The world of car sales is entering a new era. There were hints of it last year, when the sales of hybrid vehicles began to explode, but now, thanks to that already-softening demand of EVs and now the lack of a federal tax credit to incentivize sales, it’s clearer than ever: EVs are on the downturn.
The proof lies in October sales, which were released earlier this week; the first round of real data shows just how important that federal incentive was. It revealed a drop of 43 percent year over year. The numbers are forcing automakers to consider whether building EVs is even worth their time. And the first casualty of that thought process could be one of the most important EVs of the 2020s: the F-150 Lightning.
What else is going on in the world? Tesla CEO Elon Musk finally got approval for his controversial $900 billion pay package, winning more than three-quarters of shareholder votes. Whether he’ll actually perform well enough to earn enough to make him the world’s first trillionaire remains to be seen, though it seems unlikely.
Then there’s Toyota, which is building V6s that grenade themselves. The company has recalled another 127,000 engines for “machining debris” that could cause total failure. Oh, and Tesla has delayed the Roadster again, this time to April Fools’ Day, 2026. Let’s get into it.
Ford Reportedly Might Not Bother With Resuscitating F-150 Lightning Production
Back in September, an aluminum plant in Oswego, New York suffered a big fire that reportedly “leveled” a key part of its facility, according to the Wall Street Journal. This plant supplied aluminum to several automakers producing cars in the U.S., with Ford reportedly being the most affected. It was the biggest user of that plant, sourcing material to build its aluminum-bodied F-150—the most popular passenger vehicle in the country.
In response to this supply chain disruption, Ford paused production of the F-150 Lightning to focus production on the more profitable, higher-demand gas-powered variants. This makes a lot of sense; the F-150 Lightning may have been the best-selling EV truck last quarter, but the 10,000 units moved are just a drop in the bucket compared to the 207,000 gas-powered F-150s sold in the same period.
With demand for electric vehicles now falling off a cliff, Ford is reportedly considering whether to restart production of the F-150 Lightning at all, according to this report from the Wall Street Journal:
Ford Motor executives are in active discussions about scrapping the electric version of its F-150 pickup, according to people familiar with the matter, which would make the money-losing truck America’s first major EV casualty.
The Lightning, once described by Ford as a modern Model T for its importance to the company, fell far short of expectations as American truck buyers skipped the electric version of the top-selling truck. Ford has racked up $13 billion in EV losses since 2023.
Overall EV sales, already falling short of expectations, are expected to plummet in the absence of government support. And big, electric pickups and SUVs are the most vulnerable.
The report goes on to say that no final decision has been made, though considering Ram made the call to cancel its yet-to-be-released EV pickup just two months ago, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Ford follow suit. The signs of reduced EV truck demand are elsewhere in the market, too. Rivian, makers of the R1T pickup, just laid off 600 people. And sales of Tesla’s electric pickup, the Cybertruck, haven’t been doing well for months.
It’s not just the F-150 that’s in danger. WSJ says General Motors executives are considering axing some electric trucks from the lineup, too, citing “people familiar with the matter.” The company builds three electric pickups right now: The Silverado EV, the Sierra EV, and the Hummer EV.
In the near future, I predict the demand for electric trucks will stay level or trickle down slightly. The truth is, most people want a gas engine in their pickups if they want to do pickup things, like towing and hauling. The proof can be seen in reservations for Scout’s new truck, where 80% of buyers want the range extender over the pure EV.
Trucks that rely on battery power alone are not the move for serious tow duty, as pulling all that extra weight zaps range to impractical levels. Plus, electric trucks are usually more expensive than their ICE-powered counterparts. Extended-range EV pickups like the new Scout and Ram’s upcoming 1500 REV have all of the same benefits as a pure EV, plus they can cover the range problem thanks to the onboard gas generator. For most buyers, it’s the logical solution.
Elon Gets His Wish. Now He Has To Make It Happen
Back in September, Tesla proposed a new pay package for CEO Elon Musk that, should he accomplish a series of lofty financial benchmarks, would add nearly $900 billion to his net worth, making him the world’s first trillionaire. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this proposal faced lots of criticism, seeing as how it would make Musk, already the world’s richest person, the highest-paid CEO in the history of CEOs.
