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

[tbone]

On 12/30/2025 at 9:50 AM, akirby said:

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.  

Though I don’t have a problem with pursuing the development of CE1/UEP, as I think it’s an appropriate endeavor to start with entry level models, but my question is will there be a sufficient number of buyers?  The demand for EVs is already suspect, so is it a better play to slow roll that development while perfecting it and add elements learned from it to existing or new ICE and hybrid products that are more desirable at this time?  I also question the choice of starting with a truck when you have now effectively eliminated almost all of your affordable passenger vehicles.  I’m concerned about Ford becoming one dimensional.  

[Motorpsychology]

7 hours ago, tbone said:

Though I don’t have a problem with pursuing the development of CE1/UEP, as I think it’s an appropriate endeavor to start with entry level models, but my question is will there be a sufficient number of buyers?  The demand for EVs is already suspect, so is it a better play to slow roll that development while perfecting it and add elements learned from it to existing or new ICE and hybrid products that are more desirable at this time?  I also question the choice of starting with a truck when you have now effectively eliminated almost all of your affordable passenger vehicles.  I’m concerned about Ford becoming one dimensional.  

Up next: Paccar brings out a compact car as the Class 8 market softens.

[akirby]

8 hours ago, tbone said:

Though I don’t have a problem with pursuing the development of CE1/UEP, as I think it’s an appropriate endeavor to start with entry level models, but my question is will there be a sufficient number of buyers?  The demand for EVs is already suspect, so is it a better play to slow roll that development while perfecting it and add elements learned from it to existing or new ICE and hybrid products that are more desirable at this time?  I also question the choice of starting with a truck when you have now effectively eliminated almost all of your affordable passenger vehicles.  I’m concerned about Ford becoming one dimensional.  

EV demand isn't suspect.  Lower prices always bring more volume.  They're starting with the truck because it's the cheapest to build and sell.  They're planning multiple top hats which could include a sedan if needed.  
 

The important thing is they still have the platforms to build cars if the market supports it.  They're not burning bridges.

[DeluxeStang]

9 hours ago, tbone said:

Though I don’t have a problem with pursuing the development of CE1/UEP, as I think it’s an appropriate endeavor to start with entry level models, but my question is will there be a sufficient number of buyers?  The demand for EVs is already suspect, so is it a better play to slow roll that development while perfecting it and add elements learned from it to existing or new ICE and hybrid products that are more desirable at this time?  I also question the choice of starting with a truck when you have now effectively eliminated almost all of your affordable passenger vehicles.  I’m concerned about Ford becoming one dimensional.  

I personally believe affordable, well executed EVs will sell just fine. Lots of consumers, especially younger consumers find EVs really appealing. The model y and 3 sell incredibly well, and it sounds like this EV platform will undercut those on pricing. 

[rmc523]

On 12/31/2025 at 4:35 PM, DeluxeStang said:

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.

 

If they go with low range like that, these things are dead on arrival.  Whether "necessary" or not, I think a lot of people have 300 miles engrained in their head as a starting point.

 

I feel it'll be more akin to the aero '97 F-150 styling wise.

 

39 minutes ago, akirby said:

EV demand isn't suspect.  Lower prices always bring more volume.  They're starting with the truck because it's the cheapest to build and sell.  They're planning multiple top hats which could include a sedan if needed.  
 

The important thing is they still have the platforms to build cars if the market supports it.  They're not burning bridges.

 

Not sure I'd agree with that - there are plenty of unhappy Edge customers, and soon Escape customers that won't have a Ford option for at least a few years at best.

[DeluxeStang]

15 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

If they go with low range like that, these things are dead on arrival.  Whether "necessary" or not, I think a lot of people have 300 miles engrained in their head as a starting point.

 

I feel it'll be more akin to the aero '97 F-150 styling wise.

Agreed, I think mid to upper 200s is the absolute lowest range it can have for the standard battery. Farley claims it'll have "incredible" range which makes me believe it's at least in the upper 200s or even low 300s. 

 

As for the styling, I believe this could be it with this patent. We've seen other parents with cab forward styling, but the actual design itself had a very half-assed, basic placeholder to it. This looks like a design that's actually stylized and flushed out. 

