Ford may not resume production of F-150 Lightning

[Saturnfire]

...when 93 Octane is $2.55-$2.65 and 87 is ~$2.16-$2.21. Not too many people will switch to an EV. 2 factors. initial price and insurance cost. I am still shocked that I pay ~$700/YR for my F150. my BIL pays $1490/YR for his model 3 insurance.

I am all for a solid Hybrid. but i cannot deal with stop fart and cylinder castration features. Those should be options that the owners can turn off/disable.

Sponsored

 

[Captain Dirty Beard]

Dropping the subsidy was incredibly dumb in just about every way.

Why should tax payers who either cannot afford, or do not want an EV be forced to help subsidize the purchase for one to those who want it?

This is one of the many reasons why the Government is in debt. Irresponsible spending.

If manufacturers cannot create a product that is comparable in price to it's ICE counterpart, they need to either charge more for it, absorb the difference, or cut costs.

Using tax dollars to subsidize the purchase on any item for an individual is absurd.

 

[moritzes]

Why should tax payers who either cannot afford, or do not want an EV be forced to help subsidize the purchase for one to those who want it?

This is one of the many reasons why the Government is in debt. Irresponsible spending.

If manufacturers cannot create a product that is comparable in price to it's ICE counterpart, they need to either charge more for it, absorb the difference, or cut costs.

Using tax dollars to subsidize the purchase on any item for an individual is absurd.

You're kidding yourself if you don't think petroleum production is also government subsidized, now, and especially, historically. One minute of googling:

"A 2017 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI) estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950-2016. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $414 billion, $140 billion, and $112 billion (2015 dollars), respectively, or 65% of total energy subsidies over that period." Wikipedia​

​

"The Trump administration has already added nearly $40 billion in new federal subsidies for oil, gas, and coal in 2025, a report released Tuesday finds, sending an additional $4 billion out the door each year for fossil fuels over the next decade. That new amount, created with the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act this summer, adds to $30.8 billion a year in preexisting subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. The report finds that the amount of public money the US will now spend on domestic fossil fuels stands at least $34.8 billion a year." Wired​

 

[Captain Dirty Beard]

You're kidding yourself if you don't think petroleum production is also government subsidized, now, and especially, historically. One minute of googling:

"A 2017 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI) estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950-2016. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $414 billion, $140 billion, and $112 billion (2015 dollars), respectively, or 65% of total energy subsidies over that period." Wikipedia​

​

"The Trump administration has already added nearly $40 billion in new federal subsidies for oil, gas, and coal in 2025, a report released Tuesday finds, sending an additional $4 billion out the door each year for fossil fuels over the next decade. That new amount, created with the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act this summer, adds to $30.8 billion a year in preexisting subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. The report finds that the amount of public money the US will now spend on domestic fossil fuels stands at least $34.8 billion a year." Wired​

The difference is that only the consumers that purchased an EV got the benefit, while everyone else that could not/did not want one still had to help pay for them. So, everyone else should have also gotten the tax credit applied to their purchase of any new vehicle. Or, no one should get it.

 

[moritzes]

The difference is that only the consumers that purchased an EV got the benefit, while everyone else that could not/did not want one still had to help pay for them. So, everyone else should have also gotten the tax credit applied to their purchase of any new vehicle. Or, no one should get it.

Not to get too far into the weeds, I get your point, but your argument is not with EV subsidies, it's with the whole Tax Code! Why do you and I have to subsidize horse breeding in Kentucky (seriously, it's in there)? Because we elect representatives who--if you support the cause--advocate for important national interests. If you don't support it, it looks like a government give-away.

 

[Captain Dirty Beard]

it's with the whole Tax Code!

Absolutely. The amount of tax dollars "given away" through thousands of different programs, subsidies, other countries war efforts etc. will make your head spin. There's a reason why the US is 36 Trillion in debt. Financial irresponsibility will be the downfall of this country, just like many other Empires before it.

