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

[cvalue13]

yes and the above math is *before* and ignoring accounting for forward-going tax advantages of much of these “loses” (eg loses credited against future year’s tax liabilities on profits).

But back to the pre-tax math above, for some context of just one of the inputs - R&D - as relates to the accounting underpinning it:

Noting that the above graph is tallied in billions, here’s Tesla’s underlying accounting realities expressed in millions

to summarize the above comparison: in each year above, Ford spent more on R&D than had Tesla in its preceding decade

anticipating an irrelevant quip about inefficiencies of R&D outcomes/$, that’s beside the point

If *that* were the point the “loses $ on every BEV” quip would reduce to saying Ford pumps ‘too much’ into R&D and scaling manufacturing facilities.

That Tesla is profitable today is *because* of what they invested in those first 18 years, when they, too, were “losing money on every car they sold.”

None of the above is remotely intended to signal or suggest Ford’s guaranteed success or any underpinning of superiority v Tesla.

It’s only to highlight the irony of the “losses per vehicle” quip. People say it like a self-evident critique of Ford’s lack of financial wherewithal.

But the quip mostly draws into question the financial wherewithal of whomever is saying it.

It’s like a person who sees a massive warehouse full of sacks of cake ingredients and angrily yells “this chef must be an idiot, because this cake is undercooked!”

Sponsored

 

[Steevo]

The first thing I thought when I saw Jim Farley in that video is "he looks just like Chris Farley". Didn't know they were cousins.

Ford's BlueOval reveal looks outdated/boring/corporate compared to Tesla announcements.
I feel the game is already over. Tesla has a first-mover advantage for making EVs practical. They're taking more market share every year and doing it MUCH more efficiently compared to Ford. I'm under the impression the Gigafactories have ushered in a new era of manufacturing.

I say all of this as someone who thought Elon Musk was an idiot and would fail at everything he was doing after watching Franz destroy that Cybertruck window. It wasn't until 2020 I started waking up. Seems like most of the population is still asleep (including friends I know who work in the auto industry).

 

[Crissa]

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

Why?

They can't apply basically anything but their design to the new vehicles. They need new battery factories, new factory lines, pretty much nothing they have applies to these new things.

All new models bleed at first. That's because they're not being sold yet.

Their company isn't bleeding, as a whole, it's just these new vehicles aren't paying off yet. Which is duh, they're only selling a few tens of thousands.

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!

...Okay, so, Tesla currently is making barely enough chargers for their own cars to use.

Tesla can only ramp so quickly. More companies means more ramping.

We have 1.7 million EVs on the road in the US. And we need to replace the other 283 million cars with EVs. We're going to need alot more chargers.

-Crissa

 

[Sirfun]

Why?

They can't apply basically anything but their design to the new vehicles. They need new battery factories, new factory lines, pretty much nothing they have applies to these new things.

All new models bleed at first. That's because they're not being sold yet.

Their company isn't bleeding, as a whole, it's just these new vehicles aren't paying off yet. Which is duh, they're only selling a few tens of thousands.


...Okay, so, Tesla currently is making barely enough chargers for their own cars to use.

Tesla can only ramp so quickly. More companies means more ramping.

We have 1.7 million EVs on the road in the US. And we need to replace the other 283 million cars with EVs. We're going to need alot more chargers.

-Crissa

I just saw that Tesla surpassed Toyota as selling more vehicles than any manufacturer in California. Tesla sold 69,000 vehicles in California in Q2 of 2023. You're right, we're going to need a lot more chargers.

 

[scottf200]

I just saw that Tesla surpassed Toyota as selling more vehicles than any manufacturer in California. Tesla sold 69,000 vehicles in California in Q2 of 2023. You're right, we're going to need a lot more chargers.

