Electric Vehicle Discussion Thread - Ford Related

[tbone]

I thought this was the electric vehicle discussion thread?  I hear enough about politics on a daily basis, so can’t we keep it about Ford and it’s competitor’s vehicles?   Something people can have in common, regardless of politics.  

[jpd80]

41 minutes ago, tbone said:

I thought this was the electric vehicle discussion thread?  I hear enough about politics on a daily basis, so can’t we keep it about Ford and it’s competitor’s vehicles?   Something people can have in common, regardless of politics.  

Done.

I had already edited my post and PM to Fuzzy

 

Until Ford can produce EVs in bulk, the current rates are at best a token response

to the huge number of orders already held. The fact that Ford still struggles to

align with Farley’s expectation is a disappointment for those ready and willing

to pay full sticker.

 

Picture:  Ford + dog + block of ice

Edited December 24, 2022 by jpd80

[akirby]

9 hours ago, jpd80 said:

 

Until Ford can produce EVs in bulk, the current rates are at best a token response

to the huge number of orders already held. The fact that Ford still struggles to

align with Farley’s expectation is a disappointment for those ready and willing

to pay full sticker.

In order for Ford to go “all in” on EV production they’d have to drastically cut the ICE programs which are the ones bringing in big profits to pay for all the new EVs.

 

It’s a zero sum game unless you have new cash coming in from investors or loans, neither of which are happening.

[Harley Lover]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

In order for Ford to go “all in” on EV production they’d have to drastically cut the ICE programs which are the ones bringing in big profits to pay for all the new EVs.

 

To your point, I think Ford have gone about as far "in" on EVs as they can under current economic conditions (and apparently what they expect for 2023). There might be one more battery plant announcement for Mexico, but I wonder if an internal decision has been made to hold off on further investments until the depth of the expected 2023 recession is known.

[Gurgeh]

On 12/23/2022 at 7:58 AM, Rick73 said:

 

I’m not surprised.  My personal opinion is that Tesla was making a ton of money selling expensive cars to high income buyers, and with essentially no BEV competition.  Now there is competition, and more affordable BEV options everywhere.  A struggling economy doesn’t help either.  In any case it doesn’t confirm that anyone is making huge profits on BEVs.  Longer term, it begs the question whether the industry will be more or less profitable when it’s nearly 100% BEV.

 

23 hours ago, akirby said:

Stock prices nowadays have little to do with company health or performance.

 

Stock prices during the Fed's decade-long zero-interest-rate policy became unhinged from historic valuations, like the many other asset bubbles blown up due to this misguided policy. So stocks generally went way pricier than the historical norm, and all sorts of aberrations developed, even while most stocks still went higher as their earnings improved and went lower when their earnings deteriorated. Tesla was a special case. It was, in a sense, one of the first meme stocks, with its market value blown up to more than all other automotive companies in the world combined, all because they were seen as the only viable EV auto manufacturer, and as we all know, EVs Are the Future! But three things have since happened. One, the stock asset bubble is busily bursting thanks to the Fed finally waking up to its mistake. Second, in part due to Fed gross mismanagement and belated move to more normal interest rates, the economy is slowing down possibly into a recession, a time when auto sales generally drop. Third, and perhaps most significant, other auto makers are now making viable and desirable EVs. To this point, it is not so much that Tesla sales will drop significantly or the company start losing money so badly its continued viability will be in question. It is more the question of what happens to Tesla's insane meme premium. Does it continue because, well, Tesla is so cool and performs even better than Game Stop (ha!)? Do other auto makers start getting some of the meme halo and their valuations spike up as more and more of their production moves toward EV? Or, as appears to be happening now, does Tesla's stock valuation finally come down to a level that is connected in at least some vague way to its current and projected earnings? Oh, and stewardship of Twitter is upsetting many of the biggest meme believers in Tesla, and that's probably not helping either.

 

But to Kirby's point, Tesla's stock could fall to Earth with Tesla investors suffering big financial losses, even while Tesla the company continues its march toward becoming a major global automaker with consistent profits.

[Flying68]

$TSLA is still trading at close to a 40x EPS multiple compared to ~20 for Toyota and ~10 for GM and Ford.  Much of their higher multiple had been predicated on their near monopoly in EV's and the promise of fully autonomous vehicles. As investors have not only seen increased competition and shrinking market share but also have come to realize that FSD will not ever be more than level 2 driver assistance for the foreseeable future, they have been driving the price down. Once the share price is around 25x EPS, it will be a buy.

