Ford spends $3B to expand large truck production in plant previously set for EVs
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
It’s all about current profit. Remember how the US crushed millions of used cars to help the auto industry and destroyed poor peoples chances of an affordable car? I’ll bet it happens again very soon.
That's the other way around, they are great at making people want to buy the products they make. They make trucks because the chicken tax makes foreign trucks and vans unattractive in the US. And the trucks grow bigger every year because it's easier to satisfy environmental regulations with bigger vehicles (since the goals depend on vehicle size). They then make really good propaganda^w marketing to make people want to buy those vehicles.
If people only wanted rugged, reliable, long-lasting vehicles they would buy Toyota.
And that trucks are that popular at all is already a symptom of the "issue". Most people who drive trucks would be served better by hatchback, or if you want a bigger front grill an SUV. But trucks are cooler, manlier, more American. Which isn't an idea people got on their own. Which isn't an idea people got on their own, it's carefully cultivated in the US.
If Americans really didn’t want EVs then there should be no need to protect the market from the cheaper Chinese brands, because nobody would be buying them.
Chinese carmakers set up shop in Mexico to exploit North American trade rules. Once in place, they send ultra-low-priced electric vehicles streaming into the United States.”
https://apnews.com/article/china-vehicles-mexico-evs-automak...
https://www.post-gazette.com/business/powersource/2024/07/10...
Also, I apparently need to correct what I said about Trump being more bearish on Chinese EVs. From Bloomberg today: "Trump Welcomes China to Build Cars in US in Departure From Biden."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-19/trump-wel...
I still drive it every day to work but for family trips I drive a much larger three-row SUV and it is better in basically every way except gas mileage, which thanks to being a hybrid is about the same. So I get where people are coming from. My conclusion has been people tend to buy as much car as they can possibly afford and often more.
So even discounting demand, automakers and dealers are incentivized to make big, expensive vehicles, which reduces the number of small models available, which in turn further reduces demand as would-be small car buyers can no longer find options that make the right tradeoffs for their situation.
In other words, in some ways it's a self-reinforcing cycle that won't end absent external corrections.
This is absolutely not true. The demand is manufactured. Car companies in the US are building bigger SUVs and trucks because they are classified different and have less strict emissions regulations.
Looking at you, Chicken Tax!
This is basic microeconomics. If the Honda CR-V, the Ford Explorer and every other car of a similar or bigger size had to pay the same tax as smaller ones, they would sell less.
They didn’t though. Because Americans didn’t want them.
The emissions regulations people talk about are easy to look up online and there was undoubtedly a real effect on the viability of larger vehicles but it is hugely overstated online. The main reason for huge cars is because they really are much more useful and comfortable for anything except gas mileage and city parking, Americans can afford them, and such models generally have more social clout.
The Fit in particular is an amazing car. There’s actually much more room for the driver than in even much larger cars. With the seats down you can fit all kinds of crazy stuff in there - even 8ft lumber. It didn’t die because of government regulation. It died because Americans by and large think it’s a ridiculous car to drive around in, so it didn’t sell. And because despite all those things, a three row SUV or a truck has more general utility.
Which are exactly the things heavily subsidized in the US!
Either way, that’s two dimensions out of dozens. I could argue that efficiency has come a long way (my large SUV gets 40mpg) but more than that people really will pay huge amounts in gas to drive these cars regardless. While I was paying a little over a hundred a month for my Fit in gas other people were paying just south of a thousand. They could have easily moved down and chose not to. I guess you could plan to turn up the pain as much as possible for as long as possible but I’m not sure how you can accomplish that in a democracy.
City parking is not that big a deal, most people don’t do it most of the time. Obviously people value the dozens of other dimensions they assess cars on much more than these two.
