Ford pushes back EV target, warns of wider losses due to slower-than-expected adoption

[ice-capades]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Was he talking about Europe?

 

I didn't think so although I could be mistaken.

[ice-capades]

On 8/8/2023 at 8:42 AM, rperez817 said:

Thank you GearheadGrrrl. Maybe fleet dumping of vans and other commercial vehicles was less prevalent in Europe than in the U.S. market, pre-pandemic? Nowadays, the Ford Pro business unit globally has moved away from dumping vehicles to the low bidder in any case. Rather than focusing mostly on sales quantity, Ford Pro is taking a firmer stance on vehicle pricing, particularly for BEV vans (E-Transit and Transit Custom Electric). Also, Ford Pro is selling high profit services and software along with vehicles to the giant companies and governments that comprise many of Ford's fleet customers in Europe and U.S.

 

I'm always amused when I see references to Ford "Fleet Dumping" vehicles which has never been the case from my experience. Ford has a very strong, longstanding market position in fleet sales and provides fleet incentives to maintain that position. It's fleet market sales and competitive pricing serve to reinforce Ford's long established market position in fleet sales. Fleet purchase agents can write specific vehicle specification requirements, but those specifications often support additional Ford sales, especially when the existing fleet inventory is Ford based.

 

The Ford Pro subscription services are a different subject and can only increase Ford's leadership position by offering services that increase and/or improve fleet management operations and efficiency.  

[bzcat]

5 hours ago, ice-capades said:

 

Ford has offered a Transit Wagon ever since the Transit series was introduced in the North American market for the 2015 Model Year.  

 

Transit passenger vans in North America are also aimed at fleet customers. The last time Ford seriously tried to market a van for retail customer in North America was the 1992 E-150 Club Wagon. It was discontinued only after a year or two because no retail customers were that interested in a van. 

 

The Tourneo version of the vans in Europe likewise is mainly targeting commercial buyers (airport shuttles, VIP shuttles, "minicab" taxi etc). The smaller Tourneo Connect and Tourneo Courier does have some non-commercial sales in Europe but that's mainly because the regular small vans/tall wagons like B-Max and C-Max have completely disappeared from the market, so what little of the demand left is pushed towards the Tourneo passenger vans. 

 

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by bzcat

[Rick73]

5 hours ago, rperez817 said:

If Ford's plan to expand hybrid offerings is for short-term regulatory compliance (which is the only good reason for it), then excluding plug-in hybrids makes sense. As I mentioned in one of the Mustang Mach-E discussion threads, the current crop of PHEV including all of Ford's offerings suffer from the fundamental design flaw of being ICE-dominant, thereby resulting in much lower utilization of electric propulsion in the real world compared to what regulators originally assumed. Regulatory agencies around the world are already clamping down on this, for example, within a couple years, motor vehicle emissions regulations in the EU for PHEV will incorporate real-world measured fuel consumption data, and finance regulations in that region will ban automakers from labelling PHEV as "sustainable investments".

Regulatory compliance is not the only good reason for hybrids.  In the “real world” fuel-efficient hybrids are as effective or more so than larger BEVs, so Ford hybrids could be very good for the environment for many years to come.  And because hybrids are cheaper for now and could have greater initial market adoption, net CO2 benefit can be better.  Obviously, much will depend on specifics of HEVs Farley is planning on.

 

I agree with you that PHEV can be a middle ground that have limited benefits depending on user charging practices.  I am personally not interested in PHEV at all except if serving as a travel/camping van, and only if it had integrated electrical system.  For normal driving I’d go BEV or HEV.

 

From a technical standpoint, I’m not sure I agree that extended range hybrid (EREV) would be all that competitive in real-world use.  BMW tried it and it didn’t work out that well before it was discontinued, and Ford had Transit Custom (albeit with smaller battery) which was recently replaced with more traditional PHEV.  It’s possible a different (new) EREV powertrain arrangement could perform more efficiently, but the ones tried thus far that I’m aware of haven’t been that successful.  I honestly hope Ford does hybrids right over next 5 ~10 years or longer.

