Trader 10
-
Posts
579 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Trader 10
-
-
1 hour ago, akirby said:
Some costs are capitalized but not all. E.g. all the people working on next gen batteries and platforms and yet to be released vehicles are an expense with zero revenue.Correct. Btw, why was the thread on the report of the Oakville EVs being delayed shut down? The post silvrsvt referred to was a Ford Authority article dated Feb 9th. The one I linked to was published today.
-
-
6 hours ago, akirby said:
I know, right? I can’t wait to post this in the EV haters forums where they’ve declared that nobody is buying EVs any more.To be fair, let’s see how sales go over the rest of the year. Although promising, one month could just be an anomaly.
-
3 hours ago, rmc523 said:
I know some have mentioned it before, but another factor to consider is that the initial models are carrying the entire weight of building out Ford's EV infrastructure (production, design, etc), that future models won't have to bear outside of that particular model's development costs.
No they’re not. Costs of assembly plants and battery plants are capitalized over many years (probably 20 to 30).
-
5 hours ago, silvrsvt said:
Customers are ridiculous-I've seen things where people want 500 mile range EVs, when the vast majority of ICE cars only go 300-400 miles per tank.
The other issue is that demographically the car buying public is getting older and well from my almost 30 years working in IT, the vast majority of people abhor any sort of change (which there is a lot of change in the IT world just for the sake of change also) and I think we are seeing that with EVs, then add in the way social media is and people having almost no BS detector (because it far easier just to believe in something that meets your belief system), we have a cauldron of misinformation/bad information on EVs.
500 mile range is a requirement before I buy an EV. From what I’ve seen, batteries shouldn’t regularly be charged beyond 80% which takes range down to 400 miles and that’s with perfect conditions. Cold weather probably takes range down to around 300. Also, have you noticed how fast traffic moves on rural interstates? Speeds are 75 mph and higher which will quickly sap range. Even with higher ranges you still have the issue of slow charging compared to filling a gas tank in 5 minutes or less.
-
10 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:
Are...are you serious? It can't get much smaller man. My maverick next to a full sized truck for scale.
Hell, a full sized truck makes a locomotive look small. Looks like my truck - Area 51 2022 XLT all wheel drive with 4k towing.
-
1 hour ago, akirby said:
They didn’t replace Fusion with EVs. They replaced it with Bronco Sport and Maverick.I didn’t say they did. I did say that the excess capacity at C2 plants could be at least partially be filled by a new Fusion but Fords huge investments in EV development has sapped it of funds for new ICE vehicles.
-
54 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:
The fusion is completely different class of car then the BS/Escape/Maverick-its a Mid sized car vs a compact (that the C platform is)
Note I said FOCUS, not Fusion.
The Maverick isn’t compact. It’s longer and about the same width as the Edge and about the same length as Explorer. Focus ATPs never reached that $25k point you mentioned, but the Fusion did. The C2 platform certainly has the ability to underpin mid sized vehicles. The next gen Edge would have been built on it.
-
21 hours ago, silvrsvt said:
That 25K sedan has anywhere from $3-5 in incentives on it, that is why.
Plus the Maverick can reach up to $40K with the Tremor package on it.
Lets make this easier-the Focus had the ST and RS models that where "expensive" but they didn't sell and got blown out when the Focus went away. The normal Focus models always had some sort of discount on them. The Maverick has no incentives and sells well without them.
Then add in the fact that Maverick is amortized by the Bronco Sport and Escape for its equipment, and its not very hard to figure out. The Focus did share some things with the Escape, but not as much as the Escape shares with the BS and Maverick.
Please list the 2024 25k sedans that have $3 to $5k in incentives. The Fusion was seeking with those kind of incentives at the end of its life but you’re making an apple/oranges comparison between a vehicle at the end of its life cycle and a brand new vehicle. I believe a C2 Fusion would garner ATPs that at least match Maverick’s.Hybrid only, XLT as the base model. Look at Honda Accord for example. A local dealer has 9 in stock listing from $33k to $40k and no rebates. A new Fusion would likely share a lot of commonality with the Maverick and Escape including the drivetrain. Ford certainly has the excess capacity to build 75 to 100,000 but has chosen to invest its money elsewhere (EVs) which obviously hasn’t worked out as hoped.
