Ford cuts flagship EV production by half

Ford revealed on Monday that it has reduced its monthly production of the all-electric F-150 Lightning pickup vehicle by 50% in response to shifting market demand.

As per a document from Ford obtained by Automotive News, the firm has directed suppliers to make arrangements for an anticipated monthly production of 1,600 Lightnings at its Rouge Electric Vehicle Center assembly plant in Dearborn, Michigan. The company had previously established a monthly manufacturing target of 3,200 units.

The decision was made following Ford’s announcement in October to reduce one of the three shifts at its Lightning facility due to a decline in demand, which impacted over 700 employment.

Despite the increased sales of Lightning trucks, they continue to fall below Ford’s predictions. The automobile manufacturer has successfully sold 20,365 Lightnings as of November, which represents a significant 54% rise compared to the previous year. This impressive growth may be attributed, at least in part, to the company’s strategic choice to reduce the price of the vehicle from $60,000 to $50,000.

The business has made the decision to suspend $12 billion in electric vehicle (EV) expenditures and delay other production milestones due to the impact of declining customer demand on the EV market. Ford alone predicts a $4.5 billion loss this year, largely owing to losing $32,000 on every EV sold during Q2 2023, according to the Daily Wire.

Last year, Akio Toyoda, the CEO of Toyota, stated that there is a “silent majority” of carmakers that do not support the idea of a future when exclusively electric vehicles are used worldwide. However, these carmakers are hesitant to express their disagreement.

“People involved in the auto industry are largely a silent majority,” Toyoda told press during a trip to Thailand. “That silent majority is wondering whether EVs are really OK to have as a single option. But they think it’s the trend so they can’t speak out loudly.” 

In January 2022, Kumar Galhotra, who currently holds the position of Ford’s COO, confidently stated that there is a strong demand for an all-electric F-150 among consumers. However, Ford CEO Jim Farley himself said in August that he encountered a “reality check” during his road trip across many western states in the F-150 Lightning.

“Charging has been pretty challenging,” Farley remarked, elaborating that during one instance, it took a total of 40 minutes to charge the battery of the vehicle, resulting in a mere 40 percent increase in its charge. “It was a really good reality check — the challenges of what our customers go through.”

Despite the obstacles faced by the Lightning, it remains $10,000 more expensive than the gas-powered F-150 SuperCrew, even after Ford reduced the price of the Lightning by $10,000. However, the cost of EVs is influenced by more than just retail prices.

Based on a survey released in January,“[t]ypical mid-priced ICE (internal combustion engine} car drivers paid about $11.29 to fuel their vehicles for 100 miles of driving. . . . That cost was around $0.31 cheaper than the amount paid by mid-priced EV drivers charging mostly at home, and over $3 less than the cost borne by comparable EV drivers charging commercially.”

The cost disparity becomes much more pronounced when considering electric vehicle (EV) drivers who require frequent recharging at charging stations, which is expected to cost $14.40 every 100 miles. EVs continue to increase in cost, especially due to the fact that certain governments are looking to impose extra charges on EV users in order to make up for the revenue lost from fuel taxes.

A number of US states that advocated for “sustainable” and “environmentally friendly” vehicle alternatives are implementing extra registration fees for owners of electric vehicles (EVs). Illinois Democrats, for example, proposed implementing a $1,000 yearly registration charge for electric vehicle (EV) owners as a means of recovering the revenue lost from fuel taxes. Following much criticism, the Prairie State ultimately decided to impose a $251 yearly registration cost on electric vehicle (EV) owners, which is $100 higher than the fee for owners of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

Approximately 19 states have implemented an additional yearly registration cost for electric vehicles (EVs), which varies from $50 to $235. Notably, states like Michigan and Georgia have set their fees towards the higher end of this range.

However, despite evidence showing that electric vehicles (EVs) have limited range, higher costs, and only become ecologically beneficial after around 77,000 miles, governments with a globalist perspective have continued to prioritize the climate agenda.

Volkswagen announced in July that the e-Golf would need to be driven for 77,000 miles in order to surpass the environmental effect of its fuel-powered rivals. The figure surpasses Volvo’s 2021 prediction that electric vehicles (EVs) only achieve environmental benefits after covering a distance of 30,000 to 68,400 miles, which generally takes around four to nine years.

Based on Volvo’s data, electric vehicles (EVs) are found to be 70% more environmentally detrimental compared to internal combustion engine (ICE) cars, primarily due to the impact of their batteries. EV batteries require heavy cobalt and lithium mining, which is undertaken in Africa and South America and creates large greenhouse gas emissions.

EVs may face challenges in obtaining insurance coverage due to the difficulties analysts encounter in comprehending the hazards associated with EV batteries.

Reports of exploding EV batteries following collisions are mounting, causing authorities to suggest further safety measures for EVs. The UK government standards mandate repair shops to “quarantine” electric vehicles (EVs) that experience even minor battery damage, necessitating their isolation from other vehicles by a minimum distance of 15 meters. Government officials have put out a proposal to mandate larger parking spaces for electric vehicles (EVs) in order to mitigate the risk of combustion. Additionally, they have suggested the installation of thermal monitoring cameras to identify instances of EVs entering a state of “thermal runaway.”

Once ignited, it is challenging to extinguish flames in electric vehicles. According to reports, approximately 13% of electric vehicles experience a further fire following the initial incident.

Insurance analysts are currently investigating several triggers that could potentially lead to the burning of EV batteries, with battery overcharging being identified as one possible reason. The absence of clear information, along with the elevated expenses for repairs, results in increased insurance premiums.

The Telegraph reported that the repair prices for EV batteries had increased by around 25% compared to gas-powered vehicles. This increase occurred in the first quarter of 2023, jumping by 33%. This has resulted in a significant increase of 72% in average insurance rates for electric vehicles, compared to a 29% increase for vehicles powered by gasoline. Certain electric vehicle (EV) owners are being presented with insurance quotations exceeding $120 each week, and others are encountering quotes that are twice or even three times as high as the previous year.

Several other car insurers have made the decision to completely cease providing insurance coverage for electric vehicles. John Lewis Financial Services ceased providing insurance coverage for electric vehicles in September, whereas Aviva just reinstated their insurance offerings for the Tesla Model Y after previously discontinuing them earlier this year.

“The battery is an extremely expensive component of an electric vehicle and until we find efficient ways of dealing with it we have the challenge of high premiums for electric vehicles, which nobody wants,” said Thatcham Research CEO Jonathan Hewett.