12 ms·

Combined with the investments in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Michigan, this is "bet the company" levels of investment. I pray for Ford's sake they picked the righ

Combined with the investments in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Michigan, this is "bet the company" levels of investment. I pray for Ford's sake they picked the right horse (vis-à-vis, e.g., hydrogen or ammonia).

Yoofie 4y ago
Doesn't matter, they are too big to fail™.
- justrealist 4y ago
  Ford is the only major automaker that didn't need (or get) a bailout.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    This is technically true but they sort won in a prisoners dilemma type situation. Had no auto makers been bailed out, the shared suppliers may have all folded causing Ford to go under. So while they didn't take any direct money, the bailouts kept their upstream suppliers afloat. Ford also benefits from high import tariffs on foreign built trucks, a tariff basically designed to protect the F-150. If you check subsidy tracker[1], you're see that Ford is an enormous recipient of corporate welfare. They've received $5 billion from Michigan alone since just 2010. [1] https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/ford-motor https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/ford-motor
    - vuln 4y ago
      > Ford also benefits from high import tariffs on foreign built trucks, a tariff basically designed to protect the F-150. Protect it from GM, Toyota, Rivian whom builds their Trucks in America? No American truck buyer wants a Mitsubishi or Hyundai truck. Full stop.
      - ch4s3 4y ago
        Rivian didn't exist, and Toyota didn't enter the US market until a year after the tariff and didn't build trucks for the US market then. Sure GM builds trucks too and benefits, but it was basically designed as a giveaway to Ford while keeping VW light trucks out of the US market in retaliation for Germany tariffs on chicken. > No American truck buyer wants a Mitsubishi or Hyundai truck. Full stop. Then why maintain a tariff from 1964 designed by the Johnson administration?
        vuln 4y ago
        > Then why maintain a tariff from 1964 designed by the Johnson administration? No clue, but seems pretty bipartisan. Maybe “National Security” or whatever excuse .gov comes up with…
    - justrealist 4y ago
      Tax credits are not bailouts.
      - ch4s3 4y ago
        Money is fungible and government handouts are government handouts. Moreover, many of those subsidies are in the form of bonds, low interest loans, and so on not just tax credits.
        justrealist 4y ago
        If you think even about the etymology of "hand-out", it is not in fact the government handing out money — the company is handing less money to the government. When the federal government gives a tax credit for installing residential solar panels, it is not a "consumer bailout" or "welfare". We have a perfectly good term for this, which is "tax credit", because that is what it is.
        ch4s3 4y ago
        Again they're receiving more than just tax credits and rebates. They're also receiving loans, a recent $101 million Critical Industry Program grant, tariff protections, and on and on. However, if you just want to talk taxes we can. A tax exemption or rebate is an asset given to you by the state. It operates not unlike loan forgiveness. You owed something and now they(the state) are waiving that liability. > When the federal government gives a tax credit for installing residential solar panels This is absolutely a handout to the solar industry. A tax credit is still a handout, and double so when they're given to favored industries and companies.
- bnjms 4y ago
  They aren’t too big to become GE.
- beambot 4y ago
  That doesn't mean that shareholders can't be wiped out. See GM: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_re...
bryanlarsen 4y ago
VW is putting $200B into the transition, so they're not alone in betting the company. I think it's the right move, but since there are companies who aren't putting the same level of resources in as VW & Ford, we will see who the winners are in a few years.
germinalphrase 4y ago
The federal mandated EV push is clearly in the works. Takes the edge off “bet the company” when you can ask POTUS to manufacture demand.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  Never going to happen. That will require an Act of Congress, and Congress cant agree on what color the sky is. Even if it did, it will be marred with all kinds of overreach ripe for judical review and delay, even if it got past the court challenges, it would be subject to reversal when the power inevitably shifts again... If Ford is "bet the company" based on some kind of need for Federal Action (which would be very out of character for Ford anyway) they are placing a losing bet. GM would be more likely to look to the Federal Government to enforce their sales model, they are subbed Government Motors after all... ;)
