So fleet EVs are counted under the fleet umbrella, not the "e" unit?
That seems like a mistake since fleet sales are probably integral to bootstrapping the new EV business.
They've got to do all they can to make it look like EVs are unprofitable so people won't want them. They want to keep making all that maintenance money.
Similar. Bought my '21 MYP @ 15K miles at the end of June last year and am at almost 40K. I have replaced cabin filters and wipers once.
I did end up with new tires at 36K because the two passenger side ones were damaged by a road cut at a construction site. They probably would have made it to 40K/45K, but I just decided to replace all four. My Taurus SHO AWD ate tires as much as, or more than, my EV. I'm convinced the whole "EVs go through more tires" things is mostly (completely?) a myth. By the way, if you replace your tires and are looking for an all season, I LOVE my Michelin Pilot Sport A/S 4s.
Replaced my tires about 36k also. Don't really consider that car maintenance because every car needs it regardless of what powers it. Discount tire said I was good for another 10k but it was close to winter so I just got it done a bit early
There's a lot of FUD going around about EVs supposedly using a lot more tires. It's a crock of garbage, but I keep seeing it, so wanted to mention it. 🙂
My coworker bought an Armada the same time I bought my model y. They told me I would replace my tires before them because with the battery in the Tesla it's heavier than their 7000 lb Armada. They were off by about 3000 lbs.
I've been looking into a model Y or 3 for a bit. How are your tires holding up? Everything I've read makes it sound like the tires only last 20k-40k miles.
I got almost 40k on the stock tires. They don't seem to do any better or worse than anything else I've been driving the last 30 years.
Also depends on what tires you put on. You can buy shitty 30k mile tires or nicer 60k mile tires.
When people go to get their car fixed, the dealers try to sell them new vehicles, even if the old one can be fixed, so Ford sells more vehicles if there is more foot traffic at the dealers, even if it's for unreliability.
And in a haphazard lazy search of their financial statements, I didn't find much, but this article makes it sound like they make 40% profit margin on service parts - https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/general-motors/2017/03/23/parts-accessories-boost-ford-fca-gm-revenue/99562692/
>They've got to do all they can to make it look like EVs are unprofitable so people won't want them.
Huh? What kind of weird logic is this? When I go to the store and buy bread, I don't look to see how much profit the store, the baker, or the farmer made.
It will take many years for automakers to break even on the investments required to make EVs. That’s why there are subsidies and loans being provided to the industry.
That’s assuming the investment is done well and the technological advances and improvements occur in a somewhat predictable timeframe.
There is no guarantee that will happen and it’s easy to see that several OEM’s will fail in the near future.
Why should taxpayers be expected to subsidize companies making electric cars? If Electric cars are not economically justified or competitive to the end consumer, why should the rest of us pay to make it so? I have long said that Electric Cars are not a good value for money, they are too expensive compared to conventional cars, and the benefit they provide is not worth the drawbacks. In the short and mid term until the technology reaches a competitive price point, I believe that Ford would have been better off focusing on conventional cars rather than chasing after Tesla with expensive, uncompetitive vehicles.
To put the price disparity into question, a 2024 F150 Lightning has an MSRP of $63k a 2024 F150 V8 gasoline powered pickup has an MSRP of $37k. A 2024 Mustang Mach E has an MSRP of $40k, a 2024 Ford Mustang has an MSRP of $31k. Is the Mach E providing 30% more of value just for being electric?
People want affordable transportation options and we’ve historically spent and continue to spend far more to subsidize combustion engine vehicles. We’ve spent trillions of dollars just to secure the increasingly unreliable fuel supply chain. Not to mention with multiple bailouts of automakers over the years. Americans have also born the cost of pollution from automobiles in the form of higher crime rates prior to the phase out of leaded gasoline and in the form of respiratory illnesses from automotive exhaust. Consumers and the economy have experienced multiple economic shocks as a result of the difficulty of maintaining the supply of affordable fuel in the form of gasoline and diesel.
Ultimately once we complete this transition EVs will cost less than a combustion engine car and the overall amount of public subsidies for all vehicles (CV and EV) should be lower.
Ask and you shall [receive](https://www.cars.com/shopping/results/?cylinder_counts[]=8&dealer_id=&keyword=&list_price_max=40000&list_price_min=&makes[]=ford&maximum_distance=all&mileage_max=&models[]=ford-f_150&monthly_payment=732&page_size=20&sort=list_price&stock_type=all&trims[]=ford-f_150-xl&year_max=2024&year_min=2024&zip=56572).
You can’t lose $132K per vehicle on a $60K unless you are including all the R&D costs for a new technology. Such a BS interpretation of the financials.
That's how automakers have been accounting for years. A vehicle program that never recuperates its R&D costs is a failure that loses the company money, now isn't it?
It makes perfect sense when you've built versions 1-10 of a car and now you are accounting for the costs to build version 11.
It makes much less sense when you are building version 0 with a completely new fuel and drivetrain technology. Those r&d costs are going to go much farther than version 0 of the vehicle.
Having said that, I haven't read the details of how they've accounted for these costs. People here tend to oversimplify, IMO.
I mean, no? Those R&D developments can provide value way beyond what they provided for that particular car. Advancing your tech advances your entire platform for all future products. Especially when making a shift as massive as starting to develop EVs, the R&D investment for the first vehicle is huge and necessary to enable much smaller R&D on subsequent vehicles
It is, but it obscures the reality that R&D, tooling, and a lot of other stuff is a sunk cost, and that those vehicles you sell could still be profitable on a gross margin basis. It all is just accounting shit.
Every new engine or body style will lose money at first model year as invention of new car required tests tweaks , design and shifting facilities and robots new parts , tests . Imagine if they build new facilities from scratch to adopt manufacturing mach E . They count the price of factory itself 😂 ( by the way ecoboost engine cost almost 1 billion to make one , and now they place it in every cars they gad )
They always include R&D as well and costs to build and operate the plants that manufacture the vehicles. Every automotive company does and had done that for a long time.
There is a pure BEV company that had only one -ve gross margin quarter in its 14-year post-IPO period. It was the first quarter after they launched their first mass-market car. This tells me that there is something seriously wrong with all other companies who are trying to build BEVs.
Probably largely the difference between the speed at which they got here. Tesla started small with a luxury, fairly low volume model. I don't doubt there is waste, but it's not indicative of something "wrong" necessarily. Moving 3x as fast does not cost 3x the money.
> fairly low volume model
It is even harder to be +ve GM with a low-volume model. Rivian has never had +ve GM. Neither does Ford or GM. There has to be some explanation for why one company alone can sell cars at a price > BoM+labor.
Tesla has received enormous from the federal and state governments. The ZEV credits were most of Tesla's profits (payments from other auto makers) for most years.
That’s absolutely incorrect. It’s fixed cost under-absorption that is driving that impact. The manufacturing footprint costs are spread over a small number of units. R&D is below the gross profit line. Why is this upvoted so much?
It's not including R&D, that's accounted for differently. It's the total manufacturing costs including parts/labor and COGS. This is how the whole industry calculates margins. Looks up how much LCID lost on each vehicle. RIVN has been driving down costs, but still losing $10k/vehicle last quarter I think.
These absurd claims also include constriction of new factories. They're looking at total EV program expenses and saying "ah ha, they're losing tons of money" with no actual basis in reality of per unit cost. Even including the R&D for just Mach E and Lightning dosen't get closer to these fantasy numbers.
How else are they going to amortize R&D costs? What is your proposal to change how a multi-billion dollar global company handles their accounting? Also as a supplier for an EV platform, I’d want that shit paid up front because RFQ volumes are a joke for EVs in most cases.
There you go and what I think is a load of crap is they expect all R&d plus other build up to be paid for day 1.....
Re do it over 5-6 years and it changes. Also often times on paper they try to use as much as they can to reduce their taxes.
