Ford kills off its all all-electric F-150

[Cub 7275]

On the news this morning the Ford CEO said they are taking a U$20 billion hit!

Ford had a market cap. of U$54 billion, I am surprised its not a company killing thing. If I woke up one morning and had to decide to write off 40%+ of my worth I would be devastated.

wonder how GM / Stelantis / etc... going to weather this storm as they are even less strong financially than Ford.

I'm all for making motion to make less impact on environment but I sometimes wonder how many affordable houses, disease that could be fixed, hungry people that could be fed, etc.... if better decisions could have been made on how to spend "social" monies.

$20b / $100k per small affordable track homes = 200,000 small home * 4 people per family = 800,000 people housed from this one companies follies alone. Imagine if this math was made across all companies?? and across all countries.... the numbers are amazing spent.

wonder if socially it could have been spent more effectively.

Accounting mumbo jumbo. "Of the total charges, only about $5.5 billion will impact cash, which Ford said would be incurred next year and into 2027" https://www.reuters.com/business/au...ion-ev-writedown-five-things-know-2025-12-16/

Considering Ford raised its operating profit for the year to 7 billion despite taking that "$19.5 billion" hit, I think they will be ok for now.

Other than news headline shock value, what meaning does the $19.5 hit have as far as society is concerned? Any real money didn't just disappear, it was spent paying salaries to people and buying materials (which paid more people's salaries). That benefited society. So would you prefer not to pay people and build houses instead?

 

[MossRoad]

I know a few people that I work with who own and are happy with their EVs. They live in the city and the EV is perfect for their commute and around town needs. They didn’t buy them for any of the reasons you listed; they bought them because it saves them money and they charge at home. I can’t argue with their fuel savings; it adds up to a lot of money each month. I live too rural and they aren’t practical for me.

I've thought about it many times and an EV car would make plenty of sense for us and accomplish around 95% of our driving needs. However, I would not want it for vacation driving. I'd stick with a gas car for that. And we have an older Suburban for hauling anything large or pulling the car hauler trailer. There are 'only' 5 cars in our driveway right now for the two of us, so it may happen after retirement when we downsize to 3.

 

[WM75Guy]

Maybe not yet, but many states had legislation banning the sales of new ICE vehicles as of 2035.

But they are not banning the operation of ICE vehicles in their state, just the sale of ICE vehicles. So you go to the next state over that still sells ICE vehicles, buy your ICE vehicle, and then register it in your home state. I am sure the fees for that will go higher, just like some states upped the fees for EVs to replace the gas tax lost.

 

[Blue Mule]

I leased one in August to beat the end of the tax credits.

To date I've put 4,600 miles on it. It replaced a 2019 F-250 diesel. The Lightning is probably the best overall truck I've ever had. The payload rating is very close to the F-250. With my 26' enclosed trailer behind it I can't even tell there's a trailer back there. It pulls like a train. And with no transmission, the acceleration is perfectly smooth, quiet, and linear. In daily commuting it rides like a Cadillac, has tons of safety features and creature comforts, and it costs me $14 per week to drive it. It has the 9.6 kWh onboard power, so I can run anything I want including my house during electrical outages. The "frunk" is truly useful. Wife and I haul things in there all the time. I truly LOVE this truck. After driving one for several months I can see now why so many guys say they will never go back to ICE.

Having said that, the Achilles heel to this truck is RANGE while towing. You cannot hook up a camper and drive 250 miles with this truck. Ain't happnin'. And I think Ford's market research told them that this was the problem potential buyers saw in the truck. My wife and I love to camp at the Land Between the Lakes which is 4 hours drive each way. We haven't been a single time since I got this truck. I'm afraid of the headache of finding chargers every 80 miles with the camper in tow.

And so, despite how AMAZING the Lightning is I can understand why Ford wants to add an engine to it. The range-extending engine will eliminate the one problem with this truck. People say, "Well then you've got oil changes to do again." So what? If a 15 minute oil change once per year breaks you then you probably don't need a truck in the first place.