 

Elmo's lack of focus on operating Tesla is not helping either. Tesla needs a full time CEO, not one running 2 other companies.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Flying68 said:

Elmo's lack of focus

 

Edited December 24, 2022 by akirby

[Rick73]

Due to cold weather, I received a request to reduce electricity power usage to help prevent rolling blackouts.  Suggestions included delaying washing of dishes and clothes which are on 120V — 20A circuits.  Basically each uses about 1 kWh or less per cycle since they operate for less than an hour.  Morning news reported other areas of country actually required rolling blackouts to prevent total failure, so not as lucky.  

 

I know BEVs are practical most of the time, but do buyers purchase based on average needs or worst-case conditions?  As example, if buying a truck, I would only consider the one that can pull my heaviest trailer, up steepest road I drive, and on a hot day.  Similarly, do buyers require a BEV that can function like ICE in worst-case weather?

 

Regarding bulk adoption of BEVs, I expect a significant percentage of population will hesitate buying prior to grid upgrades first so that blackout warnings are a distant memory.  Idea of selling BEVs now and upgrading grid later probably doesn’t resonate well while having to cut back on heat.

[rperez817]

35 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Due to cold weather, I received a request to reduce electricity power usage to help prevent rolling blackouts.  Suggestions included delaying washing of dishes and clothes which are on 120V — 20A circuits.  Basically each uses about 1 kWh or less per cycle since they operate for less than an hour.  Morning news reported other areas of country actually required rolling blackouts to prevent total failure, so not as lucky.  

 

I know BEVs are practical most of the time, but do buyers purchase based on average needs or worst-case conditions?  As example, if buying a truck, I would only consider the one that can pull my heaviest trailer, up steepest road I drive, and on a hot day.  Similarly, do buyers require a BEV that can function like ICE in worst-case weather?

 

Regarding bulk adoption of BEVs, I expect a significant percentage of population will hesitate buying prior to grid upgrades first so that blackout warnings are a distant memory.  Idea of selling BEVs now and upgrading grid later probably doesn’t resonate well while having to cut back on heat.

 

Ford just posted a good educational video a few days ago on optimizing BEV operation for cold weather conditions, focusing on pre-conditioning. My wife and I have used this feature on our Mustang Mach-E since we took delivery of the vehicle. We program it to correspond to Oncor's off-peak periods, and occasionally make adjustments if we get alerts on the Oncor app.

 

 

[rperez817]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

In order for Ford to go “all in” on EV production they’d have to drastically cut the ICE programs

 

That's the long-term strategy in the Ford + plan. The sooner Ford executes that strategy, the better.

[paintguy]

31 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

That's the long-term strategy in the Ford + plan. The sooner Ford executes that strategy, the better.

Market acceptance still not assured. Many people still not sold on BEVs. Many still skeptical of HEV or PHEV.  Coercion by government will have people looking for loopholes. 

[Rick73]

52 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Ford just posted a good educational video a few days ago on optimizing BEV operation for cold weather conditions, focusing on pre-conditioning. My wife and I have used this feature on our Mustang Mach-E since we took delivery of the vehicle. We program it to correspond to Oncor's off-peak periods, and occasionally make adjustments if we get alerts on the Oncor app.

 

 

 

Second reminder in Ford Media within last month or so suggests awareness of problem; or lack of education by buyers who may have purchased without full understanding.

 

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/12/21/ready-for-winter--ford-shares-important-tip-for-driving-your-ele.html

 

 

I have attached garage at home which is not heated but stays fairly warm, so preheating a BEV or keeping battery from getting too cold should not require any additional power during severe weather if limited to a few days; not that it gets that cold here anyway.  I could easily own one battery electric vehicle as long as our other primary vehicle is ICE.  However, individuals or families with a single vehicle that must be parked outside in cold weather will use power 24-hours a day even when not driving, far exceeding my washing dishes or clothes, or powering my furnace blower.  In my opinion a shortage of electricity that affects people’s ability to stay warm or function normally at home could lead to a clash over BEV ideology.  I’m referring to personal, not political mindset; the kind that could lead some people to take out their frustration on BEV owners even if they did not contribute to peak demand.

[mackinaw]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

I know BEVs are practical most of the time, but do buyers purchase based on average needs or worst-case conditions?  As example, if buying a truck, I would only consider the one that can pull my heaviest trailer, up steepest road I drive, and on a hot day.  Similarly, do buyers require a BEV that can function like ICE in worst-case weather?....

