Ford CEO says customers are not interested in $75,000 EVs

[Sherminator98]

26 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

It’s the same movie again, Ford has an unbelievable new thing that will start at $40k,

many want to believe it and falls in love with the new best thing, then reality sets in…….

 

then Ford wonders where all the reservations went when the price jumps to $56k…..

 

But the price to produce batteries has been falling for years now. 

 

Quote

Global average battery prices declined from $153 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in 2022 to $149 in 2023, and they’re projected by Goldman Sachs Research to fall to $111 by the close of this year. Our researchers forecast that average battery prices could fall towards $80/kWh by 2026, amounting to a drop of almost 50% from 2023, a level at which battery electric vehicles would achieve ownership cost parity with gasoline-fueled cars in the US on an unsubsidized basis. 

https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/electric-vehicle-battery-prices-are-expected-to-fall-almost-50-percent-by-2025

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

But the price to produce batteries has been falling for years now. 

 

https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/electric-vehicle-battery-prices-are-expected-to-fall-almost-50-percent-by-2025

Sounds like lower production costs are not being passed onto vehicle manufacturers…

not unless you make your own batteries  like BYD.

Also those global average prices include a ton of Chinese produced vehicles which have 

all kinds of government support, skewing those prices, upshot is non-China production

of batteries is a lot more expensive because China controls most refining of battery materials.

 

last year, Farley was on a stream saying that large battery in large ev can be up to $50,000 

and at that, Ford is losing money which is whay they are running fast from anything too big.

(Maybe vehicles like GM Hummer battery?)

Edited October 4 by jpd80

[Rick73]

Cheaper batteries address problem of vehicle costs but at same time exacerbate electricity shortages.  What’s good for auto manufacturers isn’t always best for country as a whole when lacking long-term plans and means to achieve them.  Obviously cheaper batteries can also augment grid capacity but only by adding an extra layer of costs.

 

If much cheaper batteries make energy-inefficient vehicles with very large batteries common, we as a country will have additional problems to solve — not that we don’t have enough already in this area.

[Rick73]

On 10/2/2025 at 5:41 PM, akirby said:

 

Americans don’t want tiny cars.  The only reason they sell (in any volume) is if they’re dirt cheap like the Nissan Versa.  But there is little to no profit in such a vehicle so why devote factory space and resources to that if you can build and sell larger vehicles that people want to buy.

Tiny is relative, but I agree “too” small won’t sell.  However, there are at least three reasons I question the “bigger is better” argument.

 

Firstly, cost is a factor in decision making.  As you mention, cheaper is preferred over expensive so we can’t just isolate issue to larger vehicles are “better “.  They may be more desirable on average but their cost isn’t.  There are offsetting incentives.  We also need to be careful not to judge solely based on a rich person’s lifestyle.

 

Secondly, negative issues affecting smaller cars may not compare equally when applied to BEVs.  In my experience small ICE cars tend to be slower and especially noisier, and also ride harsh.  With BEVs generally being inherently much faster and quieter, it’s very possible smaller BEVs may be more acceptable to buyers than small ICE.  I also think ride quality can be improved relative to ICE due to basic differences favoring electric vehicles.

 

Thirdly, we have sales data indicating that given a choice, quite a few buyers have chosen the cheapest model even though at smallest range of available size for a given manufacturer.  In case of Tesla, Models 3 and Y essentially obsoleted Models S and X.  Though smaller, buyers preferred their much lower costs.  And Chevy’s Bolt, also the smallest EV GM was manufacturing at the time, was their best seller by far.

 

Obviously there are a lot of factors beyond size that lead to a vehicle being purchased, but given Models 3 and Y, and also Bolt’s success, how can we be sure buyers wouldn’t go even smaller if vehicle was otherwise desirable?  We don’t know because we haven’t tested the lower limit on BEV sizes yet.  There was obsession in press with a smaller Tesla Model 2 which never materialized, suggesting high interest.  However, return of new Bolt should be a better actual indicator, provided GM prices it similarly against their larger BEVs.  Bolt is much smaller than Equinox and other GM BEVs, which should provide additional data on buyers’ tolerance for small size if at significant lower price.

[rmc523]

26 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Tiny is relative, but I agree “too” small won’t sell.  However, there are at least three reasons I question the “bigger is better” argument.

 

Firstly, cost is a factor in decision making.  As you mention, cheaper is preferred over expensive so we can’t just isolate issue to larger vehicles are “better “.  They may be more desirable on average but their cost isn’t.  There are offsetting incentives.  We also need to be careful not to judge solely based on a rich person’s lifestyle.

