I've never seen this crash test before...

Yikes, looks worse for Ford than it first sounded: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fords-first-quarter-adjusted-profit-falls-2024-04-24/.

Delayed launches, refocus on hybrids; IOW:

Ford is grappling with what CEO Jim Farley called "a huge drag not just on Ford, but on our whole industry": electric vehicle production.

The EV market is headed for the inevitable backend of the whiplash. As awful as Tesla is as a company, unlike others trying their hand at the EV game, Tesla's getting out in front of it, unlike said others (who stand to get crushed).

As to seemingly bailing on supercharging, my hunch is Tesla knows it's not much of a factor in the purchase of Teslas, since most Tesla owners are high/higher income folk who also own ICE(s) for extended driving. And what little factor it is, let the rest of the industry develops NACS instead.

Quote from: ChrisV on April 30, 2024, 10:02:33 AMSuch a BS article. "Ford's electric vehicle unit reported that losses soared in the first quarter to $1.3 billion, or $132,000 for each of the 10,000 vehicles it sold in the first three months of the year,"

That's not how amortization works, at ALL.

"Instead the losses include hundreds of millions being spent on research and development of the next generation of EVs for Ford" Again, you amortize R&D and plant building over the entire production run of all vehicles that USE that R&D and tech, now and into the future, and all the vehicles built in that new plant, now and into the future. You don't just amortize it over the first couple fucking months of production. This holds true for ALL manufacturing businesses, not just automobiles.

That's like saying that a real estate company that puts up a $10 million building and has rental income of one million the first year is "losing" 9 million dollars, or several hundred thousand per renter.


Just like for the Ford EVs, naysayers did the same thing with the Chevy Volt back in 2011.

"Now, "father of the Volt" Bob Lutz has weighed in via Forbes to confirm just that--that the true cost of each Volt is nothing like the numbers estimated--and that the car is "doing exactly what it was designed to do."

The Reuters report explained that when dividing the $1.2 billion development costs, each of the 21,500 Volts sold so far has cost GM $56,000 per car. Throw in the actual cost of production and, depending on who you believe, the total per-car cost could be between $75,000 and $88,000. Minus the car's purchase price and--theoretically--you have your headline loss figure.

The Reuters article was based on figures from several Michigan-based industry analysts, claiming that Chevy might be losing up to $49,000 on every Volt it makes."

Those figures were estimated by working out the total cost of development of the Volt project, divided by the number of cars so far--a method which was a little spurious, and what caused Bob Lutz to respond:

From Lutz in Forbes:

"Let me provide a look at how a car company tracks profitability of a product program:  measured are material cost and labor, and these are deducted from the selling price. The positive difference is called "gross margin." Then, one allocates per-unit "fixed cost" (advertising, general overhead, etc.) plus per-unit depreciation and amortization of the initial investment, based on the TOTAL NUMBER TO BE PRODUCED OVER THE LIFETIME of the product. If the margin, after all deductions, is still positive, then we call it a "fully accounted profit," and the car is a winner."

Dividing the number of Lightnings sold for 2023 (20,000 as of the end of December) into the total development costs and factory building costs that apply to all Lightnings and Mach-Es past, present, and future is either dopey or intellectually dishonest.

You could as easily say that on the day the first Lightning was delivered to a retail buyer, it carried a stunning, incredible, unconscionable $1.5 BILLION in loss. You'd be doing the same thing: dividing by the number of Lightnings sold at that point: 1. Same as if you added up the total costs of developing and tooling up for Fords newest big block gas pickup engine, and then saying that the first engine off the line carried with it a $1 billion loss. That's not how it works. That's not how ANY of this works.

Ford is trying to show massive loss for tax reasons, but you cannot calculate total program loses until you're completely done with the total production run. Which they are not.

lol no on most all that.

Ford invests tons in ICE vehicles too; why should EVs be exempt from the same calculus?

The point of the article (IMO) is that both EV units sold and revenue are down (WAY down on the latter) for the quarter.

And ford doesn't "try" to show a massive loss for tax reasons or w/e. Ford shows whatever is the reality.

Just one other thing. The Model Y has not had the same refresh as the Model 3 yet. Tesla has actually delayed it until 2025 because when they released the refreshed Model 3, Tesla had a hard time selling the existing older Model 3 unsold inventory. They did not want to make that mistake again so they have delayed the refresh of the Model Y.

