Jump to content

Ford to announce Wednesday two dedicated all-electric vehicle platforms, one for full-size trucks and SUVs, the other for cars and crossovers


Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, FordBuyer said:

Wow, Farley sure knows how to speak to investors. Ford stock hit $15 today. Impressive.

 

Yes sir FordBuyer. The impressive performance of Ford stock so far in 2021 is a direct result of Jim Hackett's fitness initiatives finally starting to bear fruit, combined with Jim Farley's strategy for Ford to go "all-in" with electric vehicles which is one pillar of the entire automotive industry's future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, akirby said:

People are still buying Teslas without the credit.  I don’t think it will affect sales.  It certainly wouldn’t cause a factory to unionize just to get a $2500 price advantage.


It wouldn't be a direct cause but it could certainly push a company like Tesla to be more open to the idea than they have been previously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Yes sir, those things should be top priorities for the U.S. federal government as well as state and local governments. Just as important, ZEV mandates need to be applied to all 50 states which will require federal government involvement. One reason that China is ahead of the U.S. right now with BEV adoption is that they have one national standard.

 

Well it's easy to make mandates and fund those mandates when you're a communist dictatorship. 

 

How does a ZEV mandate solve the problem of people who can't charge at home and who is more than 25 miles from a fast public charger?   You must solve the electrical infrastructure and public charging access issues first.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FordBuyer said:

Wow, Farley sure knows how to speak to investors. Ford stock hit $15 today. Impressive. Jim Cramer says Farley is going after Tesla big time. Looks that way. Ford Pro gives Ford a leg up over Tesla. Ford already owns 43% of the commercial market even before Lightning and electric Transit hit the market. 


Its amazing what a difference having a CEO that speaks concisely makes vs. one like Hackett who speaks in hyperbole and it's hard to make sense of despite their visions for the future not being that drastically different. 

Edited by fuzzymoomoo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sullynd said:

https://electrek.co/2021/05/27/electric-car-us-tax-credit-up-less-tesla-vehicles/?fbclid=IwAR1ESTccvrZI9TsZtivGRLwD9wiEjxBESEWMNX-s9rnr8pHLllj9B-O3Q_I
 

200,000 cap would go away and credit would phase out when BEV hits 50% of market. 
 

$7,500 credit

$10,000 if built in USA

$12,500 is built by UAW

 

Will be hard to get through senate. 
 

It will be hard to justify paying so much more for a Mach-E than a Model Y.

 

I don't understand this last comment?

 

1 hour ago, akirby said:


If we have to have them I’d prefer to see $7500, $10k if built in North America, $12.5K if built in US.   UAW should not matter.

 

They have to repay the UAW for their election funds/support.

 

4 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:


Its amazing what a difference having a CEO that speaks concisely makes vs. one like Hackett who speaks in hyperbole and it's hard to make sense of despite their visions for the future not being that drastically different. 

 

You mean having a guy that says "2+2=4" is easier to understand than a guy who says 1+(2x4)-(2^2)-1=4?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:


Its amazing what a difference having a CEO that speaks concisely makes vs. one like Hackett who speaks in hyperbole and it's hard to make sense of despite their visions for the future not being that drastically different. 

It's amazing what a difference having a CEO that knows the industry and knows what the hell he's doing versus one who can only talk in circles and fail to deliver results (unless poor results count).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Yes sir, those things should be top priorities for the U.S. federal government as well as state and local governments. Just as important, ZEV mandates need to be applied to all 50 states which will require federal government involvement. One reason that China is ahead of the U.S. right now with BEV adoption is that they have one national standard.


I doubt that has much to do with it at all. 
 

China is so much farther ahead because they focused on the infrastructure to accelerate accelerated BEV adoption. Meanwhile our legislators are arguing that free speech rights are infrastructure and all kinds of other stuff that have nothing to do with anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Harley Lover said:

It's amazing what a difference having a CEO that knows the industry and knows what the hell he's doing.

 

Among recent Ford CEOs, Alan Mulally, Jim Hackett, and Jim Farley all fit into that category. Mark Fields does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, akirby said:

How does a ZEV mandate solve the problem of people who can't charge at home and who is more than 25 miles from a fast public charger?   You must solve the electrical infrastructure and public charging access issues first.

 

The ZEV mandates act as incentives for governments and private industry alike to address BEV infrastructure related goals. They go hand in hand. It's no coincidence that the 10 U.S. states that follow CARB ZEV mandates are also the states with the most extensive BEV charging infrastructure currently.

 

Certainly, that infrastructure needs to be expanded across the country. If the U.S. federal government adopts the CARB ZEV mandates and applies them to the 40 states that don't yet follow them, automakers, utility companies, EVSE manufacturers, and state/local governments will step up their game. And then the U.S. can potentially beat China and EU when it comes to BEV deployment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, we're way off topic again.   Let's drop the regulation discussion and get back to Ford's 2 new dedicated platforms.   If you want to continue the ZEV mandate discussion start a new topic.   I don't think there is anything more to say that hasn't been said 20 times already.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can’t wait til the 2023 contract year when unifor and the uaw bargain at the same time. I wonder if the UAW will bitch at ford for investing in OAC and undermine EV investment here so the UAW will benefit. Since I see they want to implement all these UAW made provisions on EVs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Among recent Ford CEOs, Alan Mulally, Jim Hackett, and Jim Farley all fit into that category. Mark Fields does not.