I'm kind of tired of these discussions. It's completely absurd to associate quality of life, safety and general comfort with the size of the car. If they were not brainwashed by marketing, 99.995% of people that drive a SUV or pick-up truck would find more utility and value in having a Station Wagon, an actual van or a properly-sized commuter car. If you want a simple way to check this, just look at the fact that those that really need trucks are importing it from Japan [0] because the industry is not interested in serving them.
The lengths that Americans will try to justify their completely illogical behavior is pathological. They would rather believe in American Exceptionalism than face the truth that they are being played for fools by the Auto industry. It's easier to keep eating up the BS that they "need" a bigger car than to learn the ways that the system is rigged so that you can fight it.
[0]: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/04/20/rural-ame...
The existence of my three-row four-cylinder hybrid SUV getting 40mpg does not preclude the existence of similarly sized V8s getting 10-15MPG.
> It's completely absurd to associate quality of life, safety and general comfort with the size of the car.
Why? I love my Fit, but it struggles to go up steep hills with 4 grown men (who in the back fit uncomfortably) in the car. It has a 600lb total human + cargo weight limit. The cargo space is manifestly severely limited with passengers. My children are able to scream directly into my eardrums and kick the back of my seat. I can go on. In comparison, my SUV definitely provides a higher quality of life, is safer in a collision thanks to F=MA, and is generally more comfortable. It can also pull quite a bit of weight in my trailer, which the owner's manual for my model Fit specifically says I must never do. It is much easier for my aging grandmother to get into the SUV and a huge struggle for her to get into the Fit. Avoiding road debris is much more difficult in the Fit, because its low height means that I cannot safely drive over many objects. (Indeed over the past ten years the under-trim has been quite severely damaged by unavoidable collisions with branches, etc.) It also means if I pull too far forward in a parking spot I hit the transmission (ouch) on the parking bumper, and in "rough" parking areas with steep gradients I have to be very careful.
> 99.995% of people that drive a SUV or pick-up truck would find more utility and value in having a Station Wagon, an actual van
Vans are quite large. I drive one regularly. What's the real difference here other than the shape and sliding doors? Maybe the SUV is higher? Similarly, I don't see much of a difference between an SUV and station wagon. Is it just the height that bothers you? Can you explain what specific utility they are gaining in this situation? I've also noticed that van seats tend to not be as handy as SUV seats for cargo storage unless you totally remove them, but this may vary by model.
> a properly-sized commuter car.
There are plenty of normal sized sedans on the market right now.
> If you want a simple way to check this, just look at the fact that those that really need trucks are importing it from Japan [0] because the industry is not interested in serving them.
This is just silly. Is there a kei enthusiast market? Absolutely! But it's a very tiny market (~7500 imported a year), and they're usually not actually replacing a truck: even your own article mentions that the guy is buying it to serve the role of a side-by-side; e.g., to putter around on his farm on. It's replacing a Polaris Ranger, not a Ford Ranger. This is a totally different market than "people who really need trucks", who yes, buy something like an F-2/150. I live in a rural area and a lot of people that work "truck" jobs, hauling huge trailers, filling the bed with tools and supplies, etc...they're not driving keis.
> The lengths that Americans will try to justify their completely illogical behavior is pathological. They would rather believe in American Exceptionalism than face the truth that they are being played for fools by the Auto industry. It's easier to keep eating up the BS that they "need" a bigger car than to learn the ways that the system is rigged so that you can fight it.
I find it much more productive to assume people I disagree with are operating on different values than I am to assume they're simply illogical and brainwashed. Do I think it's crazy people are spending 60-80k on trucks that aren't exclusively work trucks or for hauling their boat or something? Yeah. But I know they're not, they're just different than me and have their own reasons. I don't feel a need to dictate everyone drive the cars I like.
My car sat on the lot for months before I bought it. There was plenty of inventory and Honda managed to sell something like 10-11k of them that year. There was no conspiracy here. People just didn't want a small car. People regularly make fun of me for driving such a small car.
If you mostly produce pickup trucks, you're going to make sure that the general public "wants" pickup trucks.