[rmc523]

4 hours ago, ice-capades said:

 

I'm always amused when I see references to Ford "Fleet Dumping" vehicles which has never been the case from my experience. Ford has a very strong, longstanding market position in fleet sales and provides fleet incentives to maintain that position. It's fleet market sales and competitive pricing serve to reinforce Ford's long established market position in fleet sales. Fleet purchase agents can write specific vehicle specification requirements, but those specifications often support additional Ford sales, especially when the existing fleet inventory is Ford based.

 

The Ford Pro subscription services are a different subject and can only increase Ford's leadership position by offering services that increase and/or improve fleet management operations and efficiency.  

 

For some reason the thought seems to stick around that fleets = POS cheap profitless rentals, which isn't the case.

[jpd80]

6 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

For some reason the thought seems to stick around that fleets = POS cheap profitless rentals, which isn't the case.

Precisely.

The good fleet sales that’s being referred is a big chunk of those Super Duty trucks produced, they are absolute cash cows. The added benefit is that most fleets tend to order their trucks in winter months when retail sales are much lower, so that helps to maintain constant production levels.

[GearheadGrrrl]

Was looking at bids my state is getting for vans and 1 ton chassis cabs, and at the moment Ford isn't giving anything away- The most basic Transit was quoted at around $39K while no GM or Stelantis dealer quoted a price. For chassis cabs Ford dealers are quoting a F350 XL standard cab 2WD at around $38K while a Chevy dealer is trying to buy volume offering the same basic configuration but with DRW for around $30K, and Stelantis dealers didn't quote. So for now Ford is able to sell most of their trucks at profitable prices.

 

But pre-COVID the going price for a basic Transit or F150 XL standard cab 2WD was about $20K, if the market goes back there it'll make Fiestas look profitable...

[rperez817]

2 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Was looking at bids my state is getting for vans and 1 ton chassis cabs, and at the moment Ford isn't giving anything away- The most basic Transit was quoted at around $39K while no GM or Stelantis dealer quoted a price. For chassis cabs Ford dealers are quoting a F350 XL standard cab 2WD at around $38K while a Chevy dealer is trying to buy volume offering the same basic configuration but with DRW for around $30K, and Stelantis dealers didn't quote. So for now Ford is able to sell most of their trucks at profitable prices.

 

But pre-COVID the going price for a basic Transit or F150 XL standard cab 2WD was about $20K, if the market goes back there it'll make Fiestas look profitable...

 

Thanks for the information GearheadGrrrl. I've seen similar trends pre and post COVID with fleet vehicles (passenger cars & light trucks/vans) acquired by the U.S. federal government via GSA. One of the GSA employees I used to work with told me that automakers will be able to command top prices for fleet vehicles for some time to come. 

[akirby]

4 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

For some reason the thought seems to stick around that fleets = POS cheap profitless rentals, which isn't the case.

 

Only one particular member…..

[rperez817]

16 hours ago, rmc523 said:

For some reason the thought seems to stick around that fleets = POS cheap profitless rentals, which isn't the case.

 

Since the March 2020 collapse in fleet sales, supply-demand dynamics in the U.S. automotive market have enabled automakers to command premium pricing for fleet vehicles and especially with add-on services and software, as Ford is doing nowadays with its Pro business unit. 

 

In 2019, vehicles sold via fleet channels comprised 22% of all sales according to Cox Automotive. In the first half of 2023, that figure was closer to 16%. Even as fleet sales recover, they won't return to the "cheap, profitless" dumping model for automakers anytime soon, if ever.

 

MONTHLY YEAR-OVER-YEAR CHANGE / FLEET VERSUS RETAIL

Edited August 10, 2023 by rperez817

[akirby]

Fleet dumping was only for rental cars not commercial fleet sales.

[rmc523]

15 hours ago, akirby said:

 

Only one particular member…..

 

I know....

