🥊 Them's fighting words! Ford's Farley disses Cybertruck: 'I make trucks for real people who do real work'

[Almost Mars]

I like your optimism, but think it lacks basis or scope, so far

far as we know, Tesla is only selling the CT in North America by 2025.

then there's the TAM: people incorrectly cite that eg "Ford sells 800,000 F150's a year", when in fact Ford does not report F150 sales, but instead F-series sales ... which include the F150, 250, 350, and 450 - same reporting is true of GM, etc. And the CT isn't competing with the breadth of this category.

Of that universe of F-series trucks sold annually, a not insignificant portion is to fleet - and it remains to be seen what Tesla will do in fleet management

So now we're down to the universe of F150 and other 1500 series trucks, on possibly mostly on the retail side of the business.

Of that universe, the average sales price is ~$40,000

Which is all to say, whether the CT "will be the best selling truck in the world by 2025" depends heavily on how many units it offers at a $40K price point, and how many of those units it produces.

Production will tell the tail. I'm guessing they'll sell as many as they can make for the first few years.

Sponsored

 

[Coolbreeze704]

gas savings is nice. but for most it's a perk, not determinative. in the US average commutes just aren't that long, and gas is relative cheap. and now that interest rates are 3X, jumping into a new car means jumping into materially higher interest payments, that eat up any fuel savings.

im not suggesting people dont *say* that's why they're doing it (i myself used that line with my wife), but for many they're variously explaining it to themselves (or their wives) or confused about the all-in expense benefits after taxes, interest increases, etc.

the actual ROI for fuel cost savings is remote or minor for the majority of buyers.

One of the benefit that I truly enjoy is not having to travel to a gas station again. I start each day with a full tank and ready to go. Even my riding lawn mower is battery electric. So nice to be free from gas and oil changes.

 

[Challeco]

you’re gonna want to hold that thought

Interesting. Is this a reference to the size reduction? At this point none of the offerings are an eight foot bed length, unless you consider opening the back of the cabin to the elements (Silverado pass through) acceptable, so none of them meet my minimum. Still, I expect the CT to be much better than any available regardless of the MSRP.

 

[cvalue13]

but your post underestimated it. Don't forget that tesla is stealing market share from cars that get 35 mpg or 50 mpg like a corolla or a prius, but the vehicles tesla is competing against with the CT get 18 mpg.

I think there's a miscommunication going on.

we're here talking about people deciding whether to buy a NEW car, and doing so rather than buying used or keeping their present car. That choice to buy new represents both an increase in principle, as well as interest rate, offsetting any gas savings.

For someone with relatively high fuel costs (e.g., gets only 20mpg, drives 500mi/wk), already has a material car payment on a $40K note, with the luxury of $20K in equity for trade in, and is buying a CT at only $60K all-in ---- their ROI on fuel savings is over 2 years out. That's not how people buy, in cash-flow terms. "Take on these expenses now, so that three years from now you'll have saved $1,400" isn't compelling.

And for anyone in a more average fuel cost posture (e.g., 26mpg, 250mi/wk), without any material car payment or coming out of pocket for a down payment, their ROI on fuel savings stretches out to ...

never.

there's a lot of reason those folks might decide to buy a new car, but it's not fuel savings.

not to deny that there arent some small fraction of people out there totally underwater in fuel costs for having some crazy 200/mi per day commute - but that market isn't large, nor is a CT their only option to fix it


Make a $40K CT, and the opportunity goes up significantly. Make a $80K CT, and nobody's buying because of fuel savings.

That's all

 

[Almost Mars]

Interesting. Is this a reference to the size reduction? At this point none of the offerings are an eight foot bed length, unless you consider opening the back of the cabin to the elements (Silverado pass through) acceptable, so none of them meet my minimum. Still, I expect the CT to be much better than any available regardless of the MSRP.

You sir, are a rare beast. I see about one 8’ bed a year in my travels. They are very obvious because they are so long and rare. I’m guessing most sold are on heavy duty trucks and removed for a different box. I’d love to see some actual sales data.

I’m not against a bigger bed as they seem to be getting insanely small lately. My Taco has a bigger bed than most F150’s now days. I’ll be happy with the Cybertrucks 6 1/2’ bed with the tailgate covering the other 1 1/2’. Life is full of compromises.

