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

[bzcat]

C2 unit cost is high relative to the competitor because Ford's volume is tiny compare to Toyota, Hyundai, or BYD. This is the legacy of 2 decades of continuous shrinking. As a result, Ford now doesn't have the economy of scale to compete in the biggest vehicles segments on a worldwide basis even with a state of the art worldwide common architecture like C2. What's the point of C2 if it is still "too expensive"? 

 

Ford is like a petrol-state with failed economy... too much reliance on a singular source of revenue so the economy failed to develop a diversified industrial base.  Ford's crude oil is F-150 which is propped up by structural advantages in the US like Chicken Tax and Sec179 depreciation. Instead of being like Norway where petrol profit is invested for the future, Ford has turned into Nigeria where it is incapable of delivering content and cost competitive products. I really hope UEV or CE1 is everything Farley says it is because it maybe the end of the road for Ford as a major car company if it doesn't deliver. What is being said about UEV is also what was being said about C2 and CD6 less than a decade ago... and what Mularlly said about OneFord before. We've seen this movie before... it ends in Ford cutting models, withdrawing from markets, and playing the we can't compete card. 

[jpd80]

51 minutes ago, bzcat said:

C2 unit cost is high relative to the competitor because Ford's volume is tiny compare to Toyota, Hyundai, or BYD. This is the legacy of 2 decades of continuous shrinking. As a result, Ford now doesn't have the economy of scale to compete in the biggest vehicles segments on a worldwide basis even with a state of the art worldwide common architecture like C2. What's the point of C2 if it is still "too expensive"? 

 

Ford is like a petrol-state with failed economy... too much reliance on a singular source of revenue so the economy failed to develop a diversified industrial base.  Ford's crude oil is F-150 which is propped up by structural advantages in the US like Chicken Tax and Sec179 depreciation. Instead of being like Norway where petrol profit is invested for the future, Ford has turned into Nigeria where it is incapable of delivering content and cost competitive products. I really hope UEV or CE1 is everything Farley says it is because it maybe the end of the road for Ford as a major car company if it doesn't deliver. What is being said about UEV is also what was being said about C2 and CD6 less than a decade ago... and what Mularlly said about OneFord before. We've seen this movie before... it ends in Ford cutting models, withdrawing from markets, and playing the we can't compete card. 

I put a lot of Ford’s problems down to the increased outsourcing to suppliers, so many parts now controlled by

computer chips and software owned by suppliers - that extra level of complication has significantly increased 

costs and painted Ford into a corner where it has to increase prices of drop under performing vehicles.

 

Somewhere along the line Ford gave up on how to build efficient low cost vehicles that could turn a decent profit.

or did they ever do that? Just making vehicles so that dealers had something to service and a potential

return customer and future sales to other family members…

 

People wonder why Ford keeps cutting vehicles but I think the truth is Ford would rather invest the money elsewhere.

Its a sad state of affairs but maybe the reality is that the company can get the same return by doing less.

Edited December 29, 2025 by jpd80

[akirby]

Ford was never worried about cost on small cars because of high union labor and CAFE offsets and the preference Americans have for trucks and suvs.   F series is very close to corolla and tesla model y as the worldwide best seller and it's only sold in North America.  It also produces twice as much revenue and probably 2-3 times the profit margin.  It would be stupid not to prioritize it.

 

The Asians optimized small cars because that was their F series in their home markets so that's where they invested.  I bet F series has a similar cost advantage over Tundra.

 

My point on C2 was it took them too long to get there and now they have other things to invest in.  Toyota has been optimizing costs for decades.  Ford needs a jump start and ce1 has the potential to provide it because it's a clean sheet  and it was developed by outsiders not Ford lifers.  And I do think it can be applied to ICE vehicles.

[jpd80]

16 minutes ago, akirby said:

Ford was never worried about cost on small cars because of high union labor and CAFE offsets and the preference Americans have for trucks and suvs.   F series is very close to corolla and tesla model y as the worldwide best seller and it's only sold in North America.  It also produces twice as much revenue and probably 2-3 times the profit margin.  It would be stupid not to prioritize it.

 

The Asians optimized small cars because that was their F series in their home markets so that's where they invested.  I bet F series has a similar cost advantage over Tundra.