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    EV rebates got bundled into the Inflation Reduction Act and passed last year. The Act of Congress has already happened. Further encouragements to go electric will happen through the EPA who already have the congressional authority to regulate tailpipes. Anything they do will be challenged in court, but if they can get it through the courts they can do a lot without an Act of Congress.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      I did not realize a Tax Credit, that also has a TON of strings attached that as it phases into more protectionism fewer and fewer EV's will be able to quality for, and it at odds with other Environmental / Climate protections (like the requirement that Lithium some from approved NA vendors, but then disallowing new Lithium manufacturing in the US) is now a Mandate the produce EV's The claim I responded to was that Congress was going to Mandate the production of EV's, not that congress was going to pass a terrible protectionist law that provide weak credits for EV's.... very very different things
juujian 4y ago
VW is investing ~$200B in EV manufacturing. Yes, VW is about twice as big, but still, that puts the numbers into perspective.
- ratg13 4y ago
  Is invested or has invested? I know they were dumping a ton of cash into software to try and catch Tesla in FSD, but it remains to be seen whether any of that is a good investment at the moment.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
boc 4y ago
Electric cars have something that previous "green" vehicles never had: rapid acceleration. EVs are downright fun to drive. Sure they don't have the handling of a lightweight Porsche, but being able to walk a Mustang GT with an F-150 lightning on the highway drag race is something all the "truck guys" can brag about. That's a very important selling factor, especially from a test-drive perspective. The biggest hurdle is fast-charging infrastructure in cities, but for the majority of Americans that live in suburban/rural areas with a garage, it won't be hard to install a charging system. I think it's a smart bet personally.
- dauertewigkeit 4y ago
  Sorry, but that is the dumbest take I ever read.
  - Arborealist 4y ago
    [dead]
  - piyh 4y ago
    I drove a Tesla for the first time thinking I was going to like the driver assist and tech the most. The only thing my friends and I could talk about afterwards was how fucking fast the thing was.
  - hnuser123456 4y ago
    Look at how many people at unenthused with EVs because they don't make loud noises. If they couldn't at least also go faster...
    - bravetraveler 4y ago
      I'm one of those - I have a dumb appreciation for my V8 after spending so long with economy four cylinders I recognize the silliness of it, but I really love the vroom vroom and would be at least kind of saddened in an EV
  - boc 4y ago
rootusrootus 4y ago
It's about a quarter of their typical yearly R&D spend.
KoftaBob 4y ago
I see very little evidence that hydrogen or ammonia powered cars have anywhere near the probability of success that battery electric cars do, for a number of reasons. If anything, companies like Ford are taking the pragmatic approach, while Toyota has wasted years with their idiotic stubbornness towards pushing hydrogen fuel cells.
sbaiddn 4y ago
Its a regulatory bet, not an engineering one. The West is making a civilizational bet on EVs so it's not Ford that loses the bet, its the entire West. From a technical POV, I disagree with the bet. I think hybridization of ICE while transitioning to CNG+1%NH3 fuel (to have very high compression engines) makes a lot more sense. Afterall, if you can make an ICE match an electrical power plant's carbon emissions, electric cars make very little sense in the short to mid term (until the marginal power is guaranteed to be sustainable). EDIT: A lot of comments so this would be my (preferred) solution. An hybrid ICE that: - is like the Chevy Volt or Prius - like the Mazda and Prius, runs on the miller cycle - like a diesel has 20:1 compression. Knock and NOx considerations follow. - like diesels has ureas/ammonia injection for NOx from high compression. - like cars in the third world, runs on CNG (120 octane, high energy to carbon density) - is sized for average power, not peak power, so when it runs, it runs at full open throttle. All the bits Ive described exist already but no single car adopts them all.
- wmeredith 4y ago
  Even if the carbon emissions match, the drivetrain in an ICE vehicle contains 2,000+ moving parts typically, whereas the drivetrain in an EV contains around 20. The benefits of TVs range beyond direct carbon emissions from the power unit.
  - giobox 4y ago
    This is the primary reason I wouldn't go back to combustion. The running costs of electric vehicles are absurdly low at times. You can put 50k-100k miles on most EVs on sale today having only bought cabin air filters, tires and wiper blades in addition to the cost of the electricity - thats largely it!
    - brailsafe 4y ago
      What do you do after? Are you talking used or new?
      - 4y ago

