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

[Rick73]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

Sometimes the market changes out of their control but I think that’s rare.

Agree, companies like Ford can’t control change like inflation or higher interest rates, but does that mean they can’t anticipate some of these changes?  More directly to BEVs, should Ford have anticipated that F-150 Lightning would disappoint in real-world towing, and thus set realistic expectations from onset?  To me a stunt featuring a Lightning pulling a train was counterproductive by suggesting how powerful it was for towing, when in reality it can’t tow a camper 100 miles, which is actually far more important.  I know marketing hype when I see it, but apparently some buyers felt deceived.  That kind of market change can be controlled IMO.  Overpromising and or underdelivering can have longer-term consequences.

 

 

[Sherminator98]

4 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Agree, companies like Ford can’t control change like inflation or higher interest rates, but does that mean they can’t anticipate some of these changes?  More directly to BEVs, should Ford have anticipated that F-150 Lightning would disappoint in real-world towing, and thus set realistic expectations from onset?  To me a stunt featuring a Lightning pulling a train was counterproductive by suggesting how powerful it was for towing, when in reality it can’t tow a camper 100 miles, which is actually far more important.  I know marketing hype when I see it, but apparently some buyers felt deceived.  That kind of market change can be controlled IMO.  Overpromising and or underdelivering can have longer-term consequences.

 

It boils down to marketing the product different then your existing product. 

 

Don't conflate power with range either. 

[rperez817]

5 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Overpromising and or underdelivering can have longer-term consequences.

 

With F-150 Lightning, Ford is an in interesting situation. It overdelivered in terms of product excellence, but underdelivered (literally) in terms of getting the product to customers in a timely manner.

[akirby]

15 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Agree, companies like Ford can’t control change like inflation or higher interest rates, but does that mean they can’t anticipate some of these changes?  More directly to BEVs, should Ford have anticipated that F-150 Lightning would disappoint in real-world towing, and thus set realistic expectations from onset?  To me a stunt featuring a Lightning pulling a train was counterproductive by suggesting how powerful it was for towing, when in reality it can’t tow a camper 100 miles, which is actually far more important.  I know marketing hype when I see it, but apparently some buyers felt deceived.  That kind of market change can be controlled IMO.  Overpromising and or underdelivering can have longer-term consequences.

As already stated it was to prove an EV can do truck stuff.  Range is a far more complicated issue depending on what you are towing/hauling.  I don’t think most buyers were disappointed at all I think they’re just frustrated by the slow rollout.

[Rick73]

8 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

With F-150 Lightning, Ford is an in interesting situation. It overdelivered in terms of product excellence, but underdelivered (literally) in terms of getting the product to customers in a timely manner.

You know that’s not what i was referring to.  I mean buyers who were early adopters and placed orders before trucks were tested under real conditions, and later found that it wasn’t practical to tow a 4,000-pound horse trailer or camper even though tow rating was much higher.

 

The average buyer is not very technical and can’t see that pulling a train has very little to do with pulling a camper on the weekend to the lake and back.  I believe a significant percentage of early buyers wanted to be first to draw attention to themselves (it’s the world we live in today) but once towing results were not as “awesome” as they could post or brag about, desirability moderated.  Not suggesting there is not demand still, just not as high as probably projected before limitations were better known.  

[Rick73]

34 minutes ago, akirby said:

As already stated it was to prove an EV can do truck stuff.  Range is a far more complicated issue depending on what you are towing/hauling.  I don’t think most buyers were disappointed at all I think they’re just frustrated by the slow rollout.

On this I disagree.  The very first towing tests were with Tesla SUV and Rivian pickups, and it took a while for “average” people to realize that trailer aerodynamic drag was far more important a factor in determining range than trailer weight.  For me it was like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

 

Lightning towing expectations were even higher IMO because of F-150 reputation, but towing range wasn’t much better — still very limited.  I understand many Lightning buyers won’t tow much or often anyway, but IMO any change in perception changes opinions and image in a broader sense.  Once negatives are exposed, it’s not quite as cool to own one. 

[ice-capades]

52 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

IMO they hybrid thing is already set into motion a while back and it is the press running with it. The only major platform without a hybrid setup is the Ranger/Bronco at the moment and I'd expect that by 2025. The vast majority of Ford's EV plans are post 2025 and technically we can see 2025MY next Spring/Summer. I can see the BS getting a hybrid from the Escape/Maverick when it gets it refresh. 

 

What Ford is putting out to the press is to increase stock value.

 

The problem is that Ford can offer hybrid powertrains but can't produce them in volume due to the supply chain issues. They've had substantial demand for the Maverick hybrid but can't meet that demand. So, what Ford does is make the hybrid an optional powertrain and increase the price $1,500.

