Jim Farley Says Ford Can Deal With Trump Policy Shakeups

[rmc523]

On 4/5/2025 at 7:32 PM, jpd80 said:

Correct, that’s retooling to produce the CE1 electric Pickup, Utility and hopefully van 

I wonder if it’s possible to produce C2s on the same site as complementary products.

 

 

That'd be too smart lol.

 

On 4/5/2025 at 8:48 PM, DeluxeStang said:

I know we're all tired of Ford changing their plans around, but with maverick and BS demand being off the charts, and the struggles with larger, more expensive EVs making the high production capacity of BOC seem far too optimistic, would Ford consider moving all of CE1 EV production to BOC, and focus Kentucky entirely around building more C2 products? 

 

It just seems like BOC is far too excessive for the types of consumer demand T3 is likely to experience, so moving high demand CE1 products there makes a lot of sense, and that clears up plant capacity for Kentucky. I know that's a lot of work, and might not be worth it with how quickly everything is changing, but it's just a thought. 

 

Several of us have advocated for this path - consolidate all BEV production (minus Mach E that's already active) at BOC until additional volume is warranted.  This would let Ford do a next-gen ICE Escape and Corsair (rebody the current models to save costs) to allow the market to transition to EVs naturally/as customers demand, AND they could add Nautilus production (and ideally a C2 Edge too), and down the road they could convert Louisville to BEV if/when is necessary.

[Oac98]

5 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

That'd be too smart lol.

 

 

Several of us have advocated for this path - consolidate all BEV production (minus Mach E that's already active) at BOC until additional volume is warranted.  This would let Ford do a next-gen ICE Escape and Corsair (rebody the current models to save costs) to allow the market to transition to EVs naturally/as customers demand, AND they could add Nautilus production (and ideally a C2 Edge too), and down the road they could convert Louisville to BEV if/when is necessary.

It’s too logical a plan it seems for FOMOCO. It’s a real shame if you ask me. I’m kind of hoping that they have something up their sleeves and some of what’s been suggested in regards to this topic actually comes to fruition.

[jpd80]

5 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

That'd be too smart lol.

Hopefully the current economic climate makes Ford think more creatively……

These smaller new affordable BEVs are becoming reality in the next year or so

but there’s absolutely no guarantee that the uptake from buyers will be anything

like that expected a couple of years ago, even last year….

 

 

5 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

 

Several of us have advocated for this path - consolidate all BEV production (minus Mach E that's already active) at BOC until additional volume is warranted.  This would let Ford do a next-gen ICE Escape and Corsair (rebody the current models to save costs) to allow the market to transition to EVs naturally/as customers demand, AND they could add Nautilus production (and ideally a C2 Edge too), and down the road they could convert Louisville to BEV if/when is necessary.

There’s got to be a way that Ford can adjust its plans so that C2 production can

cover all the “product holes” until enough buyer embrace BEVs so that anything

like a mass transition can occur….

 

Not saying that they should tear up everything, just take necessary steps to ensure

that vehicle supplies are not held to ransom by whatever trouble comes along…

Edited April 7 by jpd80

[akirby]

9 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

 

There’s got to be a way that Ford can adjust its plans so that C2 production can

cover all the “product holes” until enough buyer embrace BEVs so that anything

like a mass transition can occur….

 

Not saying that they should tear up everything, just take necessary steps to ensure

that vehicle supplies are not held to ransom by whatever trouble comes along…

The problem is Farley does not do adequate risk assessment (or ignores it) when evaluating major changes such as Oakville.  They misread the market, government regulations and by all accounts totally whiffed on design.  I’m sure there was a big upside had they been right on all 3.  But I don’t think they adequately considered the downside if they were wrong or the likelihood of that happening in full or in part.

 

Ive done these types of assessments.  You have the high risk high reward scenario.  The do nothing scenario.  And the in between scenario (in this case updating Oakville to C2 edge and Nautilus hybrids and less/lower volume EVs).  Then you assign probabilities to each one.  
 

I think a good manager would have said doing nothing is not an option and high risk high reward is simply too risky because it burns too many bridges and wastes too many resources if you’re wrong.  Ford has never had a problem being second to a party.  Let others be the pioneers and if it pans out then commit the resources.

 

The in between has no downside to speak of other than missing out on some revenue if EVs ramped up exponentially.  Hybrid edge and nautilus would bring in good revenue and still turn a profit and you could potentially add other c2 products.  The plant would not be out of commission for over a year and you can still build the EVs somewhere else.

 

I wonder if Farley just said screw it Im swinging for the fences anyway or if his direct reports lied to him like they used to do before Mulally.

