4 ms·

Although Ford's CEO now gets it, Ford's product line doesn't reflect it yet. Farley has been bringing a few sample BYD cars to the US, for Ford people to drive

by Animats 11mo ago

Although Ford's CEO now gets it, Ford's product line doesn't reflect it yet. Farley has been bringing a few sample BYD cars to the US, for Ford people to drive around and to take apart. Farley dragged his executive team to China to see a BYD plant. They came back scared. But what Ford actually sells is 1) an F-150 converted to electric, 2) a Ford Mustang converted to electric, and 3) a Ford Transit converted to electric. They're all more expensive, and heavier, than their gasoline-powered versions. BYD shows that electric cars are cheaper if designed properly from the ground up. The problem is that the US no longer makes many cars. Mostly giant trucks and SUVs. Hauling all that mass around requires a huge battery, resulting in 3-ton vehicles.

denimnerd42 11mo ago
the mustang mach e is a purpose built EV. not a mustang with a battery back stuck in.
bastawhiz 11mo ago
> a Ford Mustang converted to electric I agree with your comment, but I'll be a little pedantic for a minute: As a Charger Daytona owner, I'd love to call the Mach-E a mustang, but it's really just borrowing the brand. Ford has said unequivocally that they'll never make an all-electric muscle car, which is a real shame. The Mach-E is a great car if you're turned off by a Model Y, but you wouldn't choose it over a mustang GT or a charger Daytona or a Camaro.
- lostlogin 11mo ago
  > Ford has said unequivocally that they'll never make an all-electric muscle car What’s the thinking here? Pandering to some market segment? It sounds like they are organising the deck chairs in the titanic. Edit: I tried looking into the comment. It seems he was referring to Mustangs specifically, which is weird as they do make an electric one (assuming you agree it’s a ‘real’ mustang). I’m confused.
  - grosswait 11mo ago
    It’s not though. Just borrowing the name as they said.
    - lostlogin 11mo ago
      That’s just it though. If the name doesn’t make it a Mustang, what does?
      - fragmede 11mo ago
        Nothing, thats the problem. The Ship of Theseus can't have all of its parts replaced at the same time in order to still be called the Ship of Theseus.
      - bastawhiz 11mo ago
        If I take a Ford Focus and call it a Mustang, is it? Arguably, no. Mustangs have a distinctive style, feel, feature set, intended audience. It's a matter of what people expect when they buy the thing. The Mach-E kind of snuck in. I believe they intended to make more electric Mustang-branded cars, but things changed internally and priorities shifted. Lots of women really like Mustangs, and the Mach-E is positioned to appeal to many of the same people: it makes sense to use it as a kind of Trojan horse to ease folks into EVs with a brand they already like. But if you took a Mach-E and hid the name and asked folks "is this a Mustang?" The answer you'd get is "No".
  - bastawhiz 11mo ago
    The Mach-E isn't a muscle car. The comment was specifically around the Mustang sedan, which they do not have an electric version of. Honestly, it's befuddling to me. There's a lot of folks who could get talked into an electric muscle car, they just have to know how to sell it. I own a Charger Daytona and literally every car guy I show it to has interest; I genuinely think Dodge just doesn't know how to market and sell it. I'm 100% confident that the right marketing agency could sell 100k of these, but the cohort of "it'll never be a Mustang" is far louder than the "wow that thing rips" crowd.
JKCalhoun 11mo ago
"Americans only want trucks and SUVs." (I hear people say.) Cool. Then allow BYD non-trucks, non-SUVs into the U.S. then. The Japanese back in the 70's showed U.S. automakers that price and mileage (in that decade anyway) were important to Americans. I suspect price is still important.
- lifty 11mo ago
  Why would they allow it? It would destroy the remaining car industry in the US. Better to at least maintain a car industry, even if it’s inefficient.
  - newAccount2025 11mo ago
    Why is that better?
  - epistasis 11mo ago
    A jobs subsidy program that focused on more productive industries would be better than subsidizing an auto industry that never aimed for international competitiveness. We have exceptionally productive fields in the US tumor are the envy of the world. If we can't be productive in auto manufacturing, devoting a ton of our workforce too it is a misallocation of our limited resources. If we are going to be subsidizing unprofitable industry fro national security purposes, we need to either 1) ruthlessly cut the least productive manufacturers from access to subsidies, or 2) nationalize it. Any other choices would be very inefficient.
  - Animats 11mo ago