 

A good question, and one of the reasons I'm leery of BEV's.  We woke up this morning to 24" of snow.  It's 17 degrees out right now.  The power has stayed on (so far) but other parts of northern Michigan haven't been so lucky.  This is a bad winter storm, but nothing out of the ordinary for this part of the state.  I'd rather tackle a storm like this in a vehicle that I'm familiar with (ICE) that something new (BEV).  If i was buying a new F-150 today, it be ICE powered, not a Lightning.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, mackinaw said:

 

A good question, and one of the reasons I'm leery of BEV's.  We woke up this morning to 24" of snow.  It's 17 degrees out right now.  The power has stayed on (so far) but other parts of northern Michigan haven't been so lucky.  This is a bad winter storm, but nothing out of the ordinary for this part of the state.  I'd rather tackle a storm like this in a vehicle that I'm familiar with (ICE) that something new (BEV).  If i was buying a new F-150 today, it be ICE powered, not a Lightning.

 

I do not anticipate having to deal with your kind of weather/heating, but your post reminded me of a test Car and Driver ran over a year ago by driving a Tesla 3 in winter.  Long winter trips would be out of the question for me if driving a BEV.

 

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a31739529/how-much-does-climate-control-affect-ev-range/

 

 

There was also a test of how much total energy it takes to power a BEV in winter but I can’t find it.  The less you drive it, the more energy it takes per mile, so total “fuel” cost can exceed that of ICE in winter.

[jpd80]

7 hours ago, akirby said:

In order for Ford to go “all in” on EV production they’d have to drastically cut the ICE programs which are the ones bringing in big profits to pay for all the new EVs.

 

It’s a zero sum game unless you have new cash coming in from investors or loans, neither of which are happening.

I’m simply saying that Farley’s changes to double and then triple production of the currently produced BEVs have fallen on deaf ears due to the fact that suppliers have been unable to respond to increased delivery of key parts the way that Ford wants.

 

And it’s not a zero sum game, the whole idea of electrification is to bring in new buyers which is happening with Lightning, 70% of the 200,000 orders are from people buying their first F150…….that is the disappointment here, similarly with Mach E which Ford lucked into a pretty darned good Tesla Y competitor.

 

I also find it remarkable that a corporate like Ford switches $11 billion in funding away from its key ICE programs and then wonders why it has a string of quality issues……they did this to themselves. So now when Farley goes to fix these problems, he’s told oh no we’re locked into this situation for years…..not a good look.

 

The problem here is that Ford tried to self fund the whole electrification process by robbing from Peter to pay Paul. Such a dramatic shift in business should have come with a better transition plan, what the heck is Ford actually getting for it $11 billion, then $40 billion and now $50 billion?
 

That  sounds like an awful lot of cash being funnelled into plans that sound like Wow until you actually look at the infrastructure, all the joint ventures and how few types of vehicles that Ford is getting.for it $50 billion.

Edited December 24, 2022 by jpd80

[akirby]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

I’m simply saying that Farley’s changes to double and then triple production of the currently produced BEVs have fallen on deaf ears due to the fact that suppliers have been unable to respond to increased delivery of key parts the way that Ford wants.

 

And it’s not a zero sum game, the whole idea of electrification is to bring in new buyers which is happening with Lightning, 70% of the 200,000 orders are from people buying their first F150…….that is the disappointment here, similarly with Mach E which Ford lucked into a pretty darned good Tesla Y competitor.

 

I also find it remarkable that a corporate like Ford switches $11 billion in funding away from its key ICE programs and then wonders why it has a string of quality issues……they did this to themselves. So now when Farley goes to fix these problems, he’s told oh no we’re locked into this situation for years…..not a good look.

 

The problem here is that Ford tried to self fund the whole electrification process by robbing from Peter to pay Paul. Such a dramatic shift in business should have come with a better transition plan, what the heck is Ford actually getting for it $11 billion, then $40 billion and now $50 billion?
 

That  sounds like an awful lot of cash being funnelled into plans that sound like Wow until you actually look at the infrastructure, all the joint ventures and how few types of vehicles that Ford is getting.for it $50 billion.

The funding is zero sum.  Every $1 of BEV funding is $1 less in ICE funding.   Those investment figures were over multiple years and includes new factories and campuses and joint venture investment.