 

[rudedawg78]

Farley is right. I spend more time in virtual world than the real one and I don't have a real job for CT. Simply just a cool, safe and reliable vehicle to haul family around and faster than most ICEs. Why can't Ford make something like that?

 

[papajamaliciousness]

I think there's a miscommunication going on.

we're here talking about people deciding whether to buy a NEW car, and doing so rather than buying used or keeping their present car. That choice to buy new represents both an increase in principle, as well as interest rate, offsetting any gas savings.

For someone with relatively high fuel costs (e.g., gets only 20mpg, drives 500mi/wk), already has a material car payment on a $40K note, with the luxury of $20K in equity for trade in, and is buying a CT at only $60K all-in ---- their ROI on fuel savings is over 2 years out. That's not how people buy, in cash-flow terms. "Take on these expenses now, so that three years from now you'll have saved $1,400" isn't compelling.

And for anyone in a more average fuel cost posture (e.g., 26mpg, 250mi/wk), without any material car payment or coming out of pocket for a down payment, their ROI on fuel savings stretches out to ...

never.

there's a lot of reason those folks might decide to buy a new car, but it's not fuel savings.

not to deny that there arent some small fraction of people out there totally underwater in fuel costs for having some crazy 200/mi per day commute - but that market isn't large, nor is a CT their only option to fix it


Make a $40K CT, and the opportunity goes up significantly. Make a $80K CT, and nobody's buying because of fuel savings.

That's all

I don't understand your post. Whatever you said is definitely not the way that I think about money.

Your current status with regard to a car payment is just a temporary issue that might prevent you from making a rational decision, but the essential issue is what is a rational decision when you are free to make rational decisions. I am not currently free to do the best possible decision on a car because I am upside down on my car. However I am very aware of what a rational decision *would be* if I were free to make a rational decision.

The rational decision on buying a car has to take into account the several hundred dollars a month you will save on gas. Anything else would be irrational.

And if you are getting 18mpg or 12mpg on your commuter vehicle then you can basically buy a tesla almost for free if you have a long commute.

That's it and that's all. I'm not going to argue with you about this, this is a core value. If you are not with me on this one issue then we can't discuss this issue rationally or logically.

 

[cvalue13]

Interesting. Is this a reference to the size reduction? At this point none of the offerings are an eight foot bed length, unless you consider opening the back of the cabin to the elements (Silverado pass through) acceptable, so none of them meet my minimum. Still, I expect the CT to be much better than any available regardless of the MSRP.

reasonable people disagree here, and nobody has actual figures - but as such there is an open question regarding both (1) the actual dimensions of the release CT bed, and (2) the relative benefits of those dimensions given the odd shape of the bed area

as for the actual dimensions on length, I'm personally convinced the CT bed is no longer 6.5' long at the floor - instead nearer to 6' long at the floor.

but beyond that, there are a lot of design differences that change the possible use cases for either bed. I think different use cases will come to different conclusions about relative usefulness. While the CT's bed at floor may be 6', the forward bulkhead of the CT bed starts there at the floor but going up slopes backwards towards the tailgate. whether that's better or worse for a person's usecase, will depend. similarly, while the F150 and CT distance between wheel wells will likely be the ~same, the CT's max bed width is equal to the distance between wheel wells whereas the F150 has extra width in front of and behind its wheel wells - again, which is better or more useful probably depends on use case.

There are several such differences that possibly cut for or against either's exact design dimensions.

personally, given all the design differences between the CT bed design and a traditional SCREW bed design, i think the relative real-world usefulness of a "5.5' bed" on eg an F150 SCREW vs the "6' bed" on a CT is up in the air.

 

[AlDente]

You seem to be confusing the relevant variables and forces - or in any event, just wrong on this response

the “efficiency” of the Hummer itself (irrespective of battery size) has very little to do with some mechanical efficiency of the motors converting electricity into power - all modern BEV are inordinately efficient in this metric. It’s their superpower. Relative to ICE engines, BEVs have relatively little energy on board but convert every bit of it power eg >95%), while ICE engines have huge amounts of energy on board and convert very little to power eg (<35%).

