Lightning production to end?

[Trader 10]

I think that it’s likely Ford soldiers on with Lightning the rest of the decade with the 2028 F150 improvements and T3 gets cancelled (if it hasn’t already). 

[rmc523]

4 minutes ago, Trader 10 said:

I think that it’s likely Ford soldiers on with Lightning the rest of the decade with the 2028 F150 improvements and T3 gets cancelled (if it hasn’t already). 

 

What you're not factoring in, though, is that they built BOC in large part for T3.  They're not going to have a factory empty.

[Trader 10]

1 minute ago, rmc523 said:

 

What you're not factoring in, though, is that they built BOC in large part for T3.  They're not going to have a factory empty.

I believe they will if they can’t see a way for T3 to be profitable. Ford may be pivoting to the factory eventually building something else. Remember that Ford has already announced a delay in T3 production. 

[mackinaw]

1 hour ago, Trader 10 said:

I believe they will if they can’t see a way for T3 to be profitable. Ford may be pivoting to the factory eventually building something else. Remember that Ford has already announced a delay in T3 production. 

 

Ford is developing EREV's which will have to be built somewhere.  Maybe at BOC.

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

I believe they will if they can’t see a way for T3 to be profitable. Ford may be pivoting to the factory eventually building something else. Remember that Ford has already announced a delay in T3 production. 

If ce1 can be profitable there is no reason T3 won’t be profitable.  If nothing else we know Ford attracts premium truck buyers.  And Lightning is just too costly compared to what ce1 is bringing to the table, although Lightning does benefit from F150 sharing.
 

To me the question is how much volume they can get from T3 short term.  That’s where lower prices will help a lot. (Lower than lightning).

[rmc523]

1 hour ago, mackinaw said:

 

Ford is developing EREV's which will have to be built somewhere.  Maybe at BOC.

 

The EREVs are based on (paired with) existing or next-gen ICE products, though, so it makes far more sense to have them grouped with production of the respective model than one single EREV plant building x# of models.

 

My idea was to make BOC a single EV plant that produced all standalone (no ICE alt) EV products, whether CE1, Mach E, T3, etc).  And keep all the existing factories as-is except for the Mach E plant, which could've become another C2 plant, which would help facilitate the new Transit Connect and Maverick SUV.  Then existing plants could be converted as/when EV demand picks up.

 

Easier said than done, though.

Edited November 7, 2025 by rmc523

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

 

The EREVs are based on (paired with) existing or next-gen ICE products, though, so it makes far more sense to have them grouped with production of the respective model than one single EREV plant building x# of models.

 

My idea was to make BOC a single EV plant that produced all standalone (no ICE alt) EV products, whether CE1, Mach E, T3, etc).  And keep all the existing factories as-is except for the Mach E plant, which could've become another C2 plant, which would help facilitate the new Transit Connect and Maverick SUV.  Then existing plants could be converted as/when EV demand picks up.

 

Easier said than done, though.

I've thought about this as well. With tariffs really eating into profits, of Ford's EV plants are underutilized, perhaps there could come a day when Ford builds batteries or entire vehicles to help maximize production capacity. Those brands even after paying Ford a premium could probably make more money compared to the alternative, importing their own EVs and being faced with a hefty tariff. 

[Sherminator98]

5 hours ago, akirby said:

I think there is room for both - a full blown F150 with F150 capabilities and T3 which would essentially be a F100 just slightly bigger than Ranger with Ranger like capability.  A cheaper version for those who don’t need the extra capability.

 

Here is the problem-the CE1 is roughly the same size as a Ranger? I thought I saw that some place.

 

There is only about 10 inches of difference in length between the Ranger and Maverick. The Ranger is 210 and the Maverick around 200. 

 

The Rivian R1T is 217 inches long

 

The Lightning is 232

 

 

[jpd80]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

If ce1 can be profitable there is no reason T3 won’t be profitable.  If nothing else we know Ford attracts premium truck buyers.  And Lightning is just too costly compared to what ce1 is bringing to the table, although Lightning does benefit from F150 sharing.
 

To me the question is how much volume they can get from T3 short term.  That’s where lower prices will help a lot. (Lower than lightning).

In a nutshell,

The whole reason that CE1 is Ford’s plan B is exactly because Ford can’t make money on big battery vehicles. It’s also why T3 was delayed three years. Ford can’t solve the big battery cost issue until it has better scales of economy with battery production 

 

kicking the can down the road was the only choice.