 

My point on C2 was it took them too long to get there and now they have other things to invest in.  Toyota has been optimizing costs for decades.  Ford needs a jump start and ce1 has the potential to provide it because it's a clean sheet  and it was developed by outsiders not Ford lifers.  And I do think it can be applied to ICE vehicles.

Just as a reality check, Toyota’s annual net profit for FY2025 was $31 billion

While it has commercial vehicles, Thers no comparison to F Series as Tundra

is stuck behind much better products from Ford, GM and Stellantis.

 

your point on optimisation of smaller passenger vehicles and commercials for

Asia, Europe North America and ROW markets puts them way out in front.
Toyota is effectively the  21st century GM at its height.

 

Conversely, I wonder whether the thing that brings them undone (Chinese BEVs)

will affect their income way earlier than North American brands like Ford and GM

maybe throw Stellantis in there too…thanks to Ram and Jeep.

Edited December 30, 2025 by jpd80
Oo

[bzcat]

14 hours ago, akirby said:

Ford was never worried about cost on small cars because of high union labor and CAFE offsets and the preference Americans have for trucks and suvs.   F series is very close to corolla and tesla model y as the worldwide best seller and it's only sold in North America.  It also produces twice as much revenue and probably 2-3 times the profit margin.  It would be stupid not to prioritize it.

 

The Asians optimized small cars because that was their F series in their home markets so that's where they invested.  I bet F series has a similar cost advantage over Tundra.

 

My point on C2 was it took them too long to get there and now they have other things to invest in.  Toyota has been optimizing costs for decades.  Ford needs a jump start and ce1 has the potential to provide it because it's a clean sheet  and it was developed by outsiders not Ford lifers.  And I do think it can be applied to ICE vehicles.

 

F-Series is on 2 different platform, the F-150 and SuperDuty only share the F-Series name and are developed separately as two unique platforms so let's just look at it on apples to apples basis. By my estimate, the F-150 sales volume is roughly 500K a year. We can be charitable and add Expedition and Navigator which are on older version of the F-150 platform (even though the platforms have diverged, there is still lot of synergy like common drivetrain) so let's call it 600K volume a year. Compare to TNGA-F worldwide volume at around 1M a year (Tacoma, Tundra, Sequoia, Land Cruiser, Prado, 4Runner, LX, GX etc). So on the platform economy of scale basis, I would estimate TGNA-F is equal if not more cost efficient than F-150. Yes, F-150 is important and I'm not saying it is wrong to prioritize it. What I'm pointing out is Ford only prioritize F-150.

 

Toyota also has TNGA-B, TNGA-C, and TNGA-K. Each of them hosting about 3 million sales last year. Compare to Ford C2 which barely registered about 750K last year. This is what I was pointing out... Ford is so small now it doesn't have the scale to compete. Ford may not have worried about small cars but by not competing, it also doomed its small and midsize CUVs which needs the sales volume to contribute to the C2 economy of scale to be cost competitive. 

 

15 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I put a lot of Ford’s problems down to the increased outsourcing to suppliers, so many parts now controlled by

computer chips and software owned by suppliers - that extra level of complication has significantly increased 

costs and painted Ford into a corner where it has to increase prices of drop under performing vehicles.

 

Somewhere along the line Ford gave up on how to build efficient low cost vehicles that could turn a decent profit.

or did they ever do that? Just making vehicles so that dealers had something to service and a potential

return customer and future sales to other family members…

 

People wonder why Ford keeps cutting vehicles but I think the truth is Ford would rather invest the money elsewhere.

Its a sad state of affairs but maybe the reality is that the company can get the same return by doing less.

 

I agree. A lot of short term thinking... if you outsource something for quick cost cutting, it is now forever a cost item in your BOM. You lose the ability to improve the design and reap the cost saving across different vehicle programs. The supplier now reap the saving... 

 

Same concept applies on Ford selling cars in different markets. Sure, it seems easy to just close up shop and leave India but now you don't have a low cost production base so it limits your ability to compete in the future in Europe and other APAC markets. 