I think part of this is:
1. people want to keep up with the joneses
2. as other cars in traffic get larger, some people don't want to want to drive cars that make them feel small on the road by comparison... the "I want to sit up high so I can see better" effect.
Citation needed
> Thursday, the auto maker announced a third North American assembly plant to meet commercial demand for F-series Super Duty trucks.
> It’s another sign that Ford’s commercial business is healthy. Pro is Ford’s star business segment, earning $3 billion in operating profit in the first quarter, while the traditional car business saw a $900 million profit, and the Model e electric-vehicle business lost $1.3 billion.
It is Ford's commercial segment that is really driving their success in selling these vehicles.
For example if the owner of a construction company and his son have a Super Duty truck each that is mostly used to commute I would not consider them to be used as business vehicles.
For example in my country the stereotipycal vehicle for construction workers and farmers looks like [0] and exists in dozens of variations with all kinds of specialized attachments like
https://photo.static-viamobilis.com/32/1/7945049-photo-camio...
https://www.ricciato.com/resources/product/10519/gallery/05_...
https://photo.via-mobilis.com/32/2/2312573-camion-benne.jpg
https://www.grupposcotti.it/media/8d879ce9c03e93b/gamma-ivec...
https://www.ricciato.com/resources/product/10519/gallery/IMG...
https://autoline24.it/img/s/veicolo-commerciale-furgone-auto...
[0] https://www.emacchinari.com/img/19/09/231031P_20190730_09522...
https://www.pahomepage.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/91/2022/...
https://www.comerconstruction.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08...
https://cdn.ironpla.net/i/3540/785/f6b151d7-c39c-4167-b128-4...
https://hendersonshauling.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/uha...
https://live.staticflickr.com/3872/15073330941_bab304b041_h....
> and exists in dozens of variations with all kinds of specialized attachments
As does the Super Duty.
https://www.fordpro.com/en-us/fleet-vehicles/chassis-cab/
While you can purchase a superduty in a non-fleet configuration through non-fleet retail channels, the article I posted above is speaking specifically about fleet sales.
From Ford/GM perspective, I’m assuming they’ve crunched the numbers, and realized trying to make a cheaper vehicle will not result in proper ROI. I’m not sure if they can ever compete with economies of scale as well, compared to Chinese hawks, as they just have so many more consumers even just internally.
It’s going to be fun to watch the car-wars as we have allied countries like Australia that are buying up BYDs, so people can’t just call them “Chinese crap” forever. My bet is within 5 years US/Europe is going to rely on protectionism even more, as China puts more pressure on exports. It’s a huge industry with an enormous amount of jobs attached to it after all.
That's a double edged sword as China will retaliate with tariffs on US and EU cars in China, and the Chinese market has been a huge moneymaker for the German companies, who now find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They can't outcompete Chinese EV makers on price in the EU market, but they also can't loose the Chinese market if retaliatory tarries would hit them.
I'm focusing on Germany because the Germany economy is far more dependent on cars than the US economy where it's more of a vestigial tail compared to finance, services and tech.
Also, tariffs are a poisoned chalice. Yes, they'll protect your industry locally on the short term, but long term, your industry will loose out on competitiveness on the global market where it lacks protectionism and will be decimated in the long run.
My bet is that instead of a mutual assured destruction tarif wars, EU and Chinese companies will enter into partnerships where they share technology and factories, meaning of course the EU made Chinese EVs will be significantly more expensive than those sold abroad.
Corporations are going to focus on what people want to buy, and right now that isn’t EVs. Several manufacturers tried it, they had aggressive timelines to convert their entire fleets - and they’ve almost all reversed course because the gas/hybrid offerings were far outselling their BEV options.
So yes the only way automakers can increase revenue in the US is by making cars and trucks more expensive. Because they can't increase unit volume.
The issue the Chinese have is everyone not just the US is asking the question what in it for us having all the factories in China.