[Deanh]

14 hours ago, akirby said:

Fleet dumping was only for rental cars not commercial fleet sales.

and those days are gone burger, and have been for quite some time...our Enterprize, Wheels Inc, GE, ARI etc, and like companies that catered to large Fleet accts have become but a trickle of what they were at their peak...it may be to do with the Death of the Fusion along with less supply....plus the MSRPs of vehicles have inflated so much that cars arent replaced in major fleets as often as they used to be...

[akirby]

4 minutes ago, Deanh said:

and those days are gone burger, and have been for quite some time...our Enterprize, Wheels Inc, GE, ARI etc, and like companies that catered to large Fleet accts have become but a trickle of what they were at their peak...it may be to do with the Death of the Fusion along with less supply....plus the MSRPs of vehicles have inflated so much that cars arent replaced in major fleets as often as they used to be...

The last true fleet Queen was the pre D3 Taurus built in Atlanta.  And I think Mulally axed it when he asked why an entire factory was only producing Pennies  on the dollar.

[tbone]

Man forced to ditch $115K Ford EV truck during family road trip to Chicago: ‘biggest scam of modern times”
 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/man-forced-ditch-115k-ford-ev-truck-family-road-trip-chicago-biggest-scam-modern-times.amp

 

Stories like this aren’t helpful to Ford’s EV targets.  Now, I think there is a lot of hyperbole in this story, because I feel like this guy should have known the limitations of the EV, but it does emphasize the challenges of distance driving and the necessity of planning out your charging.  I’m also not sure why they didn’t specify this was purchased in Canadian Dollars.  
 

It’s pretty clear to me how important range is in driving the sales of EVs as well.  

[Rick73]

8 hours ago, tbone said:

Man forced to ditch $115K Ford EV truck during family road trip to Chicago: ‘biggest scam of modern times”
 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/man-forced-ditch-115k-ford-ev-truck-family-road-trip-chicago-biggest-scam-modern-times.amp

 

Stories like this aren’t helpful to Ford’s EV targets.  Now, I think there is a lot of hyperbole in this story, because I feel like this guy should have known the limitations of the EV, but it does emphasize the challenges of distance driving and the necessity of planning out your charging.  I’m also not sure why they didn’t specify this was purchased in Canadian Dollars.  
 

It’s pretty clear to me how important range is in driving the sales of EVs as well.  

It’s hilarious how people who don’t do much research themselves before buying are the most vocal in telling others to research before buying.

 

When testing a Lightning at steady 75 MPH, since that is what many drivers actually do on Interstates on long trips, Car and Driver found range dropped from 300 to 230 miles.  When charging repeatedly during the day, it’s fastest overall to limit to about 70% of capacity, so now actual range between stops is 160 miles.  Obviously, if weather is cold or unusually hot, there’s a significant decrease from that.  I don’t have to do much more research than that to know that if I took my wife on a road trip where we had to stop to charge every two hours, I would finish trip on my own.  And obviously, if that trip included towing a boat or trailer to a distant destination, keeping up with Interstate speeds would be out of the question because it would obliterate highway driving range.

 

Lighting can do many things very well, but other things we take for granted from an ICE F-150 it doesn’t do well at all.  Towing a small camper from Texas to Yellowstone and back is something I wouldn’t attempt.  I don’t have to research it, or see a couple of goofy YouTube videos on how it’s possible to know that’s not for me.

 

BEV proponents will quickly add that deal with Tesla for Supercharging access will solve many of that man’s problems, and it will.  However, it will still not make Lightning as practical for towing large trailers as the ICE F-150.  By the way, who buys a $100,000+ truck and then worries about a few extra dollars for charging on a trip you may do once a year?  Seriously?  To me that shows the guy is dumb, or else the whole thing was manipulated by FOX to make BEVs look unusually bad.

[silvrsvt]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 By the way, who buys a $100,000+ truck and then worries about a few extra dollars for charging on a trip you may do once a year?  Seriously?  To me that shows the guy is dumb, or else the whole thing was manipulated by FOX to make BEVs look unusually bad.

 

That is par for the course-I see an uptick in anti EV articles by normally right leaning media groups-it pushes buttons of a minority group of people who don't like change and think the big bad government is going to control their lives even more.