 

As far as cab forward squared off truck design is gonna go, that's about as good looking as you can make it. I don't love it, but I don't hate it. I can see inherently how practical it's gonna be with things like the bed pass thru, or how good visibility is gonna be with that short hood and those windows that drop down on the sides. 

 

I also really like that cab pass thru, and hope that makes it to production. You'd have a maverick-ranger sized truck with like 7-8 ft of bed storage with the pass thru fully opened up, and 4 door passenger capacity when needed, the best of both worlds.

Edited January 2 by DeluxeStang

[bzcat]

23 hours ago, Joe771476 said:

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

 

Ford owned small stakes in both Hyundai and Kia at different stages. 

 

Ford exchanged technology license for small stakes in Hyundai in late 1960s and Hyundai began by assembly and selling Fords in Korea. Ford broke up with Hyundai around 1980 after they couldn't work out a renewal on technology cooperation - Hyundai wanted in on Ford's next gen engine and platform (they were mainly interested in FWD Mk3 Escort) but that didn't fit with Ford's plan which was to switch to Mazda platforms in APAC region. Instead of introducing next gen Escort and Sierra in APAC, Ford went with Mazda based Laser and Telstar. Ironically, Hyundai decided to just reuse what it had already so Stellar was basically a Mk5 Cortina with a new body on it and Mitsubishi engine.

 

Ford invested in Kia with Mazda a few years later. Kia had an existing partnership with Mazda but Kia was shut down by the Korea Govt in 1981 as the military junta favored Hyundai monopoly for passenger cars. in 1986, Kia was allowed to restart car production so Mazda and Ford both invested in Kia to help it restart operation. Around the same time, Ford commissioned Mazda to design a subcompact car to slot below Escort for US market (Festiva) and they farmed out the production to Kia that became Kia's first real success. Ford and Mazda remained Kia's main foreign investors and technology partner until Kia's bankruptcy. 

 

When Kia when belly up in 1998 as fall out from the Asian financial crisis, Ford was the only other bidder for the business besides Hyundai. In fact, Ford's initial bid was higher than Hyundai which didn't really wanted Kia but was forced by the Korean Govt to submit a competing bid. Ford was seen as the odds on favorite to gain control of Kia but Ford wouldn't guarantee that it will not shut down the Kia brand or layoff any Kia employees so the Korean union lobbied hard against Ford. Eventually the Korea Govt basically told Hyundai to match Ford's offer and Ford knew it had no chance and withdrew its bid.

 

Around the same time Mazda got into financial difficulties and Ford gained effective control of Mazda with 1/3 ownership. So after the unsuccessful Kia bid, Ford plowed a lot of resources into Mazda instead, including combining Mazda and Ford in Taiwan and expanding Auto Alliance in Thailand. Goes without saying that Ford's footprint in APAC would be a lot different if it had gain control of Kia. 

[akirby]

2 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

Not sure I'd agree with that - there are plenty of unhappy Edge customers, and soon Escape customers that won't have a Ford option for at least a few years at best.

I meant killing platforms capable of hosting sedans.  If they killed C2 and didn't replace it then yes there would be a concern that if the market shifts to small unibody vehicles that Ford would be in trouble.  As long as they have c2 and cd6/mustang they're fine and can change top hats as needed.  I also think the new truck platform for Tennessee will be unibody.

[Biker16]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

I meant killing platforms capable of hosting sedans.  If they killed C2 and didn't replace it then yes there would be a concern that if the market shifts to small unibody vehicles that Ford would be in trouble.  As long as they have c2 and cd6/mustang they're fine and can change top hats as needed.  I also think the new truck platform for Tennessee will be unibody.

 

The scary part is, I think Ford has lost the ability to do this. Their engineering has atrophied so much that they will be unable to respond to market changes.

 

Remember, FOE was Ford's small-vehicle center of excellence. It's gone; product development has been outsourced to competitors or China. 

 

If this happens Ford's best may be an acquisition, merger, or be acquired.

[akirby]

30 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

The scary part is, I think Ford has lost the ability to do this. Their engineering has atrophied so much that they will be unable to respond to market changes.