 

Ford and Hyundai entered the Indian market around the same time... Ford actually raced ahead first with Ikon and Figo but Ford is down and out while Hyundai has achieved 20% market share (including its Kia brand). How these companies approach competition is very different and Hyundai more so than Toyota has been the one eating Ford's lunch around the world. 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2025 by bzcat

[akirby]

I don't think volume (above a certain number) is as important as having a platform for decades with minimal investments.  Obviously Toyota has an advantage with long running optimized platforms and volume but I don't think it's so far ahead that Ford can't compete.  They just need to engineer with that goal and that's where I think ce1 proved to Farley and the execs that it can be done profitably.  Now just do it and stick with it.  

[fordmantpw]

3 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

F-Series is on 2 different platform, the F-150 and SuperDuty only share the F-Series name and are developed separately as two unique platforms so let's just look at it on apples to apples basis. By my estimate, the F-150 sales volume is roughly 500K a year. We can be charitable and add Expedition and Navigator which are on older version of the F-150 platform (even though the platforms have diverged, there is still lot of synergy like common drivetrain) so let's call it 600K volume a year. Compare to TNGA-F worldwide volume at around 1M a year (Tacoma, Tundra, Sequoia, Land Cruiser, Prado, 4Runner, LX, GX etc). So on the platform economy of scale basis, I would estimate TGNA-F is equal if not more cost efficient than F-150. Yes, F-150 is important and I'm not saying it is wrong to prioritize it. What I'm pointing out is Ford only prioritize F-150.

 

Toyota also has TNGA-B, TNGA-C, and TNGA-K. Each of them hosting about 3 million sales last year. Compare to Ford C2 which barely registered about 750K last year. This is what I was pointing out... Ford is so small now it doesn't have the scale to compete. Ford may not have worried about small cars but by not competing, it also doomed its small and midsize CUVs which needs the sales volume to contribute to the C2 economy of scale to be cost competitive. 

 

 

I agree. A lot of short term thinking... if you outsource something for quick cost cutting, it is now forever a cost item in your BOM. You lose the ability to improve the design and reap the cost saving across different vehicle programs. The supplier now reap the saving... 

 

Same concept applies on Ford selling cars in different markets. Sure, it seems easy to just close up shop and leave India but now you don't have a low cost production base so it limits your ability to compete in the future in Europe and other APAC markets. 

 

Ford and Hyundai entered the Indian market around the same time... Ford actually raced ahead first with Ikon and Figo but Ford is down and out while Hyundai has achieved 20% market share (including its Kia brand). How these companies approach competition is very different and Hyundai more so than Toyota has been the one eating Ford's lunch around the world. 

 

 

 

The F150 and Super Duty share the same cab, doors, and much of the interior.  They aren't completely separate, though everything below the body as well as the drivetrains are completely different.

[Biker16]

20 hours ago, bzcat said:

C2 unit cost is high relative to the competitor because Ford's volume is tiny compare to Toyota, Hyundai, or BYD. This is the legacy of 2 decades of continuous shrinking. As a result, Ford now doesn't have the economy of scale to compete in the biggest vehicles segments on a worldwide basis even with a state of the art worldwide common architecture like C2. What's the point of C2 if it is still "too expensive"? 

 

Ford is like a petrol-state with failed economy... too much reliance on a singular source of revenue so the economy failed to develop a diversified industrial base.  Ford's crude oil is F-150 which is propped up by structural advantages in the US like Chicken Tax and Sec179 depreciation. Instead of being like Norway where petrol profit is invested for the future, Ford has turned into Nigeria where it is incapable of delivering content and cost competitive products. I really hope UEV or CE1 is everything Farley says it is because it maybe the end of the road for Ford as a major car company if it doesn't deliver. What is being said about UEV is also what was being said about C2 and CD6 less than a decade ago... and what Mularlly said about OneFord before. We've seen this movie before... it ends in Ford cutting models, withdrawing from markets, and playing the we can't compete card. 

This!

Dutch disease

[jpd80]

On 12/31/2025 at 12:04 AM, bzcat said:

 

F-Series is on 2 different platform, the F-150 and SuperDuty only share the F-Series name and are developed separately as two unique platforms so let's just look at it on apples to apples basis. By my estimate, the F-150 sales volume is roughly 500K a year. We can be charitable and add Expedition and Navigator which are on older version of the F-150 platform (even though the platforms have diverged, there is still lot of synergy like common drivetrain) so let's call it 600K volume a year. Compare to TNGA-F worldwide volume at around 1M a year (Tacoma, Tundra, Sequoia, Land Cruiser, Prado, 4Runner, LX, GX etc). So on the platform economy of scale basis, I would estimate TGNA-F is equal if not more cost efficient than F-150. Yes, F-150 is important and I'm not saying it is wrong to prioritize it. What I'm pointing out is Ford only prioritize F-150.

