Ford to create two divisions for ICE and EV products

[Dr Smith]

Ford places EV and ICE cars into separate divisions
Ford is becoming two but staying as one, with its EV and ICE arms to operate as separate business units but with some shared functions.
https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-new...rate-divisions

One thing I noted was Farley's statement:

Farley said the motivation behind splitting the business was cemented when those veterans of petrol-powered pick-ups projected there would only be demand for 20,000 units a year of the new Ford F-150 Lightning EV. Today, Ford is planning to build around 150,000 annually.

Definitely got those sales projections wrong on Lightning and I wonder if they were more accurate would they have spent even more knowing ROI would be greater and so add even more to the final vehicle. Similarly what other decisions, even effecting Australia have been ill-conceived because of dated thinking?...well we'll see now...

While Ford seems to be rolling nicely with new product and obviously Ranger/Everest is designed for EV introduction down the track, ( I'd get these out ASAP now) imho US bosses missed badly on not thinking Maverick could be offered outside the US, don't offer a global version of their Lincolns which could compete against higher Euro luxury SUV's, Australia still doesn't have a Territory replacement when it OWNED the segment previously, yes Everest Platinum will come close but it will be over $80K and isn't as dynamic as the old Tezza....

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Dr Smith

Ford places EV and ICE cars into separate divisions
Ford is becoming two but staying as one, with its EV and ICE arms to operate as separate business units but with some shared functions.
https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-new...rate-divisions

One thing I noted was Farley's statement:

While Ford seems to be rolling nicely with new product they and obviously Ranger/Everest is designed for EV introduction down the track, imho US bosses missed badly on not thinking Maverick could be offfered outside the US, don't offer a global version of their Lincolns which could compete against higher Euro luxury SUV's, Australia still doesn't have a Territory replacement when it OWNED the segment previously, yes Everest Platinum will come close but it will be over $80K and isn't as dynamic as the old Tezza....

The fact that the executives actually recognised the people calling the shots made a poor call and decided to split them into two divisions, giving the EV team more say is the important part.

It will allow the EV team to avoid internal politics when wanting to play with platforms like the F150 where the established management won't want fresh ideas because 'we know what works'.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

The fact that the executives actually recognised the people calling the shots made a poor call and decided to split them into two divisions, giving the EV team more say is the important part.

It will allow the EV team to avoid internal politics when wanting to play with platforms like the F150 where the established management won't want fresh ideas because 'we know what works'.

There is no worse or poorer call than a CEO who ignores the need of securing battery supply
while advocating the future was electrification. Yes the former CEO Jim Hackett was that stupid
and he’s the reason why Jim Farley now has Ford jumping through its a55 to get battery JVs done.

Frankly, I think that this move is another from the play book they do when it all get too hard,
they create something new as an add on instead of fixing the problems in the main business.
so I call BS on this as Farley trying to quarantine BEVs from Ford’s diseased business practices.
it’s a neat way of calling your company so bad that you need to start a new model within….

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Dr Smith

Ford places EV and ICE cars into separate divisions
Ford is becoming two but staying as one, with its EV and ICE arms to operate as separate business units but with some shared functions.
https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-new...rate-divisions

One thing I noted was Farley's statement:
Definitely got those sales projections wrong on Lightning and I wonder if they were more accurate would they have spent even more knowing ROI would be greater and so add even more to the final vehicle. Similarly what other decisions, even effecting Australia have been ill-conceived because of dated thinking?...well we'll see now...

While Ford seems to be rolling nicely with new product and obviously Ranger/Everest is designed for EV introduction down the track, ( I'd get these out ASAP now) imho US bosses missed badly on not thinking Maverick could be offered outside the US, don't offer a global version of their Lincolns which could compete against higher Euro luxury SUV's, Australia still doesn't have a Territory replacement when it OWNED the segment previously, yes Everest Platinum will come close but it will be over $80K and isn't as dynamic as the old Tezza....