That's hilarious.  

[morgan20]

40 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

The scary part is, I think Ford has lost the ability to do this. Their engineering has atrophied so much that they will be unable to respond to market changes.

What about the fresh thinking engineers at the skunkworks? Will they be able to make up for the losses elsewhere within FoMoCo?

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, Biker16 said:

 

The scary part is, I think Ford has lost the ability to do this. Their engineering has atrophied so much that they will be unable to respond to market changes.

 

Remember, FOE was Ford's small-vehicle center of excellence. It's gone; product development has been outsourced to competitors or China. 

 

If this happens Ford's best may be an acquisition, merger, or be acquired.

 

1 hour ago, akirby said:

That's hilarious.  

I take a balanced view, Ford Blue and has lost a lot of experienced engineers but also gained a lot of new ideas and new thinking.

It’s hard to judge the ability to engineer new platforms when Ford has 

pulled $11 billion form its ICE platforms back in the early 2020.

It’s also true that Ford now recognises that there are better ways to 

develop vehicles than the old big teams taking four years, then think

about the next vehicle required. T6.2 gave us a glimpse at how the

engineering side and modules required was set in the first two years

so that successive vehicles could take advantage of that work.

 

Starting with a BEV and working back to a HEV, PHEV or EREV may be an easier prospect than reinventing the C2 wheel.

Edited January 2 by jpd80

[DeluxeStang]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

I meant killing platforms capable of hosting sedans.  If they killed C2 and didn't replace it then yes there would be a concern that if the market shifts to small unibody vehicles that Ford would be in trouble.  As long as they have c2 and cd6/mustang they're fine and can change top hats as needed.  I also think the new truck platform for Tennessee will be unibody.

It's kinda hard to keep track of everything so I have to ask, is the new Tennessee truck that new gas powered truck ford talked about? Because I believe that's gonna be a bronco truck with a BOF design. 

[Biker16]

 

2 hours ago, akirby said:

That's hilarious.  

How so? 
 

2 hours ago, morgan20 said:

What about the fresh thinking engineers at the skunkworks? Will they be able to make up for the losses elsewhere within FoMoCo?

I don't know. The PR from Ford seems Business as usual, not transformational

• The Skunkworks program isn't guaranteed success.
• It will take time to deploy the lessons learned from this program
• The institutional inertia is always acting against change 
• The EV Focus of the Skunkworks isn't directly applicable to the product Development of ICE vehicles
• No Automaker has tried an unboxed process with an ICE vehicle. Connecting EV Boxes together is simpler Than ICE vehicle boxes, with Electrical, Fuel, Emissions, and Exhaust connections.

I could be wrong, we won't know for sure until the products hit the market.

[akirby]

3 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

It's kinda hard to keep track of everything so I have to ask, is the new Tennessee truck that new gas powered truck ford talked about? Because I believe that's gonna be a bronco truck with a BOF design. 

That would be made at MAP.  Not enough volume to be in Tennessee and it doesn't fit the affordable moniker.  A new affordable truck model has to be unibody and compact and/or midsized.  It's the only thing that makes sense given the new direction with ce1.

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Biker16 said:

• The Skunkworks program isn't guaranteed success.
• It will take time to deploy the lessons learned from this program

Nothing is guaranteed, but they've been working on it for almost 3 years now and building actual vehicles.  This isn't vaporware.

 

2 hours ago, Biker16 said:

The institutional inertia is always acting against change 

That's why it was a skunkworks project led by outsiders.  Clean sheet no corporate distraction or impediments.  New factory new processes.

 

2 hours ago, Biker16 said:

• The EV Focus of the Skunkworks isn't directly applicable to the product Development of ICE vehicles
• No Automaker has tried an unboxed process with an ICE vehicle. Connecting EV Boxes together is simpler Than ICE vehicle boxes, with Electrical, Fuel, Emissions, and Exhaust connections.

It doesn't have to be exactly the same.  Gigacasting, electrical, new assembly processes can all be extrapolated to ICE.