 

Secondly, negative issues affecting smaller cars may not compare equally when applied to BEVs.  In my experience small ICE cars tend to be slower and especially noisier, and also ride harsh.  With BEVs generally being inherently much faster and quieter, it’s very possible smaller BEVs may be more acceptable to buyers than small ICE.  I also think ride quality can be improved relative to ICE due to basic differences favoring electric vehicles.

 

Thirdly, we have sales data indicating that given a choice, quite a few buyers have chosen the cheapest model even though at smallest range of available size for a given manufacturer.  In case of Tesla, Models 3 and Y essentially obsoleted Models S and X.  Though smaller, buyers preferred their much lower costs.  And Chevy’s Bolt, also the smallest EV GM was manufacturing at the time, was their best seller by far.

 

Obviously there are a lot of factors beyond size that lead to a vehicle being purchased, but given Models 3 and Y, and also Bolt’s success, how can we be sure buyers wouldn’t go even smaller if vehicle was otherwise desirable?  We don’t know because we haven’t tested the lower limit on BEV sizes yet.  There was obsession in press with a smaller Tesla Model 2 which never materialized, suggesting high interest.  However, return of new Bolt should be a better actual indicator, provided GM prices it similarly against their larger BEVs.  Bolt is much smaller than Equinox and other GM BEVs, which should provide additional data on buyers’ tolerance for small size if at significant lower price.

because all sorts of small ICE models fail despite being cheap.  Sure BEV might solve some dilemmas of a small car, but it still doesn’t change that the US market likes bigger cars and don’t want shoeboxes 

[Rick73]

4 hours ago, rmc523 said:

because all sorts of small ICE models fail despite being cheap.  Sure BEV might solve some dilemmas of a small car, but it still doesn’t change that the US market likes bigger cars and don’t want shoeboxes 

Do you consider Chevy Bolt a shoebox?  It was best non-Tesla seller in 2023, just before discontinuation.  And that was after massive battery-replacement issue.  Just curious what you consider minimum required vehicle size for success.

[Sherminator98]

20 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Do you consider Chevy Bolt a shoebox?  It was best non-Tesla seller in 2023, just before discontinuation.  And that was after massive battery-replacement issue.  Just curious what you consider minimum required vehicle size for success.

 

Being cheap doesn't equal being successful either. That was part of the reason the sales where so good, was because it was cheap. Did GM actually make $$$ off it? Most likely not. 

[Sherminator98]

On 10/3/2025 at 8:50 PM, jpd80 said:

Sounds like lower production costs are not being passed onto vehicle manufacturers…

not unless you make your own batteries  like BYD.

Also those global average prices include a ton of Chinese produced vehicles which have 

all kinds of government support, skewing those prices, upshot is non-China production

of batteries is a lot more expensive because China controls most refining of battery materials.

 

last year, Farley was on a stream saying that large battery in large ev can be up to $50,000 

and at that, Ford is losing money which is whay they are running fast from anything too big.

(Maybe vehicles like GM Hummer battery?)

 

They are but the prices aren't coming down because they aren't significantly cheaper. They are still in the build out phase of making more batteries and paying for the plants that make them. Maybe in a few years the price will drop more, but inflation isn't helping things either. I'm guessing that we will see a decent price drop in the next 5 years with LFP batteries being common place and available. I can see batteries being like electronics-the latest and greatest CPU when it comes out is like $500 bucks, but when the next gen comes out 2-3 years down the road, the price is like $250 then.  

The argument about the larger/more expensive batteries is the engineering triangle-you want a bigger battery? You'll get more weight and space taken up by it to include it being more costly. I think Ford is seeing that there are limitations on what they can do-trying to sell an EV as a profitable vehicle gives to too many short comings in things it actually needs to do (i.e. work as a truck), so its better to focus on other areas where it makes more sense to have an EV type product at a profitable sales rate like a mid/smaller truck like vehicle or a CUV. 

[akirby]

23 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Do you consider Chevy Bolt a shoebox?  It was best non-Tesla seller in 2023, just before discontinuation.  And that was after massive battery-replacement issue.  Just curious what you consider minimum required vehicle size for success.

You’re still confusing sales success with profitability.  Most people want at least a compact or midsized car or crossover but sometimes es they can only afford a subcompact.  Subcompacts only sell on price which yields very little profit.  When people buy vehicles they like or want they’re willing to pay more (Bronco Sport exhibit 1).  That’s why they discontinued Fiesta and Ecosport and shifted those resources to EVs.

