Ford CEO Jim Farley Says Large EVs Over $50K Aren’t Viable

[Rick73]

36 minutes ago, akirby said:

That has nothing to do with business decisions on EV products.  You see everything through your biased filter and ignore facts.

In fairness that includes most people.  We all have biases and often ignore facts.  It’s unavoidable.  As just one example your F-150 ownership probably biases your opinions on Lightning.

 

If we were all 100% rational and unbiased we wouldn’t disagree on anything. 😀

[akirby]

18 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

In fairness that includes most people.  We all have biases and often ignore facts.  It’s unavoidable.  As just one example your F-150 ownership probably biases your opinions on Lightning.

 

If we were all 100% rational and unbiased we wouldn’t disagree on anything. 😀

Speak for yourself.  I don’t ignore facts - I seek them out.  My preferences are biased but I don’t visit those on others or apply that to the overall market.  I hate Corollas and Camrys and would never buy one but I understand why others do and the sales numbers speak for themselves.

 

Saying nobody wants EVs and they should not be built is an ignorant statement.

[DeluxeStang]

56 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Your logic makes sense from a Ford buyer’s perspective but from the Lincoln buyer’s or owner’s not quite as much IMO.

But do you think it really even registers with Lincoln owners? I mentioned the navigator and expedition earlier, I don't believe any of those causal owners even know their vehicles have so much in common. 

 

It doesn't seem to bother navigator owners that they're 100 grand suv shares most of its design with a significant cheaper Ford model. So I don't see why it would bother someone who paid 50-60 grand for a nautilus if an edge comes out that's like 40-45 grand. 

 

I believe nautilus and edge owners would both just be like "damn, that's a really good looking suv" without realizing they had anything in common. We as car enthusiasts know that, but casual buyers don't, and couldn't care less if vehicles share platforms and styling as long as it's good, and in the case of the nautilus, it's an incredible product. 

 

I see this as a way to not only retain the edge, but do it in a way that's cost effective, and results in a fantastic end product. Something with the proportions of the nautilus, and maybe trying to carry over some of that interior magic as well, would result in the best Ford edge ever made. Truly a wow, got to have it type of product. 

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

But do you think it really even registers with Lincoln owners? I mentioned the navigator and expedition earlier, I don't believe any of those causal owners even know their vehicles have so much in common. 

I believe auto companies, actually all companies, should be careful not to dilute the image and value of their premium brands.  I was referring more to the general sequence than to Ford versus Lincoln specifically.  Your statement below jumped out at me.
 

Quote

I'll also add badge engineering is usually frowned upon when it's going from an affordable car to a luxury one. Going the other way, I see no reason why intelligent people would have an issue with that. 

Going from affordable to luxury doesn’t seem as damaging to me because at least the new buyers of the luxury vehicle know what’s involved and can therefore price it into their decision.  Reminds me of when GM took cheap Chevy Cavalier and upgraded to pseudo-luxury Cadillac Cimarron.

 

Going the other way, however, seems much different to me if I understand your point correctly.  If a company takes a luxury vehicle and waters it down to sell at a much lower price point, I believe two things could happen.  Firstly, could discourage many prospective buyers of the premium vehicle from purchasing, and secondly, previous owners of the premium vehicles could get pissed and feel betrayed.  I would think intelligent owners would figure out that such a move would likely depreciate the value of their vehicle.  Just my 2 cents (opinion) since this is extremely subjective topic.

[Rick73]

P.S. — Not exactly the same, but similar to when Tesla introduced Model 3 which in some ways resembled much more expensive Model S.  After that, sales of Model S plummeted as did their resale value.  Again, not exactly the same, but suddenly the image and value of previous luxury vehicle took a big hit.

[DeluxeStang]

17 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

I believe auto companies, actually all companies, should be careful not to dilute the image and value of their premium brands.  I was referring more to the general sequence than to Ford versus Lincoln specifically.  Your statement below jumped out at me.
 

