Ford 2024 Q3 Financials

[rmc523]

Ford’s Q3 Shows Mixed Bag As Revenues Climb, But Income Drops | Carscoops

 

Third quarter earnings continue to trickle in and the latest come from Ford, which revealed revenues of $46.2 billion and a net income of $0.9 billion. The former number jumped by $2.4 billion, although net income fell by $0.3 billion compared to a year ago.

 

 

Edited October 30, 2024 by rmc523

[jpd80]

Tiny profit, costs are really hurting Ford……

[Trader 10]

53 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Tiny profit, costs are really hurting Ford……

Nothing new, Warranty expense and huge losses from the model e division have been big drags on income quarter after quarter and will continue for a bunch more. Hopefully the cost cutting isn’t at the expense of quality. 

[jpd80]

8 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

Nothing new, Warranty expense and huge losses from the model e division have been big drags on income quarter after quarter and will continue for a bunch more. Hopefully the cost cutting isn’t at the expense of quality. 

Nothing stings like mounting losses that eat into profits, Farley will be forced to make more changes.

My main concern is F Series sales seem to be weakening a bit compared to GM Twins, everything 

basically spins on F Series sales and profits being maximised but there’s clearly a huge drain on that…

 

Im hearing stories that dealers are being offered $22k to take batches of 15 lightnings to sell.

If that’s true, then what a transformation from two years ago when Ford was wanting dealers

to do million dollar upgrades to get unlimited access to BEVs.

 

Dont get me wrong Ford is still selling BEVs and those sales are improving but nowhere near

the pace that Ford wants. Like a sailing ship that lost the winds, could be waiting for a change…

Edited October 30, 2024 by jpd80

[rmc523]

5 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Nothing stings like mounting losses that eat into profits, Farley will be forced to make more changes.

My main concern is F Series sales seem to be weakening a bit compared to GM Twins, everything 

basically spins on F Series sales and profits being maximised but there’s clearly a huge drain on that…

 

Im hearing stories that dealers are being offered $22k to take batches of 15 lightnings to sell.

If that’s true, then what a transformation from two years ago when Ford was wanting dealers

to do million dollar upgrades to get unlimited access to BEVs.

 

Dont get me wrong Ford is still selling BEVs and those sales are improving but nowhere near

the pace that Ford wants. Like a sailing ship that lost the winds, could be waiting for a change…

 

I did read an article that Ford has apparently been able to cut $5k of costs out of Mach E recently, which is a good sign..

[jpd80]

14 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

I did read an article that Ford has apparently been able to cut $5k of costs out of Mach E recently, which is a good sign..

The best part of those cost savings is adoption of the LFP battery which lasts longer

and is not subject to thermal runaway. Thatts a double win for Mach E buyers.

[Trader 10]

17 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Nothing stings like mounting losses that eat into profits, Farley will be forced to make more changes.

My main concern is F Series sales seem to be weakening a bit compared to GM Twins, everything 

basically spins on F Series sales and profits being maximised but there’s clearly a huge drain on that…

 

Im hearing stories that dealers are being offered $22k to take batches of 15 lightnings to sell.

If that’s true, then what a transformation from two years ago when Ford was wanting dealers

to do million dollar upgrades to get unlimited access to BEVs.

 

Dont get me wrong Ford is still selling BEVs and those sales are improving but nowhere near

the pace that Ford wants. Like a sailing ship that lost the winds, could be waiting for a change…

Thanks for the info, jpd. GM is keeping the pressure on - I’ve read that it will introduce next generation V-8 engines in the not too distant future. I wonder if it’s time Ford replaced the 5.0 in the 150 with the OHV 6.8. The 5.0 is a good engine but pick-up buyers seem to like the torque an OHV engine provides at low rpm. The 6.8 would also be significantly cheaper to build and might be a bit lighter than the 5.0. 

[Biker16]

18 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

I did read an article that Ford has apparently been able to cut $5k of costs out of Mach E recently, which is a good sign..

 
I expect this to continue for the next 5 years as Volumes grow and the technology matures. 

[CurtisH]

59 minutes ago, Trader 10 said:

Thanks for the info, jpd. GM is keeping the pressure on - I’ve read that it will introduce next generation V-8 engines in the not too distant future. I wonder if it’s time Ford replaced the 5.0 in the 150 with the OHV 6.8. The 5.0 is a good engine but pick-up buyers seem to like the torque an OHV engine provides at low rpm. The 6.8 would also be significantly cheaper to build and might be a bit lighter than the 5.0. 

I’m pretty sure the 6.8 has a cast iron block, so I doubt it would save any weight.  

[92merc]

Coyote is a fantastic V8.  Keeping up and beating V8's of larger displacement.  I don't see Ford getting rid of it any time soon.

[Trader 10]

1 hour ago, 92merc said:

Coyote is a fantastic V8.  Keeping up and beating V8's of larger displacement.  I don't see Ford getting rid of it any time soon.

No argument that it is a great engine. But I believe it’s better suited for car applications. The 5.0 is a large engine. Even though the 6.2 GM V8 has 20% more displacement, it is significantly smaller dimensionally and undoubtedly less costly to build. 

[jpd80]

On 11/1/2024 at 12:20 AM, Trader 10 said:

Thanks for the info, jpd. GM is keeping the pressure on - I’ve read that it will introduce next generation V-8 engines in the not too distant future. I wonder if it’s time Ford replaced the 5.0 in the 150 with the OHV 6.8. The 5.0 is a good engine but pick-up buyers seem to like the torque an OHV engine provides at low rpm. The 6.8 would also be significantly cheaper to build and might be a bit lighter than the 5.0. 

Interesting take.

