Farley says Ford couldn’t compete with Toyota and Hyundai, so it stopped trying

[Biker16]

Farley says Ford couldn’t compete with Toyota and Hyundai, so it stopped trying

 

Quote

Ford CEO explains why the company stepped away from cheap cars and embraced a smaller, more profitable lineup built around trucks and nostalgia

• Ford’s global sales dropped after cutting affordable models.
• CEO Jim Farley says full-line strategy was not sustainable.
• It now focuses on emotional vehicles like Mustang, Bronco.

Ford is in the midst of a quiet but profound transformation. The company hasn’t only overhauled its electric vehicle plans in striking fashion, it’s also stepped back from a decades-long pursuit of affordable, mass-market small cars.

Instead, Ford is doubling down on what it calls “emotional products,” vehicles like the Mustang and Bronco, that tap into nostalgia, adventure, or raw performance. These sit alongside its core lineup of purpose-built pickup trucks. If that feels like a dramatic shift, it is. And now, we’re hearing exactly why it happened.

Ford CEO Jim Farley recently spoke with Argentinian outlet La Nación, offering a surprisingly candid look at where the company is headed. He said he was glad Ford had tried to compete with Japanese and South Korean manufacturers through models like the Fiesta and Focus, but acknowledged that continuing to produce them no longer made financial sense.

“It was a spiritual moment for Ford to be a full-line manufacturer, but I learned so much because maybe that was a mistake,” Farley said. “It wasn’t a mistake to try, but our costs were not competitive with Toyota and Hyundai/Kia, and in the end, we have to change to Broncos and pickup trucks.”

Farley added that Ford’s approach in Argentina mirrored its ambitions in the U.S. market. The common vision was a broad lineup, inclusive of lower-cost, democratic vehicles in the mold of the Model T. But the financial math didn’t hold.

“We had this ambition to be full-line, like the Model T company, to have a very democratic product, but we also found that that made the business almost impossible because we didn’t have a cost advantage. So, similar to Argentina and Latin America, in the US, we had to restructure the business.”

In recent years, Ford has phased out several of its mainstream models, including the Escape SUV, which just exited the US market, Fusion, Taurus, and Edge. While this reorientation has resulted in a leaner product lineup, and a noticeable drop in unit sales, it has also led to improved revenue figures.

From 2013 to 2017, Ford consistently sold over 6.3 million vehicles globally each year. In 2018, sales dipped just under 6 million, and by 2020, fell sharply to 4.2 million. They dropped further in 2021 to 3.9 million, and since then, have settled between 4.2 and 4.4 million units annually.

But while fewer vehicles are leaving the factory, the ones that do carry more weight, both in impact and profit. Recent standouts include the aggressive Mustang GTD, the off-road-focused Bronco Raptor, and the ferocious F-150 Raptor R, all products designed to stir something beyond practicality.

 

 

[akirby]

Smaller more profitable lineup being the key takeaway.

[jpd80]

Quote

Ford CEO explains why the company stepped away from cheap cars and embraced a smaller, more profitable lineup built around trucks and nostalgia

• Ford’s global sales dropped after cutting affordable models.
• CEO Jim Farley says full-line strategy was not sustainable.
• It now focuses on emotional vehicles like Mustang, Bronco.

A lot of that strategy was intertwined with the need to fund BEVs when Ford diverted

$11 billion in funding away from Ford Blue (ICE) vehicle platforms, so of course, quite

a few vehicles on the low profit side were dropped. Perhaps when Ford revisits it’s ICE

plans, it will make room for some more products that also have varying levels of hybrids.

There are some gaps that could be filled with the right vehicles that add profit.

 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2025 by jpd80

[akirby]

5 hours ago, jpd80 said:

A lot of that strategy was intertwined with the need to fund BEVs when Ford diverted

$11 billion in funding away from Ford Blue (ICE) vehicle platforms, so of course, quite

a few vehicles on the low profit side were dropped. Perhaps when Ford revisits it’s ICE

plans, it will make room for some more products that also have varying levels of hybrids.

There are some gaps that could be filled with the right vehicles that add profit.

 

 

 

They know they need affordable vehicles to grow.  Problem before was the existing platforms were still too expensive to really compete and they had to fund model E investments.  CE1 is giving them the opportunity to reset on platform costs and invest in BEVs at the same time.  And they're applying that strategy to new ICE vehicles.  