[rmc523]

5 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Hopefully the current economic climate makes Ford think more creatively……

These smaller new affordable BEVs are becoming reality in the next year or so

but there’s absolutely no guarantee that the uptake from buyers will be anything

like that expected a couple of years ago, even last year….

 

 

There’s got to be a way that Ford can adjust its plans so that C2 production can

cover all the “product holes” until enough buyer embrace BEVs so that anything

like a mass transition can occur….

 

Not saying that they should tear up everything, just take necessary steps to ensure

that vehicle supplies are not held to ransom by whatever trouble comes along…

 

 

the problem too is that even if they changed plans (again) at this point is that they’re already in a product lull, and that would push it out even further another year or two before they can catch up.   That’s why I keep saying at some point they’ll have to just bite the bullet and pick a direction.

 

[rmc523]

6 hours ago, akirby said:

The problem is Farley does not do adequate risk assessment (or ignores it) when evaluating major changes such as Oakville.  They misread the market, government regulations and by all accounts totally whiffed on design.  I’m sure there was a big upside had they been right on all 3.  But I don’t think they adequately considered the downside if they were wrong or the likelihood of that happening in full or in part.

 

Ive done these types of assessments.  You have the high risk high reward scenario.  The do nothing scenario.  And the in between scenario (in this case updating Oakville to C2 edge and Nautilus hybrids and less/lower volume EVs).  Then you assign probabilities to each one.  
 

I think a good manager would have said doing nothing is not an option and high risk high reward is simply too risky because it burns too many bridges and wastes too many resources if you’re wrong.  Ford has never had a problem being second to a party.  Let others be the pioneers and if it pans out then commit the resources.

 

The in between has no downside to speak of other than missing out on some revenue if EVs ramped up exponentially.  Hybrid edge and nautilus would bring in good revenue and still turn a profit and you could potentially add other c2 products.  The plant would not be out of commission for over a year and you can still build the EVs somewhere else.

 

I wonder if Farley just said screw it Im swinging for the fences anyway or if his direct reports lied to him like they used to do before Mulally.

I also think also exacerbated by the fact they’re building this massive new plant that’s already going to be underutilized, but they’re also going to convert Louisville on top of that, leaving them heavily exposed in multiple segments if/when the EVs don’t perform well sales wise.

[akirby]

8 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

I also think also exacerbated by the fact they’re building this massive new plant that’s already going to be underutilized, but they’re also going to convert Louisville on top of that, leaving them heavily exposed in multiple segments if/when the EVs don’t perform well sales wise.

They must have other plans for BOC otherwise it just doesn’t make sense.

[tbone]

7 hours ago, akirby said:

The problem is Farley does not do adequate risk assessment (or ignores it) when evaluating major changes such as Oakville.  They misread the market, government regulations and by all accounts totally whiffed on design.  I’m sure there was a big upside had they been right on all 3.  But I don’t think they adequately considered the downside if they were wrong or the likelihood of that happening in full or in part.

 

Ive done these types of assessments.  You have the high risk high reward scenario.  The do nothing scenario.  And the in between scenario (in this case updating Oakville to C2 edge and Nautilus hybrids and less/lower volume EVs).  Then you assign probabilities to each one.  
 

I think a good manager would have said doing nothing is not an option and high risk high reward is simply too risky because it burns too many bridges and wastes too many resources if you’re wrong.  Ford has never had a problem being second to a party.  Let others be the pioneers and if it pans out then commit the resources.

 

The in between has no downside to speak of other than missing out on some revenue if EVs ramped up exponentially.  Hybrid edge and nautilus would bring in good revenue and still turn a profit and you could potentially add other c2 products.  The plant would not be out of commission for over a year and you can still build the EVs somewhere else.

 

I wonder if Farley just said screw it Im swinging for the fences anyway or if his direct reports lied to him like they used to do before Mulally.

And there literally has been no repercussion for all of Farleys mistakes, which I think he should have been fired for.  

[tbone]

51 minutes ago, akirby said:

…it just doesn’t make sense.

IMO, this has been Ford’s standard operating procedure for a while now.  A lot of their decisions have don’t make sense.  

[jpd80]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

They must have other plans for BOC otherwise it just doesn’t make sense.

BOC was another earlier example of Farley swinging for the fences,

great if it had paid off but the demand for T3 BEV F150 just isn’t there yet

and there’s no point just trying to will it into existence in the original volumes.

