38 points | by melling7 hours ago
The refresh jacked up the price, because, well, they can.
This is North America. With the exception of a few relatively small metro areas, if you live in the US or Canada, you must own a car in order to survive. They've got it; you need it. Pay up.
There's also the impact of CAFE rules. "Let the market sort it out" types often point to these as perverse incentives ruining the profitability of small trucks, but they forget that the automakers lobbied for the light truck exemption.
Publicly traded company gonna behave like a publicly traded company.
https://electrek.co/2024/10/28/fords-new-electric-pickup-riv...
I have an EV, but I also have a couple ICEs at home between me an my wife. The EV is great for urban use, taking kids to school and everywhere else, buying groceries, but for road trips, anything beyond a single charge roundtrip radius we use our ICEs.
I will probably replace one of my ICEs with an hybrid, but not an EV, and probably when that time comes, I will sell both one of the ICE and the EV.
Expensive insurance, the fear of a battery fire, expensive suspension repairs, premature tires replacement. Lots of negatives that very few people think about. And really, I don't like the agressive driving style the instant torque encourages me to adopt.
Compare it to ICE - fueled in a minute and you can then pay by card or cash. No applications required.
Good idea, but the execution needed to be better. I hope more EVs come along that incorporate the whole "battery backup on wheels" idea that can integrate into a solar power setup easily and efficiently. Ideally have some static batteries installed at the property, and when the vehicle is plugged in it simply augments that battery storage to extend runtime.
Of course I assume the addressable market for folks like me is in the dozens, so I understand as an actual truck it more or less failed after talking to a few Truck Guys.
I do want my pickup truck to be a good pickup truck, and the impression I get is that the Lightning is really an F150 and does a good job at that.
I ordered my ICE F150 in late 2022 (delivered in 2023), so don't plan to buy a new truck for another 7-9 years.
When I was ordering, the Lightnings were just not available. Even if they were, however, you can only get the Lightning in the crew cab short bed configuration with a 145" wheel base.
I wanted a 6.5' bed, so the Lightning doesn't offer that. For a classic F150, you can get 2 wheel base options with 3 different cab/bed combinations.
The frunk with lockable storage is actually a really attractive feature though in terms of carrying tools or other things you want secure and out of the weather.
I like the look of the upcoming Ford e-Transit Courier but it will be a lot more expensive than the ICE versions.
Then the inverter size was severely undersized with no real ability to power a full sized home without making large sacrifices. Around 9kw if I recall correctly, which means (for me at least) no running A/C and a large electric appliance at the same time like a dryer.
Then it required using Sunrun as the only system integrator - plus all their equipment. I guess this is to be expected, but I'd like to design my own system.
I'm in the same boat as you though - I never looked into beyond surface level since I have enough random projects to think about as it is, and no property yet to turn any research into a practical system.
I’d love an electric truck, but I wouldn’t want one of these awful giant things with huge cabs and a tiny little bed. However, I don’t think this is the reason, my taste is apparently not very representative. I miss my grandpa’s truck though, single cab, bench seat, loads of garbage in the bed, let’s go to the dump. Simpler times.
But they CRAZY expensive.
Is it cost of production being passed on or did the marketing department decide to do some "prestige" pricing?
A quick search said a new one would cost $80k delivered, how much can the price decrease before Ford is losing money?
I can buy a new gasoline f150 for 40k at most with many bells and whistles. Not the top of the line by any means, but a really well equipped truck.
They're competing with themselves, in a way.
The people who would buy a Tesla are not the people who would buy a Ford.
https://my.caredge.com/buy?radius=7000&rows=20&zip=98101&mak...
It's why my f150 is the 40k xl instead of the 70k king ranch or whatever it is edition.
I would love to have an EV truck. Once the price comes down I'll have one.
As someone living in a condo, I am 0% surprised. If you don't have a fully-enclosed garage, I'd be surprised if there was a simple solution for charging, and the idea of sitting at a station for 45 minutes twice a week sounds... miserable at best. Even if you disagree with me on these points, I doubt my point of view is particularly rare.
Now, for the contractor bopping around town, charging is much less of an issue, and being able to power all of your tools 1/2 mile from the nearest power pole is very useful. But the Lightening was not priced at the “tradesman” trim level.
It's a luxury vehicle that the wealthy purchase when they want to role play. It's trim levels are the higher end. It's bed length is the smallest.
It isn't a work truck, it's a costume accessory.
That said, I think the Lightning serves certain roles really well. They're great for the forest service, for municipalities, utilities, etc. If they were actually cheaper than the ICE version I think they'd gain a lot of adoption for those kinds of fleets.
Since they're quite a bit more expensive, though, buyers have to make the case that they're worth it. Pretty tough proposition unless you're trying to sneak under an emissions budget.
