Ford Third Quarter U.S. Sales Rise 8.2%; Seven Consecutive Months of Sales Growth

[Sherminator98]

https://www.fromtheroad.ford.com/us/en/articles/2025/ford-third-quarter-us-sales-results

[Bob Rosadini]

1 hour ago, Sherminator98 said:

https://www.fromtheroad.ford.com/us/en/articles/2025/ford-third-quarter-us-sales-results

 

[rmc523]

 

 

I'll work on the monthly numbers and will post them shortly

[Rick73]

Excellent quarter for EVs, though Farley expects next month may be much different.

 

Quote

Farley on Tuesday said he "wouldn't be surprised" if sales of EVs fell from a market share of around 10% to 12% in September — which is expected to be a record — to 5% this month after a federal incentive program for electric vehicles ended.

 

September overall growth data looks even better than Q3 according to one report.

[rmc523]

Here are Ford's September (monthly) numbers.  I'm still compiling competitor figures, but not all have been released yet.

 

Edited October 1 by rmc523

[Bob Rosadini]

7 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

 

Second attempt to respond to "From the Road" post..I had backed out to open another message and when I did my original post was gone.  Guess you can't do that anymore?

 

In any case, thanks for "From the Road" link.  I checked it out and went to Ford Pro, and shocker, while the narrative refers to Ford's leadership in class 1 to 7 commercial trucks, the Ford Pro site features Transits and Super Duty with no mention/reference to 650/750.

 

This takes me back to a post I made on 8/21.."Jim Farley's Priorities"  and his apparent definition of "commercial trucks".   This prompted many posts justifying Ford's lack of interest in..."semi trucks"..."large big rig style trucks" etc, as well as the need for concentration on "best ROI". 

 

These all miss the point as to what market in which  Ford has an opportunity to compete.

 

As I've said previously, trucks of any class can be the reason a business exists, such as for hire trucking, be it dry or liquid freight or dump trucking or a class 8 chassis is needed as a crane carrier, redi-mix concrete etc.

 

But in most cases, the lower classes- in particular class 6 or 7,  the truck is a  vehicle in support of the primary business.  It is NOT a matter of ROI for these customers, it is a matter of need to support the smooth operation of the business.  I don't think Ford (Brian Rathsburg commercial marketing mgr) understands this.

 

This past weekend I went by the yard of a large contractor that does highway and   marine projects..the full range of civil work.  The low boy trailers were loaded for dispatch Monday morning and one had a 650/750 water tanker that by its very clean appearance was relatively new.  A good example of a limited use truck that is needed for the application of water in a paving project or for providing water as needed for soil compaction. A chassis used to carry attenuator equipment is another good example- the truck sits to maintain a safe work zone.  If a contractor is cost conscious, you wont see a Pete or KW in this application.  The 650/750 is a good product for such duty.

 

Likewise many other businesses need a truck as a matter of convenience to have on sight as needed.  Building contractors are a good example. If they have a class 6 or 7 truck(s), they often sit ideal..until the lumber yard failed to deliver a full order or the job requires a quick load of mason or bedding sand etc.

 

Utility contractors are another good example.  I would imagine 7m3 gets my point at least as around here, National Grid employs class 7 dump trucks-some of which are Fords, and what do they do, they often sit parked to contain material being excavated and then used to provide clean fill.

 

In any case it would not take much IMO to keep 650/750 a very good low cost alternative to satisfy a large percentage of the the class 6/7 market

 

[rmc523]

I was surprised to see Maverick sales are still apparently like 60% conquest.

[Trader 10]

3 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Excellent quarter for EVs, though Farley expects next month may be much different.

 

 

September overall growth data looks even better than Q3 according to one report.

I don’t think the EV increase of 7000 units is all that impressive, particularly considering the expiration of the $7500 tax credit. 

[rmc523]

Here's a quarterly comparison of trucks:

 

Tesla and Rivian haven't reported figures yet, but everyone else has.

 

 

[blazerdude20]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

I was surprised to see Maverick sales are still apparently like 60% conquest.

 

Its by far the cheapest "truck" entry. It may not be body on frame but it does most everything the majority of small/mid-size truck shoppers need. While also getting really good MPG. It is also cheaper than similar small CUV's. The functionality for the cost is unmatched. 

 

- XLT Maverick Hybrid is ~$30k 

- SR5 Tacoma (RWD) is ~$38k

- LT Colorado (RWD) is ~$37k

 

- XLE Rav4 Hybrid is  ~$35k  (SE Corolla Cross Hybrid is ~$31k)

- Sport CR-V Hybrid is ~$35k (Sport HR-V is ~$28k)

 

Edited October 1 by blazerdude20

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

I was surprised to see Maverick sales are still apparently like 60% conquest.

Indeed, it shows just how much it appeals to buyers who have grown tired of a sea of utilities.