 

[XLT22]

Why should tax payers who either cannot afford, or do not want an EV be forced to help subsidize the purchase for one to those who want it?

This is one of the many reasons why the Government is in debt. Irresponsible spending.

If manufacturers cannot create a product that is comparable in price to it's ICE counterpart, they need to either charge more for it, absorb the difference, or cut costs.

Using tax dollars to subsidize the purchase on any item for an individual is absurd.

You’re only looking at it from a point of purchasing something when you should be looking at it from a national perspective. Nearly every industry is subsidized to some degree for many different reasons.

As a nation it benefits us all to have a comprehensive energy policy. Part of that policy is assisting industries critical to the future to get up to speed. Sure we could have law of the jungle as you propose and that’s been tried before. It quickly failed and it’s why we have a Constitutional form of government and not the Articles of Confederation.

 

[XLT22]

Absolutely. The amount of tax dollars "given away" through thousands of different programs, subsidies, other countries war efforts etc. will make your head spin. There's a reason why the US is 36 Trillion in debt. Financial irresponsibility will be the downfall of this country, just like many other Empires before it.

Subsidies are a literal drop in the bucket compared to the last half century of outlandish military spending and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations. Those two along are about 24T.

 

[Snakebitten]

First, I have an EV.
And it's my second EV, so I'm all in!

But neither EV acquisition qualified for the government subsidy when I purchased and that actually made me happy.

Believe me when I say I have heard all the angles from both sides of the debate. And neither side do I wear their jersey.

I just like vehicles that can put a smile on my face when I'm using them for what they are great at. And that's the ONLY reason I can be convinced to purchase.

Politics or virtue are banned from my reasoning. They both seem like killjoy for me personally.

Funny though that Ford is the reason I don't have a Lightning. It certainly isn't politics. But rather consumer objection to marketing dishonesty. As mentioned, their bait&switch marketing tactic stung a pretty loyal customer.

 

[teamroper60]

The actual numbers put out contradict people "going back to ICE" when you dig into it. The massive convenience of EVs outweighs the benefit of being able to drive an ICE vehicle 400 miles then refuel quickly.

Seriously, people that aren't driving 300+ miles every day LOVE their EVs. The Lightning absolutely needs more range, and Ford needs to whack their dealers over the head to get them to sell it. Dealers have actively sabotaged many from buying it over the last few years based on anecdotes.

Even an additional 75 miles of battery would be great in the Lightning. It would be enormously short sited to kill it, even though there's a new EV platform coming. Lots of contractors in my podunk little city use them already for "truck" things every day. They aren't driving more than 100 miles a day I'd bet and do just fine pulling their crap around. Get that towing range up to a legitimate 250-300 miles with a trailer and they wouldn't be able to keep the line running fast enough.


Lastly, a lot of people in the US think we're special and EVs won't work here. That's a sad indictment of our education system and peoples' unwillingness to challenge false narratives. EVs are the future and it's coming quickly despite the current political climate in the US. Once the supply chains are in place they're far cheaper to build and cheaper to run for the consumer. Places like China have a climate that's just as cold, with cities just as large or larger than ours and big distances between them. EVs are quickly becoming the default there choice there. Even for heavier trucks you see more of them every day. If Canada allows the Chinese companies to come in and start building like they've done in Mexico, there's going to be a reckoning with the US based automakers. Protectionist trade policies can't save them forever.

I will disagree with your comments about them having "massive convienence" and the way you downplay the range and recharge times. Maybe thats not an issue for city dwellers but most of the country is rural and in those areas, where recharge locations are few and far between, there is no convienence at all. Especially given their lack of range and long recharge times. I regularly travel distances that would require multiple recharging stops to get to my destination and add hours, not minutes to the time on the road. That my friend is most certainly not convienent. Especially when considering my ICE powered truck can get there and back on one tank of fuel and then be refueled in a handfull of minutes.