Going from affordable to luxury doesn’t seem as damaging to me because at least the new buyers of the luxury vehicle know what’s involved and can therefore price it into their decision.  Reminds me of when GM took cheap Chevy Cavalier and upgraded to pseudo-luxury Cadillac Cimarron.

 

Going the other way, however, seems much different to me if I understand your point correctly.  If a company takes a luxury vehicle and waters it down to sell at a much lower price point, I believe two things could happen.  Firstly, could discourage many prospective buyers of the premium vehicle from purchasing, and secondly, previous owners of the premium vehicles could get pissed and feel betrayed.  I would think intelligent owners would figure out that such a move would likely depreciate the value of their vehicle.  Just my 2 cents (opinion) since this is extremely subjective topic.

I disagree, your average Nautilus owner isn't gonna even know an edge shares components with their cars. Virtually none of the Escalade or navigator owners I've met know or care that their vehicles share so much with vehicles that are 30% less expensive. 

 

I feel like if anyone was gonna be pissed off about that, it would be the people who bought the most expensive halo model within that brand. I think we as enthusiasts notice this stuff, causal buyers generally don't, especially as it comes to sharing design cues. 

 

A nautilus could still justify its price premium by having nicer interior materials and design, the luxury brand status, and so on. I don't believe someone who paid 60 grand for a nautilus with a super high end interior would be mad about a 45 grand edge with similar styling, a cheaper interior, and a less prestigious brand. 

[DeluxeStang]

15 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

P.S. — Not exactly the same, but similar to when Tesla introduced Model 3 which in some ways resembled much more expensive Model S.  After that, sales of Model S plummeted as did their resale value.  Again, not exactly the same, but suddenly the image and value of previous luxury vehicle took a big hit.

I get what you're saying, but correlation doesn't imply causation. Large sedans in general started to collapse in sales around that time. 

[NLPRacing]

17 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

As for edge and escape, I believe killing those is a mistake. I've said for years there's a way to reimagine offerings in these segments that would make them more aspirational, and profitable, and how Ford should go that route instead of just walking away. 

 

Like for a new edge, maybe giving it a boxier, more rugged look. I really like how the current nautilus looks from the side, and the overall proportions. I'd love to see Ford try to find plant capacity in N. America to build the edge here, keep the side metal stampings from the nautilus to save money, and because it looks really nice, and just redesign the front and rear clips with Ford special styling, maybe taking inspiration from the explorer or Mach-e to give it a slightly sportier, more assertive appearance. 

 

As for escape, this is where we differ. I know you want an escape with explorer like styling. Personally, considering how successful the mach-e has been, as one of the best selling non Tesla EVs in the states, I'd like to see that sort of sleek, sporty EV crossover, but riding on CE1 as a smaller, and more affordable vehicle than the mach-e. 

 

As an owner of a 2021 Ford Edge ST, I would love to have seen the next gen Edge based on a shortened Explorer platform with a fastback styled rear with short overhangs. There's nothing Ford currently offers or that has shown to be coming that I would replace my current Edge with. The current Explorer is too big and the Mach E is looking dated. If they come out with a 4 door Mustang with a V8, I would seriously consider one of those. 

[92merc]

7 minutes ago, NLPRacing said:

 

As an owner of a 2021 Ford Edge ST, I would love to have seen the next gen Edge based on a shortened Explorer platform with a fastback styled rear with short overhangs. There's nothing Ford currently offers or that has shown to be coming that I would replace my current Edge with. The current Explorer is too big and the Mach E is looking dated. If they come out with a 4 door Mustang with a V8, I would seriously consider one of those. 

I'd like to see the Explorer get off the CD6 platform since that's the only vehicle on it.  Get it on Everest platform.

 

Then an Edge replacement based on a stretched/widened C2 platform.  To me, that would make more sense.