 

and thanks again for the effort you put into those monthly charts, it really helps with clarity, let’s people see the changes.

 

I wonder if Mache E sales will ease back soon, the higher number is great but it’s probably pulling ahead sales…

[tbone]

4 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Second attempt to respond to "From the Road" post..I had backed out to open another message and when I did my original post was gone.  Guess you can't do that anymore?

 

In any case, thanks for "From the Road" link.  I checked it out and went to Ford Pro, and shocker, while the narrative refers to Ford's leadership in class 1 to 7 commercial trucks, the Ford Pro site features Transits and Super Duty with no mention/reference to 650/750.

 

This takes me back to a post I made on 8/21.."Jim Farley's Priorities"  and his apparent definition of "commercial trucks".   This prompted many posts justifying Ford's lack of interest in..."semi trucks"..."large big rig style trucks" etc, as well as the need for concentration on "best ROI". 

 

These all miss the point as to what market in which  Ford has an opportunity to compete.

 

As I've said previously, trucks of any class can be the reason a business exists, such as for hire trucking, be it dry or liquid freight or dump trucking or a class 8 chassis is needed as a crane carrier, redi-mix concrete etc.

 

But in most cases, the lower classes- in particular class 6 or 7,  the truck is a  vehicle in support of the primary business.  It is NOT a matter of ROI for these customers, it is a matter of need to support the smooth operation of the business.  I don't think Ford (Brian Rathsburg commercial marketing mgr) understands this.

 

This past weekend I went by the yard of a large contractor that does highway and   marine projects..the full range of civil work.  The low boy trailers were loaded for dispatch Monday morning and one had a 650/750 water tanker that by its very clean appearance was relatively new.  A good example of a limited use truck that is needed for the application of water in a paving project or for providing water as needed for soil compaction. A chassis used to carry attenuator equipment is another good example- the truck sits to maintain a safe work zone.  If a contractor is cost conscious, you wont see a Pete or KW in this application.  The 650/750 is a good product for such duty.

 

Likewise many other businesses need a truck as a matter of convenience to have on sight as needed.  Building contractors are a good example. If they have a class 6 or 7 truck(s), they often sit ideal..until the lumber yard failed to deliver a full order or the job requires a quick load of mason or bedding sand etc.

 

Utility contractors are another good example.  I would imagine 7m3 gets my point at least as around here, National Grid employs class 7 dump trucks-some of which are Fords, and what do they do, they often sit parked to contain material being excavated and then used to provide clean fill.

 

In any case it would not take much IMO to keep 650/750 a very good low cost alternative to satisfy a large percentage of the the class 6/7 market

 

I don’t understand Ford’s lack of commitment to these trucks. They have a manufacturing facility for them up and running, so I don’t understand why they don’t even make incremental improvements to them to make them more competitive or appealing to various customers. I see this class of truck regularly in use around me so clearly there is a market.  
 

The last time you posted about this you outlined some  basic changes that would make them more capable and those did not seem to be that heavy of a lift to me. It appears it is mostly lip service regarding Ford commercial.    

[ausrutherford]

Can't we just be glad that sales are up and that the large-profit/revenue makers (F-Series, Transit, Expy/Nov, and Bronco) soared?

 

They pay the bills and allow for investment in other products. 

[Sherminator98]

47 minutes ago, ausrutherford said:

Can't we just be glad that sales are up and that the large-profit/revenue makers (F-Series, Transit, Expy/Nov, and Bronco) soared?

 

They pay the bills and allow for investment in other products. 

 

Nah people have their esoteric likes that don't often survive even basic business 101 analytical skills.

 

Class 4 Plus trucks are other people's city cars or station wagons. 

 

[rmc523]

16 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Indeed, it shows just how much it appeals to buyers who have grown tired of a sea of utilities.

 

and thanks again for the effort you put into those monthly charts, it really helps with clarity, let’s people see the changes.

 

I wonder if Mache E sales will ease back soon, the higher number is great but it’s probably pulling ahead sales…

 

I'm happy to do it - it does show what things are doing!

 

 

 

You'd think Ford would try to make Maverick a global model - it seems like a perfect model to appeal to other markets where F-150 is way too big.

 

I'm surprised to see Ranger sales down, even with such low levels....it really gets squeezed by F-150 and Maverick, and also I'm sure they prioritize Bronco.

 

Re: Mach E - oh I'm sure sales got pulled forward, I expect a decent going forward.  Ford and GM are coming up with workarounds, though.

 

Trump Ends EV Tax Credit—Ford and GM Step In With $7,500 Incentives - Autoblog

 

Ford and GM are working with their dealer networks to introduce programs that would essentially extend consumers a $7,500 credit instead of the now-dead $7,500 federal tax credit for EV buyers.