Super Duty trucks are specifically designed for towing capability. Specifically, they are classified as class 2 or 3 by the federal government. They have higher tow capacity, higher rated transmissions with better towing gear ratios, as well as different suspensions and chassis, all of which are designed separately from the F-series. These changes yield a higher gross vehicle weight, as well.
None of this means that Ford couldn't be pushing into better performance and emissions through hybrid technologies. Ford is slowly releasing full-size truck hybrid technology, but I'm unaware of this being brought to Super Duty trucks. The big advantage of hybrid technology is that weight does not directly affect the efficiency of power recovery, and would scale well even to vehicles that need to be towing in excess of 10k lbs.
It's the charging infrastructure that's lacking and the affordable used market, not their EV roadmaps. Currently EVs are best for those with charger at home which gives them cheap running costs (especailly with solar panels at home) and peace of mind of car always being fully charged at your disposal. But those without chargers at home are fucked with an overpriced and half the time broken public infrastructure that makes life much more miserable than with ICE cars.
EV sales have slowed down not because the EV roadmap, but because the market of users with home chargers has begun to saturate, so now you need to improve public charging to break into the demographic without chargers at home, but since nobody wants to do that, neither car manufacturers, nor the governments, turning EV infrastructure investment into this hot potato, meaning EV adoption is at a stalemate.
Blaming slow EV sales on the EV roadmap without thinking of public infrastructure would be like blaming lackluster smartphone roadmaps when networks are still stuck on 2G.
In this age-of-big-data, is there a way to quantify this?
https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/q2-2024-ev-sales/
Not sure exactly (I don't live in the US), but not every consumer opinion everywhere or behavior can be 100% easily quantified with a quick Google search or a simple big data query, the way HN loves. Sometimes it's more complicated that the data available and it's just easier to ask consumers since people vote with their wallets and consumers aren't stupid to leave money on the table if EVs ownership were a monetary net benefit for them.
I just looked at the EV infrastructure around me, how people use their ICE cars, and the pros and cons of switching to EVs now, with home charging and without home charging.
Call it an anecdote if you will, but I'm as middle class as it gets(no house ownership, ICE car owner), so if EV ownership sucks for me, it probably also sucks for everyone else like me, and since so there's a lot of me out there in this country where I live, then my anecdote is pretty representative without or without big data.
https://www.builderonline.com/money/economics/80-percent-of-...
https://info.oregon.aaa.com/aaa-interest-in-evs-wanes-more-a...
No brake disc/pad replacements, no oil changes -- or any fluids! -- and no trips to the gas station. Mostly just tire rotations/replacements.
Hybrids still require roughly the same maintenance as ICE vehicles, and also have to deal with battery life on top.
I understand that regenerative braking reduces their wear, but that's also offset to some degree by the vehicle being heavier.
Also, the brake pedal uses regenerative braking most (maybe 80-90%) of the time, unless (again) needed for quicker stops, or if it detects friction braking hasn't been used for a while (just to clean off the pads).
So by my rough estimate, I'm guessing we use regenerative braking about 90% of the time, which means it should be about 10x the timeframe (vs. ICE vehicles) to replace brake pads/discs.
Tax based on weight.
And part of the problem is CAFE standards. It sounds like emissions requirements are set so tight for small trucks that manufacturers have given up on trying to make it work for small trucks.
And as you point out, US consumers seem to love large vehicles. For a variety of reasons. For some the need is legitimate (they need to haul or tow big/heavy things). For some, they want to copy the first group. And for some, they want to feel safe, sharing the road with the other big vehicles.
---
Sadly they've actually stopped putting them in some of their newer car lines (e.g. the Civic) which had them in previous model years.
