Biker16

At least NYS doesn't tax food.

https://cleantechnica.com/2025/12/06/how-outdated-engineering-models-distort-todays-ev-road-charges-debate/

It's too affordable for Americans to want.

Someone once said "Ford is in the business of making money, not making vehicles." This explained the cancellation of small cars, large cars, midsize cars, all cars, the Ranger, the Bronco, Transit Connect, Windstar, Aerostar, etc. CAFE and profitability are excuses for the lack of investment in competitive products. There, Ford struggles to build low-margin vehicles profitably. It's been this way for decades. There isn't any evidence that this has changed.

Let's play a Game Affordability is a Data point, Cheapness is a Feeling. Comparing the Starting prices of the 2026 Escape, Bronco Sport and Maverick to the 2014 Escape Fiesta and Focus in 2025 and 2014 Dollars. Adjusted for inflation, the price for an entry-level Ford vehicle in 2025 is 45-64% higher than it was in 2014 Finally, when compared with US household income, Ford's most affordable vehicle in 2026 would represent 34% of Median household income vs 26% in 2014, or a 31% higher share of a household's income in 2025 vs 2014. This does not include the impact of higher interest rates When we talk about affordable, I believe this is what we mean. Ford stopped selling Affordable vehicles in favor of profits. The unboxed assembly process doesn't apply to ICE vehicles, there will be benifits From the eletrical archtecture but the assembly process isn't as transferable.

Ford cancelled Focus, Fiesta, the Escape, and every other Affordable Vehicle due to a Structural inability to make money in low-margin segments. Affordable vs. cheap is a distinction without a difference. The 2012 Focus was affordable, but the 2019 Focus was cheap. Neither were profitable🤣 Based on how some talk about CE1 (which gives off Tesla Hype vibes), it will never deliver all the hope people ascribe to it. I struggle to imagine how an ultra-low-cost EV platform designed to be sold in a country that shuns EVs can successfully spawn affordable ICE Vehicles, especially when the cost drivers of EVs and ICE vehicles are so different. Bro, we literally have a Ford Decontenting Thread to track how Ford drops vehicle features to increase corporate profit. Anyway, Ford has been clear on the reasons they stopped selling cars. This is the First time I am hearing that CAFE was the reason. This is funny, because it makes 0 Sense. Mexico and Canada: had no tariffs on US-made vehicles until the US placed tariffs on Canadian and Mexican-made vehicles. Japan and S. Korea: don't buy US-made vehicles because they don't fit. There is no amount of tariffs that will change that. Europe: Subsidiaries of US companies seem to underperform in those markets and offer less competitive products. The result is higher-priced vehicles in the market, which need more affordable ones.

To be clear, the industry can build affordable cars, but the stock market and investors are not incentivizing them to do so. There aren't groups of investors clamoring for Ford to make affordable cars, but there is a large group of investors clamoring for Ford to continue to make high-margin, large fuel-guzzling vehicles. That have driven company profits for the better part of four decades. Every financial report from Ford in the last two decades have highlighted average selling price as a key fundamental for the company. ASP growth has led to profit growth, affordability will do the opposite unless structural changes are made to reduce the cost structure. Which is challenging in a high tariff environment.

Can you explain the difference?

We're going to be waiting a long time before we see affordable cars from this industry.

I wish Ford had a strategy for these vehicles, it feels like FoE needed a last-minute standalone product to fill a need, but it is unique and bespoke for that market only.

Only time will tell, but look at the decline in Manufacturing jobs, even with Trade barriers. The unpleasant Truth is that automation, not jobs, will be the winner in this trade environment.

Again, 300 million people paying much higher prices to preserve 300-400,000 jobs. The core issue in the US is a form of Dutch Disease, which has led to a decline of manufacturing in favor of financial, medical, and other service sectors. These sectors add little value and act as middlemen or gatekeepers to core economic activity. The irony of the current trade policy is that it has failed to preserve jobs, while increasing costs and reducing competition. The Chinese were smart to invite foreign automakers into their country to learn and improve auto-making; we could do the same, but our egos won't allow that.

Not really, stop rewarding mediocrity with tariffs and protective policies that increase costs for Americans. Protecting a few hundred thousand jobs while increasing the cost for 300 million people by 10% may not be a good idea in the long term.