[morgan20]

7 hours ago, Joe771476 said:

I knew the EV craze wouldn't last even if the tax credits were still in place. The quickest charge is 20 minutes. I can fill my gas tank in 5. These electric school bus mfrs. are closing leaving municipalities with no parts or repairs.  And if federal and state govts. can force mfrs. to make EV's and make consumers buy them, then we're on our way to socialism. 

[fuzzymoomoo]

On 11/6/2025 at 1:25 PM, DeluxeStang said:

This is why I try to give Ford credit. People always judge with hindsight, saying oh these brands are all so stupid for investing so heavily in EVs. Yet they forget when these decisions were being made, a lot of markets were pushing hard for a ban on new gasoline sales, I believe much of Europe was 2030-2035 for a ban on pure ICE sales. 

 

Brands thought they had no choice but to invest billions in EVs. Let's also try to remember that when Ford first released the mach-e and lightning, they were selling like gangbusters. I believe the waiting list for the lightning was something like 2-3 years at its peak. 

 

That obviously changed, but it's easy to see why Ford would have seen that at the time, and come to the conclusion that EV demand was higher than it actually was. 

 

Their plans are all over the place, but I respect their ability to recognize something isn't working, and pivot their strategy. A lot of companies don't do that. I fully believe the approach they have now, pushing smaller, affordable EVs and then EREV and hybrids for larger vehicles makes a ton of sense. There was a lot of pain in getting here, but I they have a stellar strategy in place now. 

where I think they failed is jumping all in without even thinking of a potential backup plan if market conditions or government policies change. Doesn’t necessarily mean money needs to be spent on that backup plan. 

[DeluxeStang]

12 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

where I think they failed is jumping all in without even thinking of a potential backup plan if market conditions or government policies change. Doesn’t necessarily mean money needs to be spent on that backup plan. 

I agree there, I think some companies can be so blinded by the idea, and the excitement of going all in with a certain direction that they don't stop to think what would happen if things didn't work out as they planned. 

[Rick73]

13 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

where I think they failed is jumping all in without even thinking of a potential backup plan if market conditions or government policies change. Doesn’t necessarily mean money needs to be spent on that backup plan. 

 

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

I agree there, I think some companies can be so blinded by the idea, and the excitement of going all in with a certain direction that they don't stop to think what would happen if things didn't work out as they planned. 

With due respect, how can we know that what Ford is doing now wasn’t their backup plan all along?  Or second backup plan?  That’s not to say they haven’t made many mistakes and or that even if they made backup plans that they weren’t ill conceived.  I just can’t imagine a corporation as large as Ford would bet the entire farm on electrification without at least considering a safety net.  The fact that they are still profitable today means they did a few things right.  I give credit for that. 👍

 

IIRC at least two major changes have occurred since Ford and other manufacturers committed to invest heavily on electrification.  One was buyers slowing the adoption rate considerably, in part because BEV economics were tough to justify.  EV costs remain high, operating costs are higher than originally thought, depreciation is higher than other options, and the economy lost steam.  All these things make buyers question spending more for a BEV when they can make do with an ICEV or HEV at lower cost.  The second big change was a new administration that turned the industry on its head by reversing or eliminating some regulations and mandates.

 

In my opinion manufacturers probably don’t know what will happen after the midterms or under next administration so they are likely working on various plans to cover different scenarios.  I don’t think that all the announced delays until 2027 and 2028 are a coincidence.  In some cases manufacturers are buying time to avoid investing more capital until there is greater clarity and predictability.  My 2 cents….

 

 

[Rick73]

Back on topic of why $50,000+ vehicles are not viable, IMO there are probably many reasons, but the two that I see as most important are high costs, which is most obvious, but also that most-expensive vehicles tend to also be the largest and therefore do not address the original goal of reducing greenhouse gases to the same degree as smaller and more energy efficient vehicles.  I recall Farley stating during an interview a while back that we needed to change the way Americans view transportation in order to make it more efficient, and I completely agree.