The reality is that most Americans would do fine with an EV but the inability of the incumbents to innovate on affordable EVs and the FUD in the marketplace is a big issue. The top issues in that survey you linked are basically price (fair), battery replacement (FUD) and then charging availability and range anxiety as equal third. Range anxiety is overblown given the vast majority of Americans drive less than 40 miles a day, yet somehow everyone seems to demand a vehicle capable of making 500 mile non-stop road trips.
The best selling hybrids on the market aren't simply ICE vehicles with extra stuff slapped on. Most series-parallel designs eliminate the need for many parts that an ICE car would have. For example, many hybrids don't have a starter, accessory belt, torque converter, or multi-ratio transmissions. Due to this, many hybrids have hundreds of fewer moving parts than comparable ICE vehicles.
You will have the same in lagging US market. Hybrids are more complex. They will die once you have good and cheap enough battery immediately.
In china they already selling cars that can go 600 miles on a single charge. Any range or any other concerns will die once that reach a mass market. You don't need to go to gas station, pay tips, expose yourself to security risks. Just charge at home, it's superior to anything including hybrids.
Even most hybrids are not a good deal, when compared to a fuel efficient 4 cylinder. My Dad recently had to replace the battery in his Toyota Prius after only about 100,000 miles. He bought a refurbished battery and got it installed for ~$4k. Toyota wanted $6k for a car that is barely worth that (worthless with a dead battery). It failed about 6 months later, was replaced, before failing again. He ended up getting rid of the car because it wasn't worth it, and replaced it with an ICE Honda Civic.
Meanwhile, I've owned my Honda Civic for over 10 years, and outside of regular maintenance, never had a problem with it. I couldn't imagine ever buying a hybrid or electric car.
This is all anecdotal, just like your stories.
The anti-EV people are neo-Luddites. It doesn't really matter though, because technology marches on regardless. I will say that I would not want to be an ICE owner when we hit a tipping point and gas stations start closing because most people are driving EVs.
Hybrids are the worst of both worlds: you need a gas engine AND a battery.
It doesn't make sense economically.
Things cost money and putting both engine and battery costs more that putting just one of those.
People care about the price so in practice you end up with a car that has both gimped (cheaper) gas engine and gimped (cheaper) battery and a government subsidy to make it sense financially (for buyer).
Not to mention that study after study found that environment benefits of plug-in hybrids have been greatly exaggerated i.e. in real life charging happens 2-3x less than the initial predictions.
People buy them mostly because governments offer subsidies making them more attractive than similar gas cars and then don't charge them at all. Which also means that the battery in them is completely useless and it would be better if it wasn't there in the first place.
On the other hand this makes sense, because the vast majority of trips are short, so the gimped battery works just fine. But for the long trips the gas engine can fill in.
It means one can own one car instead of two.
Toyota sold almost twice as many hybrids as Tesla sold cars in 2023. Comparing a single model's sales is pointless, especially when Tesla carries so few models compared to most manufacturers.
> Hybrids are the worst of both worlds: you need a gas engine AND a battery.
Most hybrids use a dead simple power split transmission that replaces a complex automatic transmission as well as the alternator and starter. Most of the accessories move off of belts and get replaced with high-voltage electric components similar to an EV. Priuses are the most common taxi and Uber vehicle for a reason. They are extremely reliable and cost effective relative to ICE and even EVs depending on the relative cost of fuel.
> It doesn't make sense economically. Things cost money and putting both engine and battery costs more that putting just one of those.
The costs are fairly marginal, switching to the Hybrid model of the 2024 Corolla (no subsidy) costs $1450 and nets +15 combined MPG and 0-60 times within 0.2 seconds of one another. At +15 mpg and $3.50/gallon it pays itself off in 50k miles
> Not to mention that study after study found that environment benefits of plug-in hybrids have been greatly exaggerated i.e. in real life charging happens 2-3x less than the initial predictions.
IIRC this study was from corporate fleets which isn't representative of a consumer who seeks out a PHEV.
So short term it make sense. Long term if they don't have a good EV portfolio they are dead.
