bzcat

Because there is no transmission or driveshaft, most EV platforms are designed so it can be FWD, RWD, or AWD depending on how many motors you want to use and you can just change it however you want or need. Case in point, Polestar 2 single motor started as FWD but switched to RWD after 3 years. VW MEB is likewise designed for all 3 applications. As for snow traction, someone already pointed out the weight of EV is in the center where the battery sits so either drive wheels will work... it's not a big problem. I don't think there is evidence support a blanket statement that FWD EV is cheaper to engineer or cheaper to build. But I do think old habits die hard so car companies often default to what they did before - they've done B-segment car for 60 years as FWD and maybe there is no reason to do anything differently. The other main reason for sticking with FWD on small cars is car companies want to preserve the handling characteristic. Renault was asked why its Renault 5 EV is FWD and that was the answer it gave... they wanted it to handle like a FWD hot hatch. VW maybe thinking the same thing on ID.2.

Not much cost difference with cost between FWD or RWD in EV. It's just the location of motors and most EV are designed to have motors between both axles so you can do AWD/multiple motors. All things being equal, I think if you are going with 1 motor, RWD makes more sense because of packaging... it doesn't take up any space that could be used for passenger cabin (mainly because no transmission required), and gives you a frunk or bigger cabin if you it properly.

ID.2 is the replacement for Polo so a Fiesta version wouldn't be too hard to do. But I fail to see any strategic rationale for Ford to do this. VW of course think it is a good idea since Ford is paying them but I think Farley should put the resources into its own EV (like Puma).

Slate hasn't release any details on the electrical architecture but with a small battery, the utility of 800V system (fast charging rate) is limited. So I'm guessing it doesn't have anything fancy like that. I would be shocked if Slate uses anything but NACS port. The sales target is obviously optimistic but keep in mind that Slate is likely going to be focused on fleet sales so it is possible for them to amass a significant order backlog quickly. Despite the splashy headlines about customization for retail customers, I'm fairly sure behind the scenes they are going to work on landing some major fleets. Amazon for example could easily commits to a bunch of these for their grocery and Amazon key delivery services which are done currently using contractor's own cars (as opposed to the regular Amazon delivery in fullsize vans).

$25K today is effectively the same as $20K in 2021 when Maverick came out with that base MSRP. Can Slate deliver the truck at that price? Remains to be seen because they don't have production site or have said anything about who is building it. The only important thing to remember is Slate can do a 2 door truck because it is BEV - it can deliver huge MPGe so has no CAFE footprint restrictions. Ford probably did look at making a shorter 2 door Maverick but quickly ruled that out due to CAFE. Next gen Maverick will need to get a lot bigger to stay ahead of that dreaded CAFE curve... or go full electric. That brings me to the CE1 truck... don't forget Ford's CE1 truck target price is... drumroll... $25K. I don't know if Ford CE1 Maverick will beat Slate to market but I wouldn't bet against it.

This is sign for car companies to roll out more affordable trucks. I think Ford and others are finding out the upper price limit on fullsize and midsize trucks. I'm very surprised to be honest that with the success that Ford has had on Maverick that no other companies have jumped in (Santa Cruz is more CUV than truck).

They defined ultra wealth as having more than $500K household income. That's basically every moderately successful self employed business person. So I'm sure the data is skewed by lots of F-150 and Transit purchases in the name of Schedule C or LLC small business owners. Also, Ford dominates the luxury end of fullsize pickup truck so that also has something to do with it too.

Would Ford consider a Ranger Lobo? That would be pretty cool.

Still not clear to me why Ford didn't replace Edge. Surely they could have sold Mach E and ICE Edge side by side like all the competitors. Despite Farley's disdain for 2 row midsize CUV, not a single competitors exited the market... self-inflicted wound for sure. I've mentioned this before in prior months but Maverick and Bronco Sport continue to impress. There is no arguments that this pair is far more successful products than their predecessor Focus and C-Max. Watching the F-Series vs. Silvererra total closely... Ford is within striking distance of outselling GM again this year. Ford is adding Oakville to produce more F-350/450/550 (at least I think the plan is still on) which should come online later this year. This will allow Ford to really amp up delivery.

