Ford Vice Chair: Large EV Investments were a Mistake.

[mackinaw]

https://fordauthority.com/2025/05/ford-vice-chair-says-large-ev-investments-were-a-mistake/

[Texasota]

@akirby, can you invite rperez17 back?

[Dequindre]

Yeah, no kidding...

 

All they have to show for it is the skunkworks team in some basement in California trying to right the ship. Hackett and Farley threw billions at projects and technologies that have resulted in nothing.

[akirby]

4 hours ago, Texasota said:

@akirby, can you invite rperez17 back?

It would be fun to hear him spin what’s happened the last 2 years.   For a few minutes.  😂

[Rick73]

14 hours ago, Texasota said:

@akirby, can you invite rperez17 back?

 

 

9 hours ago, akirby said:

It would be fun to hear him spin what’s happened the last 2 years.   For a few minutes.  &nbsp😂

In fairness, he wasn’t alone.  Obviously Ford and other manufacturers’ executives at the very highest levels that committed billions were just as wrong, if not more so.  The only company I clearly recall rperez817 criticizing for not jumping in head first was Toyota, and he wasn’t particularly kind of Mr Toyoda for defending his position that hybrids were a better choice short term during transition.

 

I supported hybrids and often argued with rperez817 that countries needed to address power generation before placing even more loads on grid, but rperez817 argued grid improvements would follow quickly.  That never seemed reasonable to me because of the immense costs that can’t be funded in a few years.  We are talking decades, so incremental BEV loads are mostly handled by natural gas in US, and worse yet by coal in some other countries.  This is what happens when politicians and voters are influenced by misguided activists.  We do need to control emissions, but doing it wrong won’t accomplish goals; and wasted funds won’t be available where they are actually needed most.

 

rperez817 and I strongly agreed on one thing, that future vehicles needed to be smaller in order to be more energy and cost efficient regardless of power source (ICE, HEV, or BEV).   The biggest mistake of all was companies like GM investing in manufacturing 9,000+ pound electric Hummers and pretending they were helping the environment.  That level of hypocrisy is hard to take.  Sometimes it seems executives are very smart people who lack common sense — book smart but not always practical.

[DeluxeStang]

I don't know the best way to do it, but car companies need to improve on the best ways to identify short and long term trends. Most brands I've seen invested very heavily in EVs around the time of COVID, citing long wait lists as evidence that demand for these large, expensive EVs was through the roof. 

 

I'm surprised these car companies are full of intelligent, well educated people with decades of experience in their fields, yet virtually none of them stopped to think the wait lists for these models were caused by first adopter demand mixed with supply chain shortages. 

 

Brands do this all the time, chasing short term data and trends, and it catches them out all the time. Cars have long product development cycles. Decisions on what segments and propulsion types to heavily invest in should not be guided by short term demand. 

[mackinaw]

Don't underestimate the influence of the investment community.  They can make a company do things it normally wouldn't (like spending billions on unproven EV's).  If investors sour on a company's CEO, they can get the CEO fired.  Look at Toyota's Akio Toyoda who was forced out as CEO because the investment community didn't agree with is thoughts on BEV and ICE's.  

[Sherminator98]

On 5/3/2025 at 1:23 PM, DeluxeStang said:

I don't know the best way to do it, but car companies need to improve on the best ways to identify short and long term trends. Most brands I've seen invested very heavily in EVs around the time of COVID, citing long wait lists as evidence that demand for these large, expensive EVs was through the roof. 

 

I'm surprised these car companies are full of intelligent, well educated people with decades of experience in their fields, yet virtually none of them stopped to think the wait lists for these models were caused by first adopter demand mixed with supply chain shortages. 

 

Brands do this all the time, chasing short term data and trends, and it catches them out all the time. Cars have long product development cycles. Decisions on what segments and propulsion types to heavily invest in should not be guided by short term demand. 

 

Its just not that, its upcoming government regulations that was forcing it...we are 10 years from the EU and CARB (which a significant amount of the top 10 best selling markets/States also use) requirements of 0% CO2 requirements and I believe the EPA wanted at least 50% at the same time. 

Of course that is subject to change, but like you said its not like Ford or whoever could just wait till then and start popping out EVs-plus the market in China, but then again IMO I think that is a lost cause and that country might not exist in its current form in the next 10 years either. 

[akirby]

Ford had to prepare for the EV onslaught especially with pending government mandates.  Where they screwed the pooch was sacrificing hybrid expansion, Edge and Nautilus to do it and choosing the wrong products (3 row utilities) as well as failed partnerships.  They should have hedged their bets more.

[rmc523]

On 5/3/2025 at 1:23 PM, DeluxeStang said:

I don't know the best way to do it, but car companies need to improve on the best ways to identify short and long term trends. Most brands I've seen invested very heavily in EVs around the time of COVID, citing long wait lists as evidence that demand for these large, expensive EVs was through the roof. 