 

[MapleLeafFarmer]

Accounting mumbo jumbo. "Of the total charges, only about $5.5 billion will impact cash, which Ford said would be incurred next year and into 2027" https://www.reuters.com/business/au...ion-ev-writedown-five-things-know-2025-12-16/

Considering Ford raised its operating profit for the year to 7 billion despite taking that "$19.5 billion" hit, I think they will be ok for now.

Other than news headline shock value, what meaning does the $19.5 hit have as far as society is concerned? Any real money didn't just disappear, it was spent paying salaries to people and buying materials (which paid more people's salaries). That benefited society. So would you prefer not to pay people and build houses instead?

I would argue not accounting mumble jumble but rather a value for money discussion.

Would we have been better off paying one time salaries that multiplies through our society at a certain rate (earnings multiplier about 2.5x) OR would we have been better off spending same money on salaries that also leave long term infrastructure and gains for generations? (which also has same salary multiplier of say 2.5x plus long term economic benefits like done after WW2 with interstate highway investment, etc...) Money in the 1950's spent on builders salaries and generational value created as our kids and grand kids are using these roads today.

no absolute right or wrong just how you look at spending this very limited resource we call money.

Cheers

 

[dstig1]

+1 I was going to write much the same. It's called opportunity cost. Aside from the fancy economics term, very simply, the money could have been put to better more productive use with ongoing benefits. So yes, there is a significant loss occurring.

 

[skid mark]

But they are not banning the operation of ICE vehicles in their state, just the sale of ICE vehicles. So you go to the next state over that still sells ICE vehicles, buy your ICE vehicle, and then register it in your home state. I am sure the fees for that will go higher, just like some states upped the fees for EVs to replace the gas tax lost.

Mostly true, but not 100%.

As of 2023, you can't register your diesel F450 chassis cab in California if it was made before 2010.

And the problem isn't just that you can't buy one somewhere else and then register it in CA. Even if you owned it (IN CALIFORNIA!!!) prior to the passing of the law, you could no longer register it. Like your favorite old tow rig? Too bad. Sell it out of state, or move out of state and take it with you.

Oh, but I have another home/business in another state, so I'll just register my diesel truck there, so I'm good. ?

No. Sorry, but California law prohibits that (and is aggressive in enforcing this).

 

[ultrarunner]

Mostly true, but not 100%.

As of 2023, you can't register your diesel F450 chassis cab in California if it was made before 2010.

And the problem isn't just that you can't you buy one somewhere else and then register it in CA. Even if you owned it (IN CALIFORNIA!!!) prior to the passing of the law, you could no longer register it. Like your favorite old tow rig? Too bad. Sell it out of state, or move out of state and take it with you.

Oh, but I have another home/business in another state, so I'll just register my diesel truck there, so I'm good. ?

No. Sorry, but California law prohibits that (and is aggressive in enforcing this).

This is fact and a lot of small excavation and hauling calling it quits… they have been regulated out of business unless they are willing to replace perfectly good, well maintained and paid for equipment.

A few have found work arounds but I think only a matter of time…

 

[2manyrocks]

From what I see on Youtube about the permitting and codes compliance required to rebuild after the LA fires, they must think there is an endless supply of super wealthy individuals who are willing to bear the cost of all that to rebuild and live in LA.

As for Ford, IMO, it was nutty for them to spend so much to build such an expensive truck that few could afford instead of investing more resources in building an affordable truck like the Maverick that people wanted to buy, but dealers couldn't get enough of to meet demand.

Ford got its start making affordable vehicles. Why they deviated from their own successful business model doesn't make sense to me.

 

[ultrarunner]

Fords earliest endeavors were high priced cars with a limited market.

His revolutionary idea was to build in mass through vertical integration reliable vehicles the working man could afford.

I have two colleagues with Ford Electric trucks and both are pleased and both are Docs.

They don’t have the service demands that someone in AG or construction would have…

Grocery getter, Home Depot Runs, tow the jet ski to the lake kind of things…

The front trunk is a huge plus and one has the high output inverter and has used his truck as a power source and both have large home PV arrays…