Death of the EV revolution?
Ford pulls the plug on EV strategy as losses pile up
‘Our Gen 2 vehicles won’t launch unless we can get to a profit’
Brandon Vigliarolo
Wed 7 Feb 2024 // 18:30 UTCThe reality of electric vehicle prices has finally caught up with the venerable US automaker Ford, which said yesterday that it’s rethinking its loss-making EV strategy.
The news came during Ford’s Q4 2023 earnings call yesterday, and included revelations that the Detroit-based biz was also reassessing its EV battery strategy, a decision that comes as no surprise in the wake of delays announced last year.
“We delayed our second joint venture battery plant in Kentucky. We reduced the size of our new lithium iron phosphate plant in Michigan, and we did not proceed with our JV battery plant in Turkey,” Ford CFO, John Lawler, said on the call.
“We are further adjusting installed capacity to match demand, reassessing vertical integration in new battery chemistries, adjusting Gen 2 products and potentially their launch timing to ensure they meet our criteria for profitability.”
…
“Our Gen 2 vehicles won’t launch unless we can get to a profit and a return on that capital that we’re investing there at the pricing environment that we now understand is reality,” Lawler said. “We know that we have to have this electric vehicle business stand on its own and be profitable because we know that there are competitors out there.”
…
Read more: https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/07/ford_ev_strategy/
Given the lack of consumer interest in EVs, is this actually a demand to the Biden Administration to provide more taxpayer cash, or does it represent a genuine change in corporate direction?
Does the Biden Administration have any more borrowed cash to provide?
I guess time will tell.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Does the Biden Administration have any more borrowed cash to provide?”
Surely you jest.
They just may continue to print some $-notes 😀
Don’t call me Shirley!
If the US government has ink it has money.
Well, nowadays its just electrons . . . much less troublesome and much cheaper than ink!
Ink? Print? All we’ve needed for the last 30 years is a spreadsheet and a creepy Treasury Secretary to spread the dream.
Taxpayer-funded US government subsidies are ALWAYS available to flow freely to “sweethearts” of whatever the current political meme is . . . that is, as long as the current administration is following the money.
Less 10% for The Big Guy
Powell prints $it for them, gives $it to Yellen, so she can pay the bills for the deficit spending of a bunch of demented fools in the White House.
If Ford markets and sells EVs, only if an EV is profitable, then Ford will not sell many EVs in the future, unless the idiots in the White House buy them, with Yellen’s “money”, and sprinkle them in Democrat areas FOR FREE to the user. Anything to get more votes, after the borders are closed
It looks as if Ford is watching the Presidential race polls, and does not expect Biden to be in office much longer.
US polls have been meaningless since 2016. That was obvious by 2020. It is who is in charge of counting. And that is government.
It appears the verdict is for Mann in the Mann Steryn/Simberg case. The only thing Mann had going for him was the DC jurisdiction and it proved compelling. Even the judge was Bush appointed but that did not matter in the result.
There is the working class and the government class. The latter pay themselves high salaries at the expense of the working class. They protect their own kind. Trump is far outside their world view that he simply cannot have another term in office.
It would be hard not to spite Mann. Meanwhile just down the road, Biden gets away with treason.
Mann is $1M richer today if the plaintiffs have the money.
I doubt it – Mann set the precedent for this case after he didn’t pay costs to Tim Ball. Neither Steyn nor Simberg are US citizens.
Compensatory damages are $1 each for Steyn and Simberg.
Punitive damages are $1000 for Simberg and $1 million for Steyn.
Whups, apologies, I think Rand Simberg is a US citizen.
You speaking for the jury, or what?
Nope. Ryan Maue has tweeted the verdict and the amount decided by the jury. I just mentioned the sickening result.
Yeah, the jury said that Mann was attacked with spite and malice.
More like MOCKERY and derision… both well deserved.
When he was being interviewed over the mishandled classified documents found in his garage, Biden had trouble recalling key incidents in his life. Such as when he was VP and the year his son died.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-did-not-remember-when-he-was-vice-president-when-his-son-beau-died-during-special-counsel-interview.
There are only two questions left.
When does Biden withdraw from the 2024 election, and does he even make it to November, much less January.
