Ford is serious - 2025 T3 next gen TN BlueOval build/battery/recycle

[cvalue13]

Quarter 1 2013 Tesla posted a profit. I know how much a stickler for the details you are.

I am!

So I don’t count regulatory credit trading as part of the cost/profit of vehicle

Just like Ford should count it’s ICE vehicle profits as part of its BEV unit

first profitable GAAP quarter for Tesla, absent reg cred trading, was Q2 2021

Q1 2013, $11M GAAP net income relied on $68M in regulatory credit sales

details

Sponsored

 

[TyPope]

Ford's been in business a lot longer than 18 years. They shouldn't be bleeding so much.

 

[SSonnentag]

The difference is that Tesla was (is?) a new startup company while Ford is a 120-year-old company.

 

[Arctic_White]

...And to be honest, I am also very dubious.

When they start talking about reliability, then maybe, maybe I'll believe them.

But I totally know why they should do this.

-Crissa

Seems like it's just for show to say that they're doing something.

But who knows for sure. I also doubt anything productive will come out of this.

 

[TyPope]

I know there's a little more to it, but how expensive is Ford's battery pack? How expensive is the drivetrain?
Even if Ford spends $40,000 per battery pack and $5,000 per motor, they shouldn't be losing more than $60,000 per vehicle. It's not like they are giving away the lightning... I suspect accounting differences...

 

[cvalue13]

Ford's been in business a lot longer than 18 years. They shouldn't be bleeding so much.

not how new BUs work or accounting works

the figures people refer nice are how BUs/accounting works

 

[Arctic_White]

Tesla lost money on every vehicle for the first 18 years of its existence

While this is true, the haters have been saying that the legacy automakers can simply "switch on" and start producing EVs on scale, and eat Tesla's lunch.

Those haters have been proven wrong now, as Tesla is still the only company that makes money producing BEVs.

 

[FutureBoy]

From the thread title:

Ford is serious

Yes, I see that Ford thinks they are being serious. At least a portion of the company seems to be doing quite a bit to make a future for the company.

But it take two to tango. In the end, it takes more than just having Ford itself be serious. The other half of the equation is the consumer. There need to be people buying Ford products with the same seriousness in order for Ford to survive the next decade or longer.

Yes, there do seem to be some people who like the F150 Lightning. But the combination of low production numbers and even lower sales on vehicles that are being sold at a significant net loss does not bode well for Ford no matter how serious they seem to be.

 

[cvalue13]

While this is true, the haters have been saying that the legacy automakers can simply "switch on" and start producing EVs on scale, and eat Tesla's lunch.

Those haters have been proven wrong now, as Tesla is still the only company that makes money producing BEVs.

i mean… if you want to either sort of misrepresent or straw-man it

The math to support the anti-BEV headline is simple. The only quarter Ford has reported for Model e division, sold about 12,000 electric vehicles (EVs). That same quarter Model e lost $700 million. Divide the former by the latter.

It did not loose $700 million attributable to the materials and labor associated with building a vehicle unit. It lost $700 million in its business unit, accounting for e.g., manufacturing facility build outs, R&D spend, etc.

AKA scaling.

And that’s why it’s a useful anti-BEV headline: it distorts the reality of what it means to “lose” $66K per vehicle.

In reality, it amounts to saying “Ford spent so much in scaling its BEV business, they must be betting on the come.”

What’s irritating, is a when people who purport to be pro-BEV decide to take up these anti-BEV headlines only because they have a hardon for on BEV manufacturer over another.

But that same anti-BEV headline was leveled against Tesla for 18 years. Just google Time Machine over the years “Tesla loses money in every car it makes.”

you’ll have over 18 years of stories saying the same, misleading, irrelevant quip

Tesla fans rightfully corrected these assertions.

But now some of the same people are gleeful to regurgitate it.

It’s still, at bottom, anti-BEV FUD.

But that it’s being regurgitated by people who purport to support BEV?

Hypocrisy is vice masquerading as virtue, pretending to care but void of actual principle.

 

[Arctic_White]

...because they still need a broad charging network?

If there's enough chargers for the Teslas that are on the road, what about when all the cars are electric?

-Crissa

Crissa, you do realize that Tesla has superchargers that are open to all? Ford, GM, and so many others have already signed up for it. There is no additional cost to them!

Did you not see Electrify America and the Gong show it is?

For those that don't know, Tesla's superchargers aren't just more efficient with 99.9%+ uptime. But they also cost less to manufacture and take less time to make. In other words, while this coalition tries to install 10 chargers, Tesla would have installed 30 and with 1/3rd of the total cost.

This coalition is just stupid. Prove me wrong.

 

[cvalue13]

This coalition is just stupid. Prove me wrong.

I don’t know that you’re wrong

and also I don’t think all EV manufacturers can depend on Tesla alone. And you mentioned why they can’t depend on some of the existing 3rd party infra.

??‍

 

[Arctic_White]

I don’t know that you’re wrong

and also I don’t think all EV manufacturers can depend on Tesla alone. And you mentioned why they can’t depend on some of the existing 3rd party infra.

??‍

Tesla superchargers aren't a walled-garden. If you remember, Tesla literally begged anyone to help them with their supercharger endeavours back in 2012. No one wanted to join in.

Now that Tesla has proved that they are capable of building out these chargers faster, better, and cheaper than others, these competitors still want to create their own coalition to build out chargers? It is stupid, IMO.

You have a Lightning, right? Have you tried to fast charge it? How has that experience been?

Tesla is mission-oriented: their goal is to transition the world to sustainable energy, and EVs are a critical part of that. No way would Tesla limit superchargers to its competition as it goes against their mission.

Tesla is already making/announcing one new supercharging location every 11 hours. So in a year's time, you're looking at 800 new supercharger locations. The coalition is stupid: they should just give the money to Tesla and let them do their thing.

 

[cvalue13]

Tesla superchargers aren't a walled-garden.

charging infra is a linchpin to every BEV manufacturer’s corporate value

that corporate value, as a rule, can’t hinge on a single provider

a provider that is a competitor, least of all

meanwhile, that Tesla is allowing some manufacturers access to the supercharger system does not mean Tesla is obligated, long term, to continue providing that access

it’s not reasonable to think these companies are going to rely on Tesla’s charge infra alone, absent some regulatory intervention that guarantees equal access.

saying that Tesla’s heart is in the right place, is rightfully irrelevant to the other companies. Rightfully, because companies can’t bet the farm on hearts never changing.

 

[cvalue13]

You have a Lightning, right? Have you tried to fast charge it? How has that experience been?

done fast charging only a half a dozen times in a year. have found stations with one or more chargers down, but have never had a problem.

but, I bought on the basis of fore knowing I would rarely want fast charging.

Sponsored