[02MustangGT]

18 minutes ago, akirby said:

they've been working on it for almost 3 years now and building actual vehicles

No vehicles have been built using this “new” (to Ford) assembly process in an actual factory.  Farley himself has stated that the entire project and assembly process is not a “sure thing”.   

Edited January 3 by 02MustangGT

[akirby]

48 minutes ago, 02MustangGT said:

No vehicles have been built using this “new” (to Ford) assembly process in an actual factory.  Farley himself has stated that the entire project and assembly process is not a “sure thing”.   

No but it's a hell of a lot further along than a theory on a powerpoint.  First, if their ideas had not proven achievable they would never have announced the skunkworks project at all.  
 

Nobody is saying it's a sure thing and there will be challenges but factory workers have seen details close up and that tells me they're far enough along that it will come to fruition and meet most of the goals.

[jpd80]

5 minutes ago, akirby said:

No but it's a hell of a lot further along than a theory on a powerpoint.  First, if their ideas had not proven achievable they would never have announced the skunkworks project at all.  
 

Nobody is saying it's a sure thing and there will be challenges but factory workers have seen details close up and that tells me they're far enough along that it will come to fruition and meet most of the goals.

As you know, there’s a lot of difference between the production of prototypes and the quality required for at speed main line production.

Ford needs to spend enough time getting this right and not just sign off.

 

There is good reason to be optimistic but the process is just so different,

none of this would be possible without gigacasting modules.

[tbone]

13 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Agreed, I think mid to upper 200s is the absolute lowest range it can have for the standard battery. Farley claims it'll have "incredible" range which makes me believe it's at least in the upper 200s or even low 300s. 

 

As for the styling, I believe this could be it with this patent. We've seen other parents with cab forward styling, but the actual design itself had a very half-assed, basic placeholder to it. This looks like a design that's actually stylized and flushed out. 

 

As far as cab forward squared off truck design is gonna go, that's about as good looking as you can make it. I don't love it, but I don't hate it. I can see inherently how practical it's gonna be with things like the bed pass thru, or how good visibility is gonna be with that short hood and those windows that drop down on the sides. 

 

I also really like that cab pass thru, and hope that makes it to production. You'd have a maverick-ranger sized truck with like 7-8 ft of bed storage with the pass thru fully opened up, and 4 door passenger capacity when needed, the best of both worlds.

I think you will need pass through to maximize the utility of these small trucks. 

[tbone]

13 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

I personally believe affordable, well executed EVs will sell just fine. Lots of consumers, especially younger consumers find EVs really appealing. The model y and 3 sell incredibly well, and it sounds like this EV platform will undercut those on pricing. 

The very people that would likely be high on the target list for these new EVs are the people least likely have access to consistent charging and will likely be reliant on public charging.  This is a concern of mine, considering there has been virtually no change to the public charging infrastructure in my area since I stopped using the Mach E.  This is clearly an anecdotal observation, but I am skeptical there has been substantial improvement around the country.  Public charging was a requirement for me to use the Mach E and it was far from ideal.  The low price will make them more appealing, but I am still not sure how good the take rate is going to be.  One thing Tesla has going for it, aside from its EV legitimacy, is that it has been viewed as a pseudo luxury brand, which I think is helpful for sales.  I don’t think Ford gets that same consideration. 

[tbone]

15 hours ago, akirby said:

EV demand isn't suspect.  Lower prices always bring more volume.  They're starting with the truck because it's the cheapest to build and sell.  They're planning multiple top hats which could include a sedan if needed.  
 

The important thing is they still have the platforms to build cars if the market supports it.  They're not burning bridges.

I think we’ll agree to disagree on whether demand is suspect. We are going to start getting a better understanding of actual US demand starting this year, which won’t be propped up by government incentives.

 

I didn’t mention anything about a sedan, as I was referring more to the loss of the Edge and Escape, which is the heart of the passenger vehicle market. It just blows my mind that Ford has such few vehicles to compete with.  
 

