Ford will ramp up production of the F-150 and F-Series Super Duty in 2026, but the Lightning will pay the price :
A fire at a Novelis aluminum plant has disrupted operations for several automakers, including Ford and its top-selling F-150. The setback has been costly, but the Blue Oval plans to bounce back next year by ramping up truck production.
Under the plan, the Dearborn Truck Plant will add a third shift with roughly 1,200 employees. This will be supported by more than 90 new workers at Dearborn Stamping as well as more than 80 additional employees at Dearborn Diversified Manufacturing.
Thanks to these workers and the extra shift, Ford aims to produce an additional 45,000+ F-150s in 2026. They’ll have traditional powertrains as the F-150 Lightning hasn’t lived up to expectations.
[...] In total, the automaker will increase production by more than 50,000 units and create up to 1,000 new jobs. Ford’s Chief Operating Officer, Kumar Galhotra, said “The people who keep our country running depend on America’s most popular vehicle – F-Series trucks – and we are mobilizing our team to meet that demand.”
Related:
- GM to Take $1.6 Billion Hit as It Scales Back Electric Vehicle Operations
- Electric Truck-Maker Nikola Falls Into Bankruptcy Joining a Procession of Failed EV Startups
- Ford Motor Company is Planning a Big EV Future
« Dutch seizure of Nexperia followed US pressure over Chinese CEO | Beginner’s Guide to Malware Analysis and Reverse Engineering »
Related Stories
Ford: the US Can't Compete With China on Electric Vehicles, for Now
"We need to be ready, and we're getting ready":
Bill Ford, executive chairman of Ford Motor Company, has warned that when it comes to the production of electric vehicles, the United States is still not ready to compete with China. Speaking about China's EV industry during an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS, Ford said "They developed very quickly, and they developed them in large scale. And now they're exporting them [...] They're not here but they'll come here we think, at some point, we need to be ready, and we're getting ready."
The US automaker in February announced that it would be investing $3.5 billion in building an electric vehicle plant in Michigan. Reuters writes that the deal will use technology from Chinese battery company Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Ltd, which led to Senator Marco Rubio asking the Biden administration to review the deal. Ford says the Michigan battery plant is a chance for Ford engineers to learn the technology and use it for themselves.
"It [Michigan] is a wholly owned Ford facility. They'll be our employees, and all we're doing is licensing the technology. That's it." Ford said.
[...] Buttigieg added that the US must build relationships domestically and internationally for raw materials and refining capacity. Chinese firms make up more than half of the EV battery market and provide as much as 90% of the demand for some battery materials.
Electric vehicle startup Nikola Corp. has announced it had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy:
Nikola now joins a line of EV startups that fell into bankruptcy over the past year. While the Biden-Harris administration went full-speed ahead with a vision of EVs replacing gas-powered vehicles, electric-vehicle production has become a bad bet for the companies that jumped into the vision head-first. Consumers just never got on board with the plan.
With Trump planning to end federal EV mandates and legislation seeking to stop tax credits for the purchase of new EVs, the list of failed EV startups might continue to grow.
[...] The company went public in 2020, according to Bloomberg, through a deal with a special-purpose acquisition company. Nikola's stock went up after the transaction was closed, but shortly after, Bloomberg revealed its founder, Trevor Milton, had overstated the capability of the company's debut truck. He was later convicted on fraud charges.
"Like other companies in the electric vehicle industry, we have faced various market and macroeconomic factors that have impacted our ability to operate," Nikola president and CEO Steve Girsky said in a recent statement on the company's bankruptcy filing.
Previously:
- Nikola Stock Craters After Cancellation of Major Garbage Truck Order
- Nikola Stock Falls 14 Percent after CEO Downplays Badger Truck Plans
- Nikola's Deal With GM Was Supposed to Close Today—It Didn't
- Nikola Founder Bought Truck Designs From Third Party
- Nikola Stock Plunges 26% after Fraud Claims Complicate Hydrogen Plans
- New Report Claims Widespread Deception by Nikola Motor and Founder Trevor Milton
A $5 billion bet on a failing technology?
In a move that defies the growing consumer rejection of electric vehicles, Hyundai has doubled down on its multi-billion dollar wager. The automaker has opened Georgia's first purpose-built EV training facility, a massive 89,000-square-foot center intended to churn out hundreds of workers for its adjacent Metaplant. This grand opening on November 5 in Ellabell comes at a moment of profound crisis for the electric vehicle industry, raising serious questions about the wisdom of investing in a technology the free market is already abandoning.
The Hyundai Mobility Training Centre, strategically located next to the Hyundai Motor Group Metaplant America in Bryan County, represents a colossal investment in the EV supply chain. The facility can train 824 workers simultaneously, preparing them for roles at the massive plant. Governor Brian Kemp celebrated the project, stating, "The Hyundai Mobility Training Center of Georgia will give thousands of people over the years the knowledge they need to benefit from this generational project."
