2023 Lightning Build and Price is Live .... $5000+ increase in price

[PV2EV]

I just can't believe that there is no non-fleet ER available that is under $80k!!!.

With this new pricing they should have allowed retail purchase of the Pro ER.

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

Regardless, it would not surprise me if Ford was part of the group that lobbied these restrictions into the bill in the first place. T

Youre suggesting Ford intentionally priced most Lighting trim levels out of the incentives?

 

[monsterlag]

Gut reaction after going through B&P, I'm probably out. Too expensive even with the tax credit for my family. These just aren't vehicles for the every day American with a family of 4. Maybe if we were a 2 income family it might work, but even then it's just so darn expensive. Good luck to you all, pretty frustrated like other reservation holders who were passed over in year 1 for ZEV state buyers. I think my dealer got 2 Lightnings, so it probably wouldn't matter even if I wanted one this year.

Curious where you are affording a family of 4 without dual income?

ZEV states are preferred because those states provide incentives. It’s not like Ford just threw darts on a board and decided ZEV states get priority.

 

[Blainestang]

Youre suggesting Ford intentionally priced most Lighting trim levels out of the incentives?

They probably didn't, BUT it would push more people to SR batteries to stay under $80k, which means they can build more trucks if batteries are the bottleneck.

 

[ExCivilian]

Youre suggesting Ford intentionally priced most Lighting trim levels out of the incentives?

Nope, it was all just a big coincidence...an accident if you will. Ford doesn't have any control over it's pricing--probably just throw darts at a wall now that you got me really thinking about it. They had no knowledge about the details of this deal, aren't one of the largest lobbying bodies in this multiyear debate, and the whole issue came out of nowhere.

They now aren't saying anything to their customers who are in the lurch and probably just now learning the hard knock life of being a domestic manufacturer. Sometimes it takes 120 years before you lose the wetness behind your ears is how I like to describe it. Sounds like a reasonable alternative explanation compared to what I originally wrote.

 

[cvalue13]

Nope, it was all just a big coincidence...an accident if you will. Ford doesn't have any control over it's pricing--probably just throw darts at a wall now that you got me really thinking about it. They had no knowledge about the details of this deal, aren't one of the largest lobbying bodies in this multiyear debate, and the whole issue came out of nowhere.

They now aren't saying anything to their customers who are in the lurch and probably just now learning the hard knock life of being a domestic manufacturer. Sometimes it takes 120 years before you lose the wetness behind your ears is how I like to describe it. Sounds like a reasonable alternative explanation compared to what I originally wrote.

Oh wait, you really ARE suggesting that Ford intentionally priced most trim levels out of the rebates!

You're funny

 

[ExCivilian]

Oh wait, you really ARE suggesting that Ford intentionally priced most trim levels out of the rebates!

You're funny

Ford didn't price themselves out of the rebates. They just passed the 200K mark sometime this week or last--the upcoming 2023s were never receiving $7,500. That's a detail that seems to be lost on a number of members here.

Ford already received $1.5B dollars in incentive money along with GM, Nissan, and Tesla. They used that money as a bridge to volume production. Meanwhile, Hyundai/Kia, VAG, and Rivian, for example, just started ramping up production and were counting on that ~$2B capital injection to springboard into lower-priced, volume production.

Ford, GM, Nissan, and Tesla are all a significant advantage in this race to electrification. Rivian, et al. are at a significant disadvantage and, as I noted, at risk of bankruptcy now. They no longer have a pathway to volume production--at least none that they've shown.

Everyone knew whatever came after the 200K EVs were sold would be subject to income limits and luxury thresholds. The public has been challenging the "value" of the EV credits for years, the government coffers aren't bottomless despite how our elected officials sometime act, and the makeup of the Senate gave specific Senators leverage to get what they wanted from the bill.

So if you (Ford, etc.) are meeting with the White House (going all the way back to the Trump administration) about what the next phase is gong to be, and you know that Manchin is speaking and voting on behalf of numerous untold vulnerable Senators, what does that leave for you to do? You can either argue that everyone gets all the incentives again or, even better, *no one* gets them (better because you already got yours), which is what happened.