-
21 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:
Come on think about this objectively-OAC is going down for retooling in the next 60 days...and they are going to keep the plant down for almost 36 months?! NO FUCKING WAY! That will cost Ford Billions not to build it-keep in mind suppliers need build parts for it and they need to keep their workforces employed too.
Borg is most likely got information screwed up once again. He got chased off here for being wrong so many times before.
Remember that Ford in October announced it was postponing $12 billion in BEV investment. We have no idea what it would cost to postpone production another 24 months, but I don’t think it would be billions. It will cost billions to retool the plant and get the new models out. If the currently planned models aren’t competitive Ford will never make a profit building them.
-
1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:
I find that really hard to believe that OAC will be down for almost 36 months. Borg has been completely wrong more often than not also.
I don’t find it hard to believe given how strongly Ford has been signaling that it is pulling back in its BEV programs and how much the increase in the BEV selling pace has slowed the past year or so as the availability of ICE-vehicles has nearly returned to pre COVID levels. BTW - Borg is also saying that Ford will finally have a hybrid AWD Maverick for the 2025 model year. That’s good news.
-
9 hours ago, silvrsvt said:
The other issue is with sub manufacturers...even back in the visteon days the plant my dad worked at used to get wiring harnesses in and they have to throw away a significant amount of them because they where screwed up. Even in my other jobs I've worked at the biggest issues I've seen have been supplier issues and not design issues (though I have seen some dumb decisions done there too)...so that is another angle to this issue.
But other manufacturers are apparently having far less issues with sub manufacturers than Ford which would indicate more of a design issue and/ or not allowing subs to make reasonable returns to insure better quality.
-
2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:
They aren't going to fail long term, what is happening is a combination of shitty interest rates, the economy not being the greatest, pricing and natural hestationation with sceptical buyers.
The “long term” is going to be a lot longer than the wishful thinking we have bombarded with by the EV zealots. Any word on when to expect the next generation Mustang BEV? Demand for the current model is going to get even worse when Oakville comes online with the new BEV model.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, silvrsvt said:
Depending on how the administration covers the Tax breaks for next year and how that affects Ford, I think it is smart they are pulling back on production because of that. Hopefully by the end of next year cells made in the USA will make their way into the Lightning and Mach E so they can get their tax breaks.
No, hopefully by the end of next year all the tax breaks are gone. They’re just a transfer from the American taxpayers to the auto makers. There a bad idea at any time, it particularly so when we’re running annual deficits in the trillions.
-
6
-
-
4 hours ago, silvrsvt said:
This is showing a start date of 1/5/2026 for the CX823 Escape...but I'm willing to bet money that sides to the right at least till the end of that year...if not 2027
I think there’s a good chance the CX823 Escape never sees the light of day. It would seem to be one of the first casualties of Ford’s cuts to EV investments as it will be difficult for it to be profitable. All the EV programs are likely to be delayed given the cuts announced last week.
-
https://fordauthority.com/2023/10/tentative-uaw-deal-includes-8-billion-investment-from-ford/
The possible new product at Flat Rock is intriguing although it would require far more than $50 million.