[jpd80]

50 minutes ago, akirby said:

The funding is zero sum.  Every $1 of BEV funding is $1 less in ICE funding.   Those investment figures were over multiple years and includes new factories and campuses and joint venture investment.

The funding doesn’t have to be zero sum,  as it’s not based on immediate cash available. Ford simply chooses its own level of spending and then works the narrative to suit. They’ve blown tens of billions over the years and this is just an example of all or nothing thinking.

[jpd80]

Happy Hollidays everyone 

[paintguy]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

The funding is zero sum.  Every $1 of BEV funding is $1 less in ICE funding.   Those investment figures were over multiple years and includes new factories and campuses and joint venture investment.

Beyond the investment dollars, the talent, Ford employees and vendor/supplier are finite as well. Observed this on several launches when Subject Matter Experts were split between programs. 14 hour days, 7 days a week gets old. 

[akirby]

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

The funding doesn’t have to be zero sum,  as it’s not based on immediate cash available. Ford simply chooses its own level of spending and then works the narrative to suit. They’ve blown tens of billions over the years and this is just an example of all or nothing thinking.

Corporate capital budgets are always finite.  You can’t move expense dollars to capital and you can’t just increase capital spending if you’re already maxed out.  Add to that other finite resources including people and it’s just not that simple to increase production on new models.

 

The VP I work for just retired.  Over his career he directly managed $54B of capital spending.  It’s far more complicated than people realize.

[paintguy]

5 hours ago, akirby said:

Corporate capital budgets are always finite.  You can’t move expense dollars to capital and you can’t just increase capital spending if you’re already maxed out.  Add to that other finite resources including people and it’s just not that simple to increase production on new models.

 

The VP I work for just retired.  Over his career he directly managed $54B of capital spending.  It’s far more complicated than people realize.

Can only imagine the number of proposals he reviewed, the number of program reviews he directed to get to a $54 B total. Spending can be easy. Getting the capital budget and spending effectively is something else.

[jpd80]

7 hours ago, akirby said:

Corporate capital budgets are always finite.  You can’t move expense dollars to capital and you can’t just increase capital spending if you’re already maxed out.  Add to that other finite resources including people and it’s just not that simple to increase production on new models.

 

The VP I work for just retired.  Over his career he directly managed $54B of capital spending.  It’s far more complicated than people realize.

I understand what you’re saying but I think the issue is more one of unreal expectations of Ford brass once they

realised the huge embrace of Lightning and Mach E So when Jim Farley was talking about doubling then tripling

Lightning production, he was pushing up against barriers of added cost but also capacity/ramp issues with suppliers (we can’t do that until much later than your ETA). All of this against Ford knowing what GM have in store with Ultium.

 

Merry Christmas and god bless, hope all your families in North America are safe for the holidays,

(I see the weather impacting much of America and pray you get to your destinations)

Edited December 25, 2022 by jpd80

[twintornados]

7 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I see the weather impacting much of America and pray you get to your destinations

 

Ahh, it's just a little cold.

 

[akirby]

10 hours ago, paintguy said:

Can only imagine the number of proposals he reviewed, the number of program reviews he directed to get to a $54 B total. Spending can be easy. Getting the capital budget and spending effectively is something else.

He was usually given the yearly budget based on what the business wanted to do as far as expanding locations or upgrading services and equipment.  The tricky part was absorbing unexpected changes and still trying to “land the plane” each year- hitting your budget target.  It gets tricky because there isn’t a bucket of money available at the beginning of the year - it comes from revenue each month so you have to match spending to the revenue stream and not spending enough is almost as bad as overspending.  Supply chain delays really threw a curve to the capital planners the last 2 years.

[akirby]

8 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I understand what you’re saying but I think the issue is more one of unreal expectations of Ford brass once they

realised the huge embrace of Lightning and Mach E So when Jim Farley was talking about doubling then tripling

Lightning production, he was pushing up against barriers of added cost but also capacity/ramp issues with suppliers (we can’t do that until much later than your ETA). All of this against Ford knowing what GM have in store with Ultium.

Of course the execs want to increase production as much as possible when they have a hit like Lightning.  But we don’t know what cuts Ford would have had to make to other programs to have gone all in on blue oval city sooner or increase capacity for Lightning on day one.  So it’s hard to say they made a bad decision by being too conservative.  GM going all in on Ultium sure hasn’t paid off yet so we’ll have to see what kind of advantage it gives them the next 2 years.