I’m guessing that the DNC intends to keep Biden in the race long enough for him to lock it up. Then Biden pulls out, and the DNC then hand picks who they want to run against Trump.
Since when was intellectual capacity a criterion to be US President?
“Death of the EV revolution?”
No. Just another US manufacturing company finding it hard to beat Chinese competition.
Still not very impressive though, is it? The US of A, the birthplace of the mass-produced car and, historically, the big car market of the world. And they can only flog 850,000 of the things in a whole year in the whole of the states – and that’s only with government intervention to skew the market. What’ll the Biden regime do next? Arrest people for buying or driving an ICE vehicle? Pathetic.
“And they can only flog 850,000 of the things in a whole year”
That was 2022. They sold more than that in 9 months of 2023.
Such a success they are going on to launch their Gen 2 vehicles. Oh, hang on…
Ford is having trouble keeping up.
EVs are a blip. And Ford isn’t the only company having trouble with EVs.
According to Cox Automotive, higher deliveries, supply chain improvements and stronger dealer incentives fueled the jump in new vehicle sales. U.S. auto sales reached an estimated 15.5 million units in 2023, an 11.6% jump from 13.9 million vehicles sold in 2022, Cox said.
https://www.automotivedive.com/news/general-motors-q4-sales-hyundai-kia-nissan-subaru-toyota-automakers/703648/
Eric
“And Ford isn’t the only company having trouble with EVs.”
Where do you get that? Your quote just says auto sales are up generally. But Cox quotes the EV share:
“Electric vehicle sales accounted for 7.9% of total industry sales in Q3, a record and up from 6.1% a year ago and 7.2% in Q2″
The only thing about a specific US company EV was:
“GM’s EV sales are also up, despite the automaker’s decision to scale back the rollout of new electric vehicles as it adjusts to market demand. Still, 2023 was a record year for Bolt EV and EUV sales, with combined sales up 63% to 60,045 units. Despite strong Bolt sales, GM has ended production of both current Bolt models but plans to replace the Bolt with a new electric crossover. “
“Electric vehicle sales accounted for 7.9% of total industry sales in Q3, a record and up from 6.1% a year ago and 7.2% in Q2″
IMHO, that truly qualifies as a “blip” . . . get back to me, Nick, when EV sales exceed 10% of total market of passenger car/SUV/light truck sales . . . hopefully, I’ll still be alive in 20 or so years.
Do YOU know an EV as your ONLY car, Nick.
Or are you totally aware that it would totally USELESS as anything but a shopping cart in central Victoria.
Bet you have a diesel ute or SUV.
What do you get from continually pushing the lies of the EV idiocy ??
7.9%, and that’s with huge subsidies and a multitude of mandates.
On an level floor, EV sales wouldn’t be a tenth of that.
Nick,
What would you suggest that Ford could do, to do better? Geoff S
Geoff,
That is above my pay grade. Eric’s article says they are selling at a lss, so I suppose they need to reduce costs. They are selling plenty of EVs. From Cox’ Q4 report sales in 2023 were up 17.9% on 2022. But the industry average was 46.3%, which doesn’t sound like the death of EV.
Everything requiring rational thought is above your pay grade, Nick.
Yet you still make idiotic comments.
Which EV do you have as your only car, Nick ???
That is exactly correct. China has lower manufacturing costs and so is providing the floor in the EV price. The US manufacturers cannot compete and so, like the Dinosaurs, PanAm and the Dodo, they are going out of the EV business.
As long as legacy investments in ICE vehicle manufacture lasts they (as they have paid off the costs of the facilities) they can survive. But not for long.
On the other hand, the total EV market is small. The technology does not meet the user requirements.
But China’s victory in EVs is a herald of what is to come.tt
I ask again, which Chinese companies sell EVs in the US? For that matter, which Chinese companies sell ICEVs in the US?
It’s easy to cut costs when you use slave labor.
Your incredible knowledge of the auto industry is on full display. How many vehicles must a company sell to make an assembly plant profitable? Which companies sell that number? Tesla leads the industry in US sales and is probably just above breaking even with their two very large plants and 650,000 sales. Nobody else comes close to having enough sales to pay for an assembly plant, let alone the battery plants. The most profitable aspect of EV production in the US is still the sale of federal emission credits, which we just learned are set artificially by the government’s mpg ratings.