 

The place is massive, there’s every possibility that a HEV/PHEV plan could be built on site as well as the BEV plant,  even if temporary in terms of say next

ten years. The proximity of healthy battery supplies alone should be incentive

enough to at least consider…

Edited April 8 by jpd80

[akirby]

9 hours ago, tbone said:

IMO, this has been Ford’s standard operating procedure for a while now.  A lot of their decisions have don’t make sense.  

To be fair we don’t know what’s happening behind the scenes or what data was used to make those decisions.  Sometimes a good decision 2 years ago goes bad because things change unexpectedly.  Sometimes a decision makes no sense in isolation but starts to make sense when you factor in other decisions.  E.g. You would think that expanding Ranger sales is a great thing until you realize that it reduces more profitable Broncos sales resulting in less revenue and lower margins.  
 

I remember wanting to add a new feature to our application, but in order to do that we had to upgrade the database software.  To do that we had to upgrade the OS.  But upgrading the OS required new hardware.  So what was a 1 month $20k software change turned into a 12 month $3M project.

 

What I do blame Farley for 100% is not having adequate backup plans and taking too much risk.

[rmc523]

10 hours ago, akirby said:

They must have other plans for BOC otherwise it just doesn’t make sense.

 

Nothing else really makes sense, IMO.  BEV demand just isn't there for what we know they have in the pipeline.

 

6 hours ago, jpd80 said:

BOC was another earlier example of Farley swinging for the fences,

great if it had paid off but the demand for T3 BEV F150 just isn’t there yet

and there’s no point just trying to will it into existence in the original volumes.

 

The place is massive, there’s every possibility that a HEV/PHEV plan could be built on site as well as the BEV plant,  even if temporary in terms of say next

ten years. The proximity of healthy battery supplies alone should be incentive

enough to at least consider…

 

HEV/PHEV also doesn't make much sense, either......BEV production is seemingly so different than ICE production (with new construction methods, etc).....I just don't understand how it'd make sense to build this whole new factory that was intended for a new construction method, just to then put the "old" form of construction in, instead of utilizing existing underutilized plants for that purpose and just scale back or pause BOC altogether until demand warrants.

[jpd80]

I remember watching a Sandy Munro video about Ford,

he said as a corporate, they rush around like an elephant.

By that he meant that when Ford makes up its mind to do something,

it goes all in single focused and forgets about all the other important 

things it needs to keep doing, absolutely no reason why they had to

drop off a full throated C2 product onslaught. Somehow, Ford turned

that int an either/or choice vs BEVs or some other pet project. using 

Heritage names ( Europe using Explorer and Capri names)

 

 

[Sherminator98]

1 minute ago, rmc523 said:

 

Nothing else really makes sense, IMO.  BEV demand just isn't there for what we know they have in the pipeline.

 

 

HEV/PHEV also doesn't make much sense, either......BEV production is seemingly so different than ICE production (with new construction methods, etc).....I just don't understand how it'd make sense to build this whole new factory that was intended for a new construction method, just to then put the "old" form of construction in, instead of utilizing existing underutilized plants for that purpose and just scale back or pause BOC altogether until demand warrants.

 

Well apparently Honda is using this approach in Ohio for its EVs, it’s going to be building EVs and ICE in the same plant. 
 

When I visited the Tesla plant in Fremont years back, it wasn’t that much different than say the Edison plant that my dad worked in. 
 

but then again I’m not an expert in setting up assembly lines either. 
 

The bigger issue is this-if the current administration rolls back CAFE and emissions, how long does that actually stay in place and say things go completely badly for the current administration, it’s not going to be able to pivot back just to go back to the original plan. 
 

Whatever happens it might be a short term thing with no real way of taking advantage of it. 

[rmc523]

12 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

I remember watching a Sandy Munro video about Ford,

he said as a corporate, they rush around like an elephant.

By that he meant that when Ford makes up its mind to do something,

it goes all in single focused and forgets about all the other important 

things it needs to keep doing, absolutely no reason why they had to

drop off a full throated C2 product onslaught. Somehow, Ford turned

that int an either/or choice vs BEVs or some other pet project. using 

Heritage names ( Europe using Explorer and Capri names)

 

 

 

Yeah, they finally had a core platform that they could've put most of non-truck lineup on, and also one that could've given each region options to create market-specific top hats.....i.e. Edge for US, Focus for EU, etc.

 

That was the downfall of One Ford, IMO - they went same product globally no matter what, which was fine, but they never took the next step - my vision of it was to pare down to that, and then take the next step of using those same global platforms to then add region-specific products to help sales in that region, while using a global platform for scale/cost efficiencies.

C2 could've/should've finally been that, and would've been a fantastic stepping stone/intermediary measure in a transition to BEVs.