[...] This massive push for EV workforce development stands in contrast to the reality unfolding across the automotive landscape. While Hyundai prepares to train thousands for EV assembly, Ford is reportedly on the verge of scrapping its flagship F-150 Lightning electric pickup truck. Hailed by CEO Jim Farley as a "modern Model T," the Lightning has become a symbol of EV failure, with demand described as horrendous and mounting EV losses totaling $13 billion since 2023.
Previously: Ford Will Lose $3 Billion on Electric Vehicles in 2023, It Says
General Motors said on Oct. 14 that it will bear a $1.6 billion loss to scale back its electric vehicle (EV) operations, citing weaker expected demand following recent U.S. policy changes that ended federal EV tax credits and loosened emissions rules:
The Detroit-based automaker said its Audit Committee approved the loss on Oct. 7, covering the three months ended Sept. 30. The company noted that the loss is part of its plan to realign EV production and factory operations to better match customer demand.
The decision was made after the expiration of the $7,500 federal EV tax credit on Sept. 30, part of a broader policy rollback under President Donald Trump.
[...] "Following recent U.S. government policy changes, including the termination of certain consumer tax incentives for EV purchases and the reduction in the stringency of emissions regulations, we expect the adoption rate of EVs to slow," GM said in a filing.
[...] According to the filing, $1.2 billion of the loss is related to non-cash impairments, mostly write-downs of EV assets. The remaining $400 million will be paid in cash for contract cancellations and commercial settlements tied to EV investments.
The company said its review of EV manufacturing and battery component investments is ongoing.
Related:
- Canadian EV Sales Collapse by 35% as Gas Car Purchases Surge
- Tesla Continues Slide As Musk Warns Of "Rough Quarters" Ahead
- Electric Truck-Maker Nikola Falls Into Bankruptcy Joining a Procession of Failed EV Startups
See Also:
- EV Sales In Europe Keep Surging, With One Exception
- EVs Poised To Exceed Half Of Europe's New Car Sales Sooner Than Expected
- EV sales are surging in Europe, except for Tesla
(Score: 2, Insightful) by SpockLogic on Sunday October 26, @10:00PM (23 children)
Just what the US of A needs, more oversized gas guzzlers.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday October 27, @01:39AM (16 children)
The only good news is that oversized watt guzzlers are also environmentally unsustainable, and somehow even more of a threat to everyone else on the road.
Electric "pickups" in my state have been requiring commercial plates because they're completely out of the weight range of normal passenger vehicles. But dealers pay the first year of having one so people don't notice the "You're destroying our goddamn roads with your fucking tank" tax until later so inevitably it's going to turn into a "Why are we taxed so much wah wah" thing instead of a "maybe I should buy something under 4 goddamn tons" incentive.
(Score: 5, Informative) by mrpg on Monday October 27, @01:48AM (8 children)
Right:
Ford F-150 Lightning:
6,850 pounds ( 3,100 kg) just the battery is close to 2 thousand pounds (less than 1000 kg)
Chevrolet Silverado EV:
8,780 pounds ( 3,980 kg)
(Score: 5, Interesting) by gnuman on Monday October 27, @11:03AM (3 children)
Ford Expedition (gas):
Curb weight 5,801 lb (2,631 kg) (standard)
6,071 lb (2,754 kg) (EL)[36]
It's not exactly featherweight here. My first car used to weight 900kg (or 2000lb). So having gas cars at 3x the weight and then complaining about the battery seems ... out of place. The reason why the weight is so high is because people are being sold larger and larger cars to drive up revenue and profit numbers of the car manufacturers. Why make a usable 900kg car when you can sell something 3x the weight and 4x the profit margin at same time?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by istartedi on Tuesday October 28, @07:59PM (2 children)
What's really funny is my Honda Civic (gas):
Curb weight, 2,718 lb ( 1,232 kg)
8 ft. 2X4 (several). Fold down seat behind driver, recline passenger seat, stick end where passenger would usually put feet and CLOSE THE TRUNK. This actually works up to 10 feet in some circumstances--I recently did it with a drip edge flashing, but slightly bent the corner. Meanwhile, the pickup trucks are propping those things up at awkward angles in their deficient short-beds. Of course I can't move plywood at all but that's less common. I recently had some of these "too big for the Civic" items delivered from the local lumber yard. The fee was $25. Mine's an older model so mileage is in the low 30s, but not too far off being twice as good as the trucks so I basically get $25 off in gas every time I fill up vs. a truck.
Now I don't begrudge those who really do need a truck as their daily--we have people here who live on gravel/dirt roads, people that really do need the torque for work and throw junk in the bed all the time. Most of them are "pavement princesses" though. Oh, and the large items I got were delivered with a pickup, which surprised me--but it was a long bed that you can put 4X8 plywood in and lay it flat. How rare those long beds are though!