Their pace acceleration in the past year has been very impressive to watch.
https://supercharge.info/changes

Wonder what percentage of CA owners just charge at home?!?! ie. don't need regular use of SCs
California below:
Blue=permit; Yellow=under_construction_currently

 

[TyPope]

Good point. If you spend $100 on a lemonade stand and sell just one lemonade for $2 on the first day, you are losing $98 per lemonade. A better metric would require you to know the long-term reusable asset life (the stand will last 5 years, or about 1,000 lemonades) and the "per-unit" direct costs. I suppose there are accounting reasons Ford doesn't spread the cost out over theoretical future units. I'm no accountant.

It would be interesting to see how much they spend on materials and parts per Lightning and Mach E.

Of course, if they really ARE losing money on each sale to the tune that they spend more money making each one than it sells for, it would explain why they aren't in a hurry to make them. Same goes for the Maverick Hybrids... Been waiting on mine for over 10 months now. it's supposed to be the "between now and Cybertruck" vehicle for me. Now, it's a race to see which gets here first.

 

[TyPope]

Why?

They can't apply basically anything but their design to the new vehicles. They need new battery factories, new factory lines, pretty much nothing they have applies to these new things.

All new models bleed at first. That's because they're not being sold yet.

Their company isn't bleeding, as a whole, it's just these new vehicles aren't paying off yet. Which is duh, they're only selling a few tens of thousands.


...Okay, so, Tesla currently is making barely enough chargers for their own cars to use.

Tesla can only ramp so quickly. More companies means more ramping.

We have 1.7 million EVs on the road in the US. And we need to replace the other 283 million cars with EVs. We're going to need alot more chargers.

-Crissa

Come on, Crissa... almost ALL processes in place can be used with the Lightning. Steel suppliers, Aluminum suppliers, suspension line, tire line, wheel line, frame line, BIW, BIB... Tweaking required but Ford knows how to change configurations between model years.

I'll give you the battery line, motor line, and a few other particular lines but for the most part, their existing equipment can be reused to make Lightnings. How many times have we (the Cybertruck community) lamented the fact that the Lightning is a repurposed F-150... still using a box frame?

Why do I think this? Well, I was an industrial engineer at GM and actually redesigned work stations and assembly processes on the production line... a lot has happened in the ensuing years but I doubt Ford is worse than late 90's GM production.

Tesla's Cybertruck line vs. Ford's Lightning line... both are new to the companies, right?
Which do you think will be more profitable and why?

Tesla will be more profitable? Because they've had longer to develop supplier relationships? probably not... Because they have been making battery packs longer? Have they?
It's because Tesla is a more efficient company with more efficient processes.

There is no reason for Ford to have less efficient processes than Tesla other than Tradition. I suppose there's a fine line between Tradition and Stubbornness.

 

[davelloydbrown]

For those that don't think Ford is taking the BEV truck market seriously, I encourage you to listen to Jim Farely's part of this presentation.

BlueOval City sites (website, FAQ, socials, etc) --
LinkTree: https://linktr.ee/blueovalcity
FAQ: https://corporate.ford.com/operations/blue-oval-city/faqs.html

29:50 minutes in.



6000 jobs and lot of work with local schools and colleges for professional and technical long term development.

I liked Chris Farley better.

 

[scottf200]

Come on, Crissa... almost ALL processes in place can be used with the Lightning. Steel suppliers, Aluminum suppliers, suspension line, tire line, wheel line, frame line, BIW, BIB... Tweaking required but Ford knows how to change configurations between model years.
...
There is no reason for Ford to have less efficient processes than Tesla other than Tradition. I suppose there's a fine line between Tradition and Stubbornness.

Re: suspension line
"Ford F-150 Lightning is the first (and only) Ford F-150—and only full-size pickup, actually—with independent rear suspension (IRS) in place of traditional leaf springs and a live rear axle."

So you didn't watch the video or do any research? Unclear why the BlueOval redesign is flying over people's heads and they are implying saying same-old-same-old instead of listening to the changes being made. People have one old mentality and use it forever. Ford has examples of making fairly radical changes and taking chances. Aluminum F150 body of their best seller.

 

[TyPope]

Re: suspension line
"Ford F-150 Lightning is the first (and only) Ford F-150—and only full-size pickup, actually—with independent rear suspension (IRS) in place of traditional leaf springs and a live rear axle."