 

Unfortunately everything being reported is just being done that way because they can make money off it in advertising dollars. Its not about the news...its about how much money they can extract from their members...and that goes for any group. 

[Rangers09]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

It’s hilarious how people who don’t do much research themselves before buying are the most vocal in telling others to research before buying.

 

When testing a Lightning at steady 75 MPH, since that is what many drivers actually do on Interstates on long trips, Car and Driver found range dropped from 300 to 230 miles.  When charging repeatedly during the day, it’s fastest overall to limit to about 70% of capacity, so now actual range between stops is 160 miles.  Obviously, if weather is cold or unusually hot, there’s a significant decrease from that.  I don’t have to do much more research than that to know that if I took my wife on a road trip where we had to stop to charge every two hours, I would finish trip on my own.  And obviously, if that trip included towing a boat or trailer to a distant destination, keeping up with Interstate speeds would be out of the question because it would obliterate highway driving range.

 

Lighting can do many things very well, but other things we take for granted from an ICE F-150 it doesn’t do well at all.  Towing a small camper from Texas to Yellowstone and back is something I wouldn’t attempt.  I don’t have to research it, or see a couple of goofy YouTube videos on how it’s possible to know that’s not for me.

 

BEV proponents will quickly add that deal with Tesla for Supercharging access will solve many of that man’s problems, and it will.  However, it will still not make Lightning as practical for towing large trailers as the ICE F-150.  By the way, who buys a $100,000+ truck and then worries about a few extra dollars for charging on a trip you may do once a year?  Seriously?  To me that shows the guy is dumb, or else the whole thing was manipulated by FOX to make BEVs look unusually bad.

 

The news article in our media was a little different than the Fox article. Fox elected not to convert the truck purchase price from CAN $ to US $, but did convert the cost of installing chargers, which was quoted as being CAN $16,000. 

 

Prior to departing home, he stated he had a route planned using Level 3 fast chargers. The first one worked, but the next stop provided an error message. They then moved to another fast charger, which also didn't work. Of course, the owners of the chargers report no issues, so who knows the real story. With no range remaining in the battery to the next fast charger, they had the vehicle towed to Ford and hired a car to complete the trip. Our article did not advise of any charging issues with the vehicle, which he picked up on the return home.

 

The article mentioned they did about 220 miles to the first planned charging station, so he had clearly accounted for the realistic range attainable, rather than the theoretical published range of 300+ miles.

[Rick73]

6 minutes ago, Rangers09 said:

 

The news article in our media was a little different than the Fox article. Fox elected not to convert the truck purchase price from CAN $ to US $, but did convert the cost of installing chargers, which was quoted as being CAN $16,000. 

 

Prior to departing home, he stated he had a route planned using Level 3 fast chargers. The first one worked, but the next stop provided an error message. They then moved to another fast charger, which also didn't work. Of course, the owners of the chargers report no issues, so who knows the real story. With no range remaining in the battery to the next fast charger, they had the vehicle towed to Ford and hired a car to complete the trip. Our article did not advise of any charging issues with the vehicle, which he picked up on the return home.

 

The article mentioned they did about 220 miles to the first planned charging station, so he had clearly accounted for the realistic range attainable, rather than the theoretical published range of 300+ miles.

Yes that range makes sense for first stop because he presumably left home at 100% state of charge.  For subsequent charging on the road, 10~80% appears typical limit of what most owners do when in a hurry, and that assumes being comfortable with getting down to 10%.  I wouldn’t be.

 

Anyway, non-Tesla chargers that do not work correctly has been a reported issue for years that doesn’t even require research.  I’ve read dozens of horror stories caused by chargers that didn’t work.  The move by Ford and others to join Tesla Supercharging “should” resolve most of these charging issues.  I certainly hope that opening Tesla charging to others doesn’t end up making their system less desirable for everyone, including Tesla owners.  Hopefully it will make Tesla charging even better by increasing number of locations and chargers.

[Rangers09]

9 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Yes that range makes sense for first stop because he presumably left home at 100% state of charge.  For subsequent charging on the road, 10~80% appears typical limit of what most owners do when in a hurry, and that assumes being comfortable with getting down to 10%.  I wouldn’t be.

