It was posted, but may have gotten lost in the shuffle of some post merging.   Yeah, at least they're creating a plan B option, and since they'll have the plant, I'd assume they could switch it back to automotive uses if/when the market demands it.

One thing I don't recall seeing here is Ford is shifting it's battery production to produce batteries for energy storage.   https://planetdetroit.org/2025/12/ford-shifts-ev-battery-plans/   Hopefully Ford can make some money of that option.  Regain some of their spent money/effort.

I did find his posts interesting, but the not hearing any other viewpoint thing was obnoxious.

Just as Ford is reportedly about to exit.

Yes and that’s why back in 2006, Ford borrowed $23 billion to restructure the company  rather than go chapter 11 like GM and be under government control   Its interesting that 19 years later, Ford takes a $19 billion charge and it’s not the end of the world. The biggest tell is that no one will be fired, how could they when it was all top down decisions. Those losses directly affect the Ford Family in terms of income and what all their rich friends must be thinking…that is the accountability

Yes. I miss his posts.

Ford never outright owned Mazda, but they had a controlling interest at 33%.  

https://www.dakotaforums.com/forum/threads/2027-ram-dakota-confirmed-for-us-north-america.24108/

I think there's a bit of oversimplification on this last paragraph, because they were anticipating BEV replacements on a far more accelerated timeline than what has actually happened.

@Biker16 analysis shows what a strategy mistake it was to sell Mazda and Volvo.    Alan Mularly was right to sell Jaguar and Land Rover and Aston Martin. The English brands were an endless money drain without a lot of product synergy with Ford. But it made little strategic sense to sell Mazda and Volvo - this is probably (still) an unpopular thing to say out loud but Ford probably should have held on to Mazda and Volvo and declared bankruptcy like GM. Mazda and Volvo products were highly complementary and Ford really needed the size and scale of Mazda and Volvo to be compete effectively in EMEA and APAC. Without those subsidiaries (which were actually the main source of vehicle developments outside North America), Ford eventually had to pay the price of reduced economy of scale. And let's not forget, Mazda becoming a Toyota controlled affiliate is not a good outcome, and Geely probably won't be what it is today (a global powerhouse) without Volvo... Ford basically helped strengthen Toyota and created Geely as a globally relevant competitor. Big blunders in retrospect.    From C1 to C2, you can see how disastrous the lack of scale is to Ford's business. The thing about shrinking your product offering is that it is rarely the solution to the underlying problem. Ford decided to axe supposedly unprofitable nameplates but in the age of platform sharing and common architecture, those decisions end up impacting the supposedly profitable nameplates down the road. Once you are on the path to shrink, there is only one logical outcome...you keep shrinking because each one becomes less profitable.    For example, Ford may not have made a lot of money on Fusion/Mondeo but it probably did make plenty of money on Edge and Nautilus. But getting rid of Fusion means Ford couldn't afford to keep supply chain in North America for another generation of Edge and Nautilus - meanwhile in China, Ford kept the Mondeo and that probably was the difference in why Edge and Nautilus are still in production there (they are not big sellers in China either... in fact, Ford barely exists in China now - another serious of strategic blunders to discuss for another time). Similarly, Ford struggled to make the math work on another gen of Kuga/Escape but that was entirely predictable (especially in Europe and APAC) when it decided to pulled the plug on Focus. These products need each other to sustain C2 economy of scale.