-
2
-
-
On 10/26/2023 at 9:48 PM, CurtisH said:
The Duratec 3.0 was not new. It was first used in the 1996 Taurus. I believe it was initially paired with a CVT, which did not help. The CVT didn’t have a wide enough gear range and the 3.0 didn’t have a lot of torque.I know the 3.0 was not new when the 500 was introduced - my 1996 Sable had the 3.0- I was referring to the motor’s deficiencies from its inception. The 500 used the CVT for the base SE and AWD versions. All other versions used an Aisin 6 speed automatic. That combo wasn’t much better than the CVT.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, rperez817 said:
Unfortunately, "first" in this particular example also ranks among the worst new product introductions from Ford in the past 30 years. It's what Dan Neil described as a "lamentable rentable" in his review of Five Hundred's twin, Mercury Montego. A senior moment - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
The 500 wasn’t a great car but it was in no way one of the worst new car product introductions from Ford in the past 30 years. Ever heard of the EcoSport? You’re cherry picking test. Most tests from that era ranked it mid pack among its competition (Car & Driver rated it 4th among 6 in a July 2005 test). It was a much better car than the Taurus it replaced, let down by the 3.0 duratech motor and dowdy styling, both of which were corrected by the time the name changed back to Taurus. The 3.0 Duratech was a weak engine compared to the competition. The 3.8 GM V-6 , for example, was faster, smoother, and got better mileage and its OHV configuration was a lot cheaper to manufacture. Hard to figure how Ford could develop a new motor that couldn’t match designs that had been around for decades and was more expensive to boot
-
45 minutes ago, akirby said:
All the people working on the new BEV pickup and Aviator/Explorer are a huge expense with zero revenue but none of those people or expenses are directly related to engineering or building Mach-E. They could cancel those projects and not affect Mach-E. But they’re obviously included in the financials and the loss per unit calculation. It’s entirely plausible that Mach-E and Lightning are making a small gross profit on each sale but that’s dwarfed by the costs for all the other vehicles that aren’t on sale yet.Another analogy would be a dealership selling new vehicles for $1000 over cost (gross profit) and after paying overhead and commissions they make a $5M net profit. Then they decide to spend $10M on a brand new showroom. Now they’re losing $5M, but the vehicles are still making $1000 gross profit on each sale.
There’s no doubt the new vehicles are incurring big costs but I don’t believe they would total $ 2 1/2 billion this year alone. Your analogy brings up another point. The cost of the new dealership would be capitalized, not expensed (probably over a 30 year period). This would leave a profit of $5 million less one year’s depreciation of $333,333. I’m not an accountant but I would imagine that a significant portion of the costs of the new vehicles will be capitalized over a several year period. If so, the losses look even worse since only a portion of the costs are being recognized this year.
-
On 10/15/2023 at 9:31 PM, akirby said:
Model E financials have nothing to do with whether Mach-E itself is turning a profit.Of course they do. Ford says the Model E division will lose $2.5 billion in 2023, after it lost a total of 3 billion combined in 2022 and 2023. Apparently Ford is saying most of the losses are in research and development. You can’t just ignore them. Without them MachE, Lightning, and the E Transit don’t exist. The costs have to be apportioned to those models.
-
14 minutes ago, akirby said:
Are you sure?Yep. If you have any doubts check out Ford’s Model E financials. By the way, I notice my local dealer group is offering rebates on all 12 of its Mach E’s in stock. $4250 to $9250.
-
1 hour ago, ExplorerDude said:
Dropping the Fusion and all of the sedans eliminated a money losing business. Everyone is happy that the replacement products that took sedans place which people are passionate about (Bronco, Ranger, Bronco Sport, Maverick, and Mustang Mach-E) are money makers.
Mach E is a huge money loser.
-
8 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:
Actually it's worse than that...California has the right to enforce its emission laws (which are directly related to MPG) above what EPA sets as a standard. So you're dealing with a state setting standards for the rest of the country, due to its population size
You’re 100% correct.
-
3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:
You actually expect Congress to do something!??!?!!!! HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA
CAFE was enacted by Congress almost 50 years ago in 1975
It’s a travesty that bureaucrats determine CAFE requirements. That absolutely should be done by elected officials. And so what if “they don’t do something”. So be it. To suggest otherwise is un-American.
-
2
-
OAC DOWN TIL 2027 MODEL YEAR
in E.V. Central
Posted
That would be great. Shouldn’t take a huge amount of design work for a C2 Edge given the new Nautilus and the Chinese Edge. Mainly a new top hat. And produce a C2 Fusion at Flat Rock rather than just continue to leave it idle.