So the Model Y does not have a cush ride. Depending on one's arse, that may or may not be a problem.

R&D cannot be amortized. It is a period expense.

That being said it is normally treated as an overall entity expense, not attributable to a single (or even several specific) product line(s).

To be fair to Ford, in their actual report they do note that by the second half of this year they are hoping to start making a variable margin on each EV product sold.

Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 30, 2024, 07:19:23 AMFord is losing stupid money on EVs.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/24/business/ford-earnings-ev-losses/index.html

Such a BS article. "Ford's electric vehicle unit reported that losses soared in the first quarter to $1.3 billion, or $132,000 for each of the 10,000 vehicles it sold in the first three months of the year,"

That's not how amortization works, at ALL.

"Instead the losses include hundreds of millions being spent on research and development of the next generation of EVs for Ford" Again, you amortize R&D and plant building over the entire production run of all vehicles that USE that R&D and tech, now and into the future, and all the vehicles built in that new plant, now and into the future. You don't just amortize it over the first couple fucking months of production. This holds true for ALL manufacturing businesses, not just automobiles.

That's like saying that a real estate company that puts up a $10 million building and has rental income of one million the first year is "losing" 9 million dollars, or several hundred thousand per renter.


Just like for the Ford EVs, naysayers did the same thing with the Chevy Volt back in 2011.

"Now, "father of the Volt" Bob Lutz has weighed in via Forbes to confirm just that--that the true cost of each Volt is nothing like the numbers estimated--and that the car is "doing exactly what it was designed to do."

The Reuters report explained that when dividing the $1.2 billion development costs, each of the 21,500 Volts sold so far has cost GM $56,000 per car. Throw in the actual cost of production and, depending on who you believe, the total per-car cost could be between $75,000 and $88,000. Minus the car's purchase price and--theoretically--you have your headline loss figure.

The Reuters article was based on figures from several Michigan-based industry analysts, claiming that Chevy might be losing up to $49,000 on every Volt it makes."

Those figures were estimated by working out the total cost of development of the Volt project, divided by the number of cars so far--a method which was a little spurious, and what caused Bob Lutz to respond:

From Lutz in Forbes:

"Let me provide a look at how a car company tracks profitability of a product program:  measured are material cost and labor, and these are deducted from the selling price. The positive difference is called "gross margin." Then, one allocates per-unit "fixed cost" (advertising, general overhead, etc.) plus per-unit depreciation and amortization of the initial investment, based on the TOTAL NUMBER TO BE PRODUCED OVER THE LIFETIME of the product. If the margin, after all deductions, is still positive, then we call it a "fully accounted profit," and the car is a winner."

Dividing the number of Lightnings sold for 2023 (20,000 as of the end of December) into the total development costs and factory building costs that apply to all Lightnings and Mach-Es past, present, and future is either dopey or intellectually dishonest.

You could as easily say that on the day the first Lightning was delivered to a retail buyer, it carried a stunning, incredible, unconscionable $1.5 BILLION in loss. You'd be doing the same thing: dividing by the number of Lightnings sold at that point: 1. Same as if you added up the total costs of developing and tooling up for Fords newest big block gas pickup engine, and then saying that the first engine off the line carried with it a $1 billion loss. That's not how it works. That's not how ANY of this works.

Ford is trying to show massive loss for tax reasons, but you cannot calculate total program loses until you're completely done with the total production run. Which they are not.

https://electrek.co/2024/04/29/tesla-conducting-more-layoffs-including-entire-supercharger-team/

Just after laying off "more than 10%" of its global workforce, Tesla is laying off even more employees – including senior executives and long-time veterans of the company, most notably the entire Supercharging team and the executive responsible for negotiating NACS adoption across the industry.

________________________

Great! Just as the industry starts to shift to NACS, Tesla might stop bothering to expand?

We really need the other networks to step up.

That was called the Gran Prix/Catalina here in the US.

I do like the big 60s Pontiacs. Great stylish boulevard cruisers

The 1963 Parisienne is my all-time favourite GM product, didn't realize it wasn't sold in the US.

Something about the rear end is just plain gorgeous...