Many believe Tesla’s valuation and future success hinge on Musk staying as CEO, though the South African-born exec seems to believe his most important role will be being in control of the company’s forthcoming robot army. Either way, shareholders of the automaker voted overwhelmingly to ratify the pay package, with Musk celebrating in the only way he knows how: Next to his machines. From Reuters:
The proposal was approved with over 75% support, and Musk bounded to the stage of the company’s annual meeting at its factory in Austin, Texas, accompanied by dancing robots.
Musk, already the world’s richest person, could get as much as $1 trillion in stock over the next decade, although required payments would take the value down to $878 billion.
The vote is crucial for Tesla’s future and its valuation, which hangs on Musk’s vision of making vehicles that drive themselves, creating a robotaxi network across the U.S. and selling humanoid robots, even though his far-right political rhetoric has hurt the Tesla brand this year.
“What we are about to embark upon is not merely a new chapter of the future of Tesla, but a whole new book,” Musk told a cheering group of shareholders.
[…]
“Other shareholder meetings are like snoozefests, but ours are bangers,” Musk said. “I mean, look at this. This is sick.”
It’s important to note that Tesla won’t just hand Musk $878 billion over the next decade. The package requires him to accomplish some incredibly lofty tasks, including growing Tesla’s stock value by eight times, deploying a million robotaxis, selling a million humanoid robots, selling 20 million more cars, growing full self-driving subscriptions to 10 million users, and increasing operating profits to $400 billion. As I said in my previous coverage of Musk’s pay proposal, doing all of that seems pretty impossible, considering Tesla’s reputation and aging lineup.
Toyota Still Can’t Get Its V6s Right
Last year, Toyota, widely known as builders of some of the most reliable, durable, and longest-lasting vehicles on the planet, caught a lot of flak for having to replace the engines in over 100,000 trucks and SUVs equipped with the company’s relatively new 3.4-liter twin-turbo V6.
Back then, Toyota said leftover machining debris from the factory was wreaking havoc on the V6’s internals, could could lead to engine knock and total engine shutdown. The company quickly reworked its manufacturing process, saying that any engine built after those deemed potentially faulty “were manufactured with new or improved processes that better clear machining debris.”
Well, it turns out that the new process wasn’t good enough, because Toyota is recalling even more V6s for the same problem. From the company’s website:
Toyota is conducting a safety recall involving certain model year 2022-2024 Toyota Tundra, 2022-2024 Lexus LX, and 2024 Lexus GX vehicles in North America. Approximately 127,000 Toyota- and Lexus-branded vehicles (conventional gas models only) are involved in this recall in the U.S.
There is a possibility that certain machining debris may not have been cleared from the engine when it was produced. In the involved vehicles, this can lead to potential engine knocking, engine rough running, engine no start, and/or a loss of motive power. A loss of motive power while driving at higher speeds can increase the risk of a crash.
Toyota says it’s “currently developing the remedy” for this problem, though if I had to guess, it’s probably just going to replace these engines like it did with the last bad batch. If I were an owner, that’s what I’d want. Even if an engine doesn’t immediately fail due to errant metal debris, I’d worry it could be enough to cause serious damage in the long term.
Can You Believe It? The Tesla Roadster Has Been Delayed Again
In what is undoubtedly the least surprising news of the week, the long-awaited Tesla Roadster 2.0 has been delayed for what feels the 37th time. This comes after reports that Musk had planned to show off the car by the end of this year. The new proposed reveal date isn’t inspiring much confidence. From TechCrunch:
Tesla CEO Elon Musk said Thursday the company will reveal the production version of its second-generation Roadster supercar on April 1, 2026 — nearly nine years after he first revealed the project.
Musk, who is famous for missing deadlines, said during Tesla’s annual shareholder meeting that he chose April Fools’ Day in part because it affords “some deniability.”
“Like, I could say I was just kidding” if it happens to be later, he said.
