4 ms·

Do you have a source on the Mach-E history?

cptskippy 6y ago
This was Ford's own narrative when they announced it. Almost every article written about it in Nov of 2019 shared that narrative. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/11/heres-everything-we-know-about-the-electric-ford-mustang-mach-e/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/11/heres-everything-we-kno... https://www.motor1.com/features/382783/ford-mustang-mach-e-boring-front-drive-compliance-car/ https://www.motor1.com/features/382783/ford-mustang-mach-e-b...
- reitzensteinm 6y ago
  Ah sorry, I mean specifically the economics discussed - loss per car for a compliance car, the need to produce more compliance cars, that the car is expected to lose money still. I'd be quite interested in a peek behind the curtains with that much detail, but I don't think that much has been said publicly and I wonder if it's just the parent making inferences.
  - cptskippy 6y ago
    It is conjecture but we'll founded. GM lost money on every Volt and loses money on every Bolt. Tesla is rumored to sell at a lost and make up for it by selling clean energy credits to the likes of Fiat Chrysler. It's well known that all of Ford and GM's past EVs were compliance cars.
    - reitzensteinm 6y ago
      The details are important, though. The industry factors R&D in to gross margin, and typically reports of per unit losses include it. If you spend $1bn to develop a car you sell 100k of break even, you just lost $10k per car. But that doesn't mean you're going to lose twice as much if you double the production. If they were going to lose 10-15k per incremental unit, that's horrific and I'd love to know the details, that's why I'm asking.
      - cptskippy 6y ago
        I honestly don't know how to reconcile R&D costs but I dislike how they're applied per unit today. R&D is a sunk cost and the technology gained from it can be applied beyond the original scope. I get it because bean counters want to point fingers when it comes to penny pinching. It's not as if GM goes back and adjusts the R&D % applied to the 97 Corvette when they sell an LS engine. The R&D cost of every subsequent vehicle that reuses something off the shelf is going to be cheaper.
        reitzensteinm 6y ago
        I'm not defending the way they amortize, but if you don't take it in to account, it can lead to some poor conclusions. Tesla R&D is so ridiculously efficient. I wouldn't be surprised if a Model 3 from scratch costs traditional auto companies an order of magnitude more to develop. So the first EV models inevitably come out, amortizing a large amount of R&D over a limited run, and it looks like an absolute disaster for margins. It doesn't necessarily mean things aren't going well - although it certainly can!
nickik 6y ago
About the start of the as compliance yes, but I don't have link right now. This was said in a video interview, maybe with Autoline? Not sure. But it was some of the top guys on that program. The detailed economics is conjecture, based on different statements and some assumptions. Sorry, I didn't want to come across as this being certain knowledge. Maybe the lose on the Mach-E are still pretty bigger. Maybe they changed from the compliance because they wanted to have a flag ship for marketing. This is just how I interpreted it, they wanted to sell a 'compliance car' that they could actually sell for a premium price and have premium options on.

This was Ford's own narrative when they announced it. Almost every article written about it in Nov of 2019 shared that narrative. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/11/heres-everything-we-know-about-the-electric-ford-mustang-mach-e/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/11/heres-everything-we-kno... https://www.motor1.com/features/382783/ford-mustang-mach-e-boring-front-drive-compliance-car/ https://www.motor1.com/features/382783/ford-mustang-mach-e-b...

reitzensteinm 6y ago
Ah sorry, I mean specifically the economics discussed - loss per car for a compliance car, the need to produce more compliance cars, that the car is expected to lose money still. I'd be quite interested in a peek behind the curtains with that much detail, but I don't think that much has been said publicly and I wonder if it's just the parent making inferences.
- cptskippy 6y ago
  It is conjecture but we'll founded. GM lost money on every Volt and loses money on every Bolt. Tesla is rumored to sell at a lost and make up for it by selling clean energy credits to the likes of Fiat Chrysler. It's well known that all of Ford and GM's past EVs were compliance cars.
  - reitzensteinm 6y ago
    The details are important, though. The industry factors R&D in to gross margin, and typically reports of per unit losses include it. If you spend $1bn to develop a car you sell 100k of break even, you just lost $10k per car. But that doesn't mean you're going to lose twice as much if you double the production. If they were going to lose 10-15k per incremental unit, that's horrific and I'd love to know the details, that's why I'm asking.
    - cptskippy 6y ago
      I honestly don't know how to reconcile R&D costs but I dislike how they're applied per unit today. R&D is a sunk cost and the technology gained from it can be applied beyond the original scope. I get it because bean counters want to point fingers when it comes to penny pinching. It's not as if GM goes back and adjusts the R&D % applied to the 97 Corvette when they sell an LS engine. The R&D cost of every subsequent vehicle that reuses something off the shelf is going to be cheaper.
      - reitzensteinm 6y ago
        I'm not defending the way they amortize, but if you don't take it in to account, it can lead to some poor conclusions. Tesla R&D is so ridiculously efficient. I wouldn't be surprised if a Model 3 from scratch costs traditional auto companies an order of magnitude more to develop. So the first EV models inevitably come out, amortizing a large amount of R&D over a limited run, and it looks like an absolute disaster for margins. It doesn't necessarily mean things aren't going well - although it certainly can!

nickik 6y ago

About the start of the as compliance yes, but I don't have link right now. This was said in a video interview, maybe with Autoline? Not sure. But it was some of the top guys on that program. The detailed economics is conjecture, based on different statements and some assumptions. Sorry, I didn't want to come across as this being certain knowledge. Maybe the lose on the Mach-E are still pretty bigger. Maybe they changed from the compliance because they wanted to have a flag ship for marketing. This is just how I interpreted it, they wanted to sell a 'compliance car' that they could actually sell for a premium price and have premium options on.