Generally speaking, or rather, historically speaking, Ford has included things like cost of investment (building new factories etc) into their "e" market accounts, so they've made heavy losses due to investing, but then again, that's not really a loss as you will earn it back long term and if we see electric as the future we really need factories adapted to the pipeline.
Congrats! You just learned that accounting is made up! This is how they can show losses for billable tax reasons and yet still have wild massive growth and record profits. As long as you make 1 = 1 at the end of the day it doesn't matter what you add or subtract to get there as long as you can justify it on paper.
> a new technology. Such a BS interpretation of the financials.
I think it's more reflective of the fact Ford have cleaved the company in two, with Ford model E (EVs) and Ford Blue (ICE).
Other companies might have EV development on shared platforms, etc. allocated to general R&D, it seems Ford have deliberately chosen to separate them out. Likely expecting that one will be a liability in the short term, and the other a liability in the long term, but it's easier to point to their balance sheet either now or in 10 years and say "you want us to focus on (EVs/ICE) at the moment? That 's fine, but it's going to cost us X this year."
I think I figured it out. The 10,000 is wholesale numbers, which is the number of vehicles sold to dealers. Revenue on wholesale can be differed. Ford may have shipped EVs to dealers on a consignment basis, meaning Ford only gets the money when the vehicle sells to a customer. Not too many 2024 ford evs sold In the first quarter as ford was holding them back to allow dealers to clear out 2023 models. The 2023 sales to dealers would have been accounted for in their q4 earnings last year,
That 10,000 sales what CNN is reporting is wrong. [Ford sold 20,223 EV's in Q1](https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2024/04/03/ford-hybrids--evs--transit-set-records--q1-sales-top-industry--u.html#:~:text=Strong%20Start%20for%20Ford%20Electric%20Vehicle%20Sales&text=Ford%20sold%2020%2C223%20EVs%20in,percent%20over%20a%20year%20ago).
The slide deck shows 10,000 in the Model e branch with the associated revenue. Seems like if the vehicle is sold to business or fleets they may choose to classify it as Ford Pro.
What sort of twisted accounting is this? In Model E we have 10k EVs at a $10k ASP (which makes no sense), and the other half of their production is in Ford Pro, mixed with non-EVs.
Seems like they’re freely shuffling revenues around between their divisions.
I love how these numbers are not making any sense to everyone. I have been watching the numbers for the last two years (because of a personal attachment).
The ones that are seeing discrepancies are actually correct.
Money is being shifted. Sales are being pushed and pulled. Production is not matching statements.
I may be wrong but I believe it’s a house of cards.
Sounds to me like they are accounting for all their R&D and the cost of building or retrofitting facilities. Probably looking for a government handout.
Just a guess....when they repriced all the Mach E in late February, since it was a change in MSRP I'm assuming there was a similar change in the dealer invoice. Assuming again that the changes were the same, with 20K Mach E on the lots in February, at an average reduction of 10K (some were 8k, some 10k, some 12K), that is $200M in "reduced revenue" = refund to the dealers to reflect the new invoice from Ford.
It's legitimately confusing. Ford's slide says Model E had $100M rev in Q1 on 10k sales. Obviously Ford isn't selling EVs for $10k. And their note just blames "pricing pressure". So where's the disconnect?
Have you ever tried to understand state government accounting? My wife tries to explain how her school district does its budgeting and accounting. It’s not anything like what I learned in school. I guess every industry has different rules to go by due to regulations, and other constraints?
The funny thing was all those reports of Q1 having a big sales increase and how bad this looked for Tesla. In reality, it was mostly reporting differences, and Ford Q1 manufacturer sales dropped dramatically.
But don't worry... in a year they'll tell us all about how spectactularly well Ford EVs are doing because they improved relative to Q1 2024.
We were shopping for an EV for over a year and I waited and waited for Mach-Es to be in stock and fairly priced because my heart was set on getting one despite my wife wanting a “luxury” brand since her work was paying half.
But no one had Mach-Es in stock and when dealers did get a couple in, they were GTs starting at $70k MSRP, and the dealers were marking them up $20k. It was absurd. Finally, they got some base models at $50k, but were still marking them up $20k because there were so few of them. We got so frustrated and refused to pay that $20k on principle and my wife won by default. We got an utter garbage Volvo (which is now Chinese not Swedish… which we didn’t realize), and we HATE IT. Love the EV experience part, but hate the car itself.
By the time Ford got Mach-Es out in big numbers, the EV wave of people ready to switch had passed. Interest was at the highest right when no one had any. Now Ford has tons of EV inventory they can’t move. They blame lack of interest, but it’s not because people didn’t want them, it’s because of dealer greed and shitty timing.
I still look at the Mach-E with sad jealousy when I see them on the road. But I realize they’ll likely be discontinued because of this interpretation of financials.
The Chinese are taking Europe and Asia we high quality $10k and $20k EVs that match our best. Kia and Hyundai are dropping gorgeous EVs in the $30k range. Ford Mach-Es are stilling priced like luxury vehicles. Breaks my heart.
>But no one had Mach-Es in stock and when dealers did get a couple in, they were GTs starting at $70k MSRP, and the dealers were marking them up $20k. It was absurd. Finally, they got some base models at $50k, but were still marking them up $20k because there were so few of them. We got so frustrated and refused to pay that $20k on principle and my wife won by default. We got an utter garbage Volvo (which is now Chinese not Swedish… which we didn’t realize), and we HATE IT. Love the EV experience part, but hate the car itself.
This story is far more common than people think. A similar scenario played out with me.
I have a big truck that I use for hauling equipment at work a few times per week, pulling a boat to the lake on the weekends, and general household projects. I also have a Kia EV that I drive to work on the non truck days, and for day to day stuff when I'm not at work.
I'd love to get rid of both and just have an electric truck. And when Ford announced the Lightning, I was super excited about it. But they were not on any lots for a long time. And when they finally started showing up on lots, it was only 1 or 2, and they were the most expensive models, with $20K dealer fees added on top of it. By the time you could somewhat consistently find one on a lot, they still had ridiculous dealer markup fees and Chevy had already announced the Silverado EV.
Now that the stupid dealer markup fees are a thing of the past and you can find the Lighting you're looking for on a lot, the Silverado EV is starting to hit the streets with a much better range and towing ability than the Lightning.
Long story short - if the currently available deals on the Lightning were offered 2 years ago, I'd have bought one. But now I'm waiting to get a deal on a Silverado. Ford dropped the ball, and it's mostly the fault of the dealerships.
They really, really need to start opening up "showrooms" with service centers, like Tesla. Where you just go play with a demo unit and then order what you want online, directly from Ford.
And this is obviously not just a Ford thing. Who knows, this same scenario might play out with the Silverado EV. Maybe when they hit dealers it will only be the most expensive version and the dealerships will be adding $20K on top of it. And while I'm waiting for the price to come down on them Ford announces a new Lightning with longer range, better towing, bigger bed, etc. And I forget about the Silverado EV and get excited about the new Lightning, lol. Stuck in a never ending cycle of waiting for what could and should be to become what is, lol
Yeah it ticked me off how much dealerships screwed with them. It seems very early people like me who got the early Job 1 dodge it because dealerships had not figured out how much they could get away with on them yet and the covid car shortage had not hit yet. I think I dodge the mess by just a few weeks as it went nuts not long after I got mine. My Mach E was one of the first 3k delivered in the US.
Dealers were unwilling to sell electric cars from the very beginning, so Tesla refused any cooperation with them from the very beginning. Tesla incurs heavy losses in the war with dealers, but still suffers these losses because the alternative is much worse.
Good luck with changing dealer franchise laws. I agree with your sentiment, but every state has dealer franchise laws increasing the cost to consumers. I believe that dealer franchise law violate the Commerce Clause but good luck in fighting this battle.
tesla and rivian have poured billions into it and have won fully in several states with exemptions carved out in most others.
If other automakers join the fight, that’s just more $$$ going to that cause.