 

Ford can release their monthly sales reports showing increased sales, but those numbers are compared to 2002 sales results that were impacted by the pandemic, supply chain issues, commodity and plant constraints, etc. 

 

Ford's marketing staff issues press releases including current product updates, teases future product plans, patent filings, updated and/or revised vehicle subscription services, etc. on a daily basis which help increase Ford's media exposure. However, with 4 billion common shares outstanding, there's really very little that will increase the stock price substantially other than sales results. Ford has a history of making frequent changes to its future product plans, vehicle plant assignments and more, making this transition to BEV vehicle production that much more complex and expensive.

 

Ford, GM and Stellantis know far more about their future product and plant plans than they've revealed which is part of their usual positioning for negotiations with the UAW. This year's negotiations are complicated by the new UAW structure and accountability to members, new battery related facilities being built, the reduced labor required for BEV vehicle production and the long-term transition to BEV production, etc. A lot will be better understood when a new agreement is reached with the UAW, strike or not.   

 

 

[Sherminator98]

13 minutes ago, ice-capades said:

Ford's marketing staff issues press releases including current product updates, teases future product plans, patent filings, updated and/or revised vehicle subscription services, etc. on a daily basis which help increase Ford's media exposure. However, with 4 billion common shares outstanding, there's really very little that will increase the stock price substantially other than sales results. Ford has a history of making frequent changes to its future product plans, vehicle plant assignments and more, making this transition to BEV vehicle production that much more complex and expensive.   

 

It might not go up that much, but playing the numbers game, GM and Ford stock took it in the shorts market cap wise with the UAW rumblings. I know a few weeks back I was actually ahead finally with my Ford stock i've been buying over the past 10 years, but now I'm in a loss with it (not much)

[rperez817]

50 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

You know that’s not what i was referring to.

 

You stated, "I know marketing hype when I see it, but apparently some buyers felt deceived". There was no hype from Ford involving F-150 Lightning's capabilities as a pickup truck. Motor Trend said the following when they first tested F-150 Lightning.

 

This truck has to convince construction workers, farmers, ranchers, surveyors, and everyday truck fans that electric pickups aren't just viable but desirable. That an EV truck not only can do the work but also do it better. It does that.

 

I do agree with you that some buyers felt deceived, specifically, those buyers who had to either wait an inordinate amount of time to get their truck, or simply didn't have an opportunity to get one in the first place because Ford closed the order bank early. Ford has addressed some of the root causes from a production planning standpoint, and its marketing e-mails are more forthright about product availbility nowadays. I got this e-mail a week ago from Ford.

[Deanh]

23 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

You stated, "I know marketing hype when I see it, but apparently some buyers felt deceived". There was no hype from Ford involving F-150 Lightning's capabilities as a pickup truck. Motor Trend said the following when they first tested F-150 Lightning.

 

 

 

 

I do agree with you that some buyers felt deceived, specifically, those buyers who had to either wait an inordinate amount of time to get their truck, or simply didn't have an opportunity to get one in the first place because Ford closed the order bank early. Ford has addressed some of the root causes from a production planning standpoint, and its marketing e-mails are more forthright about product availbility nowadays. I got this e-mail a week ago from Ford.

they also basically didnt make the very model that clientel was interested in..the PRO......Ford bought into their OWN hype and basically only produced the "bling" models...ego got carried away amidst all the errant hype....

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

You know that’s not what i was referring to.  I mean buyers who were early adopters and placed orders before trucks were tested under real conditions, and later found that it wasn’t practical to tow a 4,000-pound horse trailer or camper even though tow rating was much higher.

 

The average buyer is not very technical and can’t see that pulling a train has very little to do with pulling a camper on the weekend to the lake and back.  I believe a significant percentage of early buyers wanted to be first to draw attention to themselves (it’s the world we live in today) but once towing results were not as “awesome” as they could post or brag about, desirability moderated.  Not suggesting there is not demand still, just not as high as probably projected before limitations were better known.  

 

 

49 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

On this I disagree.  The very first towing tests were with Tesla SUV and Rivian pickups, and it took a while for “average” people to realize that trailer aerodynamic drag was far more important a factor in determining range than trailer weight.  For me it was like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

 

Lightning towing expectations were even higher IMO because of F-150 reputation, but towing range wasn’t much better — still very limited.  I understand many Lightning buyers won’t tow much or often anyway, but IMO any change in perception changes opinions and image in a broader sense.  Once negatives are exposed, it’s not quite as cool to own one. 

 

You guys are making the (most likely incorrect) assumption that a large number of Lightning buyers want to actually tow a heavy load a far distance.  I don’t think that’s even true for the ICE F150.

[akirby]

28 minutes ago, akirby said:

You guys are making the (most likely incorrect) assumption that a large number of Lightning buyers want to actually tow a heavy load a far distance.  I don’t think that’s even true for the ICE F150.