And Super Duty which is an even bigger cash cow than F150.

plus globally, Transit, Transit custom and T6 Ranger which are all strong profit earners.

 

On 12/31/2025 at 12:04 AM, bzcat said:

 

Toyota also has TNGA-B, TNGA-C, and TNGA-K. Each of them hosting about 3 million sales last year. Compare to Ford C2 which barely registered about 750K last year. This is what I was pointing out... Ford is so small now it doesn't have the scale to compete. Ford may not have worried about small cars but by not competing, it also doomed its small and midsize CUVs which needs the sales volume to contribute to the C2 economy of scale to be cost competitive. 
 

Toyota plays fast and loose with TNGA, all of those so called platforms are more akin to Engineering cost centers

but the point is still there, a well planned and centralised engineering and development strategy.

The original C1 platform which became C2 and incorporation of larger mid sized vehicles was still a cluster because,

heavily limited budget requiring each successive vehicle project to justify costs for developing its unique features.

I can’t imagine Toyota’s global vision having such impediments for what should be shear pragmatism.

 

 

On 12/31/2025 at 12:04 AM, bzcat said:

 

 

I agree. A lot of short term thinking... if you outsource something for quick cost cutting, it is now forever a cost item in your BOM. You lose the ability to improve the design and reap the cost saving across different vehicle programs. The supplier now reap the saving... 

Once you get away from the primary profit earners, every decision seems rather short sighted that

either opens Ford manufacturing to unforeseen or unplanned disruption, mix that with everything

set up as just in time delivery and you have a recipe for disaster.

 

 

On 12/31/2025 at 12:04 AM, bzcat said:

Same concept applies on Ford selling cars in different markets. Sure, it seems easy to just close up shop and leave India but now you don't have a low cost production base so it limits your ability to compete in the future in Europe and other APAC markets. 

 

Ford and Hyundai entered the Indian market around the same time... Ford actually raced ahead first with Ikon and Figo but Ford is down and out while Hyundai has achieved 20% market share (including its Kia brand). How these companies approach competition is very different and Hyundai more so than Toyota has been the one eating Ford's lunch around the world. 

 

 

How many goes has Ford now had at trying to crack India, I count three and all have ended without any significant impact.

Seriously, Ford is totally inept with international set ups and production, can’t see the Forrest for the trees.

Here they have a golden opportunity to Leverage China and expand Thailand with C2 products and…zippo.

 

Toyota is running rampant in Australia and I assume most other regional Asia Pacific and African/Middle East markets.

Ford can’t catch up because they don’t know where to begin to get a toe hold and then keep it. All their brilliant

engineers that used to develop global stuff on the smell of an oil rag have been let go, and US engineers are

next to useless on the important international stuff.

Edited January 1 by jpd80

[akirby]

6 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Once you get away from the primary profit earners, every decision seems rather short sighted that

either opens Ford manufacturing to unforeseen or unplanned disruption, mix that with everything

set up as just in time delivery and you have a recipe for disaster.

Too much short term reactionary thinking and not enough long term strategic thinking.

[Joe771476]

Ever hear of a loss leader? So you don't make a ton of money on it, but it gets prospective buyers in the dealers' doors!  Get them in the door with the Escape, and maybe you can upsell them an Explorer!  Maybe.  I rented a hybrid Fusion for a week and it was a great vehicle!  Discontinued.  Why?  On a side note, my son has a 2005 Toyota Corolla and it just went to 299,999.9. Trouble is it won't roll into 300K! Toyota apparently didn't think it would go that far? Or is it a hint to the owner to buy a new car?! Actually some searches said just that! Well that's not happening!  He'll drive it into the ground.  Another search result said that a Toyota dealer can get it to roll over.  How does this play out if you want to sell the car and you've driven it 20K miles before you had Toyota remedy the issue?  Can you be penalized or fined for false odometer reading? Does Ford do this now?  I drove my father's 1953 Ford Crestline to the junkyard with 480,000 miles on the odometer!