Then maybe marketing? At least from my limited perspective, the people who would buy F-150 are not exactly the ones to want to sit and wait next to small electric cars to charge for half an hour at charging station. That's why perhaps a cybertruck works, it doesn't look like a "truck" and doesn't appeal to the same crowd. It's a whole new thing. It seems "cool" while this one seems "lame". The Ford marketing department should have sniffed that out better than a rando HN poster at least.
I think this is Elon's big problem. He already has all the liberal geeks interested in that tech, but has to expand and is thus trying to endear himself to the conservative crowd hoping the backlash in his main customer base isn't too bad. It's not working. The cyber truck is not only expensive and extremely poorly made, but it's also far too radical for most of that crowd.
The answer today fpr truck buyers is no, no matter how you slice it. I think Toyota played their hand perfectly with the hybrid Prius, keeping it familiar enough to regular cars that the sole element of comparison came down to something they could win at (gas mileage). EV trucks get dinged on a dozen other points of comparison where they lose, eg towing, refueling time, etc.
I'd be really curious to know if a major truck maker has a hybrid truck in development, eg a hybrid Toyota Tacoma/HiLux. That would be very interesting indeed. If nothing else it would seed the consumers' brains with real data on how they actually drive, which could influence their buying behavior for the next truck.
How about a range extender version?
I would actually argue price isn’t the issue but is an easy low hanging fruit we can blame.
When people buy trucks they do so for security mentally and otherwise. Americans buy trucks to be able to haul around something once a year, to have enough room for the family, to tow things, to go on long road trips, to go over landing, to have the ability to go off-road as needed.
Much of America is rural and has dirt roads or other light infrastructure. During storms trees fall on roads and have to be moved or gone around. I lived 10 minutes from an urban center and my house had one road to/from. Once every 6 months a tree would fall on the road and block access.
Tl;dr people buy trucks for peace of mind, their capability, and rare events that can affect them. Because vehicles are such a huge purchase they buy more incase they need it.
The lightning is neither capable nor offers peace of mind due to its limitations in range, towing, and charging station availability.
Price
I have the F-150 Lightning and I love it. I think I could love a smaller truck, maybe between the Maverick and the modern Ranger. The F-150 is huge.
There also needs to be pull through charging options. I'm not disconnecting a trailer to charge my vehicle.
Hmm... seems Tesla is flat over the last few years: https://www.reuters.com/graphics/TESLA-DELIVERIES/gkvlbmzmev...
You are looking at a chart that only has one full year on it. 2023 has good growth over 2022. 2024 may end up being flat, but every year prior has seen growth.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/502208/tesla-quarterly-v...
People are abandoning Tesla in droves, presumably due to the spectacle its owner is making of himself publicly.
One person sees a roughly flat multi-year sales chart (true) and another sees significant growth in the last quarter (true) and somehow they arrive at opposite conclusions.
They are so vertically integrated, control much of their supply chain, and are not hamstrung by an increasingly erratic and irrational CEO.
Test drove both Model 3 Performance and BYD Seal Performance both before settling on a Tesla, it was close. Price wise about 20% cheaper (I am in a country that does not put tariffs on BYD).
But currently, the BYD software is….. not great, comparatively. The cars are decently made though, and look pretty good. Drive ok, but M3P is a much sharper drive.
Another vehicle generation of improvement though, Tesla would need to watch their backs.
They went away from Brazil because their cars weren't competitive. Even in GeoGuessr if I see a Ford I know that I'm in USA, because is the only place where they are used. I do not follow the auto market, but I never hear news about this iconic brand.
I think they just quit competing on price and volume - they've gutted their entire car lineup except for the Mustang, for example. In my own shopping, I found that Ford was considerably more expensive than the alternatives. Even the much advertised Maverick is creeping into the 30ks. Maybe it's worth it, I sure wasn't going to find out...but they do sell a -lot- of trucks.
Tesla is the new Ford. Ford (and most other car manufacturers) will have a difficult time, most manufacturers are probably doomed. After the current hesitation phase, when the economics are there (very soon), customers will almost all go electric.
It seems like the bigger concern is that the trucks simply arent selling
Margin is profit over total revenue, not profit over Capital invested
When someone buys stock on the market, they are giving money to another trader. They are not giving money to the company to invest in production capacity.
Shareholder profit tracks net corporate profit, not profit margin. It's better to hold a stock that makes a 1% margin on a billion dollars revenue, then one that has a 90% margin on $10 of revenue
1) At a high level, shareholders are interested in stock price to earnings, not margin.
2) When you buy ford stock, none of that money goes to the company for capital investment. It goes to some other stock trader.