 

Anyway, non-Tesla chargers that do not work correctly has been a reported issue for years that doesn’t even require research.  I’ve read dozens of horror stories caused by chargers that didn’t work.  The move by Ford and others to join Tesla Supercharging “should” resolve most of these charging issues.  I certainly hope that opening Tesla charging to others doesn’t end up making their system less desirable for everyone, including Tesla owners.  Hopefully it will make Tesla charging even better by increasing number of locations and chargers.

 

Affirmative, he reported departing home with 100% charge and reaching the first charger after 220 miles, with 10% remaining. He stated he charged to 90%, then went about a further 200 miles to the next charger, so it appears he again considered the reduced range from only being charged to 90%.

[Rangers09]

43 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

That is par for the course-I see an uptick in anti EV articles by normally right leaning media groups-it pushes buttons of a minority group of people who don't like change and think the big bad government is going to control their lives even more.

 

Unfortunately everything being reported is just being done that way because they can make money off it in advertising dollars. Its not about the news...its about how much money they can extract from their members...and that goes for any group. 

 

Well our media is most certainly not right-leaning and they also carried the story.

 

Business owner purchased a BEV pick-up truck for multiple uses, both around town and longer trips. Plans a longer  business/pleasure trip in his BEV and plans the route around fast chargers, addressing the limited range . The trip was possible to achieve, but at much higher risk than an ICE vehicle, due to limited number of fast chargers. Since this was partially a business trip, I'll suggest regular chargers were not an option, as he had to arrive on time for a meeting.

 

No matter how you spin the issue, this is a fact restricting the current use of BEV's for longer trips. Until the charging network is further developed and range is increased these type of trip are high risk, especially if operating on a schedule.

 

The electric is exceptional for short trips around town, but once we leave on a road trip, the ICE back-up in the PHEV is the perfect risk mitigation.

[jasonj80]

7 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

 Hopefully it will make Tesla charging even better by increasing number of locations and chargers.

The biggest problem Tesla and others are running into installing chargers is the condition of the electric grid in those locations. 

In Detroit Metropolitan area over 300 locations want to install fast chargers and have applications pending at the utility companies (DTE & Consumers).  Currently only 24 of those locations are on grids strong enough to support the demand for 20 fast chargers.  50% of them are on grids that require "substantial upgrades" to allow for fast chargers.

 It is also why Malls are being focused on for the charging network, close to major corridors and most have excess power as HVAC and lighting systems are far more efficient than when they were built in the 70's/80's so they have excess in the grid and service locations to support 30 or 50 rapid chargers. 

[silvrsvt]

17 minutes ago, Rangers09 said:

Well our media is most certainly not right-leaning and they also carried the story.

 

In all seriousness, why make a big deal out of a single persons' story that it comes to the international level, if it doesn't make people look at it? There are plenty of stories out there dealing with other things, but anything EV related draws a moth to a fire. 

 

News isn't being reported in a vacuum. 

[AM222]

On 8/9/2023 at 7:55 PM, silvrsvt said:

 

But your equating numbers of units sold with being profitable-just take a look at pre 2009 GM as why that didn't work out so well for them. 

 

Using Stellanis as a baseline-most of their profit comes from the US, not the EU. 

 

 

That's the thing, other manufacturers still made a profit while not abandoning the hot small car/SUV segments that car buyers prefer in Europe and Asia. Good thing if they top commercial vehicle sales. If you live on those cities, you probably wouldn't want to drive in a big van or truck not unless you run some business.

The BEV range of Stellantis contributed to their profits in Europe. 

[silvrsvt]

4 minutes ago, AM222 said:

That's the thing, other manufacturers still made a profit while not abandoning the hot small car/SUV segments that car buyers prefer in Europe and Asia. Good thing if they top commercial vehicle sales. If you live on those cities, you probably wouldn't want to drive in a big van or truck not unless you run some business.

The BEV range of Stellantis contributed to their profits in Europe. 

 

Citation for your info?