big discovery of the new reality of battery cost vs vehicle size/profit. Where exactly is the sweet spot, is it compacts or perhaps a well designed mid sized? Vehicle design and space efficiency are going to be big factors going forward and you’re right, a whole rethink of how Ford and buyers perceive vehicles. Wondering about midsize because Maverick’s interior room is pretty close to Ranger but it’s a lot lighter, maybe that example of C2 space efficiency will shine a light or be a eureka moment for Ford BEVs. We should be optimistic about Ford’s success/failures, early days and still getting things right while ICE sales are still strong and support the company. It’s not like mass BEVs are needed tomorrow…..

Your case is interesting to me and is an example of why Ford should be listening to contractors in your situation, be that needing an EV F250 for towing or some kind of EV Transit Van for bulk deliveries. As you mentioned, fuel bills are a major cost and that’s where Ford needs to come up with an affordable BEV SD for you as hybrid or PHEV is probably not the answer..

Correct as F250 & F350 models make up the bulk of SD sales, 100k annual production is about 8,300 per month so maybe just enough to free up more EXPY/NAV builds at KTP? Electrified versions later tin the decade is an exciting proposition with some version of hybrid or extended range electric vehicle

Not sure Ford would leave as I recall something about a major contractor having an adjacent facility purpose built to supply the plant? Freely admit that I could have that story completely wrong…….. I’m zooming on pain meds at the moment, so not sure.

Aww, yes correct Fuzzy. I went back and looked at the changes, the new body shop was a fill in between two buildings, the old body shop was done away with and two separate trim lines were created - that makes sense now. Sorry for the inaccurate post above. Bottom line is that the body shop is not a limiting factor up to about 34,000 builds a month and after OAC starts SD production, KTP could probably alter production and still build more Utilities at say a 50/50 mix… Would love to see the SUVs get a petrol hybrid either from F150 or a 6.8/7.3 hybrid of some sort, I think that would be a game changer against the GM SUVs like Tahoe and Escalator

I think that’s more a reflection of intended European customers but what I don’t like is the price, European buyers will pay more for good BEV but Ford’s euro pricing is a bit too high and possibly a reflection of the higher costs with MEB platform used.

Correct, KTP already has a body shop for Trucks and another for SUV but they share a final trim line. Once the pressure is off KTP to build so many trucks, it can build a ton more SUVs.

The interesting part for me is that Oakville will begin building the current model Super Duty trucks in 2026, makes sense to start with an already established vehicle so that staff get all the real world lessons from KTP. It’s still a while off but at least the workers now have a decision from Ford in the form of a major profit earner for the company. Good luck and God bless to all our Canadian friends.

That’s a post factory RHD conversion starting at north of $100k USD$70k sells about 150-200 a month but pulling down Ram and Silverado sales here. Hopefully gets more popular and builds more buyers

Different rules to North America, Europe making it almost mandatory for Manufacturers like Ford to have many different BEVs to offset any remaining ICE vehicles. Now Ford goes from having Mach E and a BEV Transit to also having E Explorer, Capri, BEV Puma and E Transit Courier

OK , back on general discussion. Most of Euro side of One Ford didn’t work so good because of the timing, a lot of the vehicles intended to be replaced by Euro C1 or modified CD4 had been refreshed or released before Mulally was hired so had to wait a near full product cycle before the switch could happen. By 2012, a lot had changed and the need for re-engineering to accomodate a V6 was made redundant by 2.0 Ecoboost. A strong case could have been made to keep the Mazda based CD3 and CD3S cars and utilities going for another six years with a strong evolution and save a ton of time, resources and heartaches but yeah, Mulally was hell bent on getting rid of all things Mazda. He never understood that Mazda based product were better, more reliable than Ford Euro stuff.

Currently, combined monthly sales of Ranger and Everest in Australia alone are over 8,500 but anything else is only small quantities or just not available and things like - RHD Mustang production is yet to restart - ICE Puma production ended - Escape in tiny amounts Looking at Australia alone, it’s likely that the right products would add significantly to Ford’s monthly sales but convincing head office to look at old friendly markets is just so hard, they won’t listen. It seems that Ford only wants the high profit low hanging fruit……