Ford's plan to restart car production in India for export to Europe have been cancelled. It was due to release its Indian production plan in January but Ford told the State Govt of Tamil Nadu it is revaluating its plan to restart car production. And the latest news is that Ford will now use the plant to build engines only, but unclear on where these engines will go since Ford already has engine production facilities in US, China, and Europe and is not short on engine supplies. The obvious implication here is that Ford no longer sees a need to have production base for low cost cars for Europe. Those of you who still don't believe that Farley's ultimate plan is to stop selling mainstream passenger cars in Europe can noodle on this latest development... https://www.outlookbusiness.com/corporate/as-ford-plans-re-entry-into-india-what-went-wrong-last-time https://www.financialexpress.com/auto/news/trumps-tariffs-throw-a-wrench-in-fords-india-comeback-plans/3794615/ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/us-automaker-ford-may-use-its-chennai-plant-to-manufacture-and-export-engines/articleshow/119145845.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/auto/auto-news/fords-india-return-is-the-carmaker-making-a-u-turn-or-just-a-pit-stop/articleshow/117946506.cms?from=mdr

AUS/NZ is pretty much the only other market where something like Mach 4 will have any meaningful sales prospect besides North America and Middle East. RHD is pre-engineered in on the platform so investment will be modest.

I really don't know what Farley is thinking about ROW products and I'm not sure he does either. Ford Europe is responsible for engineering of C2 platform and most C2 vehicles but there are no C2 vehicles planned beyond the one that are currently on sale. So is Farley going to just let all the engineering knowhow go? It's not something you can bring back once it is gone. Just ask Boeing how designing airplanes without the people who know how to design airplanes work out for them.

Here is my take on why Ford hasn't leveraged Chinese products in nearby markets. Farley has made it clear that Ford has only 4 core products that will get strategic investment and global portfolio: F-Series and extensions (e.g. Expedition) Transit and extensions (e.g. Custom, Courier) Ranger and extensions (e.g. Bronco, Everest) Mustang (e.g. Mach E) If a product is not based on these 4 platform or does not have marketing/branding association with these nameplates, he is not interested keeping those products around just for the sake of keeping them around. This includes pretty much everything Ford makes in China with the exception of Transit and Ranger/Bronco. So if you think about it this way, it makes perfect sense why Ford hasn't flooded Australia with its Chinese products. They are not the kind of core products that will get investment for RHD and get elevated to global portfolio. What Ford sells in China is mainly tactical products that are narrowly tailored to local taste and needs, not strategic core products that will get Farley's stamp of approval for traditional developed APAC markets like Australia or Taiwan. For example, you can probably make a good business case for Equator and Equator Sport in Australia and Taiwan. But they don't use Ford sourced engines and so is that something Ford wants to do in Australia? Ford maybe willing to sell something like that on the cheap in Philippines and Vietnam where any sale is a bonus sale. But definitely not in Taiwan, Australia, and New Zealand which it considers its core APAC markets. Ford is not a bit player in these markets and it doesn't want or need to be the first mainstream makes to open the floodgates for cheap Chinese made cars. People in Australia are choosing Chinese brands because they are cheap. Ford doesn't need or want those customers. This may change of course if Toyota or Hyundai starts importing cars from China...

I should have phased it better but I was referring to the next gen which is due in the 2027-28 timeframe this discussion was being referenced. The model came out in late 2020 as 2021 model so 7 years model cycle put the new one at 2027 calendar year. Ford has said absolute nothing about the next gen. Bur given that Escape is going away, makes sense that Bronco Sport will survive but no way it will stay competitive without a new generation coming soon.

Bronco Sport is due for a refresh but we have not heard much about it so far. And of course Mustang Mach 4.

Ford did have a huge heritage collection before. It was similar to this one but Mullaly sold most of the collection to raise money when the company was running out of cash.

Correct. For a while Ford Europe was generating all the profit and cash that propped up the rest of the company. But back then, the pension reporting rules were the same for US companies as the rest of the world. I don't want to turn this into an accounting discussion but the entire world reports pension expense when the pension is paid. For US companies, they have to accrued pension expense when it is earned, and they have to set aside cash reserves to pay for the pension. This has been the case since the US accounting rules were changed in 1987. This means US companies (especially ones that employs a lot of highly skilled people for a long time like Boeing, Ford, GM, GE etc) are saddled with a lot of extra expenses and is required to restrict a lot of cash that their foreign competitors don't need to worry about. Even when foreign companies have the same exact location and pension obligation, the operating results are quite different. We saw a clear example of this when 1 year after GM sold Opel to PSA, it made a huge profit. A lot of people use that as an example on how GM "mismanaged" Opel. It was none of that. The only difference is PSA didn't need to accrue pension expenses and is not required to set aside cash to pay for those pension. Another example... for a few year FCA and subsequently Stellantis reported huge earnings from US operations. People reflectively point to Jeep and Dodge as cash cows. But really, the reason they were profitable is because the former Chrysler part of the company no longer reported results on US GAAP - the pension expenses disappeared overnight making Jeep appear very profitable. But the reality is all the products were aging and they needed replacements so the profits were really a short term benefits of accounting rule change going from US GAAP to IFRS.