Aluminum and coming chip shortages are even bigger current issues

[DeluxeStang]

3 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

Here is the problem-the CE1 is roughly the same size as a Ranger? I thought I saw that some place.

 

There is only about 10 inches of difference in length between the Ranger and Maverick. The Ranger is 210 and the Maverick around 200. 

 

The Rivian R1T is 217 inches long

 

The Lightning is 232

 

 

It's up in the air. At first we thought it was maverick sized, then we thought it was ranger sized. Now it's back to thinking it's maverick sized. At least that's what I saw with a quote from dealers who saw it at an event. 

 

My guess is slightly larger than a maverick, still considerably smaller than a ranger. Maybe it's maverick sized but thanks to ev packaging advantages has a bed and cab size comparable to mid-sized trucks. 

[DeluxeStang]

3 hours ago, jpd80 said:

In a nutshell,

The whole reason that CE1 is Ford’s plan B is exactly because Ford can’t make money on big battery vehicles. It’s also why T3 was delayed three years. Ford can’t solve the big battery cost issue until it has better scales of economy with battery production 

 

kicking the can down the road was the only choice.

Aluminum and coming chip shortages are even bigger current issues

Even though it's not currently profitable, I believe Ford should stay in the full sized truck EV market. Backing out of that and ceding buyers to to other full-sized EVs is a decision that would bite Ford in the ass long term imo. The focus should be on CE1, but t3 still sounds like a promising product Ford shouldn't just walk away from it.

[morgan20]

30 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Even though it's not currently profitable, I believe Ford should stay in the full sized truck EV market. Backing out of that and ceding buyers to to other full-sized EVs is a decision that would bite Ford in the ass long term imo. The focus should be on CE1, but t3 still sounds like a promising product Ford shouldn't just walk away from it.

Yea, exactly. The head honcho said many times that Ford’s model e division is a like a startup business. With a scrappy startup attitude, it can and should solve the big battery cost issue, and can and should stay in the full sized truck EV market.

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Even though it's not currently profitable, I believe Ford should stay in the full sized truck EV market. Backing out of that and ceding buyers to to other full-sized EVs is a decision that would bite Ford in the ass long term imo. The focus should be on CE1, but t3 still sounds like a promising product Ford shouldn't just walk away from it.

 

2 hours ago, morgan20 said:

Yea, exactly. The head honcho said many times that Ford’s model e division is a like a startup business. With a scrappy startup attitude, it can and should solve the big battery cost issue, and can and should stay in the full sized truck EV market.

And the reason Ford delayed T3 for three years is because smaller batteries in CE1 add up to more profitable enterprise. The fact that Ford spent billions on T3 and is prepared to delay for three years is an indication of just how big of a money pit it is on both costs and lack of sufficient buyers, the business case collapsed the day that Lightning reservations evaporated and production can’t even fill REVC, BOC production plant not needed for years, Big black economic hole for now.

Edited November 8, 2025 by jpd80

[Sherminator98]

23 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

It's up in the air. At first we thought it was maverick sized, then we thought it was ranger sized. Now it's back to thinking it's maverick sized. At least that's what I saw with a quote from dealers who saw it at an event. 

 

My guess is slightly larger than a maverick, still considerably smaller than a ranger. Maybe it's maverick sized but thanks to ev packaging advantages has a bed and cab size comparable to mid-sized trucks. 

 

I often take what people say how "big" with a grain of salt too...

 

A Maverick with a lift and bigger tires looks bigger then a Maverick does, but is the same "size" as one. 

 

I'm guessing that length wise is will be in between the Maverick and Ranger, but as narrow as the Maverick. 

[Sherminator98]

21 hours ago, jpd80 said:

the business case collapsed the day that Lightning reservations evaporated and production can’t even fill REVC, BOC production plant not needed for years, Big black economic hole for now.

 

REVC isn't that large, its just an addition to the plant, not its own assembly plant.

 

BOC is a different story though. 

[jpd80]

5 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

REVC isn't that large, its just an addition to the plant, not its own assembly plant.

 

BOC is a different story though. 

 On three shifts, REVC had a max. capacity of 150,000 / year.

Ford was anticipating a lot more sales growth that didn’t materialise 

Yes in comparison,

BOC facility is massive and cannot proceed  at present BEV demand,

that’s why T3 was delayed for three years but I have a feeling BOC Prod plant

will be repurposed long before then, Ford needs some sort of return from it

like they are doing with the battery plants…

You know Ford, the plan keeps changing until it works or something gets cancelled 

Ford is facing a lot of red ink but we should no more in H1 2026,

too many things coming at Ford.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2025 by jpd80

[twintornados]

A "three year delay" on T-3 means it will be scrapped and replaced with something that uses tech from CE1 as an electrical foundation.....