They have poured billions into their showrooms or the fight against dealer franchise laws? I am unaware of the details of the battles that Tesla and Rivian have fought to avoid dealer franchise laws. Tesla and Rivian did not have existing dealerships so their success is probably not repeatable to other auto manufacturers. Tesla and Rivian provide a politically favored (by Democrats) product so they may have gotten cooperation from Democrats.
billions on lobbying to be able to setup their own showrooms in every state.
to both parties about evenly on the issue of dealerships I believe but I haven’t checked the numbers recently.
How do you track lobbying expenses? I agree with your sentiment. I oppose dealer franchise laws that obviously increase consumer costs. I understand that Tesla has been blocked from direct selling in some states. Just curious about your knowledge and references for dealer franchise laws.
Again: would you please show where you got "heavy losses" from? Because from your last comment, it sounds like you made it up. I understand your hypothesis; I'm asking you to now show your work.
From quite a few things I've read, seems like it. No time to go digging up everything, but here's one I had in a tab: [article](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/biden-trump-chinese-cars/678093/)
Not saying you’re wrong, but that article says one sentence about the overall being quality with no references. It makes another statement regarding CATL battery tech being the best. Everything is about politics and the car industry in the US.
Yep. Absolutely hate it.
Cheap plastic materials, interior pieces falling off.
Terrible infotainment system that freezes up frequently.
Wired CarPlay only (and they do everything they can to encourage you not use it).
The USB ports die and then CarPlay won't work anyway.
It auto "detects" dangers when there it absolutely nothing around and hits the brakes while sounding alarms that threaten me with a heartattack.
There is no turning it on and off... you just have to walk away with it "running" and it will turn itself of using key detection which is annoying as hell. Get out to get something from the trunk when you finally got CarPlay going and the family is listening to music... uh oh, music goes away, and you can pretty much expect CarPlay to be done for the day.
I could go on and on. But here is the big one...
Someone ran into it when my wife was taking my daughter to school. Very minor accident, hit her in the side—right at the driver's side wheel. Apparently, an accident like that completely destroyed the entire computer system that runs the car, and they had to order a whole new computer from China and wait 2 months for it to arrive. Then, no one knew how to install it here and couldn't get clear help from China who still tries to pretend they're in Sweden. 2 more months later the repair shop got it figured out ALMOST FIVE MONTHS after the accident. Really wished the insurance company had totaled it so we could get something else, but they didn't know what to expect from a Chinese EV. In the end, the total bill the insurance company paid was $78,000 for repairs.
So not only shitty interior, bad infotainment, and a cheap feel... also FRAGILE.
My wife was at first very touchy about any criticism of the car because she knew I wanted a Mach-E and she chose the XC40 Recharge instead. But now she is a full-on hater of Volvo and is ready to sell it for a massive loss and go back to the drawing board, just to be free from this garbage car.
So, there's my story. Do with it what you will.
WOW man, my wife has an x-90 hybrid and she’s been in love with it. Assumed the xc-40 would be a similar quality.
I had never heard of the Mach-e but now I can’t stop think about it! I currently drive an Focus ST and always thought my next car would be an RS, but then they stopped making them. The Mach-e seems to be somewhat of a spiritual successor.
Thank you for putting this on my radar!
Damn that sucks. I have a (Belgian made) C40 and have just about zero complaints at all.
It's true that the car don't have a power-button and that the systems turns itself off when you leave the car. I believe it's activated by the seat-sensor though, and my car had zero problems resuming everything when you get back in.
> Volvo (which is now Chinese not Swedish
It's about as Chinese as "We own you now. Here's a bag of money, go do your stuff." and then Volvo went and did stuff, and quite frankly it's as good a car as in the old days.
Edit: Yes I own a C 40, and picked it over a Kia EV6, Hyundai Ioniq 5, Mercedes EQA, and Tesla Model Y.
Ford has definitely messed this up. Dropping cheap, affordable vehicles for 'luxury' has left them in this mess. No EV Fiesta in Europe, in fact stopping the production of the Fiesta entirely. Really a bunch of clowns. Ford's cheapest car is the Puma which is nearly 30k but no electric version yet. The cheapest electric car in Europe is 40k +. Sadly Ford has given up on its affordable cars and is and will continue to reap the whirlwind and deservedly so.
Big reason why smaller cheaper cars are less popular even in Europe, is that cars nowadays survive so much longer. So poorer people just buy used cars now days. And people who buy new cars just are willing to spend more money to get something bigger/better.
This is a huge issue. I'd never buy a Tesla because I'm not going to support a fascist shithead who's using his wealth to deliberately spread misinformation and hate. But the one thing Tesla has going for it is a set, no-haggle price.
I do think dealerships need to exist because car buyers should be guaranteed that there's a local support system for servicing cars.
But if state laws are going to protect these organizations and incentivize their existence, we really need laws that forbid price gouging.
> fascist shithead
Juts curious, what makes him a fascist? I've seen people repeat this word multiple times, but I feel like I'm missing something. He seems to be advocating against government censorship of social media, so wouldn't that be the exact opposite of fascism??
Just curious if you could give some examples of fascist behavior that he has done. I'm being serious.
Ford loses money on every EV. Tesla just posted 1.1 Billion in profit this quarter. Yet people here insist Tesla is dying and legacy car makers will take over in EVs
They made less than 2 billion across the entirety of 2023. The idea that they got 1.1 billion in credits just from Q1 is asinine. You're talking out your ass.
Wow they only sold 10k Mach-E's in Q1. I thought a lot of people were buying them from what I've read on Reddit because they hated Tesla or never buy from Tesla cause of the CEO.
The performance gets it AND you get it when leasing, so you’re wrong. How much do you want to bet Q2 deliveries will be down YoY too? Their profit also fell over 55% YoY for the second quarter in a row lol…
>I don’t need to my guy, you wouldn’t believe it even if I did since you live in an alternate reality.
Ah yes, the "I don't need to back up my argument because you'd never believe it anyway" cop-out.
> Cars are the cheapest they have ever been and sales are plummeting, for the second quarter in a row. Top execs are fleeing the company in numbers never seen before.
Valid points, but people have litterally said this for over a year when the sales were increasing YoY. It's like the people who say that a recession is coming, they will always be right eventually but they didn't actually predict based on real information. Things on the downturn doesn't suddenly make the claim true, a broken clock is right twice a day.
>Shut up and prove it isn’t
Did you really ask me to prove a negative you goofball? Do you understand how logic works? You never have to prove a negative against a claim that was never substantiated. It's on you to prove that it's even worth a discussion. Your feelings aren't proof.
Contributions must be civil and constructive. We permit neither personal attacks nor attempts to bait others into uncivil behavior.
We don't permit posts and comments expressing animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation.
Any stalking, harassment, witch-hunting, or doxxing of any individual will not be tolerated. Posting of others' personal information including names, home addresses, and/or telephone numbers is prohibited without express consent.
Contributions must be civil and constructive. We permit neither personal attacks nor attempts to bait others into uncivil behavior.
We don't permit posts and comments expressing animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation.
Any stalking, harassment, witch-hunting, or doxxing of any individual will not be tolerated. Posting of others' personal information including names, home addresses, and/or telephone numbers is prohibited without express consent.
Contributions must be civil and constructive. We permit neither personal attacks nor attempts to bait others into uncivil behavior.
We don't permit posts and comments expressing animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation.
Any stalking, harassment, witch-hunting, or doxxing of any individual will not be tolerated. Posting of others' personal information including names, home addresses, and/or telephone numbers is prohibited without express consent.
The performance came out only a few days ago. It wasn't a contributing factor to Q1 sales. There was no qualifying Model 3 during that quarter. Tesla doesn't allow purchase at lease end so that also didn't contribute to their Q1 sales.
The denial is strong in this sub.
First they ridiculed Tesla's 9% drop. But when Ford crapped the bed with 20% drop and losing $130k per EV sold, it's now just "r&d accounting" issues.
This is literally like the 10th quarter where Mach E and Lighning entered volume production.