It's not mismanaged per se. It's just very difficult to turn an accounting profit as an US company operating in Europe because of the accounting rules on pension costs is different for US companies vs. the rest of the world. Pension (both Govt mandated or private) and other defined benefits plans are still very common in Europe where there is no 401K like savings plan. I'm a bit skeptical that Ford will commit to building CE1 in Europe. There is spare capacity to build it in North America - Mexico and Canada has free trade agreement with EU which is why Ford was going to build GE2 there instead of US. And Ford hasn't said a peep about what it is doing in India... they are restarting production there but only for export - the obvious destination is EU.

It was a strange decision to not use Tremor from the start since Explorer had always used truck trim levels since inception. e.g. XL, XLS, Sport, XLT, Eddie Bauer, King Ranch, Platinum etc. all were/are Ford truck trim levels

I mentioned this in the first reply. This $4.76 billion transfer is not an investment but backfilling the negative capital account of Ford Europe which has to be done to avoid tax penalties. Ford is not investing in Europe, in fact quite the opposite. There is no new product coming after Focus and Kuga are done.

If we are going to speculate, I would guess Mach 4 will not be a full hybrid. S650 was not engineered for it and Ford is probably not interested in spending the kind of money required to make it so. But Ford can easily adopt the 48V mild hybrid that may squeeze out an extra or two MPG. V8 is kind of existential for Mustang so I suspect it will continue to be part of the picture for the coupe. But for Mach 4, it wouldn't surprise me if Ford decides to go with Ecoboost V6 which should be easier to meet CAFE target than the V8. And of course it goes without saying, the bulk of the sales will be 2.3 Ecoboost.

The money will just plug the hole dug by the losses from the last couple of years. Not enough to invest in new products. Ford has no future passenger car product strategy for Europe. Focus is ending production this year and Kuga next year. After that, Ford Europe will only sell Puma and MEB Explorer/Capri plus imported Mustang. That's not sustainable. Whatever Farley has in mind, he needs to commit to it soon.

I think something like what you described would be branded Explorer ____ or Bronco ____ under the current Farley plan. Ford already has Mach E for the Mustang CUV role. The main reason why people think this will be a sedan is because Ford showed it to the dealers. This is not a hypothetic idea... Ford told the dealers the sedan is a product coming in a few years. Ford also showed a 4WD offroad Mustang coupe to the dealer. So it's possible the Mach 4 name may go to that car. But we know it ain't going to be a FWD CUV.

And really the only plausible way to keep the Mustang name alive. It ain't going to live on much longer without piling up massive product line loss if it is just a 2 door coupe and convertible.

It's very simple... Sales of coupe are headed to zero eventually but Ford needs to keep Mustang around because it is a sacred cow. These are the problems: CAFE compliance for the Mustang nameplate is impossible without longer wheelbase Flat Rock can only produce low profile vehicles Can't move Mustang production elsewhere because not enough volume to justify new tooling/production site Ford needs the Mustang name to be around because it is one of Farley's icons, along with Transit, F-Series, and Bronco. It is a lot more important to Ford than Camaro is to Chevy (for example) So the obvious solution is the make a longer wheelbase Mustang (for CAFE) and build it in Flat Rock (because you have to keep the plant open). How do you make a longer wheelbase Mustang? You make it a sedan. This is the only way the 2 door S650 lives beyond 2026 - as an alternate body style of the volume 4 door sedan. Ford will need to flip the volume of Mustang to favor sedans and minimizes the CAFE penalty by controlling the number of coupe and convertible it will sell. You already see the early part of this plan to move the Mustang coupe upmarket with GTD and more special editions - this is how Ford will control volume on the CAFE killing coupe. Ford will keep reducing the availability of coupe but they need the sedan to provide the volume to keep the plant operating at minimal viable level. With only minimal plant investment, I think Ford can make the 4 door Mustang breakeven relatively easily. They didn't do it before because they didn't need to. But now they do... otherwise they cannot afford to keep the Mustang coupe around.