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Wednesday October 29, @10:47AM (1 child)
The only people that could theoretically need a truck are the ones with the 8' beds. The rest are suburbs drivers that "need" a truck for their egos. Anyone that needs actual storage for work, gets a *van* and if you need more on some occasion, you get a trailer for the van. Precious few actually use a truck to haul stuff that trucks were designed for -- farming. How many put down padding in their beds so it's not scratched?? -- "pavement princesses" :-)
Seriously. The american trucks have less capacity than japanese k-trucks. And the ktrucks actually are light so you can drive them on the farms. Utility of american trucks is basically nil, except to maximize profits for car manufacturers.
I was looking at options for trucks (would need 8' bed then), but there are very very few options. In the past, this used to be standard and now it's a "special option". So, I'll get a van instead. More cargo space, much cheaper. You can even fit some plywood inside -- by some being more than in back of a truck.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by istartedi on Thursday October 30, @02:02AM
I wouldn't go that far. The vast number of princesses not withstanding, the need to transport 5 passengers while towing a trailer is a valid use case. You can lift a short-bed without creating terrible center of gravity issues, and lifting is valid here. We actually have some folks who live in private enclaves within Mendocino National Forest. I've driven to Lake Pillsbury, CA. It's right at the edge of what a 2WD car can do, and that was on a nice day. Another time in the Forest I turned around on M-10 (forest road) when I got to the stream crossing. The lifted trucks ahead of me cruised right through. Right around the corner form me is dirt/gravel with houses on it. You can 2WD it now. A few years ago it was pretty danged dicey. This kind of thing is surprisingly common in California. A lot of people who haven't been here, or perhaps never leave LA might not be aware of it.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday October 27, @07:11PM (3 children)
Here's the business problem as I see it:
F-150 lightning standard range battery max tow: 7700 for $65090 and the battery replacement costs $32086 every 100K or so miles. So figure about "thirty cents/mile" just in battery replacement costs alone holy cow that is expensive compared to gas.
F-150 V8 gas burner max tow: 12900 $48290 optimistically 24 mpg but IRL fully loaded lets say 15, so figure 100K/15*$2.75 per gallon equals about $20K to drive 100K miles.
Some numbers are probably wrong because car mfgrs run on the confuseopoly method of marketing and selling, they want the opposite of a well informed consumer. But I feel the above was a fair effort resulting in some fair numbers despite their best efforts to prevent this and I'm probably mostly correct-ish above in a general sense.
So let me get this straight. The EV will cost 50% more, require 100% more labor, and/or miles, and/or capex to haul the same amount of junk to a jobsite, and costs 50% more per mile to drive (assuming electricity is free). And we're surprised they're not selling.
Maybe the Chinese will do the 1970s thing and import vehicles decimating the legacy sellers; we can only hope as the current offerings from the usual suspects are pretty awful.
Hmm the 240 mile range battery is about 200 too many miles for a "work truck" where I live. Perhaps if they sold one with a fifth the size battery, then the battery would only cost $6K and we could expect "maybe another 1000 pounds tow" maybe more.
You can't expect legacy mfgrs to sell what the marketplace wants, they expect to be in the drivers seat (pun intended I guess). We're going to have to wait for Chinese imports to shake up the market and provide what the customers want.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by gawdonblue on Monday October 27, @08:40PM (2 children)
Why do people continue to erroneously claim that EV batteries will need replacing before the vehicle wears out?
This is in the face of experience.
A quick websearch found plenty of real articles to the contrary e.g. here's the top one from my search https://www.whichcar.com.au/advice/when-do-ev-batteries-need-to-be-replaced [whichcar.com.au].
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday October 28, @04:34PM (1 child)
https://www.ford.com/support/how-tos/electric-vehicles/f-150-lightning/f-150-lightning-product-frequently-asked-questions/ [ford.com]
The manufacturer refuses to guarantee it for more than 8 years/100,000 miles
I'd trust the mfgr more than I'd trust some random blog on the internet.
FORD will not offer a lifetime guarantee for gas engines. Some dealers will sell a lifetime guarantee for gas powertrains, not transferable, various other limits (usually no commercial use, you better be able to prove it was properly maintained, etc). Possibly, some dealers could offer their own lifetime guarantee for an electric powertrain; AFAIK none do it's a hard insurance product to sell compared to the somewhat more predictable gas engines.
If ford said it would last longer than 100K, I'd be tempted to agree.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29, @12:39AM
> If Ford said it would last longer than 100K, ...