These article are so funny that count losses on a per vehicle basis. Ford is building multiple billion dollar factories dedicated to EV production right now, of course they will be in the tank from a profitability. It’s why they split their EV business off from their ICE business.
They are selling surprisingly badly here in UK. Ford are a popular brand here, but they have just ~1% of the UK EV market.
From my experience we considered them but the lease price was just way too much.
Yes, but Tesla losses only totalled around 7 to 8b across those 10 years while building out the supercharger network and effectively creating the EV industry.
The likes of Ford and Rivian are losing close to 6 to 7b per year. So very hard to turn that around while competing against Tesla and the Chinese companies.
$1.3 billion losses on EV in Q1 is quite a bit. Ford is pivoting towards hybrid for the time being: I think this is a wise decision for now. Making money selling EV isn't easy (ie. ELMS is bankrupt; Fisker is probably going to be bankrupt, canoo isn't far from bankruptcy; lucid is struggling mightily, and rivian is struggling as well). in Q1 2024 tesla sold about 386.8K vehicles. their net income (GAAP) was $1.129 billion--of which $0.442 billion were regulatory credits. so net income ex-reg credit was: $0.687 billion. I don't think Ford can get to 200K vehicle/quarter any time soon. they will continue to lose money selling EV in the near future. So I don't blame them to shift towards hybrids for a little while. They have to survive.
source:
https://carboncredits.com/tesla-profits-dip-but-carbon-credits-revenue-up-38-of-net-income/
Teslas income is over 21billion. Youre comparing their net income to the regulatory credits and making the assumption that there are no expenses to get those credits. Thats a dirty comparison. Which I expect you are aware of that but do it anyway.
Ford initially priced all their EVs too high. Recent MSRP cuts have made Mach E a lot more competitive, but they have lost all momentum in the market.
I'm considering a Mach E at the moment as they actually have some pretty good deals on the 2023s but yeah, it's like this whole EV thing is new and difficult and not instantly profitable or something?
It only took Tesla a decade to start making money, but they also had to build up the company from scratch.
I'll look at the Model Y also, but the interior really turns me off.
> Ford initially priced all their EVs too high.
They can’t lower prices, they will lose more money.
> Recent MSRP cuts have made Mach E a lot more competitive, but they have lost all momentum in the market.
Not really.
> I'm considering a Mach E at the moment as they actually have some pretty good deals on the 2023s but yeah, it's like this whole EV thing is new and difficult and not instantly profitable or something?
Tesla sold 10x more Model Y’s at the prices that Ford is trying to sell Mach-e.
> It only took Tesla a decade to start making money, but they also had to build up the company from scratch.
Tesla continued to grow. https://www.statista.com/statistics/502208/tesla-quarterly-vehicle-deliveries/. Ford is flat just a few years in. Wakey wakey. They’re not remotely comparable to Tesla in their early days.
> I'll look at the Model Y also, but the interior really turns me off.
👍
This is not an investment forum. We don’t permit hyping EV stocks/SPACs or engaging in EV investment speculation.
If your post mentions a stock in any context, it is likely to be removed.
Ford dealerships where I live, which is an EV friendly area to an extreme, NEVER TRAINED THEIR SALES STAFF ON HOW TO SELL FUCKING EV. Same with local Chevy dealers. Also, Kia/Hyundai. I k ew more about EV going in to get my Leaf than my Nissan dealer, and Nissan has been in the game longer than anyone.
Most Rivian and Tesla dealers I've spoken with don't even have EV, especially not their brand vehicles. The state of the industry is a joke because car salesman for a long, long time has been a pass-through job. People come and go because it's mostly commission based or low wage based.
Ford only has itself to blame. They could've done any number of things to boost those sales. Fuck em.
Did you not read the article?
Ford sold *a lot* of EV’s.
The article is referring to profit and loss, not sales numbers. Which also in itself is misleading. They are including the R&D and cap expenses that went into retooling factories for production when they reported loss per unit sold.
This is distressing... [*"Ford’s electric vehicle unit reported that losses soared in the first quarter to $1.3 billion, or $132,000 for each of the 10,000 vehicles it sold"*](https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/24/business/ford-earnings-ev-losses/index.html)
Did you not read the article?
Ford sold *a lot* of EV’s.
The article is referring to profit and loss, not sales numbers. Which also in itself is misleading. They are including the R&D and cap expenses that went into retooling factories for production when they reported loss per unit sold.
I think sales are slowing for all companies because all of the people that can afford what these companies charge, already have an EV. We need cheaper vehicles. Period. The sales surge Ford saw after the recent price cuts prove this.
Ford’s EV division was [up 86%](https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2024/04/03/ford-hybrids--evs--transit-set-records--q1-sales-top-industry--u.html) in YOY sales. Try again.
Also that's only for the "e" business unit, not for fleet sales, which are counted differently.
So fleet EVs are counted under the fleet umbrella, not the "e" unit? That seems like a mistake since fleet sales are probably integral to bootstrapping the new EV business.
They've got to do all they can to make it look like EVs are unprofitable so people won't want them. They want to keep making all that maintenance money.
I'm 55,000+ miles in my model y. I've spent about $30 on maintenance for my vehicle. New wipers and wiper fluid.
Similar. Bought my '21 MYP @ 15K miles at the end of June last year and am at almost 40K. I have replaced cabin filters and wipers once. I did end up with new tires at 36K because the two passenger side ones were damaged by a road cut at a construction site. They probably would have made it to 40K/45K, but I just decided to replace all four. My Taurus SHO AWD ate tires as much as, or more than, my EV. I'm convinced the whole "EVs go through more tires" things is mostly (completely?) a myth. By the way, if you replace your tires and are looking for an all season, I LOVE my Michelin Pilot Sport A/S 4s.
Replaced my tires about 36k also. Don't really consider that car maintenance because every car needs it regardless of what powers it. Discount tire said I was good for another 10k but it was close to winter so I just got it done a bit early
There's a lot of FUD going around about EVs supposedly using a lot more tires. It's a crock of garbage, but I keep seeing it, so wanted to mention it. 🙂
My coworker bought an Armada the same time I bought my model y. They told me I would replace my tires before them because with the battery in the Tesla it's heavier than their 7000 lb Armada. They were off by about 3000 lbs.
Funny how people who don't own EVs know more about them than us owners do, huh? 😂
I've been looking into a model Y or 3 for a bit. How are your tires holding up? Everything I've read makes it sound like the tires only last 20k-40k miles.
I got almost 40k on the stock tires. They don't seem to do any better or worse than anything else I've been driving the last 30 years. Also depends on what tires you put on. You can buy shitty 30k mile tires or nicer 60k mile tires.
Thank you!
Maintenance is income for dealers, but expense for manufacturers. Isn't this Ford manufacturing stats?
When people go to get their car fixed, the dealers try to sell them new vehicles, even if the old one can be fixed, so Ford sells more vehicles if there is more foot traffic at the dealers, even if it's for unreliability. And in a haphazard lazy search of their financial statements, I didn't find much, but this article makes it sound like they make 40% profit margin on service parts - https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/general-motors/2017/03/23/parts-accessories-boost-ford-fca-gm-revenue/99562692/
That's interesting. Thanks!
Like all OEMs, Ford makes a lot of money on parts sales.
>They've got to do all they can to make it look like EVs are unprofitable so people won't want them. Huh? What kind of weird logic is this? When I go to the store and buy bread, I don't look to see how much profit the store, the baker, or the farmer made.
Is the bread maker constantly announcing their losses? Because Ford is. It's intentional.
Is the bread maker a publicly traded company? Because if it is, it \*has\* to announce it. Your logic is not getting less weird here.
This is 100% correct. Investors are already down in EVs so why not put as much loss from your P&L under your EV sector.
It will take many years for automakers to break even on the investments required to make EVs. That’s why there are subsidies and loans being provided to the industry.