Some of it is down to the slowness of Ford to respond to customer wants and needs, at one point,
this was six or seven years before suggestions found their way from just good ideas to an actual
delivered product. Case in point would be next Gen Ranger Everest and their better engine range.
If you consider those better engine choices delivered when needed (2016), then next Gen might have
been about PHEVs and a BEV this year but we know the wheels of Ford don’t work that way….
The engine choices set down in 2006 mostly stayed in place from 2011 to now….and that’s the
problem with ICE programs in general, the inflexibility that brought about by locking in long term
decisions that may not suit a change in market or buyer preferences. I’m not pouring cold water
on the T6 team but more the scoping and product envelope that they were instructed to follow.
That customer based information was already dated by the time it got to them in 2006.

Sorry, got the irits with Ford management today…

[Bossxr8]

I've read Farleys statement to employees and a few others bought up some interesting questions, like how will this work when you have both ICE and EV versions of the same model ie Transit diesels and Transit EV's? And what happens when other products like Ranger eventually have both versions?

Kinda doesn't make sense.

From what I can understand they have done this just to make wall street happy, cause they had been calling for Ford to split their ice and ev divisions for a while now.

With all the recent moves to reduce duplication and bureaucracy it seems counter productive.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I've read Farleys statement to employees and a few others bought up some interesting questions, like how will this work when you have both ICE and EV versions of the same model ie Transit diesels and Transit EV's? And what happens when other products like Ranger eventually have both versions?

Kinda doesn't make sense.

From what I can understand they have done this just to make wall street happy, cause they had been calling for Ford to split their ice and ev divisions for a while now.

With all the recent moves to reduce duplication and bureaucracy it seems counter productive.

Was about to post the same thing, boss, re shared platforms and the design of new ones. Sure, there'll be some sort of inter-divisional agreement, but when one of those divisions (Ford Blue, as I read it) has the lead, there's always a compromise. With Ford Blue having the lead, it will be Ford Model e that will have to compromise the most.

The two division structure will work well, as long as those two divisions don't need to work together.

[hayseed]

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by hayseed

image

Utter rubbish. Ford have over $30 billion in cash reserves alone, and are making over $8-10 billion dollars profit every year on record profit margins.

What exactly is sinking?

Don't say it's cause of EV's either, cause the investments are targeted in being one of the worlds biggest EV producers by the end of the decade.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Utter rubbish. Ford have over $30 billion in cash reserves alone, and are making over $8-10 billion dollars profit every year on record profit margins.

What exactly is sinking?

Don't say it's cause of EV's either, cause the investments are targeted in being one of the worlds biggest EV producers by the end of the decade.

They need ICE business to stick around and pay down BEV’s $30 billion spending,
because there’s no way BEVs will be covering that for the next ten years..

[hayseed]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Utter rubbish. Ford have over $30 billion in cash reserves alone, and are making over $8-10 billion dollars profit every year on record profit margins.

What exactly is sinking?

OK, My Apologies.. Sinking was not the correct analogy to use..

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Kinda doesn't make sense.

From what I can understand they have done this just to make wall street happy,

With all the recent moves to reduce duplication and bureaucracy it seems counter productive.

Originally Posted by jpd80

Frankly, I think that this move is another from the play book they do when it all get too hard,
they create something new as an add on instead of fixing the problems in the main business.

it’s a neat way of calling your company so bad that you need to start a new model within….

I just meant by referring to rearranging the Deck chairs is; that Ford seems to be bogged down in bureaucracy, & from the highlighted bits above .Both you & jpd80 seem to agree..

[Ford17]

Somewhere I read the split was to allow Ford to create Tesla-like (Share) value through the EV-only separate entity.

[Crazy Dazz]

People need to understand the difference between actions and words, between reality and spin.
Ford, like any other massive multinational, has always had many divisions. They certainly don't have just 2 or 3.

and people muttering about supposed "slow response" in regards to the F-Series, is simply hilarious.