[ANTAUS]

I remember reading an article in the 90s, and to paraphrase....Toyota said they do not make a profit with the Camry, but the hopes that the customer has a positive experience with the vehicle, so they upgrade to a higher end profittable vehicle or maybe a Lexus which does...

[morgan20]

On 12/29/2025 at 5:23 PM, bzcat said:

I really hope UEV or CE1 is everything Farley says it is because it maybe the end of the road for Ford as a major car company if it doesn't deliver. What is being said about UEV is also what was being said about C2 and CD6 less than a decade ago... and what Mularlly said about OneFord before. We've seen this movie before... it ends in Ford cutting models, withdrawing from markets, and playing the we can't compete card. 

 

On 12/30/2025 at 10:50 AM, akirby said:

 Now just do it and stick with it.  

 

Yea, exactly. Remember what Ford's head honcho said back in August?

 

This is a Model-T moment for us at Ford. A chance to bring a new family of vehicles to the world that offer incredible technology, efficiency, space, and features.

 

Jimbo and Billy Boy also used Model-T moment theme in their statement about F-150 Lightning start of production in 2022:

 

As Bill Ford said today, “This moment [F-150 Lightning start of production] is every bit as important to the company as when the Model T first started rolling off the assembly line.” He’s exactly right.

 

Of course, we all know how disastrous FoMoCo's handling of that product turned out to be. The credibility of Ford's big shots is now worse than that of politicians. If Ford doesn't deliver with Universal Electric Platform and Production System, they won't have another chance.

Edited December 31, 2025 by morgan20

[Sherminator98]

2 hours ago, morgan20 said:

 

 

Yea, exactly. Remember what Ford's head honcho said back in August?

 

This is a Model-T moment for us at Ford. A chance to bring a new family of vehicles to the world that offer incredible technology, efficiency, space, and features.

 

Jimbo and Billy Boy also used Model-T moment theme in their statement about F-150 Lightning start of production in 2022:

 

As Bill Ford said today, “This moment [F-150 Lightning start of production] is every bit as important to the company as when the Model T first started rolling off the assembly line.” He’s exactly right.

 

Of course, we all know how disastrous FoMoCo's handling of that product turned out to be. The credibility of Ford's big shots is now worse than that of politicians. If Ford doesn't deliver with Universal Electric Platform and Production System, they won't have another chance.

 

Much of what is actually said is because of investors...the F-150 Lightning is a good product, but I'm guessing didn't make Ford money and the market wasn't ready or wanted it either. No full sized EV pickup has done well vs its ICE counterparts.

 

The one fear I have with the CE1 is that its going to look like a pickup but be more along the lines of a Santa Cruz then a Maverick and turn off its typical Ford customer,  and will cost more like $39K vs $30K. If they can get the price closer to $30 that will make people more accepting of whatever shortcomings it might have. That is going to be key in making it successful, its primarily its price. Outside of gas prices going crazy (just paid $2.59 this morning), I really think EVs are going to struggle for the time being. Cars are just too expensive and people are getting pinched all over the place and can't afford them. 

[DeluxeStang]

4 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

Much of what is actually said is because of investors...the F-150 Lightning is a good product, but I'm guessing didn't make Ford money and the market wasn't ready or wanted it either. No full sized EV pickup has done well vs its ICE counterparts.

 

The one fear I have with the CE1 is that its going to look like a pickup but be more along the lines of a Santa Cruz then a Maverick and turn off its typical Ford customer,  and will cost more like $39K vs $30K. If they can get the price closer to $30 that will make people more accepting of whatever shortcomings it might have. That is going to be key in making it successful, its primarily its price. Outside of gas prices going crazy (just paid $2.59 this morning), I really think EVs are going to struggle for the time being. Cars are just too expensive and people are getting pinched all over the place and can't afford them. 

Yeah, range and styling are my two biggest concerns. I'm worried they're gonna give it a super small battery to meet cost targets, and it's gonna have like a 180 mile range. I also fear they're gonna get so lost in areo that the final design will be too off-putting. 