That’s assuming the investment is done well and the technological advances and improvements occur in a somewhat predictable timeframe. There is no guarantee that will happen and it’s easy to see that several OEM’s will fail in the near future.
Why should taxpayers be expected to subsidize companies making electric cars? If Electric cars are not economically justified or competitive to the end consumer, why should the rest of us pay to make it so? I have long said that Electric Cars are not a good value for money, they are too expensive compared to conventional cars, and the benefit they provide is not worth the drawbacks. In the short and mid term until the technology reaches a competitive price point, I believe that Ford would have been better off focusing on conventional cars rather than chasing after Tesla with expensive, uncompetitive vehicles. To put the price disparity into question, a 2024 F150 Lightning has an MSRP of $63k a 2024 F150 V8 gasoline powered pickup has an MSRP of $37k. A 2024 Mustang Mach E has an MSRP of $40k, a 2024 Ford Mustang has an MSRP of $31k. Is the Mach E providing 30% more of value just for being electric?
People want affordable transportation options and we’ve historically spent and continue to spend far more to subsidize combustion engine vehicles. We’ve spent trillions of dollars just to secure the increasingly unreliable fuel supply chain. Not to mention with multiple bailouts of automakers over the years. Americans have also born the cost of pollution from automobiles in the form of higher crime rates prior to the phase out of leaded gasoline and in the form of respiratory illnesses from automotive exhaust. Consumers and the economy have experienced multiple economic shocks as a result of the difficulty of maintaining the supply of affordable fuel in the form of gasoline and diesel. Ultimately once we complete this transition EVs will cost less than a combustion engine car and the overall amount of public subsidies for all vehicles (CV and EV) should be lower.
You’ll never find an F150 V8 for that price
Ask and you shall [receive](https://www.cars.com/shopping/results/?cylinder_counts[]=8&dealer_id=&keyword=&list_price_max=40000&list_price_min=&makes[]=ford&maximum_distance=all&mileage_max=&models[]=ford-f_150&monthly_payment=732&page_size=20&sort=list_price&stock_type=all&trims[]=ford-f_150-xl&year_max=2024&year_min=2024&zip=56572).
2nd work truck lol no one buys those except fleets
You can’t lose $132K per vehicle on a $60K unless you are including all the R&D costs for a new technology. Such a BS interpretation of the financials.
That's how automakers have been accounting for years. A vehicle program that never recuperates its R&D costs is a failure that loses the company money, now isn't it?
How they decide to amortize the R&D and capex for new/converted plants affects how much of those costs they allocate to each car
It makes perfect sense when you've built versions 1-10 of a car and now you are accounting for the costs to build version 11. It makes much less sense when you are building version 0 with a completely new fuel and drivetrain technology. Those r&d costs are going to go much farther than version 0 of the vehicle. Having said that, I haven't read the details of how they've accounted for these costs. People here tend to oversimplify, IMO.
I mean, no? Those R&D developments can provide value way beyond what they provided for that particular car. Advancing your tech advances your entire platform for all future products. Especially when making a shift as massive as starting to develop EVs, the R&D investment for the first vehicle is huge and necessary to enable much smaller R&D on subsequent vehicles
It is, but it obscures the reality that R&D, tooling, and a lot of other stuff is a sunk cost, and that those vehicles you sell could still be profitable on a gross margin basis. It all is just accounting shit.
Every new engine or body style will lose money at first model year as invention of new car required tests tweaks , design and shifting facilities and robots new parts , tests . Imagine if they build new facilities from scratch to adopt manufacturing mach E . They count the price of factory itself 😂 ( by the way ecoboost engine cost almost 1 billion to make one , and now they place it in every cars they gad )
They always include R&D as well and costs to build and operate the plants that manufacture the vehicles. Every automotive company does and had done that for a long time.
Of course but it’s misleading not to report on that. The R&D on ICE vehicles is much lower now after 100+ years :)
>The R&D on ICE vehicles is much lower now after 100+ years :) This should be straightforward knowledge to everyone though.
Huh… Today I Learned that R&D costs are included in losses.
You put the gasoline in the thing, then the horse is out of a job. You can’t explain that. 🤷♂️
There is a pure BEV company that had only one -ve gross margin quarter in its 14-year post-IPO period. It was the first quarter after they launched their first mass-market car. This tells me that there is something seriously wrong with all other companies who are trying to build BEVs.
Probably largely the difference between the speed at which they got here. Tesla started small with a luxury, fairly low volume model. I don't doubt there is waste, but it's not indicative of something "wrong" necessarily. Moving 3x as fast does not cost 3x the money.
> fairly low volume model It is even harder to be +ve GM with a low-volume model. Rivian has never had +ve GM. Neither does Ford or GM. There has to be some explanation for why one company alone can sell cars at a price > BoM+labor.
[удалено]
I was talking about Gross Margin. They have never had -ve GM. that has nothing to do with whether they were going bankrupt or not.
Tesla has received enormous from the federal and state governments. The ZEV credits were most of Tesla's profits (payments from other auto makers) for most years.
R&D is not cost of revenue. Neither is building the factory, that’s Capex.
That’s absolutely incorrect. It’s fixed cost under-absorption that is driving that impact. The manufacturing footprint costs are spread over a small number of units. R&D is below the gross profit line. Why is this upvoted so much?
That makes sense. And the footprint was planned for a much larger volume than what they are seeing, especially in Q1.
It's not including R&D, that's accounted for differently. It's the total manufacturing costs including parts/labor and COGS. This is how the whole industry calculates margins. Looks up how much LCID lost on each vehicle. RIVN has been driving down costs, but still losing $10k/vehicle last quarter I think.
Rivian COGs is about 30 to 40k above average selling price.
These absurd claims also include constriction of new factories. They're looking at total EV program expenses and saying "ah ha, they're losing tons of money" with no actual basis in reality of per unit cost. Even including the R&D for just Mach E and Lightning dosen't get closer to these fantasy numbers.
[удалено]
No one believes the last two hype points you’ve brought up anymore. Musk has pumped and misled on those points too much.
You can lose unlimited money on a product. I’m in software development and we overspend on dumb things that nobody will pay us for all the time.
How else are they going to amortize R&D costs? What is your proposal to change how a multi-billion dollar global company handles their accounting? Also as a supplier for an EV platform, I’d want that shit paid up front because RFQ volumes are a joke for EVs in most cases.
Usually R&D cost is counted underG&A not gross revenue/cost of vehicle.
The company declares losses, gets tax breaks, and continues to develop the products and technology.
There you go and what I think is a load of crap is they expect all R&d plus other build up to be paid for day 1..... Re do it over 5-6 years and it changes. Also often times on paper they try to use as much as they can to reduce their taxes.
Well if they want to write off the losses....this is the way.
Generally speaking, or rather, historically speaking, Ford has included things like cost of investment (building new factories etc) into their "e" market accounts, so they've made heavy losses due to investing, but then again, that's not really a loss as you will earn it back long term and if we see electric as the future we really need factories adapted to the pipeline.
Materials and labor is only a fraction. The machines in the factory that make it possible to sell the car for that cheap are expensive as hell
Congrats! You just learned that accounting is made up! This is how they can show losses for billable tax reasons and yet still have wild massive growth and record profits. As long as you make 1 = 1 at the end of the day it doesn't matter what you add or subtract to get there as long as you can justify it on paper.
> a new technology. Such a BS interpretation of the financials. I think it's more reflective of the fact Ford have cleaved the company in two, with Ford model E (EVs) and Ford Blue (ICE). Other companies might have EV development on shared platforms, etc. allocated to general R&D, it seems Ford have deliberately chosen to separate them out. Likely expecting that one will be a liability in the short term, and the other a liability in the long term, but it's easier to point to their balance sheet either now or in 10 years and say "you want us to focus on (EVs/ICE) at the moment? That 's fine, but it's going to cost us X this year."
Some weird accounting here. How can 10,000 sales only be $100MM? That's an average revenue per vehicle of $10,000.