Alan Mulally and Jim Farley are by far the most competent CEOs Ford has had in along time. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Oacjay98 said:

I can’t wait til the 2023 contract year when unifor and the uaw bargain at the same time. I wonder if the UAW will bitch at ford for investing in OAC and undermine EV investment here so the UAW will benefit. Since I see they want to implement all these UAW made provisions on EVs. 


Rumor is FRAP is supposed to get a sizable EV investment when NG Mustang eventually gets here.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:


Rumor is FRAP is supposed to get a sizable EV investment when NG Mustang eventually gets here.   

As they should!!! The facility is under-utilized and needs products. Farley seems to have a competent game plan so things should play out well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Oacjay98 said:

Alan Mulally and Jim Farley are by far the most competent CEOs Ford has had in along time. 

 

They both have vision and know how to present specifics on how to get there. Verdict is still out on execution for Farley, but so far looking good. And investors love both. Farley has become a rock star like Mulally was. Still remember Mulally at Detroit Auto Show ever year being interviewed with his with his infectious optimism for Ford. Farley being a hot shot racing driver doesn't hurt either. Hackett looked like a Sears Appliance salesman on a bad day. Never stirred the soul of buyers or investors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Hackett was a behind the scenes CEO, not good with selling the vision to Wall Street and investors but he did 

achieve a major reset of products in the right direction, setting Farley up for success. Farley can now advance

fords electrification plans and selling that to investors, all positive for raising awareness and investment.

 

Even before the Lightning begins production, Ford is already talking about its successor,

funny how Ford can go from not wanting to talk about future products to seeing why it’s important......

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, FordBuyer said:

 

They both have vision and know how to present specifics on how to get there. Verdict is still out on execution for Farley, but so far looking good. And investors love both. Farley has become a rock star like Mulally was. Still remember Mulally at Detroit Auto Show ever year being interviewed with his with his infectious optimism for Ford. Farley being a hot shot racing driver doesn't hurt either. Hackett looked like a Sears Appliance salesman on a bad day. Never stirred the soul of buyers or investors. 

Very well said, that about sums it up. Mulally wasn’t a car guy like Farley but changed the corporate culture at Fomoco and added some common sense when it lacked. Farley is a car guy through and through and I believe he will continue to perform well. Hackett was good and deserves some credit as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Jim Hackett was a behind the scenes CEO, not good with selling the vision to Wall Street and investors but he did 

achieve a major reset of products in the right direction, setting Farley up for success. Farley can now advance

fords electrification plans and selling that to investors, all positive for raising awareness and investment.

 

Even before the Lightning begins production, Ford is already talking about its successor,

funny how Ford can go from not wanting to talk about future products to seeing why it’s important......


there’s a line between too much too early and not enough.

 

Bronco was too much too early.

 

with Lightning already out, them basically saying “we’re working on an even better next gen model” is saying something but not much at the same time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, akirby said:


If we have to have them I’d prefer to see $7500, $10k if built in North America, $12.5K if built in US.   UAW should not matter.

I’d change the 12.5k to be built in US by US company (Ford, GM, Tesla, etc).  I’d also limit it to vehicles below the luxury car tax threshold.  I wouldn’t be upset if all the subsidies went away.  Lightning appears to make the case for competitive pricing before incentives on purchase.  BEVs already dodge the fuel taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slemke said:

I’d change the 12.5k to be built in US by US company (Ford, GM, Tesla, etc).  I’d also limit it to vehicles below the luxury car tax threshold.  I wouldn’t be upset if all the subsidies went away.  Lightning appears to make the case for competitive pricing before incentives on purchase. 


I don’t think you can limit it to specific companies but I do agree it should not apply to super expensive toys bought by rich people.

 

Don't forget you only get the benefit if you itemize and you pay more than that amount in taxes.  So a lot of folks aren’t even eligible.  I also don’t think it should be used to subsidize leases or at least not the full amount.

 

Id still rather see the money go to infrastructure and battery production.  That will help adoption more than anything.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, akirby said:


I don’t think you can limit it to specific companies but I do agree it should not apply to super expensive toys bought by rich people.

 

Don't forget you only get the benefit if you itemize and you pay more than that amount in taxes.  So a lot of folks aren’t even eligible.  I also don’t think it should be used to subsidize leases or at least not the full amount.

 

Id still rather see the money go to infrastructure and battery production.  That will help adoption more than anything.

 

Once they can bring down the cost of batteries significantly, then BEVs should be cheaper than ICE vehicles. But that is years away and thus subsidies. Most BEV buyers are high wage earners and can meet the federal subsidy requirements. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, rmc523 said:


there’s a line between too much too early and not enough.

 

Bronco was too much too early.

 

with Lightning already out, them basically saying “we’re working on an even better next gen model” is saying something but not much at the same time.

Jim Hackett had no idea how to inspire Wall Street an investors, Farley does.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...