In some even more upsetting news for reservation-holders of the car, Musk went on to say that production of the Roadster won’t begin until 12 to 18 months after the reveal. So, at minimum, it won’t be until April 2027 that this car hits the road—nearly an entire decade since it was first revealed.
If Musk is to be believed, the production Roadster should, at least, be pretty different from the car we saw in 2017. From TechCrunch:
Musk stressed Thursday the car “will be very different from what was shown previously,” and again teased that the demo will be the “most exciting, whether it works or not, demo ever of any product” — a not-so-sly nod to the fact that he’s spent years trying to make the new Roadster fly in some fashion, possibly with SpaceX-built thrusters.
I’ll believe it when I see it (on the road, that is).
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
I love Gorillaz, even if they’re not a real band. Elon, celebrating his trillion-dollar pay package next to his robots, reminds me of this lyric from the song “Saturnz Barz” from the virtual group’s 2017 album Humanz:
With the holograms beside me
I’ll dance alone tonight.
In a mirrored world, are you beside me
All my life?
I hope all that money is worth it.
The Big Question
Should Ford and GM discontinue production of its EV pickups?
Top graphic images: Ford; Eastwing
If no one is buying them, then it’s probably a good business decision.
Or, they can try to find a better market where the consumers don’t haul RVs or drive very far in one day.
I mean if Ford wants to Focus on on Flexing Lightning production to develop the next gen version of the truck then Fairlane to them
I hope the lightning or an equivalent sticks around. It’s one of my favorite new vehicles, it’s just too expensive.
But, we seem to be in the dumbest timeline where things get worse in stupid ways. I won’t hold my breath :/
We gotta stop saying things like “as pulling all that extra weight zaps range to impractical levels.” Weight barely matters for EV efficiency. It has a slight penalty for stop and go driving, but it’s a negligible penalty at highway speeds at which aero matters massively more. We should be saying things like “pulling a giant airbrake zaps range to impractical levels.” There are reams of data to support this (along with very entertaining Aging Wheels YT vid).
Weight is bad for a whole host of reasons, but in the case of an EV, range isn’t one of them.
So interestingly… weight kind of matters for one-way trips when there is elevation change. Totally agree with you on your point given the context of the story. But I have fun watching the difference in range when I go somewhere from my house as I live near the highest point in my county and near the state divide. Then on the way back my range drops like a rock. Just the difference in potential energy between start and end elevations, but noticeable in certain situations.
https://tenor.com/yrJa.gif
Admins, plz give me gifs
Very much this. I hate seeing articles in 2025 that blame large differences in EV range on like 400lbs of extra weight, when the draggier wheel design was likely to blame.
However, I’d say that once it gets to the level of the 200kWh GM pickups, the increase in rolling resistance that much extra weight causes is probably no longer insignificant. The massive draggy bed still takes most of the blame, though.
Cutting the Lightning and not replacing it with a similar electric vehicle is typical corporate-America stupidity.
The company should have learned a lot from designing, developing, and ultimately producing the Lightning. Tooling and processes as well as a ton of stuff learned by actually designing it – tens of thousands of engineering-hours involved.
If they take all that know-how and just throw it away, its the type of short-sighted BS that has tanked countless companies.
This is where looking past the next quarter’s earnings reports help companies develop a long-term strategy because EV adoption might be slowing down, but I don’t see it going away altogether. At some point, even the US will shift over. Maybe not the 100% shift over to EVs that some want, and definitely not as quickly, but a mostly electric future is coming.
I think there is a 2nd gen Lightning in the works, but it’s been delayed to sometime after 2028 after originally being planned for as soon as 2025 circa 2020. They’re likely focusing on the upcoming budget pickup instead.
I wouldn’t doubt it, but I think Ford would have a lot of egg on their face if they cancel the current Lightning only to then bring it back in 2028+. I think they are better off keeping it, even if sales are low. After all, sales were low anyways. I think it will make it looks like EV trucks are just not viable if they cancel it.