Don’t be led astray by EV enthusiasts. An EV is a vehicle with probably 80% to 90% of the same parts as an ICEV. The difference is in the powertrain. The suspension, body, interior trim, lighting, seats, entertainment systems, etc. are all there in both EVs and ICEVs.
Given the weight of the battery, I suspect there might be differences in the suspension.
The suspension parts are heavier but the suspension but the structure and number of parts aren’t much different.
What a mensa candidate you are. If they are losing money, then they simply need to reduce costs.
So you think that Ford is deliberately spending more money than they have to building EVs?
I can assure you, that Ford is already doing everything it can to reduce costs, not just on EVs, but on everything else it makes and does.
Not only that, but Ford has been doing this since the first day it opened it’s doors.
Nick, several manufacturers are reported as sidelining EVs now.
GM and Honda also cancelled a collaboration to manufacture EV’s.
In January 2023 Paul Philpott, UK CEO of KIA Motors told the Times newspaper
“A mass market in affordable electric cars will not happen because of the difficulty of producing them on a viable basis”
VW has stopped production at its plant in Zwickau.
Hertz have pulled out of a $3bn contract for 65.000 Polestars.
Ford is slowing down the EV building, because it is ruining the company with losses
I get almost all of my information from Canary Media…
And they get theirs from Cox Automotive. The Cox article starts out:
“Electric vehicle (EV) sales volumes set another record in Q3, as total sales of battery-powered vehicles jumped past 300,000 for the first time in the U.S. market. Year-to-date EV sales through September reached just over 873,000, putting the market firmly on track to surpass 1 million for the first time ever. The milestone will likely be achieved in November.
Total EV sales in Q3, according to an estimate from Kelley Blue Book, hit 313,086, a 49.8% increase from the same period one year ago and an increase from the 298,039 sold in Q2.
Most automakers posted sizeable gains over 2022, with Volvo, Nissan, Mercedes and Hyundai delivering increases above 200%, thanks mostly to new products entering the market. In Q3, 14 new EV models that did not exist one year ago were in the mix, including Chevrolet Blazer and Silverado EVs. (The new Chevy EVs had very low sales – just an initial few to mark a Q3 launch). The EV market is transforming, to be sure.
Electric vehicle sales accounted for 7.9% of total industry sales in Q3, a record and up from 6.1% a year ago and 7.2% in Q2. As Cox Automotive has been reporting, higher inventory levels, more product availability, and downward pricing pressure have helped spur continued linear growth of EV sales in the U.S. market. EV sales have now increased for 13 straight quarters.”
Thanks Nick.
Can we determine what “sales” are, as distinct from numbers of units “shipped” from manufacturers to dealers’ outlets?
I’ve read of quite a few dealers who are imploring the manufacturers to halt shipping new units to them, and even take some back, as their lots are chokers with EVs that just aren’t selling.
And the main reason any business struggles to post a profit is insufficient actual, paid-for sales that get included in revenue / income.
“Sales” numbers from listed companies are often just what are floated to stock market brokers and analysts.
These are often “estimates” with no accountability to anyone for their accuracy, as here in your referenced article –
And as all stock brokers and financial consultants cover themselves –
“This is not advice . . . etc etc”
The Kelley Blue Book gives numbers based on what dealers sell.
I can’t find these numbers.
First 3 paras in the link.
A detail many here may not be aware of. Under US accounting rules, the OEM records a ‘sale’ when the dealer accepts a vehicle shipment. From then on, the dealer, not the OEM, is on the hook for the vehicle. EVs piling up on dealer lots means they will not accept more, and the OEMs are then forced to cut back on production—like at Ford.
So a “sale” doesn’t necessarily equate to public demand.
Sales reported by the manufacturers are what is sold to dealers, rental companies, fleets, etc. Sales reported by dealers are what is sold to the public and small businesses. Dealers are separate businesses in most cases, although some are wholly owned subsidiaries of the manufacturers.
In the UK most EV ‘sales’ are to companies and fleets not the man/woman in the street.
Do states record vehicle plate registrations, and when are plates issued? In the UK, a new vehicle gets its plates and first road tax when sold by a dealership, and the issue of the ownership document means that all vehicle type information is in the government record, allowing stats to be compiled.