Put a Hummer in a vacuum (no drag) and on rails (no rolling resistance) and it could go a “million” miles.

It’s the poor drag and poor rolling resistance qualities of the Hummer that are the predominant forces resulting in its large battery not taking it very far. It’s got massive frontal plane and unforgiving angles, all riding on a massive tire/wheel set - which in turn requires a larger, heavier, battery, that further increases its rolling resistance


Hummer battery may as well be pushing a rope through peanut butter.


All of which is already reflected in EPA max range estimates. And doesn’t change when a trailer is attached.

what changes drastically when a trailer is attached is the drag and rolling resistance. And since drag increases exponentially with speed…

Umm, wrong am I? Well, "overall efficiency" in a vehicle can have many contributors. Less weight, less wire and connections, the BMS and battery chemistry can all be contributors to overall efficiency. You might want to check out some Munro Associates Youtube videos that go into much greater detail. I was a bit hesitant to engage with you as you often write verbose tomes wearing the reader down with your pedantic style. I'm hopeful that you won't reply but if you must, please keep it short.

 

[Challeco]

reasonable people disagree here, and nobody has actual figures - but as such there is an open question regarding both (1) the actual dimensions of the release CT bed, and (2) the relative benefits of those dimensions given the odd shape of the bed area

as for the actual dimensions on length, I'm personally convinced the CT bed is no longer 6.5' long at the floor - instead nearer to 6' long at the floor.

but beyond that, there are a lot of design differences that change the possible use cases for either bed. I think different use cases will come to different conclusions about relative usefulness. While the CT's bed at floor may be 6', the forward bulkhead of the CT bed starts there at the floor but going up slopes backwards towards the tailgate. whether that's better or worse for a person's usecase, will depend. similarly, while the F150 and CT distance between wheel wells will likely be the ~same, the CT's max bed width is equal to the distance between wheel wells whereas the F150 has extra width in front of and behind its wheel wells - again, which is better or more useful probably depends on use case.

There are several such differences that possibly cut for or against either's exact design dimensions.

personally, given all the design differences between the CT bed design and a traditional SCREW bed design, i think the relative real-world usefulness of a "5.5' bed" on eg an F150 SCREW vs the "6' bed" on a CT is up in the air.

I agree that we both have a difference of opinion. I do wonder where you are getting the dimensions and slope from. I have seen every iteration of the CT and each time the bed is a rectangle and flat, not a polygon. 6 1/2 feet in length and almost 5 feet wide. As for the F150, its design is identical to my F250 with the exception of being 3 feet shorter. I can tell you there is a reason that the stepside was such a popular option for so long. It is because the owner didn't need to mess with the wheel wells inside the bed. The height of the bedsides and the length of the bed are more important metrics and the spaces surrounding the inner fenders are a nuisance to keep clean of rocks, dirt, or grain. The one advantage of the inner fender humps is you can use a section of 2x12 to block off the head of the bed if you want to control a smaller load. But, there are so many other ways to do the same job that it isn't really that convenient. I carry ratchet straps and a broom in my truck because of the nooks and crannys and because it is easier to strap something down than to carry what amounts to an additional tailgate (section of 2x12)

 

[intimidator]

Only one problem with your theory. Ford has not yet ramped up production of its F150 either.


only 15000 f150 lightings sold in 2022 and there does not seem that any ramp up has occurred for 2023. Tesla May sell more cybertrucks between q4 2023 and q1 2023 than ford has ever sold of f150. One other detail. Ford has not made a profit on its f150 and does not expect to for years. With these factors in mind, and Ford dragging its feet, I predict cybertruck will be the best selling truck in the world by 2025. What do you think?

Yes, they CyberTruck will probably outsell the Ford Lightning (but definitely not the Ford F150) in 2025. BUT, that does not mean CyberTruck will steal sales away from the Ford Lightning.
Ford will sell as many as they build. And losing money on everyone doesn't matter now. Ask your neighbor who needs a new truck to pull his RV because his current truck just turned 100,000 miles on the odometer and needs some work if he is okay putting his name in for a CyberTruck, and then waiting 4 years to get one. Or does he prefer buying either an ICE F150 this weekend, or a Ford Lightning in 4 months.