[Trader 10]

5 hours ago, akirby said:

You’re still confusing sales success with profitability.  Most people want at least a compact or midsized car or crossover but sometimes es they can only afford a subcompact.  Subcompacts only sell on price which yields very little profit.  When people buy vehicles they like or want they’re willing to pay more (Bronco Sport exhibit 1).  That’s why they discontinued Fiesta and Ecosport and shifted those resources to EVs.

And what’s going to be Ford’s main selling point for CE1?? …. Price.

[Texasota]

13 minutes ago, Trader 10 said:

And what’s going to be Ford’s main selling point for CE1?? …. Price.

But, the new "tree" manufacturing process with the three part gigacastings are theoretically going to allow a decent profit while still selling at an affordable price. That is the reason so much resource was poured into the skunk works project. Time will tell if it achieves the desired results.

[Rick73]

7 hours ago, akirby said:

You’re still confusing sales success with profitability.  Most people want at least a compact or midsized car or crossover but sometimes es they can only afford a subcompact.  Subcompacts only sell on price which yields very little profit.  When people buy vehicles they like or want they’re willing to pay more (Bronco Sport exhibit 1).  That’s why they discontinued Fiesta and Ecosport and shifted those resources to EVs.

No, not really.  Just because I disagree doesn’t mean I’m confused.  With due respect, I think you’re so focused on details and previous specific ICE failures that you don’t look at much bigger picture enough, and often jump to wrong conclusions. 
 

Anyway, I know the difference between sales success and profitability as I’ve written about many times.  Pretty much anyone with any common sense knows that if you price many things low enough at a loss, you’ll sell a ton of them.

 

My question was not directed at you, but that’s OK, I appreciate all opinions.  Having said that, you didn’t actually answer my question of whether Bolt is or is not a shoebox; in other words too small to become profitable?  And to be clear, just because Fiesta or EcoSport did not sell well, it doesn’t necessarily mean it was due to small size.  Their size probably didn’t help, but they could have been undesirable for other reasons too.

 

To your point on lack of understanding regarding profitability, and assuming you’re correct on financial losses, and let’s assume Chevy loss $5k on average on each Bolt, how is that worse than Ford losing $20k on average Mach-E, or whatever the actual numbers are?  Do you have profitability data by models?  I doubt anyone does.  You assumed Bolt was not profitable because of its small size, but unless larger BEVs are profitable it doesn’t really mean much.  My point is that small Bolt may have loss money, but at same time could have financially outperformed its larger competitors by losing less.  We’ll see how new Bolt does soon enough so we can stop guessing.

[Sherminator98]

11 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

And what’s going to be Ford’s main selling point for CE1?? …. Price.

What is going to sell better? An EV with an average price of say 50-60K or one that has a 30-40k average price? 

 

The issue with EVs is the expense of the batteries and the tooling up to build them (see model E losses over the years)...ICE pricing/profit has been constant for the past 75 plus years. 

 

 

9 hours ago, Rick73 said:

My question was not directed at you, but that’s OK, I appreciate all opinions.  Having said that, you didn’t actually answer my question of whether Bolt is or is not a shoebox; in other words too small to become profitable?  And to be clear, just because Fiesta or EcoSport did not sell well, it doesn’t necessarily mean it was due to small size.  Their size probably didn’t help, but they could have been undesirable for other reasons too.

 

Your ignoring basic business-smaller cars equal smaller prices. Lower pricing is due to lack of demand 

 

EVs are currently expensive to make, so making a smaller product with less headroom to grow price wise is going to directly impact its profitability. GM was most likely building the Bolt to meet EPA requirements and most likely at a loss because it was cheaper then paying a fine or for CO2 credits.  

 

Selling smaller cars in NA market has been about meeting CAFE and not making money-The Escort 40 years ago was the best selling car because it was cheap, but didn't make any money for Ford. Overseas makers made money on smaller cars due to cheaper labor and in the case of the Japanese, the Yen being so strong against the dollar back in the late 1980s. 

[akirby]

12 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

And what’s going to be Ford’s main selling point for CE1?? …. Price.

Not dirt cheap just less expensive but also very desirable.  Like Maverick not Nissan Versa.  