The whole argument you're making ignores the fact Fords were no longer eligible for $7,500. It wasn't clear whether that was going to be Oct 1 or Jan 1 but it certainly wasn't going to be any longer than that. Of all the manufacturers, Ford and GM have the best chance of shifting to domestic battery production out of all of them. Tesla has a strong position if their Texas factory can qualify. And, as I alluded to earlier, obviously they built that factory with knowledge of this law coming to fruition (and that we have clear evidence they had input into its crafting) so my prediction is their factory will suffice.

Maybe it's surprising to you but it wasn't to them. They have teams of people living in DC influencing law--and Ford has been doing this for over a hundred years! Factories don't just pop up out of nowhere just like laws don't. These things take years to come to fruition and all these parts are moving all at once. That's politics...at least in the US.

Ford absolutely has control over their pricing. I don't understand how you're even arguing this point. If this was an issue for them, they'd sell base Lariats for $79,999 and pile on the options at the dealer level. In fact, if they cared as much as people want them to, they would give the reservation orders price protection instead of those private offers.

Those customers who are getting private offers won't be eligible, either, because a discount won't reduce the MSRP! That's the clearest evidence of what I'm talking about if you want to dispute it. Why wouldn't Ford offer them the MSRP they had locked in? Why won't Ford offer me a "free" metallic paint job now that I'm a few hundred dollars over the line? Why hasn't Farley even so much as tweeted about this to his customers...or dealers? I only spoke to one owner but he was livid Ford wasn't giving them any direction at all. So livid, in fact, that he's going to meet me tomorrow to hand me the sales paperwork on a truck that's still sitting in MI.

Ford isn't in the trunk--they're driving the damn car.

 

[cvalue13]

Ford absolutely has control over their pricing. I don't understand how you're even arguing this point.

I never argued that point, or anything else you’re attributing to me.

You’re extra funny

 

[ExCivilian]

I never argued that point, or anything else you’re attributing to me.

You’re extra funny

My bad. I confused you with this person who was questioning whether Ford had control over how they priced their vehicles:

Youre suggesting Ford intentionally priced most Lighting trim levels out of the incentives?

Oh wait, you really ARE suggesting that Ford intentionally priced most trim levels out of the rebates!

You're funny

What's your best interpretation of what that person was trying to suggest? That Ford accidentally priced their vehicles above the incentive threshold?

 

[Pjlightning]

Ford didn't price themselves out of the rebates. They just passed the 200K mark sometime this week or last--the upcoming 2023s were never receiving $7,500. That's a detail that seems to be lost on a number of members here.

Ford already received $1.5B dollars in incentive money along with GM, Nissan, and Tesla. They used that money as a bridge to volume production. Meanwhile, Hyundai/Kia, VAG, and Rivian, for example, just started ramping up production and were counting on that ~$2B capital injection to springboard into lower-priced, volume production.

Ford, GM, Nissan, and Tesla are all a significant advantage in this race to electrification. Rivian, et al. are at a significant disadvantage and, as I noted, at risk of bankruptcy now. They no longer have a pathway to volume production--at least none that they've shown.

Everyone knew whatever came after the 200K EVs were sold would be subject to income limits and luxury thresholds. The public has been challenging the "value" of the EV credits for years, the government coffers aren't bottomless despite how our elected officials sometime act, and the makeup of the Senate gave specific Senators leverage to get what they wanted from the bill.

So if you (Ford, etc.) are meeting with the White House (going all the way back to the Trump administration) about what the next phase is gong to be, and you know that Manchin is speaking and voting on behalf of numerous untold vulnerable Senators, what does that leave for you to do? You can either argue that everyone gets all the incentives again or, even better, *no one* gets them (better because you already got yours), which is what happened.

The whole argument you're making ignores the fact Fords were no longer eligible for $7,500. It wasn't clear whether that was going to be Oct 1 or Jan 1 but it certainly wasn't going to be any longer than that. Of all the manufacturers, Ford and GM have the best chance of shifting to domestic battery production out of all of them. Tesla has a strong position if their Texas factory can qualify. And, as I alluded to earlier, obviously they built that factory with knowledge of this law coming to fruition (and that we have clear evidence they had input into its crafting) so my prediction is their factory will suffice.