Just wait. Initially EV batteries were often poor (look at all the early warranty and recalls.) Now I think most are to a stage were they are somewhat overdesigned to control the warranty costs. Those are the ones that often outlast their warranty period. As the companies get better at making cells and assembling battery packs, they will start taking out the cost...and any over-design.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 27, @01:52AM (2 children)
> The only good news is that oversized watt guzzlers are also environmentally unsustainable,
If you only use it as a truck, you may have a point. Stay with me---
An old college friend on the other side of the country just bought one of the GM BEV pickups...a couple of years old, from one of the rent-a-car companies. These things depreciate like mad, and the base model (low options) depreciate even faster.
His reasoning: He bought a 200+ KWh battery (for solar-electric "day-night load leveling" and rural house power backup). As part of the deal he also got a truck, so if his house power goes down, the battery can transport itself somewhere that does have power...and be charged up!
(Score: 1, Redundant) by VLM on Monday October 27, @07:48PM (1 child)
I think it would be hard to justify buying a house generator in 2025 when there's EV cars/trucks. If there's trees down on the road between the house and charging station, put a winch on the truck and a chainsaw in the back just like gas/diesel burners.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 28, @01:01AM
> .. justify buying a house generator ...
The one big reason I can see to buying a whole house generator around here is the reliability of the natural gas network. We've had many electric power failures, water main leaks, cell tower batteries die after a few hours, etc. But the natural gas (buried pipes) service keeps on working just fine. In an extended blackout (about two weeks is the local "record"), a generator would just keep running.
My low cost solution for keeping warm -- a 2.5KW inverter (5KW peak) that I run off the car battery. Leave the car outside the garage, idling, to keep the battery charged. Watch the weather, fill the gas tank before the blizzard. Much more convenient than a portable gasoline generator that sits idle, then needs maintenance and fresh gasoline to insure that it will run when needed.
Quick calculations suggest that the lead-acid car battery is good for short term peak power (cold cranking) of around 4-5KW, so there isn't any point in buying a bigger inverter. This one successfully runs the gas boiler (hot water house heat) including the little circulator pump. Also the fridge and some computers (when we still have internet service). Modern computer controlled car engines are happy to idle for a whole tank of gas, a couple of days. No obvious damage, I've done this with cars going back to the mid-1990s and I keep cars a long time.
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Monday October 27, @04:23AM (1 child)
What state do you reside in?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 27, @03:36PM
(Score: 2) by bussdriver on Tuesday October 28, @06:12PM
We should be treating this like it was a WW2 scale problem. It's actually bigger but slower. If we were responsible adults, we'd be banning all GAS everything and have exceptions with permits and rationing tickets. Most truck owners are just insecure posers who never need a truck beyond a few rentals (the rental company having permits.) Unlike the war, we'd cut down on the available permits over time...
As far as weight; initially ignore it, then over time move the road tax from the age of the car to the weight which is as easy to figure out as the age of the car. Force = Mass x Acceleration. It would also be logical to lower the speed limit to account for the added weight plus it lowers fuel consumption greatly. Above 55mph, you are mostly pushing air just to save a minute off your commute you will waste watching ads or whatever-- time that you only really seem to care about when in traffic; irrationally.
I don't think we could win a war on that scale again, Americans would not be willing to ration tires, metal, food etc. Since the boomers we are way too selfish and shortsighted.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday October 29, @05:16PM
The only good news is that oversized watt guzzlers are also environmentally unsustainable
Nonsense. According to Google, an electric vehicle will go twenty miles on the electricity it takes to refine a gallon of gasoline. There are few machines less efficient than a piston engine. And sunshine is free and doesn't harm the environment.
Electric "pickups" in my state have been requiring commercial plates because they're completely out of the weight range of normal passenger vehicles.
That's an excuse, not the reason. The reason is the same as Illinois adding a 50% surcharge to EV license plates: More revenue.
My friend in Columbia has one of those giant diesel pickups. He only uses it when he needs to haul a very large load, unlike most American fools who drive them without ever hauling anything except themselves to their office jobs. But Mike's truck weighs five times what my Ionoq 6 EV weighs, but its license plates are fifty bucks cheaper.
You're destroying our goddamn roads
How much does a loaded semi weigh? I suspect that you are a young auto mechanic. If so, you chose the wrong profession, it will go the way of buggy manufacturers and oat farmers because my Ioniq is to every other vehicle I've driven since getting my license in 1968 like a Model-T was to a horse and carriage. And like the industries that supported horses, wagons, and carriages, the industries that support pistons (mechanics, auto parts manufacturers and stores, oil industry) will die.
No one born who could always afford anything he wanted can have a clue what "affordability" means.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by driverless on Monday October 27, @08:44AM
Just what the US of A wants, more oversized gas guzzlers.
There, FTFY.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by phantomlord on Monday October 27, @11:42PM (4 children)
I just bought a new pickup. I would have liked a compact pickup, say, the size of my old 1998 Ford Ranger. which completely met my needs (and got about 25mpg averaged over the 17 years I owned it).