 

Based on everything that's been said, I'm not expecting it to look like the rest of Fords truck lineup, but that's not a bad thing by itself if it looks good, but in a less traditional truck way, there's a huge segment of buyers who aren't fond of traditional truck styling, but find truck versatility really appealing. Trying to appeal to them could be a smart play to avoid competing with Ford's existing truck lineup and to help diffentiate this truck from other Ford offerings. 

 

The SC has kinda flopped because the maverick is so compelling, Hyundai has virtually no credibility in the NA truck market, and the styling was this awkward middle child that was too afraid to try something new, but also too afraid to really lean into traditional truck design.

[ausrutherford]

2 hours ago, morgan20 said:

 

 

Yea, exactly. Remember what Ford's head honcho said back in August?

 

This is a Model-T moment for us at Ford. A chance to bring a new family of vehicles to the world that offer incredible technology, efficiency, space, and features.

 

Jimbo and Billy Boy also used Model-T moment theme in their statement about F-150 Lightning start of production in 2022:

 

As Bill Ford said today, “This moment [F-150 Lightning start of production] is every bit as important to the company as when the Model T first started rolling off the assembly line.” He’s exactly right.

 

Of course, we all know how disastrous FoMoCo's handling of that product turned out to be. The credibility of Ford's big shots is now worse than that of politicians. If Ford doesn't deliver with Universal Electric Platform and Production System, they won't have another chance.

 

The UEP does appear to be much like the Model T (or Model A too) in which the same vehicle could be used for like 6 different body styles. That appears to be something similar to what Ford appears to be doing with the UEP. Remains to be seen much bodywork they will share. 

[ausrutherford]

Let's stop the doom and gloom for a minute about loss of Ford nameplates. Right now, Ford has more global nameplates that what it did in the 1960s. 

 

Yes, compared to say the 1980s and 1990s, it has less. But those years were very inefficient when you had two compact cars, two mid-size cars, and two full size cars at times in the same markets. 

 

And that is not even global. 

[DeluxeStang]

36 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

Much of what is actually said is because of investors...the F-150 Lightning is a good product, but I'm guessing didn't make Ford money and the market wasn't ready or wanted it either. No full sized EV pickup has done well vs its ICE counterparts.

 

The one fear I have with the CE1 is that its going to look like a pickup but be more along the lines of a Santa Cruz then a Maverick and turn off its typical Ford customer,  and will cost more like $39K vs $30K. If they can get the price closer to $30 that will make people more accepting of whatever shortcomings it might have. That is going to be key in making it successful, its primarily its price. Outside of gas prices going crazy (just paid $2.59 this morning), I really think EVs are going to struggle for the time being. Cars are just too expensive and people are getting pinched all over the place and can't afford them. 

There are things they could do that look cool, but don't look like an original truck. Like I really like this fender shape for whatever EV this ends up being, the way it flairs out and drops down gives me hints of the ford GT front fender, just more squared off. It's nothing like the traditional upright blocky truck front ends, but as its own thing, I like it a lot. It's a very small, but promising design cue. 

[ausrutherford]

3 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

There are things they could do that look cool, but don't look like an original truck. Like I really like this fender shape for whatever EV this ends up being, the way it flairs out and drops down gives me hints of the ford GT front fender, just more squared off. It's nothing like the traditional upright blocky truck front ends, but as its own thing, I like it a lot. It's a very small, but promising design cue. 

What's with the crotch shot? 

 

 

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, ausrutherford said:

What's with the crotch shot? 

 

 

I knew someone would mention it 🤣 

[Joe771476]

On 12/29/2025 at 4:23 PM, bzcat said:

C2 unit cost is high relative to the competitor because Ford's volume is tiny compare to Toyota, Hyundai, or BYD. This is the legacy of 2 decades of continuous shrinking. As a result, Ford now doesn't have the economy of scale to compete in the biggest vehicles segments on a worldwide basis even with a state of the art worldwide common architecture like C2. What's the point of C2 if it is still "too expensive"? 

 

Ford is like a petrol-state with failed economy... too much reliance on a singular source of revenue so the economy failed to develop a diversified industrial base.  Ford's crude oil is F-150 which is propped up by structural advantages in the US like Chicken Tax and Sec179 depreciation. Instead of being like Norway where petrol profit is invested for the future, Ford has turned into Nigeria where it is incapable of delivering content and cost competitive products. I really hope UEV or CE1 is everything Farley says it is because it maybe the end of the road for Ford as a major car company if it doesn't deliver. What is being said about UEV is also what was being said about C2 and CD6 less than a decade ago... and what Mularlly said about OneFord before. We've seen this movie before... it ends in Ford cutting models, withdrawing from markets, and playing the we can't compete card. 