    The historical track record of that kind of thing is terrible. You end up with a bloated, inefficient industry that produces bad products. Britain, pre-EU, did a lot of that. British Steel, British Rail, British Overseas Airways Corporation, British Petroleum, English Electric computers, etc. Then they needed bailouts. This resulted in what's called "lemon socialism" - the state owns all the dud industries.
- khannn 11mo ago
  I wish I could get a BYD Dolphin hatch for ~10k USD. Somehow my 12 year old Prius is worth 9k on KBB and that's insane.
breve 11mo ago
> a Ford Mustang converted to electric The Mustang Mach-e isn't like any other Mustang. It just has the Mustang branding.
darth_avocado 11mo ago
Ford is a bad example because they’ve pretty much abandoned all their non truck and transit van segments for years. Even if EVs weren’t a thing, they do not compete in any of the segments and haven’t for almost a decade. First it was Japanese and German companies eating their lunch, now it’s the Chinese. Also, F150 lightening is such a failure. There was a recent video of it trying to haul very minimal load and it pretty much drained the battery in less than 100 miles.
- Marsymars 11mo ago
  > Also, F150 lightening is such a failure. There was a recent video of it trying to haul very minimal load and it pretty much drained the battery in less than 100 miles. Was that due to something specific with the Lightning, or was it just due to the intrinsic energy requirements of hauling loads? (Or in other words, does an EV even exist that's notably better at hauling loads?)
  - darth_avocado 11mo ago
    Probably both. It was a consumer review, so hard to say from an engineering perspective.
  - _ea1k 11mo ago
    TBH, those tests are mostly marketing failures. EV trucks aren't really good at hauling trailers over large distances, as the aerodynamics produce a massive impact on range. Multiple tests have shown this by showing 50% or more range reduction from pulling lightweight, non-aerodynamic loads. The marketing failure is that the companies have allowed consumers to incorrectly extrapolate from this to thinking that heavy loads in the bed have the same issue. They actually don't as weight is a minimal impact on range. Unfortunately, every thread about carrying sheetrock, rocks, mulch, etc shows how misinformed the average consumer has become in this space. It has to be a significant impact on sales, given that in the US these are the only heavy loads carried by >50% of the half ton pickups sold here.
    - AngryData 11mo ago
rootusrootus 11mo ago
I've got a Lightning and I think I like the 'converted to electric' aspect. Everything that fits on a regular ICE F-150 fits on my truck. The interior is the same (okay, some trims have a big screen, but not all do). It would be nice if it had a bit more range, but when I look at the efficiency of an R1T or a CT, I don't see that being purpose-built would automatically be a win for Ford. Pickups are not ever going to be competitive with sedans and CUVs for efficiency.
- Marsymars 11mo ago
  The problem with the Lightning is mostly that it's a money-loser for Ford.
  - rootusrootus 11mo ago
    I've never seen a good number on this. Is it money losing per vehicle, or because of the amortized R&D included in the cost? The problem from my perspective is that it hasn't turned out as popular as they hoped -- truck buyers are a hard to convert bunch of people. Which is too bad, because my Lightning is my favorite of all the pickups I've owned over the years. It's a fantastic truck.
    - Marsymars 11mo ago
      > Is it money losing per vehicle, or because of the amortized R&D included in the cost? Certainly the latter, but I don't think it was ever going to be money-making, even in the Ford's best-case sales/production scenario it was really a gen1 platform (along with the Mach-E) to get their foot in the door with EV production, supply chains, sales, etc. Then they got hit with various external events (low gas prices, higher electricity prices, EV credit cancellations, higher tariffs, etc.) that made their numbers even worse. FWIW I'm also a fan of the Lightning - it's obviously not a drop-in replacement for 100% of things an F150 can do, and the pricing is tough, but just on its own merits it's a very nice truck. (I was recently car shopping, but had no need/inclination for a full-size truck, so ended up with a hybrid Maverick instead - very impressed with that too so far.)
eptcyka 11mo ago
The lightning isn’t selling, almost at all.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
JojoFatsani 11mo ago
You’re mischaracterizing the Mustang Mach-E which never should have been named that because it has nothing to do with the ICE Mustang at all aside from the horsey badge.
pancakemouse 11mo ago
> resulting in 3-ton vehicles And a surge in road deaths.