[Trader 10]

1 hour ago, twintornados said:

A "three year delay" on T-3 means it will be scrapped and replaced with something that uses tech from CE1 as an electrical foundation.....

Could be, but I don’t think it will be a large truck. As JPD has pointed out, Ford hasn’t been able to profitably make vehicles with the large batteries that big pickups require. Plus the question of demand, which will be exacerbated by the end of the government subsidies. 

[akirby]

20 minutes ago, Trader 10 said:

Could be, but I don’t think it will be a large truck. As JPD has pointed out, Ford hasn’t been able to profitably make vehicles with the large batteries that big pickups require. Plus the question of demand, which will be exacerbated by the end of the government subsidies. 

But by then it will be using new batteries and presumably all of the things that make CE1 so much cheaper.  I still think they need a midsized electric truck in between Ranger and f150.   Smaller makes it cheaper with more range and fits better in garages all of which should yield more volume than lightning.    My two neighbors that own lightnings would have bought a smaller version if it was available.

[Biker16]

On 11/7/2025 at 10:03 AM, akirby said:

I still think T3 is an important future product.  But it’s ok to delay it for better technology and lower cost.

My problem with this line of thinking is that there will always be a better technology in the future, but that technology doesn't guarantee lower cost. Ford literally spent a decade delaying and postponing future products, preparing for a recession that never came, and is still paying the price for that. 

Focusing on the fundamentals while being willing to adapt to new technologies is the Way to go. Even EV-hating Toyota didn't give up after the 1st-gen BZ4x; they kept making improvements and investing in technology, turning the BZ into a decent EV. Cancelling the F-150 EV is a classic Ford move that prioritizes short-term convenience over long-term uncertainty.

The corporate dysfunction within Ford incentivizes short-term thinking, which encourages managers to push risk onto other departments and future products and investments. Why solve a problem now, when you can fix it with the next model or investment (I.E. Powershift)

Edited November 9, 2025 by Biker16

[Biker16]

On 11/7/2025 at 1:57 PM, rmc523 said:

 

The EREVs are based on (paired with) existing or next-gen ICE products, though, so it makes far more sense to have them grouped with production of the respective model than one single EREV plant building x# of models.

 

My idea was to make BOC a single EV plant that produced all standalone (no ICE alt) EV products, whether CE1, Mach E, T3, etc).  And keep all the existing factories as-is except for the Mach E plant, which could've become another C2 plant, which would help facilitate the new Transit Connect and Maverick SUV.  Then existing plants could be converted as/when EV demand picks up.

 

Easier said than done, though.

IMO the best strategy is to invest in a modular platform that can be BEV, EREV and HEV vehicles (Honda, GM) and build factories that can adapt to changes (Honda) in the Market/political environment, not to double down on segregation of Platforms, Technology, and manufacturing. 
 

[Texasota]

10 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

Focusing on the fundamentals while being willing to adapt to new technologies is the Way to go. Even EV-hating Toyota didn't give up after the 1st-gen BZ4x; they kept making improvements and investing in technology, turning the BZ into a decent EV. Cancelling the F-150 EV is a classic Ford move that prioritizes short-term convenience over long-term uncertainty.

I think Ford is doing exactly what you are suggesting. They are adapting and bringing forward impressive new technology with CE1. CE1 may actually make money for the company and result in a product that customers will embrace. That has not been true for the F-150 lightning.

Edited November 9, 2025 by Texasota

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Biker16 said:

My problem with this line of thinking is that there will always be a better technology in the future, but that technology doesn't guarantee lower cost.

Ford knows exactly what CE1 brings to the table and can apply that to T3 which is what they said they’re doing.  It would be stupid not to do that considering the potential cost savings and considering the potential with current technology is very limited as we’ve seen with Mach e and Lightning.   We’re not talking about some unknown future thing.

[Rick73]

A major unknown that limits investment in future technologies and manufacturing is politics.  Uncertainty is not the friend of business.  I doubt this will change for a few years.

[morgan20]

37 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

A major unknown that limits investment in future technologies and manufacturing is politics.  Uncertainty is not the friend of business.  I doubt this will change for a few years.

 

Yea, more often than not internal politics within car companies, not external politics involving civil government, is the root cause of that uncertainty. If F-150 Lightning gets canceled it will be because of corporate dysfunction within Ford that incentivizes short-term thinking as Biker16 mentioned earlier.