 

I'm surprised these car companies are full of intelligent, well educated people with decades of experience in their fields, yet virtually none of them stopped to think the wait lists for these models were caused by first adopter demand mixed with supply chain shortages. 

 

Brands do this all the time, chasing short term data and trends, and it catches them out all the time. Cars have long product development cycles. Decisions on what segments and propulsion types to heavily invest in should not be guided by short term demand. 

 

As has been mentioned by others, I think the deciding factor in many companies going "all in" was more the looming government regulations than actual market demand........though obviously short term "mega demand" projections based on the factors you mentioned like first adopters and supply chain issues probably accelerated some plans ahead of their skis.

[Texasota]

10 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

As has been mentioned by others, I think the deciding factor in many companies going "all in" was more the looming government regulations than actual market demand........though obviously short term "mega demand" projections based on the factors you mentioned like first adopters and supply chain issues probably accelerated some plans ahead of their skis.

The overall frenzy by the media and climate advocates put immense pressure on manufactures as well. Toyota was crucified for not quickly jumping into the EV frenzy. Turns out they were right about how this was going to play out.

[AM222]

8 hours ago, Texasota said:

The overall frenzy by the media and climate advocates put immense pressure on manufactures as well. Toyota was crucified for not quickly jumping into the EV frenzy. Turns out they were right about how this was going to play out.

Seeing how Toyota is strong in practically all continents, they know what's going on.

Ford invested heavily on EVs that it can only sell in limited markets. Hyundai Ioniq 5 I believe is far more successful globally than the Mach E which is not sold globally.
 

[twintornados]

6 minutes ago, AM222 said:

 ...Hyundai Ioniq 5 I believe is far more successful globally than the Mach E which is not sold globally.

[AM222]

34 minutes ago, twintornados said:

Hyundai was also able to roll out a family of compact and midsize Hyundai, Genesis and Kia EVs based on the same basic modular E-GMP architecture used by the Ioniq 5. This is something Ford could have done with the Mach E's EV platform. I'm sure they could have made a more traditional SUV-shaped model or a Lincoln crossover out of the Mach E platform. Again, since it's Ford they can't do it. 

Notice how Ford is very inefficient that it tries so hard and sacrifices many things to survive while other manufacturers like Hyundai made an entire EV range while at the same time, it kept most of its ICE models including its sedans. 

Edited May 6 by AM222

[Sherminator98]

1 hour ago, AM222 said:

Notice how Ford is very inefficient that it tries so hard and sacrifices many things to survive while other manufacturers like Hyundai made an entire EV range while at the same time, it kept most of its ICE models including its sedans. 

 

So here the problem with your train of thought-Ford's bread and butter is commercial vehicles-Vans and trucks. Last time I checked Hyundai doesn't offer a larger truck or van, so that is extra money they can use on products like EVs 

 

The Mach E was developed as a compliance vehicle for the EU market (which is why its built in Mexico vs USA). Since then Ford's EV projects have been a shit show with cancellations and changes in direction

[rmc523]

3 hours ago, AM222 said:

Hyundai was also able to roll out a family of compact and midsize Hyundai, Genesis and Kia EVs based on the same basic modular E-GMP architecture used by the Ioniq 5. This is something Ford could have done with the Mach E's EV platform. I'm sure they could have made a more traditional SUV-shaped model or a Lincoln crossover out of the Mach E platform. Again, since it's Ford they can't do it. 

Notice how Ford is very inefficient that it tries so hard and sacrifices many things to survive while other manufacturers like Hyundai made an entire EV range while at the same time, it kept most of its ICE models including its sedans. 

 

Hyundai is also part of a massive conglomerate of multiple different industries.

[twintornados]

8 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

Hyundai is also part of a massive conglomerate of multiple different industries.

 

 

@AM222

 

[AM222]

20 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

So here the problem with your train of thought-Ford's bread and butter is commercial vehicles-Vans and trucks. Last time I checked Hyundai doesn't offer a larger truck or van, so that is extra money they can use on products like EVs 

 

The Mach E was developed as a compliance vehicle for the EU market (which is why its built in Mexico vs USA). Since then Ford's EV projects have been a shit show with cancellations and changes in direction

Hyundai makes large diesel vans and sells them in other markets outside North America.

The smaller but still large Staria van has a commercial version and an upcoming EV variant. They have a midsize pickup under the Kia-brand for the rest-of-the-world-markets.


The way things are going, Ford is a commercial vehicle manufacturer that also builds Mustangs. 

The biggest mistake of Ford is killing most of the models it can sell globally and build in multiple regional plants.
Trucks like the F-series and other full-size models that Ford focuses on have no real market outside the US and Canada. 

Ford can't seem to balance running its business globally like other manufacturers. When it focuses in its home market, it tends to sacrifice the others.

Edited May 7 by AM222

[AM222]

19 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

Hyundai is also part of a massive conglomerate of multiple different industries.

I think that's not an excuse for poor decision making, but again Ford stopped giving importance to the global market years ago. 