To back this up, I looked at 25 reviews at cars.com and edmunds.com.  All were 5 stars except 2 or 3 were 4 and nobody complained about range while towing.

 

I also browsed through  f150lightningforum.com and found almost no complaints.

 

Here is one article citing a recent Ford survey.

 

https://www.f150lightningforum.com/forum/threads/ford-survey-results-lightning-owners-use-their-trucks-differently-even-more-truck-stuff-than-ice-owners.14795/

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, Deanh said:

You stated, "I know marketing hype when I see it, but apparently some buyers felt deceived". There was no hype from Ford involving F-150 Lightning's capabilities as a pickup truck. Motor Trend said the following when they first tested F-150 Lightning.

An F-150 Lightning towing a “million-pound” train (if I recall weight correctly) was a marketing stunt that was humorous, but hardly significant due to limitations of physics, hence why I refer to it as hype.

 

I communicated with guys who argued that if Lightning could pull 1 million pounds (obviously not the case), it would pull their 4,000-pound trailer so easily that it shouldn’t hardly affect towing range.  It didn’t take long to see that they couldn’t understand the difference, not that they wanted to hear any contrary point of view.

[fuzzymoomoo]

7 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

An F-150 Lightning towing a “million-pound” train (if I recall weight correctly) was a marketing stunt that was humorous,

Huge difference between pulling and towing. Toyota tried the same stunt pulling the Space Shuttle when the Tundra was launched around 2006ish. 

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

 

 

 

You guys are making the (most likely incorrect) assumption that a large number of Lightning buyers want to actually tow a heavy load a far distance.  I don’t think that’s even true for the ICE F150.

Just my personal opinion — many buyers decide based on what a vehicle should be able to do, not what they “actually” need them to do.  Even if they don’t tow, they want to know they could.  Same goes for 150 MPH top speed or 4-second 0-60 MPH times.  A few drivers will use 100% of capabilities, but vast majority of drivers won’t come close.  I see towing similarly.  From standpoint of trailer weight, Lightning is roughly comparable to ICE F-150, but for real highway towing it’s not quite there yet IMO.

[akirby]

15 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Just my personal opinion — many buyers decide based on what a vehicle should be able to do, not what they “actually” need them to do.  Even if they don’t tow, they want to know they could.  Same goes for 150 MPH top speed or 4-second 0-60 MPH times.  A few drivers will use 100% of capabilities, but vast majority of drivers won’t come close.  I see towing similarly.  From standpoint of trailer weight, Lightning is roughly comparable to ICE F-150, but for real highway towing it’s not quite there yet IMO.

You missed the point.  None of the actual buyers are upset about the range limitations when towing a heavy trailer.  You’re saying why they might be upset but there is no evidence of anyone actually being upset about it because either they knew that when buying or they don’t plan to tow that way.

[rperez817]

20 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Just my personal opinion — many buyers decide based on what a vehicle should be able to do, not what they “actually” need them to do.

 

The Ford survey that akirby linked a few posts up indicates that F-150 Lightning owners actually do "trucky" things with their vehicle more frequently than regular F-150 owners. 

• 74% of the Lightning owners are using their vehicle once a month for home projects — moving things such as mulch, dirt and flooring and drywall — once a month whereas 51% of the ICE owners say they're using the truck that frequently for such projects.
• 27% of the Lightning buyers are using the truck bed for home project hauling once a week versus 14% for F-150 buyers.
• 48% of Lightning owners go camping once a month, hauling bikes, tents, kayaks and cooking stoves. About 40% of the F-150 (ICE) owners camp as frequently. Both vehicles are available with Pro Power outlets in the bed that can supply electricity.

[jpd80]

5 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

IMO they hybrid thing is already set into motion a while back and it is the press running with it. The only major platform without a hybrid setup is the Ranger/Bronco at the moment and I'd expect that by 2025. The vast majority of Ford's EV plans are post 2025 and technically we can see 2025MY next Spring/Summer. I can see the BS getting a hybrid from the Escape/Maverick when it gets it refresh. 

 

What Ford is putting out to the press is to increase stock value.

Of course it’s only natural for Ford to adjust its media statements to suit the perception of the present. Unlike GM, Ford has the option of producing more hybrids if BEVs remain slow for the next few years, so there’s enough wiggle room that Ford’s future projection of 50% electrified by 2030 becomes a combined tally of hybrids, PHEVs and BEVs.

[Rick73]

50 minutes ago, akirby said:

You missed the point.  None of the actual buyers are upset about the range limitations when towing a heavy trailer.  You’re saying why they might be upset but there is no evidence of anyone actually being upset about it because either they knew that when buying or they don’t plan to tow that way.