Yeah the optics of it all would suck, it’d be worse than the Bolt cancelation. Maybe they could save face by waiting until their hyped ‘revolutionary’ new affordable pickup launches next year to announce the cancelation with the excuse that it’s been made irrelevant by the new model.
By demand, you mean American demand which, arguably, didn’t fully get off the ground (trailing take-rates elsewhere in the world), had it’s legs cut out from beneath it (removing any emissions credit market / penalization for emissions), had incentives taken away (loss of EV credit/rebates), an increasing combative position against improving emissions (EPA v CARB), and created an insular market that is isolated from the rest of the world by taxes (tariffs)?
Yes, all of that, without mentioning a hostile administration having its strings pulled by entrenched industries (yes, the oil-gas).
If the sales are bad for the EV trucks then yes, cut them.
Regarding the Lightening. Your reporting is in opposition, perhaps exclusionary in regards to the goings-on, to what other sites are reporting. Jalopnik is stating the vehicle is being replaced with smaller and more affordable vehicles, perhaps even another real coupe or sedan. I think they’re (businesses) reacting to horrible numbers in the economy, showing people are beginning to lose jobs and soon won’t be able to afford anything like a Lightening.
https://www.jalopnik.com/2019650/ford-may-soon-kill-f-150-lightning-smaller-cheaper-evs/
Would you say they’re lightening their vehicles by replacing the Lightning? 😉
Well, they’re certainly reducing their current inventory.
I’m not sure they know watt their doing.
I wonder if there will be any resistance?
Ford customer are hard to change. They will lease the same truck every 2/3 years, thats why the F150 keeps changes very minimal between generations. GM approach of calling the truck the same name but different architecture and packaging with the biggest battery they could fit, they reached a different mindset of customers.
They need EREV versions of their ICE trucks like yesterday!
Tesla is a cult. It’s deeply weird and concerning, and I’d say it’s very much “not my problem” but most retirement accounts (401ks, etc) almost certainly have TSLA shares and once the company finally tanks and goes under it’s going to be a problem for tens of millions of people. Leave it to the 1% to socialize losses. Anyway all of this is absurd, a bad meme, and Elon’s latest ketamine fueled “big idea” is he wants to develop robots that follow criminals around. Super normal shit.
Anyway the Toyota V6 situation is just such a thorough self-own and it’s red meat for the BUT MUH V8 crowd. You literally cannot find a video on a current Toyota truck on YouTube that doesn’t have dozens of TOYOTA IS DEAD TO ME LONG LIVE THE V8/V6 I DON’T CARE ABOUT FUEL ECONOMY REEEEEEEEEEEEEE takes from the peanut gallery. The threads are filled with it too and so is every comment section under every article.
Toyota really screwed the pooch on this one. I think if the turbo V6 and 4 cylinder were Toyota level reliable people would’ve gotten over all of this very quickly but the fact that they’re not is the kiss of death because it’s a gargantuan case of confirmation bias for their customers. They’ve said “turbo BAD” for years, claimed they won’t buy one, and the turbo V6 Toyota released actually is as bad as the bellyachers said it would be.
They’re going to put the old, inefficient, agricultural NA engines back in these trucks soon, and it’ll be good enough for the American market but not anywhere else. I think they’re actually in a fair amount of trouble by Toyota standards, but we’ll see. I’m a little surprised the iForce Max stuff isn’t better than it is given Toyota’s experience with hybrids. I think if it was this wouldn’t be as much of an issue and folks would just get the hybrids, but alas…
Anyway huge BOF trucks are just not a use case for BEVs. EV trucks are objectively worse at Truck Stuff. Do most truck owners do Truck Stuff? Of course not, but it’s about being able to hypothetically engage in Truck Stuff that sells these things to bazillions of Americans. BEVs do not pass the real world tests or the vibe tests.
That being said I do hope GM continues with their BEV trucks because they’re actually pretty damn good. They’re comically huge and way too goddamn heavy but they actually seem to work very well and actually deliver good range in the real world. For people that aren’t going to do a bunch of Truck Stuff but still want a truck I think they’re a great option, and believe it or not I’m starting to see local contractors with Sierra EVs. I think if you’re just serving a metro area and not towing a bunch they’re great work horses, and the market seems to agree.