However, due to government regulations, the manufacturers CAN'T sell me that compact pickup because it hurts their CAFE fleet requirements. So, in order to meet CAFE standards, they have to force you into a bigger truck that gets worse mileage (it looks to be about 7mpg on average worse).
It's almost like the proponents of these standards are only looking at first order effects. Someone that needs a compact truck isn't going to switch to a car, since the car can't do what a truck does, so they're forced to go to a bigger truck. Today, the Ranger is the size of the F-150 from 25 years ago, while the F-150 is even bigger. My new Tacoma has a smaller box than that 98 Ranger and, while I've only had it for a few days, gets about 21mpg so far (and it was 4x the price).
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday October 29, @05:24PM (3 children)
One of us is misunderstanding something, and I"m not sure who. How does the fleet fuel requirements keep them from building a small pickup? I'd like a small pickup myself. I won't get one because they haven't made them for decades and I want used, and am old. If they ever make them again I'll be dead by then.
I'm pretty sure they don't make small pickups is because they think we won't buy them, pickup truck owners mostly are just for show. Most of them seldom haul anything more than a week's groceries. Ever notice that most of those giant pickups have beds no bigger than your old small pickup?
No one born who could always afford anything he wanted can have a clue what "affordability" means.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by phantomlord on Wednesday October 29, @11:36PM (2 children)
People will happily buy small pickups... the problem is that they hurt the fleet mileage/emissions metrics used for cars due to the wheelbase, so the manufacturers would have to pay penalties on their fleet. By increasing the wheelbase, the metrics change from the broader fleet metrics to the light truck metrics.
The Ford Maverick has a 121" wheelbase, putting it into the car standards, and it sold pretty well out of the gate to people that want to look like they're driving a truck. The problem is, for those of us that need a truck, it's barely a truck, with it's paltry 2,000 pound towing capacity and 4.5 foot bed. My 1998 Ranger laughs at that AND had a bigger bed... and with the Maverick being a unibody, if you want to replace the bed with something that suits your needs better, well, you can't, because it looks like a truck, but isn't really a truck.
And yeah, many people want a pavement princess these days - they want to sit up higher than everyone else and look like a badass even though they'll almost never use it as a truck. That said, even if you use it as a truck a couple times a month, it can be a reasonable option. I DO have a need to haul stuff (bed, trailer, and both sometimes, with a home and a business that need things, hobbies like woodworking, etc), but that doesn't mean I don't take care of it to keep it looking nice (because I value it and want it to last 17 years like my Ranger did). Two of my friends have pickups because they have campers that they haul around for vacations during the summer - it's much easier to own a truck for that than it is to try to rent one (and many rental agreements forbid you from towing even if you rent a truck).
But to be fair, econoboxes also kinda suck - at 5'5", I'm not exactly big, but I can feel cramped in there. The older I get, the more sitting lower to the ground becomes pain to get up and out of. A lot of them can't comfortably fit a family for a day trip to grandma's house (Thanksgiving is coming up and by the time you add 2 kids, maybe a dog, some stuff to contribute to dinner, etc, it kinda sucks. We saw the shift from the station wagon to the SUV (hey, look, another one of those car -> light truck metrics backfiring) and now we're seeing more giant pickups because the compact ones went the way of the station wagon for the same reason.
The other factor is, as we saw with the 2007 global financial crisis and the bankruptcy of GM/Chrysler, big vehicles have a higher profit margin, so of course they want to push people into buying bigger cars. Look at Ford, who abandoned the car market, other than the Mustang, to exclusively chase trucks and SUVs.
The demand was always there for the compact pickup, but the raw profit margins are better on bigger, and more importantly, the narrower margins on smaller vehicles also come with compliance fees for not hitting the metrics. From the manufacturer perspective, demand didn't matter because they were better off abandoning that market. It's like the dotcom era - sure we lose money on every sale, but we'll make it up in volume!
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday October 31, @08:24PM (1 child)
But to be fair, econoboxes also kinda suck - at 5'5", I'm not exactly big, but I can feel cramped in there.
I'm only two inches taller and thin, and agree completely. My Ioniq 6 is the same size as the old '02 Concorde but is roomy as hell.
I wonder why the Asian nations stopped making them, too? They're the ones who brought small pickups to America in the first place after the '74 Arab Oil Embargo.
No one born who could always afford anything he wanted can have a clue what "affordability" means.
(Score: 2, Informative) by phantomlord on Friday October 31, @10:57PM
They are still making them for other markets, but can't import them to the US for CAFE reasons. For example, the Toyota Hilux, with a 108-121" wheelbase fits the car standards (but only gets around 30mpg), while the Tacoma with a 131-145" wheelbase hits the light truck standards (and gets around 22mpg).
Likewise, even Ford was making a Ranger for the global market while they stopped selling them here.