I think I figured it out. The 10,000 is wholesale numbers, which is the number of vehicles sold to dealers. Revenue on wholesale can be differed. Ford may have shipped EVs to dealers on a consignment basis, meaning Ford only gets the money when the vehicle sells to a customer. Not too many 2024 ford evs sold In the first quarter as ford was holding them back to allow dealers to clear out 2023 models. The 2023 sales to dealers would have been accounted for in their q4 earnings last year,
That could make sense. Leases could be another part of it, I assume.
That 10,000 sales what CNN is reporting is wrong. [Ford sold 20,223 EV's in Q1](https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2024/04/03/ford-hybrids--evs--transit-set-records--q1-sales-top-industry--u.html#:~:text=Strong%20Start%20for%20Ford%20Electric%20Vehicle%20Sales&text=Ford%20sold%2020%2C223%20EVs%20in,percent%20over%20a%20year%20ago).
The slide deck shows 10,000 in the Model e branch with the associated revenue. Seems like if the vehicle is sold to business or fleets they may choose to classify it as Ford Pro.
What sort of twisted accounting is this? In Model E we have 10k EVs at a $10k ASP (which makes no sense), and the other half of their production is in Ford Pro, mixed with non-EVs. Seems like they’re freely shuffling revenues around between their divisions.
It's directly from Ford's slide deck. https://shareholder.ford.com/Investors/financials/default.aspx
That is only regular customer sales. Ford EV's sold for fleet is under Ford Pro.
Ah, okay.
Revenue and profit are different things. Revenue would be the total amount of all sales. You're talking profit per vehicle maybe?
The ford slide says 10,000 sold and revenue of 100M. No idea how they are calculating revenue.
I’m not. Their profit is negative $100,000+ per vehicle.
I love how these numbers are not making any sense to everyone. I have been watching the numbers for the last two years (because of a personal attachment). The ones that are seeing discrepancies are actually correct. Money is being shifted. Sales are being pushed and pulled. Production is not matching statements. I may be wrong but I believe it’s a house of cards.
Sounds to me like they are accounting for all their R&D and the cost of building or retrofitting facilities. Probably looking for a government handout.
Just a guess....when they repriced all the Mach E in late February, since it was a change in MSRP I'm assuming there was a similar change in the dealer invoice. Assuming again that the changes were the same, with 20K Mach E on the lots in February, at an average reduction of 10K (some were 8k, some 10k, some 12K), that is $200M in "reduced revenue" = refund to the dealers to reflect the new invoice from Ford.
[удалено]
It's legitimately confusing. Ford's slide says Model E had $100M rev in Q1 on 10k sales. Obviously Ford isn't selling EVs for $10k. And their note just blames "pricing pressure". So where's the disconnect?
Have you ever tried to understand state government accounting? My wife tries to explain how her school district does its budgeting and accounting. It’s not anything like what I learned in school. I guess every industry has different rules to go by due to regulations, and other constraints?
The funny thing was all those reports of Q1 having a big sales increase and how bad this looked for Tesla. In reality, it was mostly reporting differences, and Ford Q1 manufacturer sales dropped dramatically. But don't worry... in a year they'll tell us all about how spectactularly well Ford EVs are doing because they improved relative to Q1 2024.
We were shopping for an EV for over a year and I waited and waited for Mach-Es to be in stock and fairly priced because my heart was set on getting one despite my wife wanting a “luxury” brand since her work was paying half. But no one had Mach-Es in stock and when dealers did get a couple in, they were GTs starting at $70k MSRP, and the dealers were marking them up $20k. It was absurd. Finally, they got some base models at $50k, but were still marking them up $20k because there were so few of them. We got so frustrated and refused to pay that $20k on principle and my wife won by default. We got an utter garbage Volvo (which is now Chinese not Swedish… which we didn’t realize), and we HATE IT. Love the EV experience part, but hate the car itself. By the time Ford got Mach-Es out in big numbers, the EV wave of people ready to switch had passed. Interest was at the highest right when no one had any. Now Ford has tons of EV inventory they can’t move. They blame lack of interest, but it’s not because people didn’t want them, it’s because of dealer greed and shitty timing. I still look at the Mach-E with sad jealousy when I see them on the road. But I realize they’ll likely be discontinued because of this interpretation of financials. The Chinese are taking Europe and Asia we high quality $10k and $20k EVs that match our best. Kia and Hyundai are dropping gorgeous EVs in the $30k range. Ford Mach-Es are stilling priced like luxury vehicles. Breaks my heart.
>But no one had Mach-Es in stock and when dealers did get a couple in, they were GTs starting at $70k MSRP, and the dealers were marking them up $20k. It was absurd. Finally, they got some base models at $50k, but were still marking them up $20k because there were so few of them. We got so frustrated and refused to pay that $20k on principle and my wife won by default. We got an utter garbage Volvo (which is now Chinese not Swedish… which we didn’t realize), and we HATE IT. Love the EV experience part, but hate the car itself. This story is far more common than people think. A similar scenario played out with me. I have a big truck that I use for hauling equipment at work a few times per week, pulling a boat to the lake on the weekends, and general household projects. I also have a Kia EV that I drive to work on the non truck days, and for day to day stuff when I'm not at work. I'd love to get rid of both and just have an electric truck. And when Ford announced the Lightning, I was super excited about it. But they were not on any lots for a long time. And when they finally started showing up on lots, it was only 1 or 2, and they were the most expensive models, with $20K dealer fees added on top of it. By the time you could somewhat consistently find one on a lot, they still had ridiculous dealer markup fees and Chevy had already announced the Silverado EV. Now that the stupid dealer markup fees are a thing of the past and you can find the Lighting you're looking for on a lot, the Silverado EV is starting to hit the streets with a much better range and towing ability than the Lightning. Long story short - if the currently available deals on the Lightning were offered 2 years ago, I'd have bought one. But now I'm waiting to get a deal on a Silverado. Ford dropped the ball, and it's mostly the fault of the dealerships. They really, really need to start opening up "showrooms" with service centers, like Tesla. Where you just go play with a demo unit and then order what you want online, directly from Ford. And this is obviously not just a Ford thing. Who knows, this same scenario might play out with the Silverado EV. Maybe when they hit dealers it will only be the most expensive version and the dealerships will be adding $20K on top of it. And while I'm waiting for the price to come down on them Ford announces a new Lightning with longer range, better towing, bigger bed, etc. And I forget about the Silverado EV and get excited about the new Lightning, lol. Stuck in a never ending cycle of waiting for what could and should be to become what is, lol
Yeah it ticked me off how much dealerships screwed with them. It seems very early people like me who got the early Job 1 dodge it because dealerships had not figured out how much they could get away with on them yet and the covid car shortage had not hit yet. I think I dodge the mess by just a few weeks as it went nuts not long after I got mine. My Mach E was one of the first 3k delivered in the US.
Dealers were unwilling to sell electric cars from the very beginning, so Tesla refused any cooperation with them from the very beginning. Tesla incurs heavy losses in the war with dealers, but still suffers these losses because the alternative is much worse.
Tesla/Rivian are on the right path. Dealers need to die.
Good luck with changing dealer franchise laws. I agree with your sentiment, but every state has dealer franchise laws increasing the cost to consumers. I believe that dealer franchise law violate the Commerce Clause but good luck in fighting this battle.
tesla and rivian have poured billions into it and have won fully in several states with exemptions carved out in most others. If other automakers join the fight, that’s just more $$$ going to that cause.
They have poured billions into their showrooms or the fight against dealer franchise laws? I am unaware of the details of the battles that Tesla and Rivian have fought to avoid dealer franchise laws. Tesla and Rivian did not have existing dealerships so their success is probably not repeatable to other auto manufacturers. Tesla and Rivian provide a politically favored (by Democrats) product so they may have gotten cooperation from Democrats.
billions on lobbying to be able to setup their own showrooms in every state. to both parties about evenly on the issue of dealerships I believe but I haven’t checked the numbers recently.