 

Both have rolled out programs to retailers under which Ford or GM’s financing arm would initiate the purchase of EVs already in dealer inventory by making down payments on them, which would in turn qualify the automaker’s financing arms for the federal $7,500 tax credit on those vehicles. After the initial down payment, dealers will then offer leases on these cars to buyers as usual, with the $7,500 tax credit factored into their lease terms, says Reuters. In a statement, GM told the outlet it “worked with our GM dealers on an extended offer for customers to benefit from the tax credit for leases.” Ford will offer “competitive” lease payments through Ford Credit until December 31.

 

[Rick73]

17 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

I don’t think the EV increase of 7000 units is all that impressive, particularly considering the expiration of the $7500 tax credit. 

Next month’s data will be interesting for sure given that Mach-E and Lightning were both over 100% higher in September.  E-Transit apparently wasn’t affected at all suffering a 90% decline.  Also of interest is that September sales for Mach-E and Lightning were considerably higher than July and August rates, suggesting buyers wanting to take advantage of available tax credit waited till the very last minute to pull trigger on buying.  Who knows why, maybe many buyers thought there could be a last minute BEV tax credit policy reversal. 

 

If Farley is correct, October data should see Mach-E and Lightning volume drop considerably, unless EV tax credit changes somehow.

[Trader 10]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

 

I'm happy to do it - it does show what things are doing!

 

 

 

You'd think Ford would try to make Maverick a global model - it seems like a perfect model to appeal to other markets where F-150 is way too big.

 

I'm surprised to see Ranger sales down, even with such low levels....it really gets squeezed by F-150 and Maverick, and also I'm sure they prioritize Bronco.

 

Re: Mach E - oh I'm sure sales got pulled forward, I expect a decent going forward.  Ford and GM are coming up with workarounds, though.

 

Trump Ends EV Tax Credit—Ford and GM Step In With $7,500 Incentives - Autoblog

 

Ford and GM are working with their dealer networks to introduce programs that would essentially extend consumers a $7,500 credit instead of the now-dead $7,500 federal tax credit for EV buyers.

 

Both have rolled out programs to retailers under which Ford or GM’s financing arm would initiate the purchase of EVs already in dealer inventory by making down payments on them, which would in turn qualify the automaker’s financing arms for the federal $7,500 tax credit on those vehicles. After the initial down payment, dealers will then offer leases on these cars to buyers as usual, with the $7,500 tax credit factored into their lease terms, says Reuters. In a statement, GM told the outlet it “worked with our GM dealers on an extended offer for customers to benefit from the tax credit for leases.” Ford will offer “competitive” lease payments through Ford Credit until December 31.

 

Not good for Ford’s bottom line..

[twintornados]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

...If Farley is correct, October data should see Mach-E and Lightning volume drop considerably, unless EV tax credit changes somehow.

 

I don't believe Mach E ever qualified for the tax credit. 

[ANTAUS]

The Ram Truck has really taken a dive, I remember just 2 years ago it was nipping on the Silverado's heals, and now it's waaayyyy behind...

[Rick73]

8 minutes ago, twintornados said:

 

I don't believe Mach E ever qualified for the tax credit. 

Good point, but was there not a lease workaround?  Not sure since I’ve never looked into leasing details.  In any case would seem strange for over 100% volume increase without some kind of incentive.

[rmc523]

12 minutes ago, ANTAUS said:

The Ram Truck has really taken a dive, I remember just 2 years ago it was nipping on the Silverado's heals, and now it's waaayyyy behind...

 

I think it was a combo of bad mix of Silverado at dealers/production issues, and more recently they tried dropping the Hemi V8 and it's gone bad sales wise.

[twintornados]

29 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Good point, but was there not a lease workaround?  Not sure since I’ve never looked into leasing details.  In any case would seem strange for over 100% volume increase without some kind of incentive.

 

I believe the leasing company gets the rebate and can pass it onto the customer....not sure how that works or how much they actually get. 

 

[fordmantpw]

2 hours ago, twintornados said:

 

I don't believe Mach E ever qualified for the tax credit. 

 

It did in 2023 when we bought ours.  I think originally the Mach-E had the full $7500 credit, but it was cut in half to $3750 at some point.

[bzcat]

Mach E did qualify for the $7500 commercial lease credit so Ford Credit could provide that as rebate to retail customers that leased.

 

It did not qualify for the full $7500 retail tax credit which required US final assembly and domestic battery sourcing.  

[Bob Rosadini]

On 10/1/2025 at 4:35 PM, jpd80 said:

Indeed, it shows just how much it appeals to buyers who have grown tired of a sea of utilities.

 

and thanks again for the effort you put into those monthly charts, it really helps with clarity, let’s people see the changes.

 

I wonder if Mache E sales will ease back soon, the higher number is great but it’s probably pulling ahead sales…

10-4 on the "thanks for effort"