New vehicle registrations in the US are reported by Experian, and Automotive News uses their numbers.
Invoicing occurs when the vehicle is shipped. That’s what the SEC looks for.
Tesla has almost 60% of the BEV market and their sales are recorded when the customer pays THEM for an EV, unlike the Big Three.
Any publicly held manufacturer has to report only invoiced, sold units. Reporting fake numbers would violate SEC regulations and the management would be in jail. I worked with a CPA firm trying to track down exactly how the numbers were calculated.
Easy to “increase” when sales are next-to-nothing.
6.1% a year ago, 7.9% most recent quarter, at this rate EV sales will be 50% of the market around 2044.
Infrastructure for EV’s, still has a long ways to go, especially with energy storage needs for charging stations.
It doesn’t take much to impress you.
NIO looks like it’s headed for bankruptcy. BYD’s stock is puking. LI is holding its own.
Yep. At the beginning of 2023 Nio had to slash prices of all its models to try and move stock. It also stopped its free battery swap out scheme.
In June 2023 China had to reinstate tax breaks for consumers to bolster the EV industry at a cost of £56.9 bn ($71.1 bn) to 2027.
Your chart has nothing to do with your claim, for which you can supply no evidence. Chinese built EVs are not sold in the U.S. The years in the chart match production rates, not manufacturer costs.
It takes a great deal of ignorance, or deliberate lying, to equate state-supported, slave-labor produced consumer goods, in an entirely different market, with actual costs of a politically compliant commercial organization trying to compete with state-designed, inferior goods, in an atleast partially free market.
A clue: production costs have little to do with sales price. A saturated market drives the price down, making production cost, not political pressure, the decider on whether to stay in the market.
Completing the final para in Eric’s quote:
“Despite all the electric doom and gloom, Ford said it’s still committed to EVs, and that it expects the Model e business will grow in 2024, too.
“We know that we have to have this electric vehicle business stand on its own and be profitable because we know that there are competitors out there,” he said. “We talked about that the Chinese as well as Tesla that are profitable, and we have to cross that fulcrum and get there.””
Right, Ford’s theoritical future export market. Not the 2023 domestic market.
Ford does not compete in EVs with China in the U.S. market.
You claimed that the 2023 domestic market loss in sales vs production cost was due to Chinese competition. You have no basis for that claim.
When you made your claim, did you not understand the words you had read, were you lying, or were you just mistaken?
With Nick, it is always a cross between LYING and being ILL-INFORMED.
Chinese profitability has nothing to do with reality. You should know that now.
Once again, it doesn’t take much to impress Nick.
So a CEO telling political tales is proof of future intentions?
Do you have your own battery car yet, Stokes?
After only $1.7 billion in grants!! (On top of the tax credits, massive CAFE incentive, and other twisting of the market). Never mind that the same money would have bought 1.5 million standard buses with zero incentives.
Nick, since your showing us your business expertise, which Chinese automaker is selling large numbers of EVs in the US?
Every one sold EVs at a loss, except Tesla in 2022, and 2023
If Ford markets and sells EVs, only if an EV is profitable, then Ford will not sell many EVs in the future, unless the idiots in the White House buy them, with Yellen’s “funny money”, and sprinkle them in Democrat areas FOR FREE to the user, with chargers thrown in as a bonus..
Anything to get more votes, after the borders are slowly being closed.
BTW, only 10 people per day manage to get by the Texas Wall, the part that is up and running, which eventually will be 1200 miles long.
Apparently, NGO human traffickers have moved to Arizona and California open borders
This article provides yet another reason that a Republican White House and/or Congress are needed in the November election. They need to take a hard look at EV sales and recognize that the demand for them was exaggerated from the outset largely because they were overpriced and had limited range problems compounded by a shortage of re-charging infrastructure. Add to those realities are revelations that they’ve been proved less reliable than their gas/diesel counterparts and their resale values are low, and there’s no justification for any of the manufacturers to be demanding more subsidies. The GOP is more likely to be aware of all these shortcomings of EVs. Now it’s up to the producers to bring their prices in line with ICE types and never mind calls for more handouts which need to be cut instead of being sustained.