From what I can find, GM’s 6th generation V8 will be an evolved design that achieves more

torque and horsepower combined with 5% better efficiency……those are noble goals.

At the moment, the GM twins are sold with gas engines ranging from 2.7 I-4T, 4.3 V6, 5.3 & 6.2 V8s

plus the 6.6 V8 in HD Trucks. So I’m wondering if GM will re work the V8 capacities to get that 5%,

maybe 5.0/5.7/6.6 V8s with 2.7T and 4.3 V6 giving way to a gas version of the 3.0 I-6 turbo diesel.

Just a guess, nothing more…

 

With regards, the continuing use of 5.0 Coyote, I think there’s a lot more development left in it.

Knowing Ford, it would need a really good reason to drop the 5.0 when it acts as a counterpoint

to the Ecoboost V6s currently sold to about 2/3s of F150 buyers. Larger V8s don’t work without 

some form of cylinder deactivation to meet CAFE, 6.2 Boss was stuck at 16/18 mpg and thus dropped.

[Rick73]

39 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Interesting take.

From what I can find, GM’s 6th generation V8 will be an evolved design that achieves more

torque and horsepower combined with 5% better efficiency……those are noble goals.

At the moment, the GM twins are sold with gas engines ranging from 2.7 I-4T, 4.3 V6, 5.3 & 6.2 V8s

plus the 6.6 V8 in HD Trucks. So I’m wondering if GM will re work the V8 capacities to get that 5%,

maybe 5.0/5.7/6.6 V8s with 2.7T and 4.3 V6 giving way to a gas version of the 3.0 I-6 turbo diesel.

Just a guess, nothing more…

 

With regards, the continuing use of 5.0 Coyote, I think there’s a lot more development left in it.

Knowing Ford, it would need a really good reason to drop the 5.0 when it acts as a counterpoint

to the Ecoboost V6s currently sold to about 2/3s of F150 buyers. Larger V8s don’t work without 

some form of cylinder deactivation to meet CAFE, 6.2 Boss was stuck at 16/18 mpg and thus dropped.

EPA fuel-economy ratings are interesting in that Silverado with V8 are nearly as efficient as the 2.7L I-4, particularly in highway cycle.  The same is true of F-150 with Coyote V8 versus V6 EB.  The “City” cycle favors lower-displacement turbo engines, but at highway speeds or when towing I’d take the V8s.  Overall fuel cost differences are minimal anyway.

Just curious, how difficult and or expensive would it be for Ford to add cylinder deactivation to 6.8/7.3 pushrod V8s?

 

[jpd80]

38 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

EPA fuel-economy ratings are interesting in that Silverado with V8 are nearly as efficient as the 2.7L I-4, particularly in highway cycle.  The same is true of F-150 with Coyote V8 versus V6 EB.  The “City” cycle favors lower-displacement turbo engines, but at highway speeds or when towing I’d take the V8s.  Overall fuel cost differences are minimal anyway.

As you could imagine, the highway test cycle becomes more a function of the vehicle’s weight and some wind resistance 

but most of the speeds are under 60 mph so drag is less of a factor at the lower speeds. Modern trucks are really good at 

fuel efficiency compared to the early 2000s when city 13mpg/hwy 19mpg were pretty common upper limits.

 

 

38 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Just curious, how difficult and or expensive would it be for Ford to add cylinder deactivation to 6.8/7.3 pushrod V8s?

 

Maybe need to license this unless Ford comes up with a differnt type of lifter design or rocker design…

problem is that cylinder deactivation only occurs at cruise steady state so wouldn’t help city cycle.

 

Originally, the 6.2 Boss was to have two other variants, a 5.8 and 7.0 liter, so I guess anything is possible,

I just think the chance of a 5.8 Godzilla are slim to none, especially with 3.5 Ecoboost popularity 

Edited November 1, 2024 by jpd80

[Rick73]

13 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Originally, the 6.2 Boss was to have two other variants, a 5.8 and 7.0 liter, so I guess anything is possible,

I just think the chance of a 5.8 Godzilla are slim to none, especially with 3.5 Ecoboost popularity 

Agree a lower displacement Godzilla V8 seems remote because 6.8L already has short stroke, and reducing bore diameter below 6.8/7.3 doesn’t seem practical.  That would be expensive.  I only recall Ford reducing bore on a V8 once to reduce displacement significantly, though there may have been other instances.  For larger trucks a lower displacement pushrod V8 would not save much fuel anyway so not much point regardless.

[jpd80]

6 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Agree a lower displacement Godzilla V8 seems remote because 6.8L already has short stroke, and reducing bore diameter below 6.8/7.3 doesn’t seem practical.  That would be expensive.  I only recall Ford reducing bore on a V8 once to reduce displacement significantly, though there may have been other instances.  For larger trucks a lower displacement pushrod V8 would not save much fuel anyway so not much point regardless.

The irony here is that when under constant load, a larger capacity gasoline engine is usually more

efficient than a smaller turbocharged engine  but when it comes to meeting CAFE, the opposite is true.

 

If Ford was selling a lot more Lightnings and hybrids, it might have been able to offer a 6.8 F150

but years ago, the government set CAFE the rules to basically make that as difficult as possible.

So it’s probably easier for people doing a lot more towing/hauling to just go buy an F250 and get

the big V8 plus a stronger truck to do the job better.

 

Edited November 2, 2024 by jpd80

[jpd80]

Back on topic,

The upside ot Q3 is that Ford still made $900 million after tax profit in spite of all the self wounding.

All of that has already happened and hopefully, clears the decks for a better performance in Q4.

 

I get down on Ford for all the wasted profit on issues that it should better control before they snowball.

What it needs to do now is focus on selling products to customers, move that excess stock before 2025.