If the range and recharge times and recharge locations were on par with my ICE truck, I'd be the first in line to get one. The instant power and potential is very appealing to me. Im sure technology will get the range up and recharge times down in the near term. The biggest issue is the infrastructure necessary to support large numbers of recharging locations in every area of the country will take decades to achieve. Until it does, hybrids and ICE engines are going rule the market.

 

[Snakebitten]

Multi-vehicle ownership isn't rare. So......
Range anxiety for a rural owner wouldn't be any better/worse than urban, as long as you can charge at home and your daily round trip is less than the EV range limits.

My Mach-E GTPE leaves the house charged to 80%, and I can commute and goof off well under a comfortable 200 miles. Range anxiety hasn't been even on the radar.

EV's aren't for everyone. But they are absolutely fantastic at what they are fantastic at.

 

[Suns_PSD]

Why should tax payers who either cannot afford, or do not want an EV be forced to help subsidize the purchase for one to those who want it?

This is one of the many reasons why the Government is in debt. Irresponsible spending.

If manufacturers cannot create a product that is comparable in price to it's ICE counterpart, they need to either charge more for it, absorb the difference, or cut costs.

Using tax dollars to subsidize the purchase on any item for an individual is absurd.

The reasoning would be to subsize a startup industry so that American auto manufacturing is worldwide competitive, instead of us falling hopelessly behind the Chinese, which is what has essentially happened, according to Farley and is pretty obvious to the most casual observer.

I'm not arguing for or against. But I do think that we can all agree that selling worldclass goods across the planet is good for Americans.

98% of the world (totally made up percent) isn't going to buy an F150, but they will buy the BYD Shark.

 

[moritzes]

98% of the world (totally made up percent) isn't going to buy an F150

My kind of stat

 

[Snakebitten]

98% of the world (totally made up percent) isn't going to buy an F150, but they will buy the BYD Shark.

I personally agree, but since I do, I hold Ford (and GM, Ram, Toyota, Nissan,....) accountable for NOT building their version of the Shark WITHOUT the government (tax payer) prodding them to.

Isn’t the whole point to build products that you are convinced the consumer would buy?

Ford is sandbagging.
Because they can.
I just don't agree with them (or anyone) for doing it.

I bet if "the government" made some exception that allowed JUST the Shark to cross the Mexican border to Texas legally, Ford would suddenly be a lot closer to releasing their answer to compete.

It's not just an EV vs ICE dynamic, although it's often framed in that context.

 

[Captain Dirty Beard]

Subsidies are a literal drop in the bucket compared to the last half century of outlandish military spending and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations. Those two along are about 24T.

Regardless of those facts- subsidies for individual purchases should not come from Tax dollars.

Say I want to buy an $800,000 house, but I can really only afford a $600,000 house. Should I be entitled to a subsidy that even people who can only afford a $400,000 house had to pay into, so that I can buy the house I can't afford?

If anything, like other here are trying to justify, subsidizing the technology and development of EV's to help further along progress, and drive down costs while improving performance should be considered - but not on individual purchases. It isn't fair to the people who cannot afford, or do not want them in the first place, to have to help the people that want them to pay for them.

China beats the US in this field because they can manipulate their markets, have far lower labor rates, produce electricity with reckless abandon, and steal technology vs. paying to develop it themselves.

If anything, the oil companies should be forced to cover the difference. You want people to buy EV's? Start charging 10, 20, 30 dollars a gallon for gas. (this will obviously never happen, because the oil and gas industries have a choke hold on the economy, and our governments) Eventually, EV's will eclipse ICE vehicles. Not only because of the environmental impacts, but because they will out perform ICE vehicles in every metric, while also being more reliable and have far less maintenance.

When an electric vehicle can have a 1000 mile range, and charge in 5 minutes, Internal combustion will die. The technology is in its infancy compared to Internal combustion. But again, politicians, governments, and certainly oil companies do not want this, and they will do everything they can to prevent this change.

Sponsored