I think the public is becoming aware of the shortcomings of EVs. I know several owners of Teslas and one of the claims by them and I think the salesmen,& manufacturers is that the cars have fewer moving parts to go wrong. Well, in the recent Chicago freeze they had NO moving parts! The evidence compiled so far is that EVs have significantly more repairs and are more costly for repairs.
Ford is losing $38,000 per EV. This means the more EVs they sell, the poorer the company gets. They made $10 billion dollars in profits last year, yet the balance sheet shows they lost about $5 billion just on EVs. This puts them in the bizarre position that they could theoretically give away the entire EV production line and boost company profits by 50%. It’s that bad…”
Just pause for a moment to appreciate how fast the EV transition is coming undone
EV transition?! Don’t make me laugh.
There is no such “transition.”
“Ford is losing $38,000 per EV. This means the more EVs they sell, the poorer the company gets.”
WRONG
The EV prices cover variable costs. The problem is fixed costs per vehicle. Fixed costs include engineering. part tooling and assembly plant machinery and tooling and battery manufacturing plants.
More EV sales reduces fixed costs per unit sold, and that reduces the loss per vehicle sold.
No auto company sells vehicles for less than their variable costs of the parts and assembly labor.
Your last statement isn’t necessarily true. If a manufacturer has a large inventory of unsold vehicles (they have in the past) they may sell them for less than variable cost.
Manufacturers do not have large inventories of unsold vehicles.
They manufacture to meet dealer demand. A dealer might have a large inventory of automobiles on his lot and could sell come for less than his cost from a manufacturer.
That sell at less than variable cost never happened during the 27 years I worked in Ford product development and I doubt if it happened since. I had access to variable costs of our products from the bean counters.
During the 2007 to 2009 time frame Ford mortgaged every asset available and GM and Chrysler declared bankruptcy, the manufacturers’ inventories built up and they sold vehicles for whatever they could. I saw it first hand.
The $38,000 per EV is not marginal cost. It’s an allocated portion of the fixed cost. Developing a vehicle, building a plant and marketing the product cost billions of dollars. If they sold 500,000 F150 Lightnings, their profits would be much higher.
My sister-in-law owns a Tesla and will never own another one. This past summer, Tesla recommended against charging between the hours of 3pm-5pm in Austin TX because of grid concerns. Next, her door handles stayed in a retracted position and she could not get into the car and she had to have it towed to the dealership. That was the last straw.
Good range when towed.
Not by another EV though.
For that job, you need a proper vehicle.
Musk made a lot of real money selling Tesla stock at the hype peak, when GM and Ford had Tesla envy and before China spooled up EV. EV Envy that has now come back to bite Ford hard. Using some of it (he spent $20b, the rest of the $40 billion was others plus loans) to buy Twitter was an easy billionaire diversion.
Like Bezos spent $250 million to buy WaPo, then $500 million to buy his new sailing yacht, and then $25 billion to divorce his wife. Almost but not quite rounding error.
The real enduring value Musk created by using Tesla transitory ‘value’ to create SpaceX and its thereby enabled Starlink internet access system. Those values have yet to be realized in any public way. MUCH bigger and more durable than Tesla.
Shame on Boeing for incompetently yielding the launch vehicle field to SpaceX.
Falcon, Falcon heavy, and now Starship. All based on multiples of the same simple, reliable, and reusable rocket engine. 19 successful launches of the same reusable rocket booster! Chinese cannot compete with that. They can and are with Tesla.
Sorry, Rud, that is not correct.
The SpaceX Falcon and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles use the “Merlin” LOX-RP gas generator cycle engine for their first and second stages. However, the SpaceX Starship booster and space vehicle both use the “Raptor” LOX-methane full-flow, stage-combustion engine, albeit with different expansion ratio nozzles.
There is a marked difference between these two engine designs.
Did not know that, as SpaceX pr says otherwise. Maybe why both Starshup boosters went kaboom?
Well, there have been more problems in the two to-date full-up Starship launches that are related to starting/restarting the Raptor engines than there have been with starting/restarting the Merlin engines in all full-up Falcon 9/Falcon 9 Heavy launches.
The full flow staged-combustion engine cycle, and its associated start sequence and timing, is much more complex than that of a gas generator cycle engine.