Not at all.  I’m saying that poor towing reports (whether any of us agree with their accuracy or not) affects sales adversely.  I agree most owners don’t tow often, and therefore should not care significantly about towing, but it affects perception of product value.  There has to be a reason why only a small percentage of F-150 buyers choose Lightning over ICE F-150, and I happen to believe negative towing reports is a “part” of it.  Obviously other factors like higher cost affect perception of value.  Don’t know, maybe a huge reversal in August sales will prove me wrong.

 

If Rivian and Ford had come out from very beginning and advertised that their pickups would have 30~40% of range when towing a camper at highway speeds, how would that have affected sales?  I can respect anyone thinking it wouldn’t have made much difference, but I think it does.  There is a reason newer BEV pickups will have over 200 kWh of battery capacity, and also why Ford said BEV Super Duty would not be pursued at this time.

[akirby]

33 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Not at all.  I’m saying that poor towing reports (whether any of us agree with their accuracy or not) affects sales adversely.  I agree most owners don’t tow often, and therefore should not care significantly about towing, but it affects perception of product value.  There has to be a reason why only a small percentage of F-150 buyers choose Lightning over ICE F-150, and I happen to believe negative towing reports is a “part” of it.  Obviously other factors like higher cost affect perception of value.  Don’t know, maybe a huge reversal in August sales will prove me wrong.

 

If Rivian and Ford had come out from very beginning and advertised that their pickups would have 30~40% of range when towing a camper at highway speeds, how would that have affected sales?  I can respect anyone thinking it wouldn’t have made much difference, but I think it does.  There is a reason newer BEV pickups will have over 200 kWh of battery capacity, and also why Ford said BEV Super Duty would not be pursued at this time.

Most buyers aren’t towing heavy loads so they don’t care.  The ones that do would not even consider a Lightning to begin with.  These aren’t traditional truck buyers.  Cost and slow production are by far the biggest factors.

[DeluxeStang]

5 hours ago, akirby said:

 

 

 

You guys are making the (most likely incorrect) assumption that a large number of Lightning buyers want to actually tow a heavy load a far distance.  I don’t think that’s even true for the ICE F150.

People always coming up with BS reasons to hate on a product. You're right, 99% of the trucks I see on a daily basis aren't towing anything at all, let alone anything that weighs 10,000 lbs. 

 

But people for some reason have this obsession with wanting sky high capabilities in their vehicles, even if they'll never need them. Case in point, as a maverick hybrid owner, I've encountered super duty owners who bash the maverick because it's not a "real" truck. My rebuttal is usually "We're both towing air, at least I get 50 mpg while doing it". That usually shuts them up. 

[Rick73]

When Farley said “so many” having bet the farm on two row crossovers or ICE-like EV platforms, which companies or vehicles is he likely referring to?

 

“For Gen 2, we focused on fewer, higher volume models in the right segments to take advantage of our strengths and knowledge of customers, even conquest customers,” Farley said while speaking during the automaker’s Q2 earnings call. “For example, work vehicles, pickups for retail customers and spacious seven-passenger SUVs. I am so glad we didn’t bet the farm on two row crossovers or ICE-like EV platforms, like so many have.”

 

 

https://fordauthority.com/2023/08/two-row-ford-ev-crossovers-not-priority-for-second-gen/

Edited August 18, 2023 by Rick73

[akirby]

9 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

When Farley said “so many” having bet the farm on two row crossovers or ICE-like EV platforms, which companies or vehicles is he likely referring to?

Audi, BMW, Volvo, GM, Mazda, Kia, Hyundai, Mercedes….. almost everyone.

 

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g32463239/new-ev-models-us/

[rperez817]

23 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

When Farley said “so many” having bet the farm on two row crossovers or ICE-like EV platforms, which companies or vehicles is he likely referring to?

 

Regarding Farley's comment about ICE-like EV platforms, he is likely referring to almost all major incumbent automakers that compete with Ford with the notable exception of General Motors. Last year John McElroy spoke about the huge disadvantage of ICE-like EV platforms, what he described as scar tissue. ICE-Based BEVs: Let’s Talk Scar Tissue (wardsauto.com)

[rperez817]

On 8/16/2023 at 5:37 PM, Rick73 said:

There has to be a reason why only a small percentage of F-150 buyers choose Lightning over ICE F-150.

 

That reason is what akirby mentioned. Limited availability and associated price hikes. Since introduction, F-150 Lightning was extremely production constrained, and customer demand still exceeds Ford's ability to build those trucks. That supply-demand dynamic combined with raw material costs caused Ford to dramatically increase pricing for F-150 Lightning between SOP and the early part of 2023.

 

Fortunately, the recent expansion of Rouge Electric Vehicle Center has already had a positive impact in terms of increasing production and lowering prices. But Ford still has a lot of work to do not only to fulfill existing customer orders for F-150 Lightning, but also to transition the entire F-Series product lineup to 100% electric ASAP.

 

Edited August 18, 2023 by rperez817