by Animats 11mo ago

denimnerd42 11mo ago

the mustang mach e is a purpose built EV. not a mustang with a battery back stuck in.

bastawhiz 11mo ago

> a Ford Mustang converted to electric I agree with your comment, but I'll be a little pedantic for a minute: As a Charger Daytona owner, I'd love to call the Mach-E a mustang, but it's really just borrowing the brand. Ford has said unequivocally that they'll never make an all-electric muscle car, which is a real shame. The Mach-E is a great car if you're turned off by a Model Y, but you wouldn't choose it over a mustang GT or a charger Daytona or a Camaro.

lostlogin 11mo ago
> Ford has said unequivocally that they'll never make an all-electric muscle car What’s the thinking here? Pandering to some market segment? It sounds like they are organising the deck chairs in the titanic. Edit: I tried looking into the comment. It seems he was referring to Mustangs specifically, which is weird as they do make an electric one (assuming you agree it’s a ‘real’ mustang). I’m confused.
- grosswait 11mo ago
  It’s not though. Just borrowing the name as they said.
  - lostlogin 11mo ago
    That’s just it though. If the name doesn’t make it a Mustang, what does?
    - fragmede 11mo ago
      Nothing, thats the problem. The Ship of Theseus can't have all of its parts replaced at the same time in order to still be called the Ship of Theseus.
    - bastawhiz 11mo ago
      If I take a Ford Focus and call it a Mustang, is it? Arguably, no. Mustangs have a distinctive style, feel, feature set, intended audience. It's a matter of what people expect when they buy the thing. The Mach-E kind of snuck in. I believe they intended to make more electric Mustang-branded cars, but things changed internally and priorities shifted. Lots of women really like Mustangs, and the Mach-E is positioned to appeal to many of the same people: it makes sense to use it as a kind of Trojan horse to ease folks into EVs with a brand they already like. But if you took a Mach-E and hid the name and asked folks "is this a Mustang?" The answer you'd get is "No".
- bastawhiz 11mo ago
  The Mach-E isn't a muscle car. The comment was specifically around the Mustang sedan, which they do not have an electric version of. Honestly, it's befuddling to me. There's a lot of folks who could get talked into an electric muscle car, they just have to know how to sell it. I own a Charger Daytona and literally every car guy I show it to has interest; I genuinely think Dodge just doesn't know how to market and sell it. I'm 100% confident that the right marketing agency could sell 100k of these, but the cohort of "it'll never be a Mustang" is far louder than the "wow that thing rips" crowd.

JKCalhoun 11mo ago

"Americans only want trucks and SUVs." (I hear people say.) Cool. Then allow BYD non-trucks, non-SUVs into the U.S. then. The Japanese back in the 70's showed U.S. automakers that price and mileage (in that decade anyway) were important to Americans. I suspect price is still important.

lifty 11mo ago
Why would they allow it? It would destroy the remaining car industry in the US. Better to at least maintain a car industry, even if it’s inefficient.
- newAccount2025 11mo ago
  Why is that better?
- epistasis 11mo ago
  A jobs subsidy program that focused on more productive industries would be better than subsidizing an auto industry that never aimed for international competitiveness. We have exceptionally productive fields in the US tumor are the envy of the world. If we can't be productive in auto manufacturing, devoting a ton of our workforce too it is a misallocation of our limited resources. If we are going to be subsidizing unprofitable industry fro national security purposes, we need to either 1) ruthlessly cut the least productive manufacturers from access to subsidies, or 2) nationalize it. Any other choices would be very inefficient.
- Animats 11mo ago
  The historical track record of that kind of thing is terrible. You end up with a bloated, inefficient industry that produces bad products. Britain, pre-EU, did a lot of that. British Steel, British Rail, British Overseas Airways Corporation, British Petroleum, English Electric computers, etc. Then they needed bailouts. This resulted in what's called "lemon socialism" - the state owns all the dud industries.
khannn 11mo ago
I wish I could get a BYD Dolphin hatch for ~10k USD. Somehow my 12 year old Prius is worth 9k on KBB and that's insane.