My understanding is that the jury is still out on whether the booster stage on Starship Flight 2 had Raptor engines fail to restart for its flyback maneuver following separation of the Starship space vehicle due to their restart sequence timing or due to propellant slosh causing the engine propellant inlets to ingest the propellant tank(s) pressurant gas.
Also, there have been ground checkout firings of flight Raptor engines on a booster stage where multiple engines simply failed to start.
Rud was at partially correct, as you wrote, the Starship uses pretty much the same engines on both stages, unlike the Saturn V using F-1 engines on the first stage and J-2 engines on the second and third stage.
I’m not how much you were paying attention on the Starship launches, but a notable thing for me was the very low visible signature of the exhaust compared to a LOX-RP1 fueled engine. The base heating problem with that many LOX-RP1 engines would likely have made the Starship impractical.
NB: The IRFNA/UDMH mixture also has the benefit of a low IR signature.
Strange that you make such a comment given your reference to the Saturn V “Moon Rocket”, which successfully placed nine manned Apollo missions into trajectories to the Moon (Apollo 8 plus Apollo’s 10–17). It appears that NASA MSFC had solved any LOX-RP1 base heating problems back then, at least as regards a cluster of five F-1 engines firing at a rated 1.5 million pounds thrust each.
Also, radiation (IR) heating from an exhaust plume is relatively insignificant, especially compared to potential convection heating from rocket exhaust, but a well-designed booster after end will eliminate such convective heating concern, especially considering that the exhaust from each booster rocket engine exits the nozzle as supersonic flow and the ambient pressure during booster flight limits Prandtl-Meyer expansion flow turning to very shallow angles off the nozzle exit wall flow vector.
Then too, LOX flowing into the headend of any rocket engine can provide a massive amount of cooling of the headend and nearby supporting structures.
Finally very lightweight metal shields can effectively eliminate exhaust plume IR heating of a booster’s aft end as being of any practical concern.
You remind me of the rocketry section in Barnes & Noble opposite the Houston Galleria which was worthy of being a university library on the topic. Not my subject really, but I used to browse it out of curiosity. The store is gone now.
The comment about base heating problem was in reference to the Soviet N-1 moon rocket which used a large number of engines on the first stage – with the statement made by someone who worked on the Apollo program. I strongly suspect that base heating was a design issue for the Saturn V as well, but not to the extent of the N-1.
Yes he made money selling Tesla stock, after it was artificially inflated on the backs of the taxpayers lavishing his product with subsidies.
her door handles stayed in a retracted position
Stuff like that is getting to be a problem even with ICE vehciles anymore, with everything moving away from manual controls. Do they even make cars that have manual windows anymore?
Ford lost $4.2 billion on EVs in 2023. This change in strategy is likely NOT a plea for more Biden EV subsidies. It is a belated recognition that China controls the EV battery supply chain and Ford cannot afford to compete, even with less energy dense (so bigger but cheaper) LiFeP.
Toyota was smart. Avoided the EV trap and went BIG on hybrids—not just Prius, now also Camry and Lexus. Hybrids can happily use NiMH, so avoids the LiIon materials China supply chain near monopoly.
“We are further adjusting installed capacity to match demand, reassessing vertical integration….”
(reducing production, and figuring out how to take control their own battery production chain.)
FWIW Toyota and Hyundai also reported 3 digit percent increases of Fuel Cell EVs in the KBB estimate. https://www.coxautoinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Q4-2023-Kelley-Blue-Book-Electric-Vehicle-Sales-Report.pdf
Less than 1000 total, and Honda’s FCEV sales died completely in 2023, but it’s a little bit that isn’t dependent on Lithium.
Fortunately, EV mandates are not acts of congress like the IRA or EISA 2007 which form the basis of subsidies for renewable fuels. As the EV mandate is posturing, the next president can change the EO that has been issued. California will be a problem, but lack of EV’s to sell will solve that issue. What has to change is the EPA emissions standards set for 2027 which will DeFacto eliminate ICE engines due to regulations that simply cannot be met. As current ICE engines, both gasoline and diesel, are cleaner than ambient air on a smoggy day, they actually clean the air while driving. So, making them cleaner will have no impact on ambient air quality.