By the same token, one of the reasons why diesel engines aren't sold as much in the US compared to elsewhere, is because we prioritized NOx reduction more than CO2 reduction. Plus we tax diesel more, making gasoline a cheaper alternative for people.
(Score: 2) by bloodnok on Sunday October 26, @10:22PM (8 children)
First GM and now Ford are cutting EV production. They appear to be citing poor demand.
None of the few adverts I have seen for Ford or GM have been pushing EVs. Have I just missed them or they genuinely not promoting EVs?
__
The Major
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 27, @01:32AM
My read of the situation - the Venn diagram of people that buy electric cars and people that buy pickup trucks...is two circles that barely touch each other.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday October 27, @01:44AM (2 children)
They can't compete on price with China internationally. US-based people with money wanting a luxury electric have typically gone with Tesla(though I'm not sure how the damage to the brand done by it's CEO affects that lately). The tax incentives to make a portion of your fleet electric have just been burned. Why would they keep making them?
(Score: 2) by bloodnok on Monday October 27, @07:39PM (1 child)
Perhaps in order to not become irrelevant?
As for not being able to compete with the Chinese, I didn't think they had to.
__
The Major
(Score: 3, Funny) by ikanreed on Monday October 27, @08:09PM
Perhaps in order to not become irrelevant?
Sounds like a problem for next quarter.
(Score: 2, Touché) by anubi on Monday October 27, @10:12AM
I think the executive board rooms have learned a new term:
"Energy Density"
Tuition was quite expensive.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday October 27, @11:16AM (1 child)
The major car companies never wanted to build EVs. The vehicle they want to build is the Canyonero [youtube.com] and other REALLY BIG TRUCKS that sell well because they know how to advertise to convince insecure men that they're really the manliest men that ever manned, and convince frightened women that they're safer in one of those than a sedan.
The US federal government made them invest in EVs as part of regulatory efforts to try to slow down climate change. Now that the US federal government's official policy on climate change is that it doesn't exist and they will fire any person or wreck any department with data or public statements that say otherwise, the odds that those regulatory efforts will continue or be enforced in the near future are basically zero. Meanwhile, the oil companies have the rights to $trillions worth of oil that they are determined get out of the ground and get burned come hell or high water (literally).
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by bussdriver on Tuesday October 28, @03:12PM
The USA sucked at cars so the government helped the industry by tariffs on "trucks" (SUV being a hack on a truck.) The US industry was kept alive by a carve out and they promoted trucks and the insecurity behind most people's desire for a "truck." SUV wasn't a thing before the 90s after the 80s protectionism began. Also women weren't into it until they appealed to their fear in the marketing of SUVs.
Just another flock of sheep; no idea that even their identity is engineered by smarter people.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday October 29, @05:46PM
Have I just missed them or they genuinely not promoting EVs?
They HATE electric vehicles! And with good reason. They earn far more cash on maintenance and parts over the life of the vehicle, usually several owners, than they earn on the sale. That's because the piston drive train is an inefficient, unreliable Rube Goldberg device with thousands of moving parts to wear, break, and replace that needs constant maintenance.
An electric drive train has fewer than a dozen moving parts and needs no maintenance at all. No oil pan or oil changes, no transmission, no belts, no spark plugs, no fuel pump, none of that.
You won't even need brakes, because an EV has two sets, normal friction disk brakes that are only used at under 5 mph and regenerative brakes which use the motor as a generator. Wiper blades, wiper fluid, and tires are about the only maintenance; I had mine in the shop for a wheel alignment thanks to a horrible moon-like road they fixed this past summer.
No dealer to junkyard gravy train. You can't fault them for not telling you that the electric Mustang is to the gasoline Mustang what a Model-T car was to a Studebaker carriage, or that gasoline is four to five times as expensive per mile, or that you don't have to wait for an engine to heat to 750° F to make the heater work, or any of its other dozens of advantages. Unless you have driven a $10,000 race car you have never driven a car that braked or handled as well as an EV. The stats say most EVs will outrun a police cruiser in the quarter mile. There are dozens of advantages. The only disadvantages are a deficit of public charging stations, and the industries that bleed you dry will disappear when people discover how much hassle and expense they've put up with in their gasoline cars.
No one born who could always afford anything he wanted can have a clue what "affordability" means.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday October 27, @03:07AM (8 children)
If the fuel is synthetic or bio derived suing CO2 from the atmosphere then the vehicles using them are Carbon neutral.
And there just so happens that there are synthetic and biologically derived drop in replacements for both Petrol and Diesel fuels.
We don't need to make every vehicle electric, we just need all vehicles to use Carbon neutral fuels.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 27, @03:49AM (1 child)
> we just need all vehicles to use Carbon neutral fuels.