The question is not whether the Cybertruck will have greater sales volume than the Ford Lightning, it will, the question is will Tesla have stolen a sale from Ford.

 

[Challeco]

I don't understand your post. Whatever you said is definitely not the way that I think about money.

Your current status with regard to a car payment is just a temporary issue that might prevent you from making a rational decision, but the essential issue is what is a rational decision when you are free to make rational decisions. I am not currently free to do the best possible decision on a car because I am upside down on my car. However I am very aware of what a rational decision *would be* if I were free to make a rational decision.

The rational decision on buying a car has to take into account the several hundred dollars a month you will save on gas. Anything else would be irrational.

And if you are getting 18mpg or 12mpg on your commuter vehicle then you can basically buy a tesla almost for free if you have a long commute.

That's it and that's all. I'm not going to argue with you about this, this is a core value. If you are not with me on this one issue then we can't discuss this issue rationally or logically.

I agree with you. His calculations are wild! The 20mpg when talking about trucks is a fantasy. Especially when referring to full size trucks. The fuel economy is nominal at 12mpg, ranging from 6 to 8 mpg when hauling/towing, to maybe 18 on the freeway on cruise control without hills, without a headwind, and certainly without a payload. As for the costs of ownership, fuel is only one line in the song of I.C.E. management. Regular maintenance costs even if you don't charge yourself labor. Fuel costs have now normalized above $4/gal in my area alone, and cannot be expected to decrease ever again. Coolant, Refrigerant, lubricants and hydraulic fluids, brakes, hoses, belts, lead acid batteries, are all being recognized as toxic to the environment and getting more expensive. The one thing I do expect is that the market will catch up with E.V.s like it did with Diesel cars in the late 70s and early 80s. With the exception that electric vehicles will be able to be charged at home in perpetuity, unlike the residential fuel station that all but disappeared before I was born.

 

[cvalue13]

I do wonder where you are getting the dimensions and slope from.

among other things, here

 

[Challeco]

You sir, are a rare beast. I see about one 8’ bed a year in my travels. They are very obvious because they are so long and rare. I’m guessing most sold are on heavy duty trucks and removed for a different box. I’d love to see some actual sales data.

I’m not against a bigger bed as they seem to be getting insanely small lately. My Taco has a bigger bed than most F150’s now days. I’ll be happy with the Cybertrucks 6 1/2’ bed with the tailgate covering the other 1 1/2’. Life is full of compromises.

I will take that as a compliment. I know the market has moved trucks to glorified grocery carts for a family of 4. I keep my 1971 because I don't need to carry more than two passengers for more than rescuing people stuck by the side of the road. My experience in construction has always been as an individual with my truck. If I need to be part of a crew or travel, it has always been in a passenger car or a van. My trucks have always been for hauling. Hauling firewood, construction material, aggregate, or for pulling stumps, dropping barns, or yarding decrepit fencing out of the ground.
A pretty truck will never stay pretty. A good truck will take the abuse and still look good with dents, scratches. Which leads me back to the Cybertruck and its stainless steel body that is over 1/8" thick.

 

[cvalue13]

Umm, wrong am I? Well, "overall efficiency" in a vehicle can have many contributors. Less weight, less wire and connections, the BMS and battery chemistry can all be contributors to overall efficiency.

I said nothing to the contrary.

the “efficiency” of the Hummer itself (irrespective of battery size) has very little to do with some mechanical efficiency of the motors converting electricity into power ... It’s the poor drag and poor rolling resistance qualities of the Hummer that are the predominant forces resulting in its large battery not taking it very far.

I was a bit hesitant to engage with you as you often write verbose tomes wearing the reader down with your pedantic style

But you did.

And when I write a pedantic tome, your only response is to raise points that weren't among those I was responding to or disagreeing with (e.g. that overall efficiency can have many contributors), nor respond to the thrust of the point being discussed (that the overwhelming contributor is drag and rolling resistance - which latter includes the point of physics where 'weight' matters - and no better example than the Hummer EV).

How, then, would my brevity have gone?

I'll try again, though:

Range is not so much about battery size, but rather overall efficiency (see Hummer EV).

the Hummer has a 212-kWh battery pack predominantly because ... its motors are inefficient?

that's funny.

Sponsored