What needs to happen is a change in how the vehicle emissions standards are set. The EPA has shown its incompetence in setting such standards, so Congress needs to step in and address the issue. Defunding the EPA would be a good start, but I don’t hold my breath for that to happen. The Donald was supposed to drain the swamp and he didn’t. Shame on him. Maybe during a second term he can get his priorities straight.
In my opinion, EPA is not incompetent technically. It just blindly follows its administrative agenda into incompetently foolish territory because that is what all bureaucracies do. Benefit only agendas are an alien concept to the reality of cost/benefit tradeoffs. Lots of current real world examples—microplastics, PM2.5, ‘forever chemicals’, second hand smoke, plastic straws…
The next President can change the mandate IF the federal courts allows it. Trump attempted to repeal some of the Obama executive orders relating to illegal entry to the country, but Democrats sued and won, claiming that he couldn’t just Executive Order a program out of existence even if Executive Order was the only reason the program existed in the first place because people were depending on the promises of the past administration.
“Our Gen 2 {EV} vehicles won’t launch unless we can get to a profit and a return on that capital that we’re investing there at the pricing environment that we now understand is reality,”
— John Lawler, Ford CFO
Hah! One can only wonder if the same thing wasn’t said in the corporate offices of Ford when they considered starting production of the Edsel, with parallel marketing of them as “the cars of the future”.
“Following a loss of over $250 million ($2.47 billion in 2022 dollars) on development, manufacturing, and marketing on the model line, Ford quietly discontinued the Edsel brand before 1960.”
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel
Get real climate changers-
Toyota Says It’s Not ‘Anti-EV,’ It’s ‘Just Being Real’ (msn.com)
All subsidies, tax preferences, regulatory forgiveness and mandates must be removed from the EV industry.
And before any of the trolls peek out from under their bridges, there are no fossil fuel subsidies.
Must be having a shareholder meeting soon and the writing is on the wall. Something a lot of the WUWT readers and commentators have known for a quite awhile. EV’s suck except for warm metropolitan short commutes.
Ford is positioned well to go either way – they wouldn’t turn down full government subsidies, but they can drop the EV line in part or entirely. My guess is that they’ll do something different for each EV product line.
One of the pieces of the market that Ford has almost, but not quite, to itself is the light commercial delivery line in their E-transit series. The vans are only fit for purpose in very limited markets, and list prices near me are lower than for the Lightning F150. They may be able to get subsidies for these in limited number of urban areas.
Another advantage to Ford is that they’ve got hybrid gasoline powered and/or plug-in hybrid nodels in almost every passenger car (rather, now SUV and crossover) segment. The supply chain and technology is in hand to produce a hybrid in the light truck and commercial delivery segments, in the conventional Mustang, and to take up the slack in battery EV sales by increasing production of hybrids.
The all electric crossover “Mustang” model is unlikely to survive as-is, but there was at least one hybrid prototype, and they could possibly use a high-performance crossover. Perhaps as a Lincoln badged, low-production model.
Unlikely that they’ll let the EV line completely die out, but dealers can’t move the current production in any segment at a rate likely to overcome an oversaturated passenger vehicle market.
You can put “IMO” in front of all those, as if it wasn’t plain. “Predictions are hard, especially about the future” – yb.
Mr Bean kills pommy EV sales-
Companies ‘mothball’ EV production due to decline in demand as ‘Mr Bean’ takes the blame (msn.com)
I fear, they’re still deluded. They all think, it’s just a money issue, and that we’ll buy them, if they’re cheaper. The real reason, is the lack of range, and the time taken to charge them. We don’t want to hang around for an hour or two, waiting, either in a queue, or actually charging them.
No denying, they’re not as flexible as the good ole ICE vehicle.
Based on new vehicle registrations, Experian reports US BEV salesup about 50% in 2023 versus 2022. That is an estimate because Tesla reports only global sales per quarter and their US sales have to be estimated.
50% growth is a big deal. If you consider that BEVs and PHEVs total 9% of sales in 2023, a +50% growth rate would lead to 100% BEVs and PHEVs in just six years — well before 2035.
That is very unlikely to happen because roughly half of households can not afford a BEV when including the higher insurance costs, and most of those households don’t earn enough to need a tax credit.