So you didn't watch the video or do any research? Unclear why the BlueOval redesign is flying over people's heads and they are implying saying same-old-same-old instead of listening to the changes being made. People have one old mentality and use it forever. Ford has examples of making fairly radical changes and taking chances. Aluminum F150 body of their best seller.

Ford has never made independent rear suspension in any vehicle? Seriously. And, I never said same-old same-old. I said almost all of their current processes that Ford actually already performed apply to the Lightning. Do you really think Ford wouldn't be able to copy a process from another line over to the Lightning line? I have no problem with Ford as a company. I've had a dozen of their trucks. Hell, I drove a Ford Probe to my interview at GM. They asked me what kind of car I drove. It was kind of funny, actually. I know first-hand how processes and product lines get shifted and changed with quantitative studies. Ford should, in my opinion as a previous industrial engineer in the auto (pickup truck, actually) manufacturing industry, have an easier ramp-up than Tesla. Their first BEV was back in 2009, I believe. That's 14 years ago now.

But, yeah, I've done research. However, I did not research Ford's incredibly difficult-to-manufacture rear suspension for the Lightning. Hopefully, they can contract that out to a company that knows how to make suspension components so they'll be more profitable.

 

[cvalue13]

There is no reason for Ford to have less efficient processes than Tesla other than Tradition. I suppose there's a fine line between Tradition and Stubbornness.

it’s actually not that clear how much of the Lightning tech/line will be redundant at all

the T3 will not be an F150, it will be an entirely new vehicle platform for BEV trucks.

So take the lightning and first delete everything “ICE F150” and you’re left with a small pile of parts

basically:

• the rear independent suspension
• the larger touchscreen on dash
• the electric motors
• the battery pack/cells and associated cordage
• The “Frunk” related trim
• some thermal system differences
• Software

understanding the above list is an oversimplification, nonetheless now consider how many of the above items would be directly ‘portable’ to an entirely new platform.

it doesn’t leave much besides: some mechanical and software R&D value, learnings to apply to the new platform. The F150 suspension know-how won’t port over to a new platform any more than the MY know-how ports to the CT suspension, etc.

*that* is one half of why I think Ford isn’t churning out Lightnings

in only ~18 months from now, Ford will be announcing/revealing an all-new BEV truck platform, and the Lightning will go the way of the Dodo not long after. Just how much cash are you sinking into scaling the Lightning towards that cliff?

at the end of the day, I’m not taking any position on whether the T3 will or won’t be a beautiful and great tasting cake. Because all I can see is Ford piling up tons of sacks of ingredients.

 

[TyPope]

it’s actually not that clear how much of the Lightning tech/line will be redundant at all

the T3 will not be an F150, it will be an entirely new vehicle platform for BEV trucks.

So take the lightning and first delete everything “ICE F150” and you’re left with a small pile of parts

basically:

• the rear independent suspension
• the larger touchscreen on dash
• the electric motors
• the battery pack/cells and associated cordage
• The “Frunk” related trim
• some thermal system differences
• Software

understanding the above list is an oversimplification, nonetheless now consider how many of the above items would be directly ‘portable’ to an entirely new platform.

it doesn’t leave much besides: some mechanical and software R&D value, learnings to apply to the new platform. The F150 suspension know-how won’t port over to a new platform any more than the MY know-how ports to the CT suspension, etc.

*that* is one half of why I think Ford isn’t churning out Lightnings

in only ~18 months from now, Ford will be announcing/revealing an all-new BEV truck platform, and the Lightning will go the way of the Dodo not long after. Just how much cash are you sinking into scaling the Lightning towards that cliff?

at the end of the day, I’m not taking any position on whether the T3 will or won’t be a beautiful and great tasting cake. Because all I can see is Ford piling up tons of sacks of ingredients.

The process to mold body panels, assemble parts, logistics, etc... There are not really any new things Ford has to do. Many parts will be unique to the trucks but that goes for any new model and shouldn't pose much of a challenge to a manufacturer with years of experience with assembling new models.