[akirby]

9 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

My question was not directed at you, but that’s OK, I appreciate all opinions.  Having said that, you didn’t actually answer my question of whether Bolt is or is not a shoebox; in other words too small to become profitable?  And to be clear, just because Fiesta or EcoSport did not sell well, it doesn’t necessarily mean it was due to small size.  Their size probably didn’t help, but they could have been undesirable for other reasons too.

 

 

What makes fiesta, Ecosport or bolt desirable to buyers other than lowest price?  Certainly not styling or performance or room.

 

Mach-E is larger and more comfortable with desirable styling and dynamic performance options.  Price is secondary.

[Sherminator98]

28 minutes ago, akirby said:

What makes fiesta, Ecosport or bolt desirable to buyers other than lowest price?  Certainly not styling or performance or room.

 

The Fiesta wasn't a bad looking car, but the transmission didn't do it any favors but it wasn't nearly as bad as the Focus. The biggest issue with these cars is they don't have any desire or a way to hook a customer. The Maverick is a perfect example of this-its a CUV that is inexpensive and pickup bed on it that allows it do lightweight work, which includes about 80% of what you need to get from Home Depot to do something around your house. The only thing I can think of it might struggle with is getting mulch for the yard. 

 

But at the same time, both of those cars have pretty much disappeared off the streets around me also...because of the DCT. 

[rmc523]

On 10/4/2025 at 3:28 PM, Rick73 said:

Do you consider Chevy Bolt a shoebox?  It was best non-Tesla seller in 2023, just before discontinuation.  And that was after massive battery-replacement issue.  Just curious what you consider minimum required vehicle size for success.

 

11 hours ago, Rick73 said:

No, not really.  Just because I disagree doesn’t mean I’m confused.  With due respect, I think you’re so focused on details and previous specific ICE failures that you don’t look at much bigger picture enough, and often jump to wrong conclusions. 
 

Anyway, I know the difference between sales success and profitability as I’ve written about many times.  Pretty much anyone with any common sense knows that if you price many things low enough at a loss, you’ll sell a ton of them.

 

My question was not directed at you, but that’s OK, I appreciate all opinions.  Having said that, you didn’t actually answer my question of whether Bolt is or is not a shoebox; in other words too small to become profitable?  And to be clear, just because Fiesta or EcoSport did not sell well, it doesn’t necessarily mean it was due to small size.  Their size probably didn’t help, but they could have been undesirable for other reasons too.

 

To your point on lack of understanding regarding profitability, and assuming you’re correct on financial losses, and let’s assume Chevy loss $5k on average on each Bolt, how is that worse than Ford losing $20k on average Mach-E, or whatever the actual numbers are?  Do you have profitability data by models?  I doubt anyone does.  You assumed Bolt was not profitable because of its small size, but unless larger BEVs are profitable it doesn’t really mean much.  My point is that small Bolt may have loss money, but at same time could have financially outperformed its larger competitors by losing less.  We’ll see how new Bolt does soon enough so we can stop guessing.

 

I think it's borderline shoebox.  Subcompact is the smallest segment Americans will broadly "tolerate".  You're arguing for vehicles even smaller than that.

 

It's evidently clear that buyers don't want small vehicles.  If they did, subcompact (or smaller) vehicles would be the largest selling segment for all brands, and they're far from it.  I don't understand why you're hellbent on trying to prove a point that just isn't true.  Just because the vehicles might be a bit faster/quieter with at best price parity to ICE models doesn't mean people are suddenly going to ignore the size component like you seem to be doing.

 

For reference, a few models that were mentioned above:

 

BYD Seagull: (L) 148.8" (W) 67.5" (H) 60.6"

Chevy Bolt: (L) 169.5" (W) 69.7" (H) 63.6"

Ford Fiesta: (L) 160.1" (W) 67.8" (H) 58.1" (hatch model, the sedan was 173.5" long)

Edited October 6 by rmc523

[Sherminator98]

28 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

I think it's borderline shoebox.  Subcompact is the smallest segment Americans will broadly "tolerate".  You're arguing for vehicles even smaller than that.

 

It's evidently clear that buyers don't want small vehicles.  If they did, subcompact (or smaller) vehicles would be the largest selling segment for all brands, and they're far from it.  I don't understand why you're hellbent on trying to prove a point that just isn't true.  Just because the vehicles might be a bit faster/quieter with at best price parity to ICE models doesn't mean people are suddenly going to ignore the size component like you seem to be doing.