I don't think Hyundai is funneling billions from other businesses to make cars. They're just following Toyota's model of tailoring a car lineup for each region. Someone mentioned this before... "Give people what they want instead of giving them what you want them to want".

Globally, Hyundai has a full lineup from mini/city cars to large SUVs and vans (ICE/hybrids and EVs) to choose from.

Here's another example of poor decision making: Subcompacts are popular in many markets outside of Europe, this includes Asia and South America. Ford still makes the Puma (basically a lengthened Fiesta crossover) in ICE and BEV forms, but it isn't selling or manufacturing it for these regions. When the EcoSport was discontinued in these markets, Ford lost its share of the subcompact crossover market to its rivals. 


 

Edited May 7 by AM222

[Sherminator98]

3 hours ago, AM222 said:

The way things are going, Ford is a commercial vehicle manufacturer that also builds Mustangs. 

The biggest mistake of Ford is killing most of the models it can sell globally and build in multiple regional plants.
Trucks like the F-series and other full-size models that Ford focuses on have no real market outside the US and Canada. 

Ford can't seem to balance running its business globally like other manufacturers. When it focuses in its home market, it tends to sacrifice the others.

 

Food for thought-maybe that is exactly what Ford wants to do. Why are they going to chase down markets that they aren't competitive in and don't make money in?

 

That would explain the decisions they are making over the past 10-20 years. 

[AM222]

1 hour ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

Food for thought-maybe that is exactly what Ford wants to do. Why are they going to chase down markets that they aren't competitive in and don't make money in?

 

That would explain the decisions they are making over the past 10-20 years. 

That would be the time of Alan Mulally. His "One Ford" philosophy actually realigned global markets. Models like the Fiesta and EcoSport were successful in Asia and South America. Ford did not update these models significantly and surprise surprise they became uncompetitive.

Ford... well Ford of Europe knows how to develop good small car platforms... that's if you let them. I don't believe Ford suddenly forgot how to make competitive small cars and crossovers. In Europe, Ford was at the top until the late 2010s.

 

 

Edited May 7 by AM222

[Sherminator98]

1 minute ago, AM222 said:

That would be the time of Alan Mulally. His "One Ford" philosophy actually realigned global markets. Models like the Fiesta and EcoSport were successful in Asia and South America. Ford did not update these models significantly and surprise surprise they became uncompetitive.

Ford... well Ford of Europe knows how to develop good small car platforms... that's if you let them. I don't believe Ford suddenly forgot how to make competitive small cars. In Europe, Ford was at the top until the late 2010s.

 

They might have made good small platforms, but apparently they couldn't make a profit on them. 

[rmc523]

7 hours ago, AM222 said:

I think that's not an excuse for poor decision making, but again Ford stopped giving importance to the global market years ago. 

I don't think Hyundai is funneling billions from other businesses to make cars. They're just following Toyota's model of tailoring a car lineup for each region. Someone mentioned this before... "Give people what they want instead of giving them what you want them to want".

Globally, Hyundai has a full lineup from mini/city cars to large SUVs and vans (ICE/hybrids and EVs) to choose from.

Here's another example of poor decision making: Subcompacts are popular in many markets outside of Europe, this includes Asia and South America. Ford still makes the Puma (basically a lengthened Fiesta crossover) in ICE and BEV forms, but it isn't selling or manufacturing it for these regions. When the EcoSport was discontinued in these markets, Ford lost its share of the subcompact crossover market to its rivals. 


 

 

Oh I'm not saying I agree with Ford retreating basically everywhere around the globe.

My point was also not that Hyundai is funneling money from other business to the car unit, but that it can benefit from preferential/discounted pricing supplied by other arms of its conglomerate - i.e. shipping costs, material costs, etc.  so the widget that costs Ford $0.30 to make might cost Hyundai $0.15 so it can divert funds to more projects.

 

That said, I wish Ford would get its act together and re-enter segments it's abandon, and maintain competitiveness.

 

3 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

They might have made good small platforms, but apparently they couldn't make a profit on them. 

 

Eh, to be fair, Ford Europe was one of the few areas that did make money back then.

[AM222]

4 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

They might have made good small platforms, but apparently they couldn't make a profit on them. 

They did profit back then. Ford's problem is they sold these vehicles in limited markets. This automatically limited the volume and profits.

[bzcat]

Ford invested in the wrong EV. It's a statement of fact.

 

The market was not demanding 7,000 lbs F-150 EVs but that's where Ford put its eggs in the basket. Meanwhile, there is no replacement for Escape in the US (I mean compact CUV is only the biggest segment in the market so why would Ford want to compete there right?) and Ford Europe laid goose eggs on its collab with VW. 

 

The industry is still moving towards EV. The mandates will probably be modified in some way but they are not going away. Germany, California, China are not going back from >20% EV marketshare to single digit. This train is only going in one direction, the only variable is how fast the train is moving.

 

The CE1 approach was and still is the right move. They just need to bring those to market quickly before the market leaves Ford behind. 

 

Edited May 19 by bzcat