rperez817

That may have been the case with the "Old GM", but in the past decade GM has emphasized profitability over volume. Among the big 3 U.S. automakers, GM's gross and EBITD margins have been consistently higher than Ford's, but Tesla has overtaken the other 2 in the past few years in terms of profitability. BEV sales continue to grow exponentially, not plateau. To Ford, hybrids may address certain regulatory compliance needs for the next couple years or so. Beyond that, they're a distraction. Ford must do everything possible to meet or exceed its internal goals of 600,000 BEV run rate next year and 2 million BEV run rate by 2026. Maybe introducing a BEV sedan to the U.S. market will facilitate that, maybe not.

Ford itself commented on the NHTSA proposal for 2027 - 2032 MY CAFE standards on Wednesday, saying "We see substantial risk of unprecedented civil penalties in the CAFE program". Of course Ford, like other legacy automakers, can avoid civil penalties altogether by accelerating the introduction of more BEV models throughout its product lineup. Ford says US fuel economy plan would cause automaker 'economic hardship' | Reuters

Fortunately neither Bill Ford nor Jim Farley are brushing off the exponential growth of BEV. Regardless of any political football, if Ford wants to be a player in the automotive industry of the future, it must be steadfast in its commitment transitioning to an all-electric vehicle lineup. Ford set an internal goal of year 2035 for that in "major markets", but with the growth rate for BEV nowadays (as Bill Ford mentioned), that date will probably be pushed closer to 2030 as new BEV focused facilities like Blue Oval City commence operations.

These 2 points from Bill Ford corroborate what Jim Farley said last year about the ongoing transition to BEV. Jim Farley could add the phrase "So much faster than the politicization of BEV" to that statement, and it would describe the current automotive market in the U.S. accurately.

Some Ford concept vehicles exhibited at past SEMA shows should be fairly easy to bring into production, like this Shelby Mustang Mach-E.

The "if done right" part is why Ford won't debut an ICE powered sedan in the U.S. The opportunity costs associated with doing it right are much too high.

A tiny sliver of that customer base consists of Ford "sheeple" customers who would pay top dollar just to have a sedan with the Blue Oval on it, but the vast majority are those who bought a new Ford sedan for the deal, not because the product was a sedan or a Ford. If such customers are worth keeping in the Ford "family", Ford can direct them to certified pre-owned cars at Ford dealerships, for example via the Blue Advantage program. Shop Ford Blue Advantage Certified Used Vehicles

Toyota recently sent a Hilux BEV Revo concept vehicle to Australia. Here is a review. We drive the Electric Toyota Hilux - and have questions...

For sure jpd80. Jim Hackett's design thinking was a major contributor to that "change in the way Ford develops vehicles", and why Bronco & Maverick as well as F-150 Lightning & Mustang Mach-E appeal to customers based on product merit rather than on massive sales incentives.

So much for union solidarity. ?

The correct answer was depicted in video your labor union released last week.

Regardless of the entrenched position one takes on the topic of "Ford getting rid of the Fusion may have been a mistake", the likelihood that Ford will introduce a new ICE powered sedan in the U.S. market is close to nil.

F-100 Eluminator

Because as fuzzymoomoo mentioned, extremely high CEO-to-worker pay ratios contribute to economic inequality and can undermine employee morale and productivity.

Hello wrench69, details on Ford's policies involving data collection and stewardship of that data can be found in the Privacy Policy site for the U.S. Ford® Privacy Policy | Ford.com If you are outside the U.S., choose the appropriate country at this link. Ford Connected Car Privacy Policy

Like usual, there is nothing to debate in this thread regarding independent contractors, your business, my business, or any other business beyond those involved in the aforementioned negotiations between UAW and the automakers with whom UAW are bargaining.

If Ford's action on October 11 was reasonable, KTP workers wouldn't be on strike today.

No and no. Labor relations for a corporation with employees represented by collective bargaining is entirely different from a general partnership with no employees using independent contractors.

My family's business doesn't have employees and is completely irrelevant to UAW-automaker negotiations anyway.

With the volatility in gasoline and diesel fuel pricing nowadays, it's a good time to revisit the recommendation that Bill Ford Junior made almost 15 years ago. Add Bill Ford to Chorus on Higher Gas Tax | Cars.com

Location is Kokomo, Indiana, about 60 miles north of Indianapolis. Stellantis Media - Stellantis, Samsung SDI Announce Kokomo, Indiana, as Site for Second US StarPlus Energy Gigafactory (stellantisnorthamerica.com) Highlights. Joint venture will invest more than $3.2 billion to co-locate new battery plant with gigafactory currently under construction Combined annual production capacity of Kokomo gigafactories to reach 67 gigawatt hours (GWh) Second StarPlus gigafactory production start planned for early 2027, creating 1,400 new jobs; first StarPlus gigafactory expected to start production in first quarter of 2025 New gigafactory is sixth battery facility globally to support Stellantis’ bold electrification plan outlined in Dare Forward 2030

That was the case about a decade ago following the introduction of Model S. But it too has become passe. The "aren't I grand!?" automobile type of choice nowadays is a high-end pickup truck (ICE powered or BEV) from Ford, GM, Stellantis, Toyota, Nissan, or Rivian. Tesla may have an opportunity to regain that status when Cybertruck deliveries commence en-masse.

In the case of ongoing negotiations between Ford and UAW, Ford's action yesterday of submitting the same offer to UAW as they did 2 weeks prior represents the "one side making unreasonable demands".

If it's forced, arbitration is both stupid and undermines fundamental rights.

Just because you are unable to understand the definition of extortion doesn't change the nature of the ongoing negotiations between UAW and employers, which are not only perfectly legal, but perfectly appropriate as well.