As of 2023 Porsche is doing this - https://timelessdriving.com/news/2023/05/Porsche-will-build-the-largest-synthetic-fuel-plant-in-Texas-and-only-there-will-it-costa-about-30-per-gallon-now-it-costs-above-200-per-gallon/ [timelessdriving.com]
Headline is:
> Porsche will build the largest synthetic fuel plant in Texas and only there will it costa about $30 per gallon [at the pump], now it costs above $200 per gallon
Will the price drop by a factor of 10 to match good ol' gasoline? In 20 years? 30 years???
(Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Monday October 27, @07:35PM
There's only 24 places selling B99 biodiesel in my state, which is pitiful. I think there are that many EV chargers within 5 miles of my house, probably more. I think all the grocery stores except Aldi (LOL) have EV chargers. I think even the walmart has an EV station in my city I would have to check.
Anyway B99 being thin on the ground you see insane price variations but this year its running $4 to $5 per gallon.
Synthetic motor oil costs about $20/gallon at walmart so I would assume synthetic gasoline would end up around $20/gallon, any price above that would be solely logistical in nature.
TruFuel sells "synthetic-ish" 4-cycle gas for lawn equipment for about $22/gallon right now off the shelf at home depot. They are more famous for selling various 2-cycle premix so make sure to get the correct can if you're pouring dozens of cans of lawnmower gas into your porsche. Technically not street legal and no road tax was paid and the label says not for use on road, but it'll work as well or better than mogas in everything that is not on road, so...
By synthetic-ish I mean I am unclear exactly how the refinery abused this stuff and what came from where.
I was bored enough to look it up and my local Home Depot sells it for $44.98 for 2.1 gallon can and they have only six cans in stock in "aisle 54 pay EC2" which I'd guess is over by the snowblowers (clearly I don't live in Florida LOL). The bad news is 12 gallons of gas in a 10 mpg super sports car is only like 120 miles range. I would imagine they're selling a lot right now to people putting their lawnmower asleep for the winter and waking up their snowblower, they probably stock a heck of a lot more than 6 cans normally.
But yeah I don't think they can realistically sell their synthetic product for over $200/gal when a COTS product for gas is only about $22/gallon and COTS biodiesel is about $4.50 right now.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday October 27, @11:19AM (1 child)
Assuming the process for making the synthetic or bio fuel is also CO2 and methane neutral. Which right now it isn't.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 27, @02:13PM
> Assuming the process for making the synthetic or bio fuel is also CO2 and methane neutral. Which right now it isn't.
I think the Porsche synthetic fuel plants (as mentioned in the link up-thread) are powered by wind and/or solar. So their operation can be CO2 and methane neutral.
They don't say what went into building the plants, that's likely NOT CO2 and methane neutral.
(Score: 2) by Rich on Monday October 27, @03:04PM (2 children)
This is insanely inefficient. Efficiency-wise, for all vehicles operating within civilization on renewables, battery has already won by far. E-Fuels in any quantity are best assigned to air transport. Now, to kickstart the development, it wouldn't be bad to encourage people to buy gas guzzlers - but only if they show full renewable traceability from source to sink (rather than some silly "certificate" with plans for a nuclear plant in rural Sovietistan or the promise of a Brazilian mafia company to not chop down some rainforest). That way, people who are inclined to do so, can happily roll coal, as long as they pay for the renewable infrastructure.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday October 27, @07:43PM (1 child)
I was motivated enough to search Youtube for videos of people rolling coal using B100 / B99 and there are videos of it. It seems it will smoke as well as pure dinosaur fuel.
Rolling coal is one of those memes that was cool in the 2010s. It seemed to peak about 15 years ago IRL and peak about 10 years ago in legacy media (CNN etc).
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday October 28, @12:29AM
"seems it will smoke as well as pure dinosaur fuel."
Oh yes! It definitely will!
I am careful not to run my old mechanical 7.3L IDI ( Indirect Diesel Injection ) engine rich. ( Low RPM, floored fuel ), it *will* "roll coal" as good as any.
If does this because there are only so many oxygen atoms in a cylinder full of air and a squirt of Diesel.
There always has to be enough oxygen in the cylinder to oxidize the squirt, otherwise, the hydrogens get all the oxygens, leaving the carbons behind, unburned.
I am not turbo, so I have it even worse. Attempts at rapid acceleration always result in a black cloud of carbon dust. If you succeed in egging on an older diesel truck to keep up with an electric zippy car, you are in for a black cloud. The driver is only trying to accommodate your urgency. If he wanted to roll coal your way, you would not have needed to ask for it.
Every other diesel owner I know feels similar to me...these are pretty clean engines if used wisely, they are cheaper to run, very reliable, no electronics ( other than the solenoid fuel shut off valve on the injection pump ). These are a beast of burden, not a race horse. Don't push them. Their emissions are quite nonlinear approaching max load. Just take it easy...it will get you there. They are quite clean when run conservatively, nasty if not. The worse you run it, the less efficient it is, hence you are actually paying for this big mess you are making - and so is everyone else.