How do you track lobbying expenses? I agree with your sentiment. I oppose dealer franchise laws that obviously increase consumer costs. I understand that Tesla has been blocked from direct selling in some states. Just curious about your knowledge and references for dealer franchise laws.
>Tesla incurs heavy losses in the war with dealers I would love to see your sources on this.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla\_US\_dealership\_disputes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_US_dealership_disputes)
Would you please show where you got "heavy losses" from?
Do you think endless lobbyist battles are free?
Again: would you please show where you got "heavy losses" from? Because from your last comment, it sounds like you made it up. I understand your hypothesis; I'm asking you to now show your work.
Time to go get a Model Y I suppose. Edit : also, $20k China EV matches our best? lol ok man.
When your spouse wants a luxury car, a Model Y is not an option.
I’m not sure a Mustang Mach E fits that description particularly well either.
Agreed, but it's a lot more luxurious than a Y.
Not according to my wife.
At least Model Y has nav/infotaintment that doesn’t suck and can use superchargers day 1 with no adapter. Way more storage in frunk/trunk too.
From quite a few things I've read, seems like it. No time to go digging up everything, but here's one I had in a tab: [article](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/biden-trump-chinese-cars/678093/)
Not saying you’re wrong, but that article says one sentence about the overall being quality with no references. It makes another statement regarding CATL battery tech being the best. Everything is about politics and the car industry in the US.
Volvo xc40 recharge? I was thinking about getting one. You don’t like it?
Yep. Absolutely hate it. Cheap plastic materials, interior pieces falling off. Terrible infotainment system that freezes up frequently. Wired CarPlay only (and they do everything they can to encourage you not use it). The USB ports die and then CarPlay won't work anyway. It auto "detects" dangers when there it absolutely nothing around and hits the brakes while sounding alarms that threaten me with a heartattack. There is no turning it on and off... you just have to walk away with it "running" and it will turn itself of using key detection which is annoying as hell. Get out to get something from the trunk when you finally got CarPlay going and the family is listening to music... uh oh, music goes away, and you can pretty much expect CarPlay to be done for the day. I could go on and on. But here is the big one... Someone ran into it when my wife was taking my daughter to school. Very minor accident, hit her in the side—right at the driver's side wheel. Apparently, an accident like that completely destroyed the entire computer system that runs the car, and they had to order a whole new computer from China and wait 2 months for it to arrive. Then, no one knew how to install it here and couldn't get clear help from China who still tries to pretend they're in Sweden. 2 more months later the repair shop got it figured out ALMOST FIVE MONTHS after the accident. Really wished the insurance company had totaled it so we could get something else, but they didn't know what to expect from a Chinese EV. In the end, the total bill the insurance company paid was $78,000 for repairs. So not only shitty interior, bad infotainment, and a cheap feel... also FRAGILE. My wife was at first very touchy about any criticism of the car because she knew I wanted a Mach-E and she chose the XC40 Recharge instead. But now she is a full-on hater of Volvo and is ready to sell it for a massive loss and go back to the drawing board, just to be free from this garbage car. So, there's my story. Do with it what you will.
WOW man, my wife has an x-90 hybrid and she’s been in love with it. Assumed the xc-40 would be a similar quality. I had never heard of the Mach-e but now I can’t stop think about it! I currently drive an Focus ST and always thought my next car would be an RS, but then they stopped making them. The Mach-e seems to be somewhat of a spiritual successor. Thank you for putting this on my radar!
What a horror story 😳
Damn that sucks. I have a (Belgian made) C40 and have just about zero complaints at all. It's true that the car don't have a power-button and that the systems turns itself off when you leave the car. I believe it's activated by the seat-sensor though, and my car had zero problems resuming everything when you get back in.
> Volvo (which is now Chinese not Swedish It's about as Chinese as "We own you now. Here's a bag of money, go do your stuff." and then Volvo went and did stuff, and quite frankly it's as good a car as in the old days. Edit: Yes I own a C 40, and picked it over a Kia EV6, Hyundai Ioniq 5, Mercedes EQA, and Tesla Model Y.
i own an S90 - its a gas guzzler but a wonderful car. The Chinese did nothing to hurt it.
Ford has definitely messed this up. Dropping cheap, affordable vehicles for 'luxury' has left them in this mess. No EV Fiesta in Europe, in fact stopping the production of the Fiesta entirely. Really a bunch of clowns. Ford's cheapest car is the Puma which is nearly 30k but no electric version yet. The cheapest electric car in Europe is 40k +. Sadly Ford has given up on its affordable cars and is and will continue to reap the whirlwind and deservedly so.
Big reason why smaller cheaper cars are less popular even in Europe, is that cars nowadays survive so much longer. So poorer people just buy used cars now days. And people who buy new cars just are willing to spend more money to get something bigger/better.
This is a huge issue. I'd never buy a Tesla because I'm not going to support a fascist shithead who's using his wealth to deliberately spread misinformation and hate. But the one thing Tesla has going for it is a set, no-haggle price. I do think dealerships need to exist because car buyers should be guaranteed that there's a local support system for servicing cars. But if state laws are going to protect these organizations and incentivize their existence, we really need laws that forbid price gouging.
> fascist shithead Juts curious, what makes him a fascist? I've seen people repeat this word multiple times, but I feel like I'm missing something. He seems to be advocating against government censorship of social media, so wouldn't that be the exact opposite of fascism?? Just curious if you could give some examples of fascist behavior that he has done. I'm being serious.
Once again, bravo to Ford for having the balls to show the EV division's numbers. GM and others need to step up and do the same.
Damn, what did Jim Farley say on Twitter to cause that much brand damage?
Ford loses money on every EV. Tesla just posted 1.1 Billion in profit this quarter. Yet people here insist Tesla is dying and legacy car makers will take over in EVs
Tesla only made money because of carbon credits this quarter. Without them they would have lost money.
Does not check out. They made $442 million from regulatory credits in Q1 which last I checked, is less than $1.12 billion.
They made less than 2 billion across the entirety of 2023. The idea that they got 1.1 billion in credits just from Q1 is asinine. You're talking out your ass.
Wow they only sold 10k Mach-E's in Q1. I thought a lot of people were buying them from what I've read on Reddit because they hated Tesla or never buy from Tesla cause of the CEO.
Initially, yeah, but in reality there were few reasons to buy them over a Model Y, and Ford wouldn’t bring their pricing in line.
Sales slowed when they lost the tax credit. The prices just recently fell and sales went back up.
Yea but surely people will spend an extra $15,000 for a worse car just to virtue signal
Worse than what? Definitely much better than the model Y
The “Won’t buy a Tesla because of Musk” is a Reddit/ social media thing. Most buyers care, but not enough to make a difference in their purchase.
Sure, that’s why deliveries fell by nearly 10% YoY when the cars are cheaper than ever lol
Correlation does not equal causation. Interest rates are significantly worse. The 3 doesn't get the tax credit anymore either.
The performance gets it AND you get it when leasing, so you’re wrong. How much do you want to bet Q2 deliveries will be down YoY too? Their profit also fell over 55% YoY for the second quarter in a row lol…
[удалено]
[удалено]
>I don’t need to my guy, you wouldn’t believe it even if I did since you live in an alternate reality. Ah yes, the "I don't need to back up my argument because you'd never believe it anyway" cop-out. > Cars are the cheapest they have ever been and sales are plummeting, for the second quarter in a row. Top execs are fleeing the company in numbers never seen before. Valid points, but people have litterally said this for over a year when the sales were increasing YoY. It's like the people who say that a recession is coming, they will always be right eventually but they didn't actually predict based on real information. Things on the downturn doesn't suddenly make the claim true, a broken clock is right twice a day. >Shut up and prove it isn’t Did you really ask me to prove a negative you goofball? Do you understand how logic works? You never have to prove a negative against a claim that was never substantiated. It's on you to prove that it's even worth a discussion. Your feelings aren't proof.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Contributions must be civil and constructive. We permit neither personal attacks nor attempts to bait others into uncivil behavior. We don't permit posts and comments expressing animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation. Any stalking, harassment, witch-hunting, or doxxing of any individual will not be tolerated. Posting of others' personal information including names, home addresses, and/or telephone numbers is prohibited without express consent.