Ford is really good at building a compelling vehicle, and then chopping it off at the knees, claiming that it isn’t selling well or isn’t profitable. I’m just tired of it.   I’m a truck buyer, so it doesn’t directly impact me however, I’m trying to keep other members of my family in Ford vehicles, but Ford has increasingly made this difficult.  I was going to try to put my mom into a Lincoln Corsair when she replaces her Cadillac, but I’m not going to now. I don’t buy dead man walking vehicles.
 

Ironically, my wife just asked me tonight if they stopped making the Escape and why they did that, which I have no answer for.  She is not a car person, but she was taken aback by that.  She won’t be the only one. I’ve read a couple stories about customers saying Ford left them, versus the customers leaving Ford, and it’s true.  I just find this strategy so weird.  
 

You don’t need to provide your typical rebuttal about dropping X vehicle to build Y vehicle, I understand your position, though I don’t agree with it. I just think as of late, Ford is afraid to actually compete and find solutions when things get challenging, particularly under the current leadership.  IMO they fold like a house of cards. it isn’t a good look.  
 

BTW, your statement” Lower prices always bring more volume,” sounds like a commodity product😉

 

 

[Sherminator98]

5 hours ago, tbone said:

I think we’ll agree to disagree on whether demand is suspect. We are going to start getting a better understanding of actual US demand starting this year, which won’t be propped up by government incentives.

 

I didn’t mention anything about a sedan, as I was referring more to the loss of the Edge and Escape, which is the heart of the passenger vehicle market. It just blows my mind that Ford has such few vehicles to compete with.  
 

Ford is really good at building a compelling vehicle, and then chopping it off at the knees, claiming that it isn’t selling well or isn’t profitable. I’m just tired of it.   I’m a truck buyer, so it doesn’t directly impact me however, I’m trying to keep other members of my family in Ford vehicles, but Ford has increasingly made this difficult.  I was going to try to put my mom into a Lincoln Corsair when she replaces her Cadillac, but I’m not going to now. I don’t buy dead man walking vehicles.
 

Ironically, my wife just asked me tonight if they stopped making the Escape and why they did that, which I have no answer for.  She is not a car person, but she was taken aback by that.  She won’t be the only one. I’ve read a couple stories about customers saying Ford left them, versus the customers leaving Ford, and it’s true.  I just find this strategy so weird.  
 

You don’t need to provide your typical rebuttal about dropping X vehicle to build Y vehicle, I understand your position, though I don’t agree with it. I just think as of late, Ford is afraid to actually compete and find solutions when things get challenging, particularly under the current leadership.  IMO they fold like a house of cards. it isn’t a good look.  
 

BTW, your statement” Lower prices always bring more volume,” sounds like a commodity product😉

 

 

 

Two different things I can come up with-

 

The Edge went away because sales were dropping towards the end of its life and other new products like the Bronco and Mach E would occupy its price range, while not being an exact replacement. 
 

The Escape “died” (at least in North America) so they could build the CE1 products in the plant and the Bronco Sport/Maverick hopefully fixed the pricing/profitably issues C1 was experiencing. 
 

The CE1 is hard reboot of the building process of small vehicles. Hopefully lower prices will make EVs more desirable for buyers. 
 

I’m also going to assume that some sort of ICE/hybrid product is coming in the next 24-36 months that will slot into the Escape/Edge market because the situation has changed. 

[akirby]

7 hours ago, tbone said:

The low price will make them more appealing, but I am still not sure how good the take rate is going to be.

I agree that public charging is key but I don't expect huge numbers at first - maybe 50k-75k for the truck, a little more for the CUV.  They can ramp up slowly and will eventually have 4 models in the plant.  More people will put up with less than ideal public charging on a $25k ev than a $45k EV.  

[akirby]

6 hours ago, tbone said:

You don’t need to provide your typical rebuttal about dropping X vehicle to build Y vehicle, I understand your position, though I don’t agree with it.

But that is the reason whether you agree with it or not.  You have new models to build so you either have to expand and build a new factory or free up an existing one.  Ford chose to build one new plant but decided it was too expensive to build 2 more so they killed edge and nautilus to build the 3 rows and killed escape to build ce1.  It's corporate finance 101.  I'm sure edge and escape were profitable but at very low margins so they were the easiest to get rid of.  Without the EVs they would not have killed them.