 

For reference, a few models that were mentioned above:

 

BYD Seagull: (L) 148.8" (W) 67.5" (H) 60.6"

Chevy Bolt: (L) 169.5" (W) 69.7" (H) 63.6"

Ford Fiesta: (L) 160.1" (W) 67.8" (H) 58.1" (hatch model, the sedan was 173.5" long)

 

The two lower cost models that GM makes, the Trailblazer and Trax, are 174 and 178 inches long for comparison. 

 

So just going by that, anything smaller then say 170 inches or so is going to be a tough sell in the NA market at least. 

 

Even 40 years ago, the Escort was 169 inches long and considered a compact car of its era. 

Edited October 6 by Sherminator98

[rmc523]

1 minute ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

The two lower cost models that GM makes, the Trailblazer and Trax, are 174 and 178 inches long for comparison. 

 

So just going by that, anything smaller then say 170 inches or so is going to be a tough sell in the NA market at least. 

 

No, they're going to fly off the lots because they're BEV!!!

[blazerdude20]

On 10/3/2025 at 5:50 PM, jpd80 said:

Sounds like lower production costs are not being passed onto vehicle manufacturers…

not unless you make your own batteries  like BYD.

 

Is Ford truly planning to build their own batteries at BOC? IF so, that would certainly help with lowering costs for EV's. Regardless of the vehicle size.

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, blazerdude20 said:

Is Ford truly planning to build their own batteries at BOC? IF so, that would certainly help with lowering costs for EV's. Regardless of the vehicle size.

No I was referring to the joint venture plants, those were indeed set up for Ford as the main customer but now they’re looking around for other companies wanting to buy batteries until demand increases.

 

And that’s the other point, BEV production has not ramped up as expected in the US, that has to affect battery costs sticking at higher than expected prices 

[akirby]

7 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

No, they're going to fly off the lots because they're BEV!!!

 

Value!!! Value!!  Efficiency!!  Efficiency!!

[Trader 10]

Farley has mentioned that the CE1 truck will be rear wheel drive. I don’t know what percentage of Maverick sales are AWD, but guess it is close to 50%. A lot of potential buyers won’t consider the CE1 if it doesn’t offer AWD. 

[Rick73]

10 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

 

I think it's borderline shoebox.  Subcompact is the smallest segment Americans will broadly "tolerate".  You're arguing for vehicles even smaller than that.

 

It's evidently clear that buyers don't want small vehicles.  If they did, subcompact (or smaller) vehicles would be the largest selling segment for all brands, and they're far from it.  I don't understand why you're hellbent on trying to prove a point that just isn't true.  Just because the vehicles might be a bit faster/quieter with at best price parity to ICE models doesn't mean people are suddenly going to ignore the size component like you seem to be doing.

 

For reference, a few models that were mentioned above:

 

BYD Seagull: (L) 148.8" (W) 67.5" (H) 60.6"

Chevy Bolt: (L) 169.5" (W) 69.7" (H) 63.6"

Ford Fiesta: (L) 160.1" (W) 67.8" (H) 58.1" (hatch model, the sedan was 173.5" long)

What people want and what they can afford are often two very different things.  Example are people who may like and want Lexus, but end up buying Toyota instead.

 

Interesting that Bolt is considerably larger than Fiesta, and especially Seagull, 500-E, Mini, etc.  Maybe its large enough for a lot more buyers than you think, particularly if it starts under $30k.

[Rick73]

12 hours ago, akirby said:

What makes fiesta, Ecosport or bolt desirable to buyers other than lowest price?  Certainly not styling or performance or room.

 

Mach-E is larger and more comfortable with desirable styling and dynamic performance options.  Price is secondary.

Let’s agree to disagree because I don’t see price as secondary when most of us think (though nobody knows for sure) that Ford discounts Mach-E and takes a greater loss than Chevy probably took on Bolt, or will take on new-generation Bolt.  And on top of that Ford did not sell as many Mach-Es even when discounted more than Bolt.

 

There’s a reason Ford is now pursuing smaller BEVs; mostly because on average the larger the electric vehicle the higher the price, the lower the demand at that high price, and the larger the subsequent losses per vehicle.  Again, Tesla 3 and Y outsell S and X by at least 10:1 according to most reports, showing there are a lot of factors, with price playing a major role.

 

Everyone knows and accepts that buyers don’t want tiny cheaply-built cars, but also know that large BEVs are unaffordable to the masses.  That means to me that manufacturers must push the limits on how small a vehicle can be while still attracting enough buyers.  The middle ground left between not being too small and being too expensive at other extreme apparently is pretty limited.  Like I said, will keep eye on Bolt and Leaf sales.