If by truck stuff you mean taking your kayak or paddleboard to the the water – yes I have seen people with pickups doing “truck stuff” :-).
Anecdotal, but I know a ton of people (more than 20, I live in an area with an absurdly high concentration of Toyotas, especially Tundras. More of them on my street than all of the other truck brands combined.) with the current gen Tundra and not a single one has had an engine failure. When the first recall came out, I saw it was a failure rate of roughly 2-4% This recall seems to gather up the rest of the units made before the first recall. I think it just takes a little bit of time to get the customer base to buy into the TTV6 engines. Ford has been doing it since 2009, and now 75% of the trucks they sell are an Ecoboost. If you can get past the V8 go brrr caveman brain, aTTv6 is a much better truck motor in all scenarios.
If I was buying a full sized truck a V8 wouldn’t even be under consideration. I’d go with the Babymax diesel or one of the hybrid options from Toyota or Ford. I understand being attached to V8s to an extent….they do sound amazing, but in a daily driver having to pay for the gas would get to me quickly.
I really don’t get the people that are like “oh I average 25 MPG in my V8 half ton”. They must live in the country and never go further than 20% throttle. Every time I’ve driven a V8 for any extent of time I’ve been well under the city rating.
I get wanting it in a sportscar that you’re not going to daily drive, but in something that’s designed to eat up the miles? At this stage you’re setting money on fire, increasing your carbon footprint, and worsening the driving experience for a vibe.
The worst part is that the new engines/vehicles don’t really improve fuel economy at all. The old V6 & V8 in the Tundra and I4 in the Tacoma run a 10.2:1 compression ratio while the new turbo engines are only 10.5:1. Worse still, the old Tacoma V6 was 11.5:1 with D-4S and could run Atkinson cycle on demand, while there’s no mention of the new I4 turbo having a Atkinson/Miller mode. So without the hybrid, efficiency actually seems simply worse, especially since aero doesn’t look to be improved at all or even worsened.
The machining debris issue is a Hyundai/Kia level mistake from Toyota, I’m pretty sure it’s the same issue that made all those Lamda/Gamma engines blow up at random.
Not another hybrid over EV article, taking yet another provincial stand at ignoring the global car manufacturing market, and its firm direction, as a whole. Exactly why the constant axe grinding? The bigger picture is the Lightening will be canceled for smaller, more affordable vehicles. This is completely inline with the rapidly disintegrating economic picture, and the impending global recession we are staring down (see Deutsche Bank report). People are simply cash strapped.
Like they say, “It’s the economy, stupid”. Not insulting, just a general statement as used publicly.
Toyota has just reminded us that engines don’t eat chips – chips eat engines.
Jon and Ponch eating engines again!?
More like Bridgeport, Okuma, and Haas, but sure, we’ll go with that.
They eat Cadillacs
Lincolns too
Mercurys
and Subarus
And they don’t stop
They just keep eatin’ cars
What happens when there’s no more cars?
Then, when there’s no more cars, they go out at night
And eat up bars where the people meet
Face to face, dance cheek to cheek
One to one, man to man
Dance toe to toe, don’t move too slow…
This sounds like Musk himself is going to be in it when he activates the dumb jump thrusters to try to clear Hell’s Canyon. That seems like the way to make it the most exciting demo, regardless of outcome.
I’d be excited for that demo. Also, he’s welcome to be on the first rocket to Mars.
He will definitely be on the first manned rocket to Mars. His goal is to be forever in the history books as the first man to set foot on Mars, and I think he likely will be. Musk being off this planet for 3 years can’t come soon enough
As much as that would be lovely, I don’t think he’s willing to take on the substantial risk and effort of being first. He wants his rocket to be first and his name listed before anyone else, but he doesn’t want to be the guy stuck on the rocket that long or the guy who dies because something goes wrong.
Musk is an abject coward and would never endanger himself by launching in one of his rockets. That’s for his employees, not him.