Yoofie 4y ago

Doesn't matter, they are too big to fail™.

justrealist 4y ago
Ford is the only major automaker that didn't need (or get) a bailout.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  This is technically true but they sort won in a prisoners dilemma type situation. Had no auto makers been bailed out, the shared suppliers may have all folded causing Ford to go under. So while they didn't take any direct money, the bailouts kept their upstream suppliers afloat. Ford also benefits from high import tariffs on foreign built trucks, a tariff basically designed to protect the F-150. If you check subsidy tracker[1], you're see that Ford is an enormous recipient of corporate welfare. They've received $5 billion from Michigan alone since just 2010. [1] https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/ford-motor https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/ford-motor
  - vuln 4y ago
    > Ford also benefits from high import tariffs on foreign built trucks, a tariff basically designed to protect the F-150. Protect it from GM, Toyota, Rivian whom builds their Trucks in America? No American truck buyer wants a Mitsubishi or Hyundai truck. Full stop.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      Rivian didn't exist, and Toyota didn't enter the US market until a year after the tariff and didn't build trucks for the US market then. Sure GM builds trucks too and benefits, but it was basically designed as a giveaway to Ford while keeping VW light trucks out of the US market in retaliation for Germany tariffs on chicken. > No American truck buyer wants a Mitsubishi or Hyundai truck. Full stop. Then why maintain a tariff from 1964 designed by the Johnson administration?
      - vuln 4y ago
        > Then why maintain a tariff from 1964 designed by the Johnson administration? No clue, but seems pretty bipartisan. Maybe “National Security” or whatever excuse .gov comes up with…
  - justrealist 4y ago
    Tax credits are not bailouts.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      Money is fungible and government handouts are government handouts. Moreover, many of those subsidies are in the form of bonds, low interest loans, and so on not just tax credits.
      - justrealist 4y ago
        If you think even about the etymology of "hand-out", it is not in fact the government handing out money — the company is handing less money to the government. When the federal government gives a tax credit for installing residential solar panels, it is not a "consumer bailout" or "welfare". We have a perfectly good term for this, which is "tax credit", because that is what it is.
        ch4s3 4y ago
        Again they're receiving more than just tax credits and rebates. They're also receiving loans, a recent $101 million Critical Industry Program grant, tariff protections, and on and on. However, if you just want to talk taxes we can. A tax exemption or rebate is an asset given to you by the state. It operates not unlike loan forgiveness. You owed something and now they(the state) are waiving that liability. > When the federal government gives a tax credit for installing residential solar panels This is absolutely a handout to the solar industry. A tax credit is still a handout, and double so when they're given to favored industries and companies.
bnjms 4y ago
They aren’t too big to become GE.
beambot 4y ago
That doesn't mean that shareholders can't be wiped out. See GM: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_re...

bryanlarsen 4y ago

VW is putting $200B into the transition, so they're not alone in betting the company. I think it's the right move, but since there are companies who aren't putting the same level of resources in as VW & Ford, we will see who the winners are in a few years.

germinalphrase 4y ago

The federal mandated EV push is clearly in the works. Takes the edge off “bet the company” when you can ask POTUS to manufacture demand.

phpisthebest 4y ago
Never going to happen. That will require an Act of Congress, and Congress cant agree on what color the sky is. Even if it did, it will be marred with all kinds of overreach ripe for judical review and delay, even if it got past the court challenges, it would be subject to reversal when the power inevitably shifts again... If Ford is "bet the company" based on some kind of need for Federal Action (which would be very out of character for Ford anyway) they are placing a losing bet. GM would be more likely to look to the Federal Government to enforce their sales model, they are subbed Government Motors after all... ;)
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  EV rebates got bundled into the Inflation Reduction Act and passed last year. The Act of Congress has already happened. Further encouragements to go electric will happen through the EPA who already have the congressional authority to regulate tailpipes. Anything they do will be challenged in court, but if they can get it through the courts they can do a lot without an Act of Congress.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    I did not realize a Tax Credit, that also has a TON of strings attached that as it phases into more protectionism fewer and fewer EV's will be able to quality for, and it at odds with other Environmental / Climate protections (like the requirement that Lithium some from approved NA vendors, but then disallowing new Lithium manufacturing in the US) is now a Mandate the produce EV's The claim I responded to was that Congress was going to Mandate the production of EV's, not that congress was going to pass a terrible protectionist law that provide weak credits for EV's.... very very different things