Maybe it's surprising to you but it wasn't to them. They have teams of people living in DC influencing law--and Ford has been doing this for over a hundred years! Factories don't just pop up out of nowhere just like laws don't. These things take years to come to fruition and all these parts are moving all at once. That's politics...at least in the US.

Ford absolutely has control over their pricing. I don't understand how you're even arguing this point. If this was an issue for them, they'd sell base Lariats for $79,999 and pile on the options at the dealer level. In fact, if they cared as much as people want them to, they would give the reservation orders price protection instead of those private offers.

Those customers who are getting private offers won't be eligible, either, because a discount won't reduce the MSRP! That's the clearest evidence of what I'm talking about if you want to dispute it. Why wouldn't Ford offer them the MSRP they had locked in? Why won't Ford offer me a "free" metallic paint job now that I'm a few hundred dollars over the line? Why hasn't Farley even so much as tweeted about this to his customers...or dealers? I only spoke to one owner but he was livid Ford wasn't giving them any direction at all. So livid, in fact, that he's going to meet me tomorrow to hand me the sales paperwork on a truck that's still sitting in MI.

Ford isn't in the trunk--they're driving the damn car.

and if all of this works out, Ford will benefit from the massive buildout of DCFC that will be necessary for mass adoption of EV in this country, while they let someone else sell cheaper cars at lower margins that will push total EV volumes on the roads up, while they make Fat margins on premium priced F-150’s that is their bread and butter profit engine for the whole company.

more EV’s in general help solve the DCFC network problems- because it will be the true catalyst to making it broadly supported politically and economically.

 

[cvalue13]

My bad. I confused you with this person who was questioning whether Ford had control over how they priced their vehicles:

Sensing both sarcasm, and poor deduction.

It does not require Ford not having control over their pricing for Ford to not intentionally price themselves out the incentives.

Instead, knowing of course Ford controls its prices, perhaps Ford did not yet know the outcome of the bill’s price thresholds.

And please, no more lectures about how corporate lobbying works - I’m familiar. I’m familiar with both how strategic and invested these companies are in legislative lobbying, as well as how these very same companies can at times be shockingly inept battleships that cannot “turn” with anything approximating agility.

This bill only survived be the skin of its teeth, culminating in 15 overnight hours deep horse-trading and revisions. So until you find a first hand account that the status of these dollar thresholds were or weren’t settled long before, you’re in this thread only describing how you imagine things went.

Let’s talk about some confusing points in that imagination:

note that your argument turns on the assertion that Ford was able to drive the ultimate terms of this bill, which would include driving not only the price caps, but the battery manufacturing % caps and escalation schedule, the buyer income caps, the prohibitions on Chinese components, etc.; your argument would then also imply that not only was Ford able to drive and desire these prohibitive terms, but so too were GM and other major manufacturers driving these same terms in concert with Ford; but then in the same breath you go on to simultaneously assert that these same companies are also spending money to domesticate their supply chain and materials sourcing, etc.

in your imagination, as it would imply, in fact nearly all domestic EV manufacturers had an equal hand in also lobbying for the battery manufacturing %s to be so stringent that it becomes unlikely for many (any?) of them to qualify for these rebates (because your position asserts that these manufacturer lobbies drove all the terms of this bill), placing them back on par with the foreign manufacturers that will also be excluded for eligibility.

these are just some of the oddities raised by your assertions that Ford intentionally priced MY23 Lightnings out of the tax credits.

This is all enough to say, without belaboring
any more detail: I never suggested Ford doesn’t control its pricing; instead, I only suggested that you would need to say a whole lot more than your able, before having a convincing argument that Ford intentionally priced itself out of eligibility for these EV rebates, likely disqualified itself from the battery manufacturing requirements, etc., while simultaneously spending money to domesticate their supply chain and materials
sourcing.

In all, it just seems half-cocked.

On one hand, there’s your view that Ford (and so other domestic EV manufacturers) are sophisticated orchestraters of the numerous poison pills that make these EV incentives potentially meaningless to their bottom line, and so undercut their advantages over foreign EV manufacturers.

On the other hand, there’s an alternative possibility that Ford (and so other domestic EV manufacturers) were caught-out on these poison-pill terms, we’re seeking the best of both worlds by both increasing their MSRPs etc while also obtaining higher qualification caps, etc., but Manchin (and those for whom he stands in proxy) decided to neuter EV incentives while still posturing a political “win” by passing a bill that (only on its surface) appears to support domestic EV manufacturing (because other companies’ lobbyists were the real winners)

 

[ExCivilian]

In all, it just seems half-cocked.