With battery prices at $50-60kWh in China, EV will finally goes mainstream for not early adopters. But for people who wants to save money. EV will start attacking every single car segment because it will become cheaper, more reliable, faster, silent.
"More reliable" would be nice, but hasn't been my experience or observation. The powertrains on the cars I've driven have proven very reliable - zero problems in 200K+/miles per car. All the problems I've had were related to electronics and trim issues.
I'm not sure that "faster" or "silent" are really dimensions people are buying on unless they race.
EV's are cheaper now. This year it might be here and there a little bit, next year and beyond EV will beat gas cars on price without any doubt.
It makes a lot of sense short-term. This factory has been sitting idle for years now (IIRC) and had a lot of union furloughed employees waiting to go back to work. They had to get this factory building something soon.
It seems like I see more news recently, like this, of companies reversing their position and pivoting back towards ICE vehicles, and it's depressing.
I blame infrastructure, and our inability to roll out broad infrastructure across the US.
There are too many people with range anxiety, and lack of infrastructure isn't helping, and improvements haven't been enough to keep up with our goals to pivot toward EVs.
Alternatively, battery technology could advance to improve range without (as much of) a need for broad infrastructure rollouts, but that's also not happening fast enough.
I still think we'll get there, eventually. But I don't think we'll get there as fast as many of us want to -- or were optimistic for in 2022 -- unfortunately.
We've had some minor issues with the heat/AC/heat pump, and a number of recalls that are sometimes hard to schedule fixes for. Tires seem to not last as long, but that's apparently common with (heavy) EVs. Other minor electronic annoyances that fixed themselves either with recalls or software patches.
The other concern is that it seems like it's hard to get repairs done, either due to parts shortage, or lack of experience. Fortunately we've not had any need for repairs yet, but I've heard stories about that being a problem for some (and may not be unique to the EV6).
Our other vehicle is still an ICE vehicle, but I'm hoping when it's time to replace it, we can get another EV. But lack of infrastructure may mean we get another ICE vehicle for longer trips.
EDIT: interesting post to get downvoted on.
Tesla Model 3 is cheaper compared to gasoline Toyota of comparable trim Today.
I'm not sure what really can stop next wave of EV's that will be powered by cheap prices.
This will have no context for anyone reading this, but seeing a Tesla on the drive to that town would be such an interesting sighting that I'd point it out to my wife each time. Now I spot so many of them (along with the occasional Rivian, Kia or Bolt like my own) that I stopped so I wouldn't bore her. :P
ICE vehicles (especially trucks like the F-150) will always have a place out here , but EVs have exploded from my pov compared to just a few years ago.
Thanks to Tesla U.S. has pretty good charging network. And it's very cheap to build (relatively speaking).
During the years that Tesla was investing in world-wide charging network despite loosing money, GM and Ford had plenty of profits they could have invested in that obvious un-blocker of EV adoption.
They didn't but that's on them and their management. The state (what you call "us") doesn't need to be involved. If Tesla alone was able to build and fund U.S.-wide network, if every other car company in U.S. chipped in, charging network could have been several times bigger today.
It'll be several times bigger, it'll just take few more years.
The real blocker is lack of good EV cars, priced competitively. Chinese have those which is why EU is now panicking and creating additional, punishing tariffs on Chinese cars, to protect their mis-managed car industry.
And it will work for a few years, until Chinese build factories in Europe and crush European car makers anyway.
If it is the case that it works fine to buy those parts of a vehicle from a supplier, it doesn't make sense to switch before the technology matures.
Or I could (and did) buy a hybrid. Now I get good fuel economy, don't need to install a home charger, and have no range anxiety. You hit the nail on the head - infrastructure and charging speeds need to improve before I go all electric. Sure, it's possible to road trip with an EV, but I'm used to 10 minute stops for fuel and bathrooms.
We still plan to buy an EV as a second car. It will be our commuter / city car to complement the hybrid road trip car.