I couldn't have said it better myself!

[Joe771476]

16 hours ago, ausrutherford said:

Let's stop the doom and gloom for a minute about loss of Ford nameplates. Right now, Ford has more global nameplates that what it did in the 1960s. 

 

Yes, compared to say the 1980s and 1990s, it has less. But those years were very inefficient when you had two compact cars, two mid-size cars, and two full size cars at times in the same markets. 

 

And that is not even global. 

I disagree with your 1960's reference. All you have to do is watch TV reruns from the late 60's/early 70's to know they had dozens of makes/models.

[morgan20]

17 hours ago, ausrutherford said:

Right now, Ford has more global nameplates that what it did in the 1960s.  

 

Ford of Europe alone had these nameplates in the 1960s:

• Small cars: Popular ("Pop"), Anglia, Prefect, Escort
• Midsize & large cars: Consul II, Cortina, Taunus, Classic, Corsair, Zephyr, Zodiac
• Sporty cars: Capri, Consul Capri
• Commercial van/truck: Thames, FK Series, Taunus Transit, Transit, Escort Van 

[Joe771476]

On 12/30/2025 at 8:04 AM, bzcat said:

 

F-Series is on 2 different platform, the F-150 and SuperDuty only share the F-Series name and are developed separately as two unique platforms so let's just look at it on apples to apples basis. By my estimate, the F-150 sales volume is roughly 500K a year. We can be charitable and add Expedition and Navigator which are on older version of the F-150 platform (even though the platforms have diverged, there is still lot of synergy like common drivetrain) so let's call it 600K volume a year. Compare to TNGA-F worldwide volume at around 1M a year (Tacoma, Tundra, Sequoia, Land Cruiser, Prado, 4Runner, LX, GX etc). So on the platform economy of scale basis, I would estimate TGNA-F is equal if not more cost efficient than F-150. Yes, F-150 is important and I'm not saying it is wrong to prioritize it. What I'm pointing out is Ford only prioritize F-150.

 

Toyota also has TNGA-B, TNGA-C, and TNGA-K. Each of them hosting about 3 million sales last year. Compare to Ford C2 which barely registered about 750K last year. This is what I was pointing out... Ford is so small now it doesn't have the scale to compete. Ford may not have worried about small cars but by not competing, it also doomed its small and midsize CUVs which needs the sales volume to contribute to the C2 economy of scale to be cost competitive. 

 

 

I agree. A lot of short term thinking... if you outsource something for quick cost cutting, it is now forever a cost item in your BOM. You lose the ability to improve the design and reap the cost saving across different vehicle programs. The supplier now reap the saving... 

 

Same concept applies on Ford selling cars in different markets. Sure, it seems easy to just close up shop and leave India but now you don't have a low cost production base so it limits your ability to compete in the future in Europe and other APAC markets. 

 

Ford and Hyundai entered the Indian market around the same time... Ford actually raced ahead first with Ikon and Figo but Ford is down and out while Hyundai has achieved 20% market share (including its Kia brand). How these companies approach competition is very different and Hyundai more so than Toyota has been the one eating Ford's lunch around the world. 

 

 

Yeah, and Ford owned a stake in Hyundai and gave that up. Another dumb move on Ford's part.

[Joe771476]

Back in the 1960's in the USA, GM had about 55% market share, Ford had about half at 28, and Chrysler had half that at around 14, with AMC making up the rest. Japanese weren't yet in the mix. I wonder what GM, Ford and Stellantis (which is really not USA-based but we'll include them anyway) would say if they were to be guaranteed those percentages today in the USA if all non-USA-based mfrs. like Toyota and Hyundai et al were banned from selling cars in the USA. And USA Ford, GM and the Mopar brands could not be sold outside the USA. I'm not going to research and do the math. If someone wants to, be my guest.  But I'll give you a starting point. USA unit sales for 2025 was around 16 million. GM had 17% market share which is 2.7 million units. If they had 55% market share that would be 8.8 million units.  I don't know the global numbers. So what do you think?