Of course it does; that's the point of straw-manning someone's position--you are mis-representing my position in order to argue that it's half-cocked.

On one hand, there’s your view that Ford (and so other domestic EV manufacturers) are sophisticated orchestraters of the numerous poison pills that make these EV incentives potentially meaningless to their bottom line, and so undercut their advantages over foreign EV manufacturers.

I never argued they were the ones who placed any so-called "poison pills" into this legislature.

On the other hand, there’s an alternative possibility that Ford (and so other domestic EV manufacturers) were caught-out on these poison-pill terms, we’re seeking the best of both worlds by both increasing their MSRPs etc while also obtaining higher qualification caps, etc., but Manchin (and those for whom he stands in proxy) decided to neuter EV incentives while still posturing a political “win” by passing a bill that (only on its surface) appears to support domestic EV manufacturing (because other companies’ lobbyists were the real winners)

There is no "other hand." This is, in fact, my position.

Instead, knowing of course Ford controls its prices, perhaps Ford did not yet know the outcome of the bill’s price thresholds.

This is the ridiculous premise you're presenting to us. My points regarding Ford's long-standing relationship with legislative bodies wasn't to argue that they dictate terms to our lawmakers, but rather that they were obviously aware of the incoming income limits.

Based on how you've been interacting with me so far, I might expect a snide comeback regarding how they could possibly anticipate an $80K cap despite the fact it's been in the BBB for over a year!

Regardless, as stated earlier, this entire conversation is moot based on your faulty premise that Ford "priced itself out of incentives" that no longer applied to its products. Again, they didn't price themselves out of the incentives because they had already expired as they pertained to Ford products.

 

[cvalue13]

I never argued they were the ones who placed any so-called "poison pills" into this legislature.

Weird, because:

Regardless, it would not surprise me if Ford was part of the group that lobbied these restrictions into the bill in the first place.

So if you (Ford, etc.) are meeting with the White House … what does that leave for you to do? You can either argue that everyone gets all the incentives again or, even better, *no one* gets them (better because you already got yours), which is what happened.

They have teams of people living in DC influencing law--and Ford has been doing this for over a hundred years!

Ford isn't in the trunk--they're driving the damn car.

But now you’re saying what you really meant is the paragraph I drafted? That despite Ford “driving the car,” “lobb[ying] these restrictions into the bill in the first place,” and desiree that “no one* gets them,” what you really meant was that Ford was caught-out on the terms, and we’re merely “aware” of what terms were being passively handed to them in the bill?

Ok

 

[dingle87]

Curious where you are affording a family of 4 without dual income?

ZEV states are preferred because those states provide incentives. It’s not like Ford just threw darts on a board and decided ZEV states get priority.

Chicago suburbs. My wife and i also have zero debt outside of our home. The only reason it’s possible.

 

[jb56]

But now you’re saying what you really meant is the paragraph I drafted? That despite Ford “driving the car,” “lobb[ying] these restrictions into the bill in the first place,” and desiree that “no one* gets them,” what you really meant was that Ford was caught-out on the terms, and we’re merely “aware” of what terms were being passively handed to them in the bill?

Ok

You are an interesting kind of antagonist in this thread. Are you a big fan of Ford over the other companies in the market? I don't like Ford (the company) at all. I'm really tired of them. But my Bronco is effing amazing. And the Lightning is an incredible product. (Our expedition is fantastic too) But the company, Ford, has, in my opinion, heavily prioritized profit over the last few years even moreso than its competitors. Ford has that luxury because its products are simply better than the competition.

You can absolutely disagree with me. That's fine. And if you do, that would explain your general leanings in this thread. But, if you start with the assumption (correct or not) that Ford is making these moves to maximize short term profit at the expense of customer satisfaction, then these pricing moves might be exactly for the reasons people are saying, including pushing customers away from extended range batteries and trying to absolutely maximize profit on the ER builds even if that means many customers will move to other options. But does Ford care? Probably not, because there is no way they can meet demand in 2022 or 2023 at least.

Sponsored