There's a reason the F-Series is the biggest selling unit of all-time. Because it's simple and cheap. It provides buyers we fantastic bang for buck, precisely because Ford don't need to re-design it and re-engineer it every few years.

Car companies are the masters of spin, polishing of turds, etc. No matter what they're actually doing, they want to be seen to be pro-active, pro-environment, and futuristic.

Nor did they "get it wrong" about Electric Trucks.

Ford will continue doing what it has always done. Making as much money as possible by selling cars people want to buy, with the highest possible margin.

BUT there are two very large differences that impact Ford in America.

Firstly, in America, "Buy American" is a huge thing for large corporations, and particularly for Governments. That's why they have an entire "division" devoted to that market. That is a huge pie, with limits on competition, and Ford want their slice. So whilst carmakers everywhere chase the government coin, for Ford that's a matter of Life & Death. And obviously guvments want EVs.

The other massive factor that has driven American companies for many decades, is the CAFE rules, and other associated requirements.
That's why the bulk of Mustangs sold over the years, aren't the iconic V8s, but the more frugal 6's and now 4's.
It's why for years you could buy a very cheap Plug-In Hybrid, but it didn't come with a charging cord, that's another $1k. And if you actually wanted to plug it in at home, that's another $4k for the charging station. Because they didn't care that you're never going to plug-in your plug-in. It qualified as a ZEV, and that's all they cared about.

For decades, light pickups like the F-150 were exempt, so Ford would happily sell you a nice big V8 at a very reasonable price.
However not only have these pickups been dragged into the CAFE rules, but they progressively ramp. Some analysis shows that more than half of the reduction for Pickups actually hits over the next 3-4 years.
So yeah, whether you want a dang lectric veahucle or not, that's what Ford is going to flog you.
And it doesn't matter which costs less to make, Ford must price them to sell in the correct ratio.

Lets also not forget that for a lot of people an Electric Pickup is actually a very feasible solution.
The biggest drawbacks with EVs is the size and weight of batteries required for a decent range. Pickups have plenty of space, a lot of it wasted, and most pickup owners never use anywhere near their full load capacity.

[jpd80]

Is should be obvious to everyone looking on that the new division is all about appearances and that
setting up a separate business unit will have all the advantages of freedom outside of Ford’s bureaucracy
but expressed in a way to look favourable return on investment because the debt will be on the ICE business…..

For the past ten years, the split on V8 GT Mustang to V6 or EB Mustang has been around 50/50 with CAFE
becoming a joke because of the mass switch to SUVs that are treated as “trucks” with easier targets

Quite a decent proportion of F150s sold will never be used to tow anything or only ever occasionally.
so those buyers are ripe for the picking as BEV owners, oddly enough 70% of orders are coming from
non-Ford buyers which absolutely stunned execs, they need Lightning up and running before Cybertruck.
No one really knows the depth of those sales, they may be significantly less or more than current estimations..

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by hayseed

OK, My Apologies.. Sinking was not the correct analogy to use..







I just meant by referring to rearranging the Deck chairs is; that Ford seems to be bogged down in bureaucracy, & from the highlighted bits above .Both you & jpd80 seem to agree..

It just doesn't match up with the reality, and I have heard a few people say it before as well. At the moment the financials are very strong. That's not to say it won't change, but they are well positioned.

Their goals are to be significant players in the EV game. Projecting to be building 30% of the worlds EV's by 2026. Sure they may not reach those goals, but they are aiming to.

There has been a big shift to reduce bureaucracy over the last 3-4 years, layers of management have been removed and steps taking to speed up vehicle development. I think they have succeeded in this area, because vehicles like the Maverick have been developed in record time. They managed to cut 20 months from the usual development period. This article goes in depth about how they are achieving this.

https://www.mavericktruckclub.com/in...pment-process/

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Ford17

Somewhere I read the split was to allow Ford to create Tesla-like (Share) value through the EV-only separate entity.

That's the way I read it. Wall St had been calling for Ford to do this for quite a while, and seeing how Tesla and Rivian shares went ballistic it must have spurred them to finally do it.