 

Lowering costs not only makes BEV ownership more likely but probably makes those vehicles more efficient at same time, providing even greater benefits.  I was recently reminded while reading Renault Twingo specs that size and mass have direct impact on energy requirements and emissions.  At only 2,600 pounds it achieves approximately 6 miles per kWh in “City” driving during mild weather, when large EVs weighing close to 8,000 pounds or more have difficult time getting 2 miles per kWh.  There must be a viable BEV between these two extremes.  I hope Farley and Ford can bring in new electric vehicles closer to 3,000 pounds so they actually accomplish a significant reduction in GHGs.  If 8,000+ pounds they might as well not bother.

[Sherminator98]

7 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Back on topic of why $50,000+ vehicles are not viable, IMO there are probably many reasons, but the two that I see as most important are high costs, which is most obvious, but also that most-expensive vehicles tend to also be the largest and therefore do not address the original goal of reducing greenhouse gases to the same degree as smaller and more energy efficient vehicles.  I recall Farley stating during an interview a while back that we needed to change the way Americans view transportation in order to make it more efficient, and I completely agree.

 

Lowering costs not only makes BEV ownership more likely but probably makes those vehicles more efficient at same time, providing even greater benefits.  I was recently reminded while reading Renault Twingo specs that size and mass have direct impact on energy requirements and emissions.  At only 2,600 pounds it achieves approximately 6 miles per kWh in “City” driving during mild weather, when large EVs weighing close to 8,000 pounds or more have difficult time getting 2 miles per kWh.  There must be a viable BEV between these two extremes.  I hope Farley and Ford can bring in new electric vehicles closer to 3,000 pounds so they actually accomplish a significant reduction in GHGs.  If 8,000+ pounds they might as well not bother.

 

IMO I really don't think people give two shits about GHG or how miles per kWh vehicle makes....they want something that can go roughly the same distance as their ICE vehicle and maybe take a little longer to "fill up" on a long distance drive without driving a "shitbox" that looks like a toy. 

 

That is why my hill to die on is to make a C class CUV EV that costs less then $40K decently equipped that has about 300 miles of range

Edited November 9 by Sherminator98

[Joe771476]

On 11/7/2025 at 10:15 AM, akirby said:

That has nothing to do with business decisions on EV products.  You see everything through your biased filter and ignore facts.

What are the facts? That every mfr. is dumping EV's including Ford?

Edited November 9 by Joe771476

[Rick73]

3 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

That is why my hill to die on is to make a C class CUV EV that costs less then $40K decently equipped that has about 300 miles of range

Can you give us a few examples of BEVs that meet those standards and that you would buy?

[sullynd]

5 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

IMO I really don't think people give two shits about GHG or how miles per kWh vehicle makes....they want something that can go roughly the same distance as their ICE vehicle and maybe take a little longer to "fill up" on a long distance drive without driving a "shitbox" that looks like a toy. 

 

That is why my hill to die on is to make a C class CUV EV that costs less then $40K decently equipped that has about 300 miles of range

So in other words a Mach-E? 

[akirby]

11 hours ago, Joe771476 said:

What are the facts? That every mfr. is dumping EV's including Ford?

Prime example of ignoring facts.  Ford hasn’t dropped Mach E or Lightning and they’re bringing out at least 3 new EVs.  Other mfrs are bringing out new EVs and EV sales are still increasing year after year.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Prime example of ignoring facts.  Ford hasn’t dropped Mach E or Lightning and they’re bringing out at least 3 new EVs.  Other mfrs are bringing out new EVs and EV sales are still increasing year after year.

While I want BEVs to succeed, I’m also extremely objective and look beyond obvious “facts”.  Without proper context, facts alone can be misleading in my opinion.

 

You are correct that total BEV sales are increasing, but if most are sold at a loss, it means very little, right?  Long term that would not be sustainable.  We don’t really know to what degree companies like Ford, GM, Hyundai, VW, etc. are subsidizing their BEVs in order to increase sales volume.  We can assume most of these sales are probably not presently profitable IMO.