 

10 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

Well apparently Honda is using this approach in Ohio for its EVs, it’s going to be building EVs and ICE in the same plant. 
 

When I visited the Tesla plant in Fremont years back, it wasn’t that much different than say the Edison plant that my dad worked in. 
 

but then again I’m not an expert in setting up assembly lines either. 
 

The bigger issue is this-if the current administration rolls back CAFE and emissions, how long does that actually stay in place and say things go completely badly for the current administration, it’s not going to be able to pivot back just to go back to the original plan. 
 

Whatever happens it might be a short term thing with no real way of taking advantage of it. 

 

Hm, well I guess it could be different if they're able to use the same construction methods (I'm thinking gigacasting, etc. that seems to be all the rage) for both BEV and ICE.

[jpd80]

5 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

Yeah, they finally had a core platform that they could've put most of non-truck lineup on, and also one that could've given each region options to create market-specific top hats.....i.e. Edge for US, Focus for EU, etc.

 

That was the downfall of One Ford, IMO - they went same product globally no matter what, which was fine, but they never took the next step - my vision of it was to pare down to that, and then take the next step of using those same global platforms to then add region-specific products to help sales in that region, while using a global platform for scale/cost efficiencies.

C2 could've/should've finally been that, and would've been a fantastic stepping stone/intermediary measure in a transition to BEVs.

 

 

Hm, well I guess it could be different if they're able to use the same construction methods (I'm thinking gigacasting, etc. that seems to be all the rage) for both BEV and ICE.

Agree 100% with your C2 comments but Ford’s other big issue is how they allowed

suppliers to control them with software defined modules - can you imagine 150-200

different parts/sub assemblies where an OEM like Ford has little/no control over the

software in these items…….no wonder complexity has increased and costs sky rocketed.

 

It’s basically accountant based and the justification has always been that it’s cheaper

to outsource most things, Farley confirming that Ford saved $500/vehicle by doing

that and then wondering why everything became so difficult to make and sell without

glitches and warranty issues….

 

Again, the amount of self wounding that comes from trying to save money……..

 

Edited April 8 by jpd80

[Rick73]

Trump today signed executive order to revive coal, so seems reasonable that CAFE holds little value from environmental standpoint.  Maybe SUVs with 500 HP 7.3L V8s come next.  Should keep Farley busy.

[fuzzymoomoo]

20 hours ago, tbone said:

IMO, this has been Ford’s standard operating procedure for a while now.  A lot of their decisions have don’t make sense.  

There’s a mantra that’s quite common around the plant floor. We make trucks, not sense. It rings truer than ever. 

[Biker16]

This isn't going to end well.
 

 

 

[DeluxeStang]

13 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

This isn't going to end well.
 

 

 

This is exactly what I feared. I just wish we and China could just talk, and negotiate. I want to believe in my heart Trump is planning on doing that today. But I just have this sinking feeling in my stomach that he's gonna do something really stupid like raise tariffs even more yet again. I really hope that doesn't happen, but there's just this palpable sense of dread and doom right now.

[mackinaw]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

This is exactly what I feared. I just wish we and China could just talk, and negotiate. I want to believe in my heart Trump is planning on doing that today. But I just have this sinking feeling in my stomach that he's gonna do something really stupid like raise tariffs even more yet again. I really hope that doesn't happen, but there's just this palpable sense of dread and doom right now.

 

China needs us as much as we need them.  I suspect there are preliminary behind-the-scenes talks going on right now.  

[Oac98]

2 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

This is exactly what I feared. I just wish we and China could just talk, and negotiate. I want to believe in my heart Trump is planning on doing that today. But I just have this sinking feeling in my stomach that he's gonna do something really stupid like raise tariffs even more yet again. I really hope that doesn't happen, but there's just this palpable sense of dread and doom right now.

125% Tariffs against China now🙄

[DeluxeStang]

58 minutes ago, Oac98 said:

125% Tariffs against China now🙄

On the plus side, the market is rocketing up, and I suspect it will keep doing so for at least a few days because Trump just announced a 90 day tariffs pause on everyone working together with him. So pretty much everyone who isn't China. 

[tbone]

20 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

There’s a mantra that’s quite common around the plant floor. We make trucks, not sense. It rings truer than ever. 

I think that sums it up nicely, lol. It’s sad because they know how to build some great products other than trucks, and then they just give up on them. 

[jpd80]

Clearly the president can move markets with an announcement.

And while the media talks about the last thing he did, Trump stuns

with his next move that sets the stock market soaring.

 

It sure makes for interesting times as people breathe

a sigh of relief as their pension plans look to bounce back

Edited April 9 by jpd80