They can run on a wide variety of fuels...especially the earlier ones ( the later ones soon experience injector fouling if you feed it used cooking oil ; fouled injectors don't mist the fuel ; they pee it in. Then the engine smokes to all high heaven and pukes unburned fuel up into the exhaust manifold then into the muffler. And run like $#!7. Big stinky mess .)
If one is going to run one of these, they need to understand how it works. And have the right mindset of not using the thing as an annoyance to everyone else. It's already asking a lot to tolerate the noise these old diesels make.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday October 29, @07:08PM
We don't need to make every vehicle electric, we just need all vehicles to use Carbon neutral fuels.
And give up the interior room, braking, handling, lack of needed maintenance or to visit a fuel station, or any of the other dozens of advantages over your inefficient, unreliable, Rube Goldberg contraption? No thanks! And gasoline is four times as expensive as electricity, how much more expensive will biofuel be than gasoline? The environment is the very least of the advantages of EVs over pistons.
I do not miss oil changes and especially don't miss standing in the freezing weather babysitting my vehicle while it fills with explosive carcinogens.
Biofuel is for jets, not pistons. Pistons are as obsolete as cable TV.
No one born who could always afford anything he wanted can have a clue what "affordability" means.
(Score: 2) by Undefined on Monday October 27, @02:55PM
The F-150 Lightning didn't live up to expectations because the price they said it would sell for was so far in the rear view mirror by the time they actually sold any that it had turned into a costly boondoggle only the wealthy could afford.
Totally their own fault.
I use a dedicated preprocessor to elaborate abbreviations.
Hover to reveal elaborations.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 27, @07:57PM (4 children)
The biggest problem I see is the average FoMoCo employee apparently only makes about 50 vehicles per year. You'd expect a LOT more from an assembly line. I don't know if its non-productive or anti-productive DEI hires or what exactly the problem is.
At some point as "industrial production" becomes less and less efficient we'll be back in the days of one dude in a workshop making his personal car by hand.
I mean less than a car per week is pretty pitiful; this is "race car custom hot rod enthusiast" territory. There are youtubers who buy/fix/sell a car every week on video as a business model and despite the total lack of specialization, Ford productivity has dropped so much that "a dude in a garage" is now as productive as a multinational assembly line. Crazy times we live in, huh?
Hmm If I had a large plasma cutter, a decent welder, contacts to buy stuff I don't want to deal with like crate motors and trannies (the car kind) and drivetrains, a herd of 3-d printers, and of course a paint booth... I could theoretically compete with FoMoCo and win? Maybe not today but if they keep declining and "makerspace" class workspaces keep improving... maybe by 2040 or 2050 cars will be something a local makes in his garage as a retirement hobby company not something bought from legacy capitalist industrial assembly lines.
(Score: 2) by BeaverCleaver on Monday October 27, @09:33PM (1 child)
I think you have just described the "kit car." If you outsource the "motor and tranny" (i.e, the precision parts of car manufacture) to to the "legacy capitalist industrial assembly lines," then yes, a guy in a garage can make a box on wheels, then bolt in the difficult parts which he bought from a factory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kit_car [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 28, @01:19AM
> a guy in a garage can make a box on wheels, then bolt in the difficult parts which he bought from a factory.
As you wrote, a kit car. Just don't expect it to be "refined" the way most people expect modern cars to drive.
Solving all the development problems to find all the squeaks, rattles, wind-whistles, etc, etc, takes a lot of time. Then there is all the fooling around to get the controls to feel nice--good cars are nice to drive because the steering, pedals and other controls are "harmonized" to have appropriate sorts of forces and motions (varies with the type of car or truck). Even in these days of virtual prototypes, the car companies still build and test the heck out of a bunch of prototypes, before job-one in the production plant. Another name for a kit car is a prototype.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday October 29, @07:19PM (1 child)
I don't know if its non-productive or anti-productive DEI hires or what...
Was I just the victim of Poe's Law, are you actually racist and sexist enough to believe that vile garbage? You want no diversity, wanting a plumber to lay bricks? You think you're better than others and equity is bullshit? I hope you're not American, because this country's declaration of Independence starts with "all men are created equal." If you're against equity, move to Russia. Inclusion? How about we exclude YOU? I thought you were better than that.
Ford productivity has dropped so much that "a dude in a garage" is now as productive as a multinational assembly line.
That's just ignorant. I was stationed with a fellow in the Air Force who bought three totaled Mustangs and used their parts to build a new Mustang. It took him nearly a year.
No one born who could always afford anything he wanted can have a clue what "affordability" means.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday October 31, @03:43PM
If your only argument in favor of your political position / in opposition to someone elses, is sophistry, you might want to reconsider that position.