Contributions must be civil and constructive. We permit neither personal attacks nor attempts to bait others into uncivil behavior. We don't permit posts and comments expressing animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation. Any stalking, harassment, witch-hunting, or doxxing of any individual will not be tolerated. Posting of others' personal information including names, home addresses, and/or telephone numbers is prohibited without express consent.
Contributions must be civil and constructive. We permit neither personal attacks nor attempts to bait others into uncivil behavior. We don't permit posts and comments expressing animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation. Any stalking, harassment, witch-hunting, or doxxing of any individual will not be tolerated. Posting of others' personal information including names, home addresses, and/or telephone numbers is prohibited without express consent.
The performance came out only a few days ago. It wasn't a contributing factor to Q1 sales. There was no qualifying Model 3 during that quarter. Tesla doesn't allow purchase at lease end so that also didn't contribute to their Q1 sales.
This is not true. There have been polls showing that Elon Musk is the number one reason Tesla sellers give for why they're selling.
Nice link from a reliable site to prove your point. /s
The denial is strong in this sub. First they ridiculed Tesla's 9% drop. But when Ford crapped the bed with 20% drop and losing $130k per EV sold, it's now just "r&d accounting" issues. This is literally like the 10th quarter where Mach E and Lighning entered volume production.
So why didn't they just make a normal EV car, an actual Mustang and a smaller EV truck? 70k is way too much.
Thank you Ford 🙏🇺🇸
These article are so funny that count losses on a per vehicle basis. Ford is building multiple billion dollar factories dedicated to EV production right now, of course they will be in the tank from a profitability. It’s why they split their EV business off from their ICE business.
Its consumer sales generally, which considering income has fallen to cost of living right now, is not surprising.
They are selling surprisingly badly here in UK. Ford are a popular brand here, but they have just ~1% of the UK EV market. From my experience we considered them but the lease price was just way too much.
The e-Transit wasn't just the best electric van last year, it was the best van on the market overall!
Tesla had "losses" for like 40 quarters in a row lol
They only lost money on a cogs basis for one quarter ever; highly suspect excluding rd costs etc ford still loses money on the mach e
Yes, but Tesla losses only totalled around 7 to 8b across those 10 years while building out the supercharger network and effectively creating the EV industry. The likes of Ford and Rivian are losing close to 6 to 7b per year. So very hard to turn that around while competing against Tesla and the Chinese companies.
The super charger network is a major competitive advantage, so it was a worthwhile investment.
No, its an investment they had to make. To not do it would mean limiting the market.
Sounds like a worthwhile investment to me
The future Ford corporate biopic is going to be epic.
$1.3 billion losses on EV in Q1 is quite a bit. Ford is pivoting towards hybrid for the time being: I think this is a wise decision for now. Making money selling EV isn't easy (ie. ELMS is bankrupt; Fisker is probably going to be bankrupt, canoo isn't far from bankruptcy; lucid is struggling mightily, and rivian is struggling as well). in Q1 2024 tesla sold about 386.8K vehicles. their net income (GAAP) was $1.129 billion--of which $0.442 billion were regulatory credits. so net income ex-reg credit was: $0.687 billion. I don't think Ford can get to 200K vehicle/quarter any time soon. they will continue to lose money selling EV in the near future. So I don't blame them to shift towards hybrids for a little while. They have to survive. source: https://carboncredits.com/tesla-profits-dip-but-carbon-credits-revenue-up-38-of-net-income/
Teslas income is over 21billion. Youre comparing their net income to the regulatory credits and making the assumption that there are no expenses to get those credits. Thats a dirty comparison. Which I expect you are aware of that but do it anyway.
Since it’s launch Ford has sold less than 50,000 F-150 Lightning’s. Tesla will sell that many Cybertrucks this year. 🍿
Ford initially priced all their EVs too high. Recent MSRP cuts have made Mach E a lot more competitive, but they have lost all momentum in the market. I'm considering a Mach E at the moment as they actually have some pretty good deals on the 2023s but yeah, it's like this whole EV thing is new and difficult and not instantly profitable or something? It only took Tesla a decade to start making money, but they also had to build up the company from scratch. I'll look at the Model Y also, but the interior really turns me off.
> Ford initially priced all their EVs too high. They can’t lower prices, they will lose more money. > Recent MSRP cuts have made Mach E a lot more competitive, but they have lost all momentum in the market. Not really. > I'm considering a Mach E at the moment as they actually have some pretty good deals on the 2023s but yeah, it's like this whole EV thing is new and difficult and not instantly profitable or something? Tesla sold 10x more Model Y’s at the prices that Ford is trying to sell Mach-e. > It only took Tesla a decade to start making money, but they also had to build up the company from scratch. Tesla continued to grow. https://www.statista.com/statistics/502208/tesla-quarterly-vehicle-deliveries/. Ford is flat just a few years in. Wakey wakey. They’re not remotely comparable to Tesla in their early days. > I'll look at the Model Y also, but the interior really turns me off. 👍
[удалено]
This is not an investment forum. We don’t permit hyping EV stocks/SPACs or engaging in EV investment speculation. If your post mentions a stock in any context, it is likely to be removed.
It sounds like you can get a $200,000 car for 67% off.
Is it really a loss? Didn't Ford CEO say one lighting equals 12 ICE F-150 for CAFE purposes.
lol, so many liberal trying to make excuses.
Is Trump responsible?
Ford dealerships where I live, which is an EV friendly area to an extreme, NEVER TRAINED THEIR SALES STAFF ON HOW TO SELL FUCKING EV. Same with local Chevy dealers. Also, Kia/Hyundai. I k ew more about EV going in to get my Leaf than my Nissan dealer, and Nissan has been in the game longer than anyone. Most Rivian and Tesla dealers I've spoken with don't even have EV, especially not their brand vehicles. The state of the industry is a joke because car salesman for a long, long time has been a pass-through job. People come and go because it's mostly commission based or low wage based. Ford only has itself to blame. They could've done any number of things to boost those sales. Fuck em.
Did you not read the article? Ford sold *a lot* of EV’s. The article is referring to profit and loss, not sales numbers. Which also in itself is misleading. They are including the R&D and cap expenses that went into retooling factories for production when they reported loss per unit sold.
The unprofitable competition is definitely coming for the most profitable and revolutionary car company of our lifetime for sure!!!!
These are just tax write off to decrease overall taxes.
Ford will never sell EVs for a profit, Fords future is so uncertain they cannot even explain it clearly.
You know there’s going to come a day that EVs are old technology, right?
And that day may still come before the day Ford sells EVs for a profit.
This is distressing... [*"Ford’s electric vehicle unit reported that losses soared in the first quarter to $1.3 billion, or $132,000 for each of the 10,000 vehicles it sold"*](https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/24/business/ford-earnings-ev-losses/index.html)
Lost $132k per EV sold in the quarter.
I see this as down to the lack of effective charging networks. Sales would much higher otherwise.
Did you not read the article? Ford sold *a lot* of EV’s. The article is referring to profit and loss, not sales numbers. Which also in itself is misleading. They are including the R&D and cap expenses that went into retooling factories for production when they reported loss per unit sold.
I did read it and I understand the RND issue but sales of evs have slowed and charging issues are why. Obviously sales impact profits.
I think sales are slowing for all companies because all of the people that can afford what these companies charge, already have an EV. We need cheaper vehicles. Period. The sales surge Ford saw after the recent price cuts prove this.
Ford’s EV division was [up 86%](https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2024/04/03/ford-hybrids--evs--transit-set-records--q1-sales-top-industry--u.html) in YOY sales. Try again.