[rmc523]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

They know they need affordable vehicles to grow.  Problem before was the existing platforms were still too expensive to really compete and they had to fund model E investments.  CE1 is giving them the opportunity to reset on platform costs and invest in BEVs at the same time.  And they're applying that strategy to new ICE vehicles.  

fingers crossed it works

[jpd80]

5 hours ago, akirby said:

They know they need affordable vehicles to grow.  Problem before was the existing platforms were still too expensive to really compete and they had to fund model E investments.  CE1 is giving them the opportunity to reset on platform costs and invest in BEVs at the same time.  And they're applying that strategy to new ICE vehicles.  

Much of the problems with Ford’s vehicles are its own making, look how quickly Maverick was developed

when the need for a “gap filler” product was recognised and pursued with the right attitude.

 

I hope that the same sort of mission statements were applied to certain other vehicles,

the long time period to market is what kills a lot of opportunity but the right people can speed this up.

[akirby]

17 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Much of the problems with Ford’s vehicles are its own making, look how quickly Maverick was developed

when the need for a “gap filler” product was recognised and pursued with the right attitude.

 

I hope that the same sort of mission statements were applied to certain other vehicles,

the long time period to market is what kills a lot of opportunity but the right people can speed this up.

Ford's problems started with letting Europe do their own thing resulting in duplicate platforms and vehicles.  

[Pierce]

As long as they keep nailing the trucks and the Bronco they’ll probably be fine, but it definitely feels like the end of an era for the "everyman" Ford.

[Biker16]

 

4 hours ago, akirby said:

Ford's problems started with letting Europe do their own thing resulting in duplicate platforms and vehicles.  

 

FWIW I don't remember a time when Europe didn't have thier own platforms.

 

 

3 hours ago, Pierce said:

As long as they keep nailing the trucks and the Bronco they’ll probably be fine, but it definitely feels like the end of an era for the "everyman" Ford.

 

There are many factors that endanger this strategy.

• Fuel prices 
• Regional economic conditions 
• Regulatory environment 
• Changes in consumer preferences 

Something about eggs and basket blah blah blah 

 

 

[jpd80]

8 hours ago, akirby said:

Ford's problems started with letting Europe do their own thing resulting in duplicate platforms and vehicles.  

In the early days, that made a lot of sense with regional needs but agree that in the last decade or so,

Ford Europe became decidedly stubborn about development decisions and controlling its vehicles

much to the detriment of other regions - One Ford showed the limitations of FOE having too much say.

 

[Joe771476]

I read many years ago that when Ford came out with the Taurus, Toyota et all were panicking!  They thought they were all done! It was the right size, the right price with innovative styling. But like with everything else they do, Ford became complacent. Instead of making subtle improvements, they let it anguish. The only excuse is maybe price now. I don't know what the cost disadvantage is due to maybe fixed costs like union demands. But Edge and Escape sales were admirable. Another article I just read yesterday was a guy who had an Edge and wanted to buy a newer one but found out he couldn't so he bought a Subaru. He said, "I didn't leave Ford, Ford left me."  I don't know how much longer Ford can sell $60K to $90K vehicles before the bottom falls out. When the next recession comes -- and it will -- Ford will have nothing to offer. I hope I'm wrong, But I predicted the 2008 auto mfr. bankruptcy/recession in 1998. How did I know? Well one reason was you can't pay workers 95% of their pay to stay home during a layoff. And yes I know Ford mortgaged their logo and didn't take the bailout money.

Edited December 28, 2025 by Joe771476

[Motorpsychology]

Farley's vision is to emulate Lamborghini; niche emotional vehicles and work vehicles.

 

“I will build a motor car for the great multitude. It will be so low in price that no man making a good salary will be unable to own one — and enjoy with his family the blessing of hours of pleasure in God's great open spaces.” -Henry Ford

 

“It wasn’t a mistake to try, but our costs were not competitive with Toyota and Hyundai/Kia, and in the end, we have to change to Broncos and pickup trucks.” -Jim Farley.

 

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer on here, but I believe there is more to it than cost competitiveness. Ford discontinued the Escape, because it wasn't "cost competitive" in the hopes that people will rush to CE-1 (someday), while the best selling CUV, Toyota RAV4, is built 78 miles away.  I think it maybe time for Bill Ford to put an engineer back in the wheelhouse, Boy Racer ain't butterin' no parsnips.

 

Lamborghini Reveulto & R6 140:

 

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, Motorpsychology said:

 

Farley's vision is to emulate Lamborghini; niche emotional vehicles and work vehicles.