breve 11mo ago

> a Ford Mustang converted to electric The Mustang Mach-e isn't like any other Mustang. It just has the Mustang branding.

darth_avocado 11mo ago

Ford is a bad example because they’ve pretty much abandoned all their non truck and transit van segments for years. Even if EVs weren’t a thing, they do not compete in any of the segments and haven’t for almost a decade. First it was Japanese and German companies eating their lunch, now it’s the Chinese. Also, F150 lightening is such a failure. There was a recent video of it trying to haul very minimal load and it pretty much drained the battery in less than 100 miles.

Marsymars 11mo ago
> Also, F150 lightening is such a failure. There was a recent video of it trying to haul very minimal load and it pretty much drained the battery in less than 100 miles. Was that due to something specific with the Lightning, or was it just due to the intrinsic energy requirements of hauling loads? (Or in other words, does an EV even exist that's notably better at hauling loads?)
- darth_avocado 11mo ago
  Probably both. It was a consumer review, so hard to say from an engineering perspective.
- _ea1k 11mo ago
  TBH, those tests are mostly marketing failures. EV trucks aren't really good at hauling trailers over large distances, as the aerodynamics produce a massive impact on range. Multiple tests have shown this by showing 50% or more range reduction from pulling lightweight, non-aerodynamic loads. The marketing failure is that the companies have allowed consumers to incorrectly extrapolate from this to thinking that heavy loads in the bed have the same issue. They actually don't as weight is a minimal impact on range. Unfortunately, every thread about carrying sheetrock, rocks, mulch, etc shows how misinformed the average consumer has become in this space. It has to be a significant impact on sales, given that in the US these are the only heavy loads carried by >50% of the half ton pickups sold here.
  - AngryData 11mo ago

rootusrootus 11mo ago

I've got a Lightning and I think I like the 'converted to electric' aspect. Everything that fits on a regular ICE F-150 fits on my truck. The interior is the same (okay, some trims have a big screen, but not all do). It would be nice if it had a bit more range, but when I look at the efficiency of an R1T or a CT, I don't see that being purpose-built would automatically be a win for Ford. Pickups are not ever going to be competitive with sedans and CUVs for efficiency.

Marsymars 11mo ago
The problem with the Lightning is mostly that it's a money-loser for Ford.
- rootusrootus 11mo ago
  I've never seen a good number on this. Is it money losing per vehicle, or because of the amortized R&D included in the cost? The problem from my perspective is that it hasn't turned out as popular as they hoped -- truck buyers are a hard to convert bunch of people. Which is too bad, because my Lightning is my favorite of all the pickups I've owned over the years. It's a fantastic truck.
  - Marsymars 11mo ago
    > Is it money losing per vehicle, or because of the amortized R&D included in the cost? Certainly the latter, but I don't think it was ever going to be money-making, even in the Ford's best-case sales/production scenario it was really a gen1 platform (along with the Mach-E) to get their foot in the door with EV production, supply chains, sales, etc. Then they got hit with various external events (low gas prices, higher electricity prices, EV credit cancellations, higher tariffs, etc.) that made their numbers even worse. FWIW I'm also a fan of the Lightning - it's obviously not a drop-in replacement for 100% of things an F150 can do, and the pricing is tough, but just on its own merits it's a very nice truck. (I was recently car shopping, but had no need/inclination for a full-size truck, so ended up with a hybrid Maverick instead - very impressed with that too so far.)

eptcyka 11mo ago

The lightning isn’t selling, almost at all.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]

JojoFatsani 11mo ago

You’re mischaracterizing the Mustang Mach-E which never should have been named that because it has nothing to do with the ICE Mustang at all aside from the horsey badge.

pancakemouse 11mo ago

> resulting in 3-ton vehicles And a surge in road deaths.