When Ford started building the Maverick, they've had odd constraints that prevented some builds such as trailer hitch, drop-in bedliner, and floormats that were preventing orders from being scheduled for build. Seems odd to have shortfalls in those categories. I don't recall there being a huge stink about Ford losing money on each build. However, they did produce 91,434 Mavericks in 2022 and that could have spread costs out so much that nobody cares.

 

[cvalue13]

There are not really any new things Ford has to do.

i suppose this is reasonable conjecture. but it's conjecture, based on an unstated idea in your head about what the new platform will entail

let's just use one hypothetical example: on Tesla's Q2 earnings call, they stated they have reason to believe another manufacture is preparing to begin using a castings approach to build.

separately, and I do give some significant deference to your prior experience in this field, but I'm left in my armchair unsure about what to make of it all or that we're talking past one-another

because this conversation today isn't about whether Ford has an ability to scale, it's about how and under what circumstances Ford's Model E division spends $700M in a calendar quarter, while producing only 12,000 units of vehicles during that quarter

That Ford has prior to that quarter passed FID on a $6 billion dollar dedicated manufacturing campus in TN, can easily explain a significant chunk of that $700M in a quarter.

And *even if* that new $6B manufacturing facility ends up containing nothing but regurgitated assembly lines that Ford "should be able to scale," that's irrelevant to the facts that:

(1) those facilities (and associated CapEx/OpEx costs) are currently under construction
(2) they are not completed, and so not reflected in current scaling

to continue with the cake analogy: it seems like you're essentially saying "Ford is spending all this money on ingredients, but isn't churning out any cakes, and they know how to make cakes" ... while we're watching them break ground on building the kitchen

 

[TyPope]

i suppose this is reasonable conjecture. but it's conjecture, based on an unstated idea in your head about what the new platform will entail

let's just use one hypothetical example: on Tesla's Q2 earnings call, they stated they have reason to believe another manufacture is preparing to begin using a castings approach to build.

separately, and I do give some significant deference to your prior experience in this field, but I'm left in my armchair unsure about what to make of it all or that we're talking past one-another

because this conversation today isn't about whether Ford has an ability to scale, it's about how and under what circumstances Ford's Model E division spends $700M in a calendar quarter, while producing only 12,000 units of vehicles during that quarter

That Ford has prior to that quarter passed FID on a $6 billion dollar dedicated manufacturing campus in TN, can easily explain a significant chunk of that $700M in a quarter.

And *even if* that new $6B manufacturing facility ends up containing nothing but regurgitated assembly lines that Ford "should be able to scale," that's irrelevant to the facts that:

(1) those facilities (and associated CapEx/OpEx costs) are currently under construction
(2) they are not completed, and so not reflected in current scaling

to continue with the cake analogy: it seems like you're essentially saying "Ford is spending all this money on ingredients, but isn't churning out any cakes, and they know how to make cakes" ... while we're watching them break ground on building the kitchen

Fair enough. It would seem that Ford is having trouble making both the Lightning and the Maverick. The Maverick is sold as either a regular truck or a mild hybrid (which is what I ordered 10 months ago and still waiting).

I bring this up because Ford may be using the same tactic for both truck lines. I said "may" here so conjecture is coming up. Ford may not be too keen on making a bunch of low-cost Mavericks which may scavenge some of their more profitable F-150 sales. I opted to try out a Maverick next instead of a nicer F-150 than what I have. (It's a long story why I didn't just get a nicer F-150 to start with...)

So, at least one F-150 sale was lost to a Maverick sale.

Could they be sandbagging production on the Lightning and Maverick lines to forestall profit loss until they optimize the production process and lines? I don't know. They are probably just being overly cautious. Recalls.

All that aside, I just don't see how Ford would have more problems with a new product line than Tesla would have with a new product line.

 

[FutureBoy]

Tesla sold 69,000 vehicles in California in Q2 of 2023

Of course they did.
Any more and it would have to be 69,420.

Sponsored