 

“I will build a motor car for the great multitude. It will be so low in price that no man making a good salary will be unable to own one — and enjoy with his family the blessing of hours of pleasure in God's great open spaces.” -Henry Ford

 

“It wasn’t a mistake to try, but our costs were not competitive with Toyota and Hyundai/Kia, and in the end, we have to change to Broncos and pickup trucks.” -Jim Farley.

 

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer on here, but I believe there is more to it than cost competitiveness. Ford discontinued the Escape, because it wasn't "cost competitive" in the hopes that people will rush to CE-1 (someday), while the best selling CUV, Toyota RAV4, is built 78 miles away.  I think it maybe time for Bill Ford to put an engineer back in the wheelhouse, Boy Racer ain't butterin' no parsnips.

 

Lamborghini Reveulto & R6 140:

 

I believe this is an oversimplification. Yes Ford's leaning into its passion products, and commerical vehicles, because those are pillars of strength for the company. But there's a lot of evidence to suggest if the skunkworks team is successful, Ford will once again become a dominant player in the world of sensible, affordable vehicles, and that those learnings will transcend EVs, and be something Ford can apply to ICE vehicles. 

 

In terms of body styles, CE1 is incredibly flexible, and it's no secret that Farley has talked about using to platform to return to segments like sedans or hatchbacks, but doing so it a way that's profitable or sustainable. It's been a lot of pain getting here, but in terms of strategy, I think Ford now has the smartest lineup strategy in the world, hear me out. Making affordable vehicles more centered around EVs, because those customers mostly care about reliability, low maintenance, a relaxing, smooth ownership experience, and EVs will never be beaten by ICE tech in those areas, especially since EVs are generally insanely reliable now, and the battery tech ford is gonna use is only gonna be more bulletproof than what's already out there. That's gonna appeal to so many people, especially since charging infrastructure is greatly improving, and costs are coming down. 

[Biker16]

Just now, DeluxeStang said:

I believe this is an oversimplification. Yes Ford's leaning into its passion products, and commerical vehicles, because those are pillars of strength for the company. But there's a lot of evidence to suggest if the skunkworks team is successful, Ford will once again become a dominant player in the world of sensible, affordable vehicles, and that those learnings will transcend EVs, and be something Ford can apply to ICE vehicles. 

 

What evidence? 

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, Motorpsychology said:

 

Farley's vision is to emulate Lamborghini; niche emotional vehicles and work vehicles.

 

“I will build a motor car for the great multitude. It will be so low in price that no man making a good salary will be unable to own one — and enjoy with his family the blessing of hours of pleasure in God's great open spaces.” -Henry Ford

 

“It wasn’t a mistake to try, but our costs were not competitive with Toyota and Hyundai/Kia, and in the end, we have to change to Broncos and pickup trucks.” -Jim Farley.

 

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer on here, but I believe there is more to it than cost competitiveness. Ford discontinued the Escape, because it wasn't "cost competitive" in the hopes that people will rush to CE-1 (someday), while the best selling CUV, Toyota RAV4, is built 78 miles away.  I think it maybe time for Bill Ford to put an engineer back in the wheelhouse, Boy Racer ain't butterin' no parsnips.

 

Lamborghini Reveulto & R6 140:

 

Then with ICE products, you lean into passion products. Because the only customers who genuinely care about gas engines are enthusiasts. Most people couldn't care less about engines, and suck at taking care of them, hence why those engines are nothing but a warranty and reputational liability long term. But enthusiasts do, so invest in ICE development and improvement where it matters.

 

Then you have EREV/hybrid tech which makes a lot of sense for larger vehicles because they're more efficient, and cheaper to run, which is very important to those buyers. But they don't have the range anxiety of pure EVs, and we've seen with things like pro power, having an on-board generator, it makes these vehicles really enjoyable to use for individuals, and fleets alike. 

 

It's been a lot of pain to get here, and there's still a ton of uncertainty, it's a big IF, but IF Ford pulls this off, they'll be virtually unbeatable. They'll have a lineup of enticing affordable EVs that become the standard in quality and innovation while being profitable, something like an electric escape that's a better crossover than the gas escape could ever dream of being. Then you'll have icons like a V8 mustang living well into the future, and then you have a hybrid f-150 that can do basically whenever your business needs it to do. 

 

I can see this kind of lineup clear as day, and frankly, it's really impressive. The ideas are there, they just need to improve on their execution. If they do, I predict our outlook on Ford will be a lot more positive in 5 years than it is now. 

[DeluxeStang]

9 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

What evidence? 