The only way he’s going up in one of his rockets is if he’s chased off the planet by an angry mob.
His first Mars rocket won’t be coming back.
At this rate, I’m getting my Elio before my Tesla Roadster.
As much as I love the Lightning, I’m OK with it going away only if Ford delivers on the new smaller EV truck.
I think GM needs to keep their trucks alive. They really delivered on EV range unlike the other EV truck manufacturers.
Bahahahah the New Roadster bit – what a cluster – he’s intentionally making fools of anyone who bought into the idea of the New Roadster – so odd.
I look forward to the Tesla stockholder meeting in 10 years where Elon has to explain why he still deserves the money even though Tesla is still selling the Model S and his $350 billion investment in curiously Grimes-shaped hentai sex robots turned out to be a failure after they electrocuted a bunch of Republican politicians.
I look forward to the news article about the Grimes-shaped robots rebelling against Musk over and over, no matter how he reprograms them.
“You knew the whole time that Vanessa was a fembot?!”
I think the Grimes shaped hentai sex bots are modeled after someone who’s a lot older and more feminine than what the average Republican politician is looking for….
Like a lot of Tesla’s products, they like them “undeveloped.”
ZING!
and the Roadster is still coming next year!
It probably actually could be coming out next year if the weirdo didn’t insist on putting rocket boosters and quantum entanglers and whatever all over it.
disentanlgers, who wants to pay more to be entangled?
GM and Ford should be cutting the frunk out of their trucks and adding range extenders.
Oh wee want the Frunk!
Gotta have that Frunk!
Won’t you take me to, Frunky town?
Dearborn, frunk you up, Dearborn frunk-you-up
The range extenders don’t need to fit the same sort of spec as an engine, right?
Is fitting a more compact range extender elsewhere to keep the frunks not an option? Like a flat engine under the bed where they’d otherwise put more battery?
Or are frunks not useful/desirable to GM/Ford truck buyers?
(In case it looks sarcastic, that’s a completely genuine question.)
I just pictured what would be the cheapest retrofit.
Under the bed, nearest to the rear, would be the most ideal. Get the NVH away from the passengers.
Would also mean not running an exhaust pipe down the length of the vehicle or shifting the weight forward, which might both be issues otherwise.
Frunks are uniquely appealing to pickups specifically since they otherwise lack an enclosed cargo area like any other body style.
Theoretically they could place the extender ICE under the bed or something, as that’s exactly what Scout is planning to do. However, no one other than VAG and Subaru currently make a flat engine, so Ford or GM would need to develop one from scratch; probably a huge waste to do so instead of using an existing option. I wonder what issues would arise if they tried to lay an in-line engine flat/sideways. Another issue is that the engine can’t be very small like the BMW i3 Rex’s 2-cylinder, as it’d need to be powerful enough to sustain a heavy draggy pickup at highway speeds up hills; this doesn’t even consider towing scenarios. In China, even the cheapest PHEVs & EREVs use inline-4s because anything less gets NVH complaints; there isn’t a single Chinese design I’m aware of that doesn’t place the ICE underneath the hood like normal, though the cutthroat competitive environment there doesn’t allow for such experimentation.
In China, there’s exactly 3 range extender options: N/A 1.5L, 1.5L turbo, or (rarely) 2.0L turbo, due to their displacement tax thresholds. Outside of China, there’s very few modern EREVs, the only one I can think of is the Mazda MX-30 with its oddball rotary. The upcoming Ramcharger uses the Pentastar N/A V6 in Atkinson cycle, as they’re targeting high sustained power for towing. VAG claims they’re giving Scout an all-new flat engine design, but I suspect it’ll be a modified version of the 2.0T from the 718; I speculate it’s non-turbo and bored/stroked to 2.5L and runs Atkinson cycle, but they could stick with the turbo if they want more power.