juujian 4y ago

VW is investing ~$200B in EV manufacturing. Yes, VW is about twice as big, but still, that puts the numbers into perspective.

ratg13 4y ago
Is invested or has invested? I know they were dumping a ton of cash into software to try and catch Tesla in FSD, but it remains to be seen whether any of that is a good investment at the moment.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

boc 4y ago

Electric cars have something that previous "green" vehicles never had: rapid acceleration. EVs are downright fun to drive. Sure they don't have the handling of a lightweight Porsche, but being able to walk a Mustang GT with an F-150 lightning on the highway drag race is something all the "truck guys" can brag about. That's a very important selling factor, especially from a test-drive perspective. The biggest hurdle is fast-charging infrastructure in cities, but for the majority of Americans that live in suburban/rural areas with a garage, it won't be hard to install a charging system. I think it's a smart bet personally.

dauertewigkeit 4y ago
Sorry, but that is the dumbest take I ever read.
- Arborealist 4y ago
  [dead]
- piyh 4y ago
  I drove a Tesla for the first time thinking I was going to like the driver assist and tech the most. The only thing my friends and I could talk about afterwards was how fucking fast the thing was.
- hnuser123456 4y ago
  Look at how many people at unenthused with EVs because they don't make loud noises. If they couldn't at least also go faster...
  - bravetraveler 4y ago
    I'm one of those - I have a dumb appreciation for my V8 after spending so long with economy four cylinders I recognize the silliness of it, but I really love the vroom vroom and would be at least kind of saddened in an EV
- boc 4y ago

rootusrootus 4y ago

It's about a quarter of their typical yearly R&D spend.

KoftaBob 4y ago

I see very little evidence that hydrogen or ammonia powered cars have anywhere near the probability of success that battery electric cars do, for a number of reasons. If anything, companies like Ford are taking the pragmatic approach, while Toyota has wasted years with their idiotic stubbornness towards pushing hydrogen fuel cells.

sbaiddn 4y ago

Its a regulatory bet, not an engineering one. The West is making a civilizational bet on EVs so it's not Ford that loses the bet, its the entire West. From a technical POV, I disagree with the bet. I think hybridization of ICE while transitioning to CNG+1%NH3 fuel (to have very high compression engines) makes a lot more sense. Afterall, if you can make an ICE match an electrical power plant's carbon emissions, electric cars make very little sense in the short to mid term (until the marginal power is guaranteed to be sustainable). EDIT: A lot of comments so this would be my (preferred) solution. An hybrid ICE that: - is like the Chevy Volt or Prius - like the Mazda and Prius, runs on the miller cycle - like a diesel has 20:1 compression. Knock and NOx considerations follow. - like diesels has ureas/ammonia injection for NOx from high compression. - like cars in the third world, runs on CNG (120 octane, high energy to carbon density) - is sized for average power, not peak power, so when it runs, it runs at full open throttle. All the bits Ive described exist already but no single car adopts them all.

wmeredith 4y ago
Even if the carbon emissions match, the drivetrain in an ICE vehicle contains 2,000+ moving parts typically, whereas the drivetrain in an EV contains around 20. The benefits of TVs range beyond direct carbon emissions from the power unit.
- giobox 4y ago
  This is the primary reason I wouldn't go back to combustion. The running costs of electric vehicles are absurdly low at times. You can put 50k-100k miles on most EVs on sale today having only bought cabin air filters, tires and wiper blades in addition to the cost of the electricity - thats largely it!
  - brailsafe 4y ago
    What do you do after? Are you talking used or new?
    - 4y ago