3) shareholders and CEOs want ROI. that investment is stock price, which detached from manufacturing capacity investments.
Companies regularly sell their own stock and use it for capital investment. It is an important way that large capital projects are funded in capitalistic countries.
Federal Express is a great example: as a start-up, it could not become profitable till it had a big network (planes, airport landing rights, a huge sorting facility) so the cost of the network had to be paid for by selling stock or by borrowing, and corporations at least in the US raise more money from stock sales than they do from borrowing.
Another example is training AI models: most of the tens of billions of dollars in GPUs and electricity that has been used or will soon be used to train AI models comes from the sale of stock.
During secondary stock offers, Investors will care about how much value the addition funds will create relative to cash put in.
Still, this is different than a percent profit margin on sales. Investors care about the total profit, not the percent margin.
going back to the actual situation, EV's lowering the percent profit margin doesnt matter as long as they are increating the total profit.
If you sell 1 million gas cars at 20% profit, and can sell 1 million EVs at 10% margin, you are still better off selling the EVs and taking the 15% margin on 2 million cars.
The idea that ford is dialing back production because it lowers their percent margin isnt a realistic justification. especially after the funds have been sunk in manufacturing.
I was going to say, this sounds like a diesel-electric locomotive!
That said, there is a reason why diesel-electric took over from both steam and early electric locomotives; maybe that applies to automobiles, too?
France is a little smaller than Texas. If you live in France, how often are you driving to Portugal, Belgium, or Germany? Not often. The maximum amount of range you will ever drive is quite constrained.
How often do Americans go on road trips from Minnesota to California, or from California to New York, or from Minnesota to Mexico, or from Montana to Florida? All the time, by comparison. Some will do it multiple times per year. People buy cars with the maximum in mind, not the average.
Very rarely, IMHO. I'm not sure who you know. I don't think I know anyone who buys cars with trips anything like that in mind.
Europe is effectively borderless for its residents - no passports, border guards, etc. - and people cross into different countries all the time.
Yes people cross borders in Europe, but mostly when they live in a border area. People aren't making 300km trips to cross a border very often, but 50km, sure.
Lots of people do. If you are making $60K a year (the median in the US - half of employed people make less), and you have 3 children and live in California, what's your plan to visit relatives in, say, Nebraska? Buy 10 plane tickets? Driving the 2,600 miles both ways, at 25 MPG, will cost you "only" $320 round trip.
Also, SFO to JFK is as low as $640 round trip for a family of 5 on the right days, and $760 in gas at 25 MPG and $3.30/gal. Plus you're going to need several nights of lodging unless you want to spend 40 straight hours in a car packed with kids.
I see you edited your comment to change the destination to Nebraska to make your numbers look better. Round trip SFO to Omaha for a family of 5 can be had for $655 according to Google Flights, vs. $440 in gas at 25 MPG and $3.30/gal, but again you'll need at least two nights of lodging for the whole family, and on a trip that long you should also account for part of an oil change and tire change and other car maintenance expenses.
The comparison just makes no sense to me. I take road trips because I love road trips, not because I think the economics are somehow better than flying.
Adding 2-3 recharge stops is a deal breaker for a weekend warrior. Nobody wants to spend an hour charging stop before they get to a campground or when they heading home to get ready for work on Monday.
Road trips make up a tiny fraction of the miles/hours on my truck, but they are the primary reason why I have a truck at all instead of a Prius or something.
According to the US Government, more than 32 million trips every year exceed 1,000 miles - and that's only during the "16-week period between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day." 37 percent of those trips are by vehicle; so about 12 million 1000+ mile trips by car during those 16 weeks alone. That's not small.
And I wonder how many are in specific market segments. For example, maybe not many luxury or super-luxury car owners; they fly. Maybe lots of minivans and SUVs for families and capacity. Maybe not many economy cars.
Rarely. Certainly not multiple times a year on average.
Perhaps the demographic buying F150 sized trucks is different, but it's definitely not the norm to be making multi-day long road trips multiple times per year. Most folks don't even have that much vacation time to burn - and if they do - they likely are working office style jobs where flights are going to be an affordable expense.
It would be interesting to see stats on this though. I do agree people tend to buy for the maximum not the average. But I've found people - at least in my circle - grossly overestimate how common the maximum is.
Midwest to Midwest road trips are common. Midwest to the coasts tend to be rare, but that's all anecdote we can fight about. Once you get beyond about 16 hours I think the curve starts to flatten quite a bit.
That does not mean they will buy an EV and feel confident in relying on that second vehicle for long distance. If it's anything like the families I know, the beater's only job is to fill up short distance trips, to avoid wear on the newer car, until the day it "runs into the ground."
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/19/22442777/ford-f-150-light...