What could Ford do? The 3.3L Cyclone V6 used in the Explorer police version is a great candidate, but they could use the 2.5L from the Escape/Maverick hybrid. The Ecoboosts are likely more expensive, and the benefits of turbocharging are irrelevant here. What could GM do? They’re in an awkward place where all their suitable N/A I4s and V6s have been discontinued AFAIK. A lightly modified version of the 2.0T used in the Buick Envision seems most suitable (it’s too power focused in standard tune), as the 1.5T in the Equinox is really outdated and the 2.5T/2.7T feels like overkill.
Yeah, the enclosed/lockable storage of a frunk is something I’ve seen emphasized by Slate, which is why I was wondering whether they were currently a big part of the appeal for mainstream EV trucks.
Regarding Ford/GM’s engine options, I was assuming they’d buy or license a flat engine from a company like Subaru with existing designs.
Do EREV engines need to be powerful enough to support continuous operation?
The name “Range Extended Electric Vehicle” implies, to me, that they’re meant to operate as battery-electric most of the time, and the extender is meant to cover a minority of uses, like long road-trips, towing, etc.
If the engine needs to support continuous high-load operation, I don’t see how “EREV” more than a euphemism/marketing term for “PHEV”.
Okay, this is actually something I’ve meant to research for a long time, because my perception of China is of more diverse and experimental developments.
That may not apply to the automotive sector, since my perception is based on consumer electronics, and contrasted with western developments that are stagnated by aggressive “streamlining” and a relative lack of competition.
For example, Amazon killed an acquired developer of electrowetting e-paper around 2018. A couple of years ago, Chinese display companies started showcasing electrowetting displays.
(For context, electrowetting is notable for advantages in showing color and motion over E-ink brand “electrophoretic” displays. I’ve recently learned a lot about e-paper.)
To get back to the automotive sector, I remember reading Ford’s CEO saying, in relation to their $30k EV truck, that Chinese automakers have something like “100 times as many powertrain engineers”…and then finding that just a couple years prior, he said they had more engineers than their competitors, that this was inefficient, and did layoffs. Streamlining.
But then where do you put your shrimp??
On the barby!
What Ford could/should have done is make their equivalent of the Slate EV pickup, give it the name “Ranger”, design it to be repaired with basic tools, and have the battery pack set up to be easily replaced with a flip-up truck bed and roll-out housing where the transmission tunnel would have been(ala McKee Sundancer). Price it similarly to a Maverick, and they might have sold a crap ton of them… probably at the expense of much more expensive ICE-powered offerings that people can’t afford anyway.
The EV trucks here at the Buick GMC dealership I work at move pretty well but we never have more than two or three at a time. The EV passenger cars otoh sell really well. We get used Equinox and Blazer EVs and get asked if we have any 3 row EVs. GM just needs an Acadia/Traverse EV to see their sales go up in that segment.
GM still desperately needs hybrids in their line up though. I’m thinking of leaving for a Toyota dealership because their blend of EVs and hybrids seems to be what a majority of customers actually want
That’s the Vistiq, right?
Yep, but it doesn’t have a Chevy/GMC/Buick counterpart. The Escalade IQ also has no C/G/B counterpart. A Suburban EV would be a hit
I think as long as the Escalade IQ and/or Hummer is profitable (no idea if they are), it makes sense for GM to continue building an electric pickup alongside them, as the development costs can’t be too crazy. GM also took range much more seriously than Ford.
I don’t really see the case for the Lightning as it currently exists. The subset of buyers who could live with its limitations already bought one.
The Lightning was just too compromised, IMO. The Silverado and Sierra EVs are comically oversized, but they seem genuinely capable and their owners adore them.
The Silverado and Sierra EVs are actually smaller than their gas counterparts. We have to keep them separate from the 1500s because they look funny being 7/8ths the size
I’m shocked that they’re actually smaller than 1500s because they look absolutely massive in person.
I walked past one recently and thought it looked cartoonishly massive
They’re certainly some of the largest EVs on sale. I had to park one next to a Cybertruck and the Cybertruck looked like a midsize
Sounds like, despite their best efforts, they haven’t managed to undo the packaging advantages of EV platforms and expand the car into the same volume as before, like a gas.