The fact that people in the know have hinted the team has delivered something genuinely revolutionary in a manor that's far more cost efficient had traditional Ford teams tried to create it. We're close enough now where it's not just objectives on a whiteboard anymore, it's a real platform, and vehicles, so we're starting to get an idea of it worked, and based on what insiders are saying, it has. 

[DeluxeStang]

17 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

What evidence? 

I'll say this, while I'm very excited about this idea, because I genuinely believe making mostly smaller, inexpensive EVs is the best move for brands and customers alike, it's just an idea. This radical approach doesn't mean anything if the actual vehicles it produces suck. 

 

If these vehicles come out and they're hideous cheese wedges to meet areo targets with 150 miles of range, it won't matter if they're cheap, they'll flop hard. But everyone who's seen this truck seems to come away liking it a lot, people like Sandy Monroe who said he leased a lighting instead of buying it, because it's just a placeholder until this truck comes out. It was actually him, and he's notoriously brutal in his views on things, who called the platform a model t moment after seeing all the details, he also likened it to the gen 1 Tarus and the impact that had on the industry. Dealers and Ford employees who've seen the truck also seem to really like it. That's promising at least. 

[bzcat]

Eventually Farley will also declare CE1 to be also "not cost competitive" when Toyota eventually figures out how to build EV. This is the fundamental problem. 

 

Farley is right to look at the segment with highest profit margin and go after it but it still boggles my mind that Ford is singularly the only major car company in the world incapable of building and selling a C-segment car and CUV at scale and profit. Ford is well.. Ford, it is not Lamborghini. It's not even Audi. It's like Walmart saying it can't make money operating its stores and will only focus on its streaming business. 

[rmc523]

I'm really hoping it works out - like you said above, it's been painful to get here, and there's been some pretty stupid decisions made in the meantime.

[Sherminator98]

8 minutes ago, bzcat said:

Farley is right to look at the segment with highest profit margin and go after it but it still boggles my mind that Ford is singularly the only major car company in the world incapable of building and selling a C-segment car and CUV at scale and profit. Ford is well.. Ford, it is not Lamborghini. It's not even Audi. It's like Walmart saying it can't make money operating its stores and will only focus on its streaming business. 

 

I'm guessing that is why CE1 is going to be that down the road...they are hitting the reset button with costs and other things with it. 

[rmc523]

37 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

I'm guessing that is why CE1 is going to be that down the road...they are hitting the reset button with costs and other things with it. 

 

The funny thing is that it seemed like they just got it sorted out with C2.

[akirby]

29 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

The funny thing is that it seemed like they just got it sorted out with C2.

I think c2 is ok from a cost standpoint just not great, but it doesn't have decades of being built with only minor changes like Toyota's platforms.  I just think ce1 showed them even bigger opportunities for low cost.

[twintornados]

40 minutes ago, akirby said:

I think c2 is ok from a cost standpoint just not great, but it doesn't have decades of being built with only minor changes like Toyota's platforms.  I just think ce1 showed them even bigger opportunities for low cost.

 

Well, C2 has been around since 2018....but while Toyota gets a pass for using chassis designs with minor updates, when Ford does it....Fox to SN95, Panther updated several times, etc...they get beat up over it. C2 will likely be around for at least another 10 years unless CE1 can be modified to become hybrid and ICE powered....kinda like when GE1 was developed from C2 for use in Mach E.

[rmc523]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

I think c2 is ok from a cost standpoint just not great, but it doesn't have decades of being built with only minor changes like Toyota's platforms.  I just think ce1 showed them even bigger opportunities for low cost.

 

Well, you also only get to decades of being build with only minor changes by actually sticking with something and not starting over every X years....

 

That's what I was getting at - it seemed C2 was finally that platform that could underpin several smaller models for a few decades, and now they're working on something else.

Edited December 29, 2025 by rmc523

[jpd80]

18 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

Well, you also only get to decades of being build with only minor changes by actually sticking with something and not starting over every X years....

 

That's what I was getting at - it seemed C2 was finally that platform that could underpin several smaller models for a few decades, and now they're working on something else.

And people often forget that C2 itself is an evolution of C1 which began in 2004 in Europe.
Larger vehicles using EUCD were regarded as C1+ because they used a lot of shared

power train, suspension and construction modules.

 

The best part of C2 is its maturity of design and adaptability to modern requirements,

being able to build vehicles from small compacts to large mid-sized utilities and cars

gives Ford one of the broadest product envelopes it ever had.

Edited December 29, 2025 by jpd80