 

A better indicator or gauge of present-day BEV viability IMO are manufacturers that only build battery electric vehicles because they can not subsidize costs with other profits or investments as easily.  When I look at Tesla, Rivian, Lucid, etc., the picture is not quite as bright; not to mention other BEV manufacturers or startups that have failed or will soon.  We only have data for one month of sales without tax credits, so it will be interesting to see what happens with manufacturers that can’t simply fund BEVs with profits generated from selling ICEV and HEV.

 

I know profitable BEVs can be designed and manufactured but I’m not sure what percentage of population would buy such vehicles when they are based on present technologies.  Wild guess is that at present that number is under 10% if BEVs are not subsidized and must sell at a profit.

[akirby]

11 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

While I want BEVs to succeed, I’m also extremely objective and look beyond obvious “facts”.  Without proper context, facts alone can be misleading in my opinion.

 

You are correct that total BEV sales are increasing, but if most are sold at a loss, it means very little, right?  Long term that would not be sustainable.  We don’t really know to what degree companies like Ford, GM, Hyundai, VW, etc. are subsidizing their BEVs in order to increase sales volume.  We can assume most of these sales are probably not presently profitable IMO.

 

A better indicator or gauge of present-day BEV viability IMO are manufacturers that only build battery electric vehicles because they can not subsidize costs with other profits or investments as easily.  When I look at Tesla, Rivian, Lucid, etc., the picture is not quite as bright; not to mention other BEV manufacturers or startups that have failed or will soon.  We only have data for one month of sales without tax credits, so it will be interesting to see what happens with manufacturers that can’t simply fund BEVs with profits generated from selling ICEV and HEV.

 

I know profitable BEVs can be designed and manufactured but I’m not sure what percentage of population would buy such vehicles when they are based on present technologies.  Wild guess is that at present that number is under 10% if BEVs are not subsidized and must sell at a profit.

That wasn’t the question.  The assertion was every mfr is dumping EVs.  Obviously untrue

[morgan20]

12 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Can you give us a few examples of BEVs that meet those standards and that you would buy?

 

First choice:

 

Second choice: 

 

Third choice:

[Rick73]

3 hours ago, morgan20 said:

 

First choice:

 

 

A quick look at Ford Website suggests that that price is based on entry-level variant with smaller battery and much less than 300 miles of range.  Doesn’t sound like it meets Sherminator98’s criteria, but if I’m overlooking details please let me know.  While on Ford site it seemed that “well equipped” Mach Es easily exceed $50k.  

I don’t care to argue the point because I don’t have a dog in this fight, and it doesn’t affect me directly anyway.  Regardless, what’s more important is that Ford is likely losing money on Mach E sales at the entry-level prices, and if they increase price to make them profitable, sales would decrease further.  No doubt Ford can make it a great value by subsidizing costs, but that’s not a longterm solution.  Maybe things will turn around soon, who knows?

 

[morgan20]

6 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

A quick look at Ford Website suggests that that price is based on entry-level variant with smaller battery and much less than 300 miles of range.  Doesn’t sound like it meets Sherminator98’s criteria, but if I’m overlooking details please let me know.  While on Ford site it seemed that “well equipped” Mach Es easily exceed $50k.  

 

Ford is still offering sales incentives that bring the price of a '25 Mach-E Premium with the 88 kWh battery below $40k. The one in the picture is just such an example. The MME GT that my wife got earlier this year was below $50k thanks to incentives plus A/Z Plan.

[morgan20]

12 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

No doubt Ford can make it a great value by subsidizing costs, but that’s not a longterm solution.  

 

Yea, longterm solution consists of new processes and technologies that bring down the cost of design, development, testing, materials, and assembly. That's something the Ford skunkworks is tryin' to achieve with things like the Ford Universal EV Production System, and can apply to EV of any form factor small medium and large.