I’m no stock trading genius, nor an MBA, but considering Tesla didn’t even have 98 Billion in revenue last year, let alone anywhere near 10% of that in profit, there’s no way Musk can have 100B per year because it’s more than they even have. I get that it’s stock rather than cash, but the numbers make zero sense. The entire market cap for TSLA is 1.36T, so basically no, Elon isn’t getting the package he thinks he deserves (which of course he doesn’t, he’s the reason tesla can’t sell cars anymore).
Exactly what I was thinking
The package is contingent on him greatly (dare I say implausibly) increasing the value of the company
….which will never happen – considering he can’t even meet his own stupid deadlines.
Probably not a single MBA that isn’t coked-out or on ketamine voted for this
April 1, eh?
Tesla Stock has a P/E ratio of 287.5 by the way. Two hundred eighty five. 70 is considered a “high growth” stock. 287.5. That’s not high growth, that’s not based on fundamentals, that’s not based on reality. That’s based on Ketamine fueled hopes, dreams, and obscene greed.
The common thread I see is “a bet on Tesla is a bet on ALL Elon companies” well news flash, SpaceX, Boring Company, Neuralink are all privately held. Betting on Tesla gets you zero equity, voting power, or dividends in the rest. This is pure insanity. The worst part is you and I and everyone else with a 401k or an IRA are inherently getting swept up in this madness because all standard retirement portfolios are heavily weighted in favor of the Mag 7, S&P, and tech index funds that are all deeply invested in Tesla.
TSLA is a meme stock and yeah, it’s fricking ridiculous.
Yeah, when the Tesla bubble pops, it’s going to be devastating for a lot of people who didn’t even know they were invested in it.
Musk said. “I mean, look at this. This is sick.”
Who said Elon has no self-awareness?
Lacks self-awareness so much he sometimes notices a strange South African oligarch who says funny things and thinks “that guy seems like loser, hah! Glad I’m not him.”
When the Lightning first came out, I was thrilled. The car industry was running headlong towards electrification and this was what I believed to be my next vehicle to replace my Mustang GT.
But then our ’16 Explorer Platinum ate it’s PTU (at 61k) and then grenaded an AC compressor, and is the poster child for half-baked software controlling hard parts (like the sideview mirrors that go berserk every time you start the car).
Then the Mustang devoured it’s differential gears. At 60k. They are howling again at 77k.
I had a friend report that a ’21 Powerboost F-150 bricked itself 200 miles from home after sounding like the hybrid part of the powertrain tried to self-eviscerate. This is with only 12k miles on the truck, and after three visits to the dealership about ‘driveline shudder’.
Any other Ford owner will likely have similar stories.
So yeah – we’re totally done with the Blue Oval. It’s back to Japanese and Korean stuff for the family rig and the Mustang will have to soldier on…
P.S. – I’m driving 200 miles to grab a used Mustang rear axle on Sunday, with the intention of rebuilding it over the winter and learning how to PROPERLY set up an 8.8. Ford’s assembly line lackeys AND the service techs can’t be trusted to do it.
Built Ford? Tough. I hate to hear your experiences have been that horrifically bad, but unfortunately that lines up with every single other modern Ford owner I know. Friend has a 5.0 2016 F-150 and it’s water pump exploded at 88k miles, anther friends 2016ish fusion was stranded at 70k miles because the bushing on the transmission shift rod disintegrated due to being cheap plastic. Spark plugs and coils on another fusion going out early due to cheapness. Friends 4.0 Ranger needing to get it’s engine pulled because Ford used one casting for the cylinder head, so half the timing chain is on the back of the engine. The list goes on and on, but every single Ford I have worked on has been deeply displeasing, and broken in a way that was inexcusable for it’s age and mileage.
On the bright side, at least they aren’t Stellantis products.
At Ford, Quality is Job 100,567.
Tommy Boy’s cousin is working on it. Considering Ford has been focusing on quality through the last 3 CEO’s, I’m not holding my breath.
If were lucky the batteries that were to be used for building pickups will be put in smaller, more practical vehicles.