It was a mystery to me why anyone would want an EV — pay more and get less. After an investigations I realized the mainstream media is promoting EVs and covering up their MANY disadvantages.
I’ve been recommending anti-EV articles on my blog almost daily for years. Leftists do not read conservative articles and rarely visit conservative websites.
Ford obviously thought their best selli g F160 would be a good product for electric motors. In fact, a big pickup truck was the worst possible choice. They sold about 24,000 Lightening EVs in 2023
Now the bizarre Ford thinking:
Ford initially planned to produce 160,000 Lightnings in 2024! They then lowered that plan to 80,000. Conservative media sources described that as a 50% decline but failed to mention 80,000 was still far above the 24,000 sold in 2023.\
NOTE: I worked in Ford product development for 27 years until January 2005. It is painful to watch a company shoot itself in the foot and ignore customer preferences.
I can imagine Ford becoming FEDERAL MOTORS and GM becoming GOVERNMENT MOTORS
This problem will not be easily solved with a new President. Even if the EPA’s 49mpg CAFE for 2026 models is reversed and proposed EPA tailpipe emissions standards that de-facto outlaw ICE are dropped.
Because California and 17 states that follow California are banning ICE and hybrid sales, gradually starting with 2026 models … to a complete ban for 2035, when only BEVs and PHEVS can be sold as new vehicles.
What 17 states are following California?
These states are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
California Advanced Clean Cars II
These regulations ramp up the sales requirement for zero-emission passenger vehicles starting with the 2026 model year in order to achieve 100 percent by 2035. This is among the first binding requirement for 100% zero-emission vehicle sales in the world.
I doubt that those regulations will survive. There will not be enough vehicles available at an affordable price that consumers will be willing to buy. That will put pressure on regulators and the rules will change one way or another.
This is Ford realizing they have to up their game if they want to continue to mine for subsidies.
Biden will give them more; he always does.
Ford used to distribute racist newsletters with the sale of every new car, tearing at the fabric of America from within.
This is a company that has always depended on hate and stupidity and government handouts.
Through much of the 20th Century, the government protected them by barring foreign competition – the crappy cars they designed to fall apart in two years so you’d have to get another one.
There is nothing innovative about Ford. It is the biggest argument against capitalism that ever existed. They know they’ll win this game at the expense of all honest, freedom-loving entrepreneurs.
What are you talking about? Racist newsletters? Protected from foreign competition? Argument against capitalism? Do you know the history of the auto industry? You make stupid statements without anything to back yourself up. And it sounds very much like Democrat projection. Henry Ford was the person responsible for providing jobs to blacks that brought thousands from the South to the North to work in his factories. He was the person responsible for lowering the price of his cars and raising wages so he would build a larger pool of potential buyers for his product. Foreign cars were always available in the US to at least the extent that US cars were available in other markets.
You should read about Henry Ford and his support of eugenics and republication of the Protocols.
Not a hero. Unless, of course, you think otherwise.
As for the protectionism, anyone around in the ’70s and ’80s can testify to the anti-competitive crap Detroit put out there until the Japanese automakers came in.
You should get back in touch with reality.
The fact that Joe believes that he needs an argument against capitalism, even if he has to make it up, tells us all we need to know about Joe.
The fact that MarkW believes I’m arguing against capitalism tells me all I need to know about his reading comprehension (and perhaps, a bit, about his allegiance to the UNRWA and its friends).
You sound like a Chevy guy
They made crappy cars, too. Growing up in Michigan, I learned that people will celebrate an antisemite if he provides good wages for jobs protected by the government.
“Our Gen 2 vehicles won’t launch unless we can … profit”
… also when it’s really cold, when the heater or air con is activated, when there is a blackout, when the battery spontaneously ignites or after 5-7 years of gentle use when the battery fails to retain any useful charge.
Elon where is the dang battery….dude?!
You gonna let the Chinese or the South Koreans beat you! People will still be driving tax subsidized Ralph Nadar looking little EV’s while the Chinese and South Koreans will be flying fleets of ambient SCMES powered SC maglev electro-turbine super sonic transport planes.
Ford forgot about the Ralph Nadar EV motif and tried to market big dog EV’s LOL