akirby

For 2019 vehicles. I don't think you guys understand what they're doing. They're trying to find all existing defects and fix them voluntarily now rather than wait until they're forced to recall them. A lot of these wouldn't even qualify for a forced recall by the ntsb. IF they've truly fixed a lot of the underlying root causes then this will mean a drastic reduction in recalls and defects going forward. They'll never be zero and there may be more older ones yet to be identified but it's not nearly as bad as it sounds.

That's hilarious.

The 21-23 Nautilus is a great vehicle and probably cheaper than a new Edge.

I meant killing platforms capable of hosting sedans. If they killed C2 and didn't replace it then yes there would be a concern that if the market shifts to small unibody vehicles that Ford would be in trouble. As long as they have c2 and cd6/mustang they're fine and can change top hats as needed. I also think the new truck platform for Tennessee will be unibody.

Selling in volume helps amortize development costs and fixed overhead but not so much variable costs until you hit hundreds of thousands or a million units. And having so many different tophats each with relatively low volume increases fixed costs. All is not rosy with Ultium either. https://insideevs.com/features/709703/gm-ultium-problems-software-batteries/

EV demand isn't suspect. Lower prices always bring more volume. They're starting with the truck because it's the cheapest to build and sell. They're planning multiple top hats which could include a sedan if needed. The important thing is they still have the platforms to build cars if the market supports it. They're not burning bridges.

No reason to think margins will be lower. There won't be a lot of direct competition so no price pressure and costs should;d be considerably lower.

Missing the point as usual. 700 miles is nice to have but the biggest benefit of EREV is being able to tow more than 100 miles which is a non starter for a lot of folks.

Sell them just like they sold original Maverick, fiesta, focus and ecosport.

More weight requires bigger batteries = higher cost

And next year should be way down as a result.

Too much short term reactionary thinking and not enough long term strategic thinking.

The problem with big BEVs is battery cost and weight. EREV partially solves both.

My f150 tows 11k but the most I've towed was a uhaul dual axle trailer and a golf cart so roughly 3k. I wouldn't even try more than 8k.

I don't think volume (above a certain number) is as important as having a platform for decades with minimal investments. Obviously Toyota has an advantage with long running optimized platforms and volume but I don't think it's so far ahead that Ford can't compete. They just need to engineer with that goal and that's where I think ce1 proved to Farley and the execs that it can be done profitably. Now just do it and stick with it.

At high altitudes you can use lower octane due to thinner air. 85 there is probably the same as 87 near sea level.

I'm expecting a range of 700 miles unladen and 350 miles towing 8000 lbs. Doesn't need to tow 11k lbs more than 350 miles. If you need that get an ICE f150 or superduty.

It won't be underpowered. It's still a BEV powered by electric motors just with a smaller capacity battery.

Ford was never worried about cost on small cars because of high union labor and CAFE offsets and the preference Americans have for trucks and suvs. F series is very close to corolla and tesla model y as the worldwide best seller and it's only sold in North America. It also produces twice as much revenue and probably 2-3 times the profit margin. It would be stupid not to prioritize it. The Asians optimized small cars because that was their F series in their home markets so that's where they invested. I bet F series has a similar cost advantage over Tundra. My point on C2 was it took them too long to get there and now they have other things to invest in. Toyota has been optimizing costs for decades. Ford needs a jump start and ce1 has the potential to provide it because it's a clean sheet and it was developed by outsiders not Ford lifers. And I do think it can be applied to ICE vehicles.

I think c2 is ok from a cost standpoint just not great, but it doesn't have decades of being built with only minor changes like Toyota's platforms. I just think ce1 showed them even bigger opportunities for low cost.

Ford's problems started with letting Europe do their own thing resulting in duplicate platforms and vehicles.

They know they need affordable vehicles to grow. Problem before was the existing platforms were still too expensive to really compete and they had to fund model E investments. CE1 is giving them the opportunity to reset on platform costs and invest in BEVs at the same time. And they're applying that strategy to new ICE vehicles.

Not the one I'm talking about.

Smaller more profitable lineup being the key takeaway.