WSJ: Ford Considers Scrapping Electric Version of F-150 Truck

[Deleted member 22541]

great info - thank you!

Sponsored

 

[21st Century Truck]

WSJ... about as prestigious as the National Enquirer.

Ummm... I don't think so.

 

[WXman]

Look at it from Ford's perspective.

They had to subsidize the sale/lease of every Lightning that was sold. They lost billions on the project. And after all that, the Lightning over the last 4 years has accounted for less than 5% of all F-150 sales. But, they soldiered on and did it anyhow because the administration at the time was breathing down their neck.

Now you've got this new administration who has taken all the pressure off of them....and then suddenly there's an unexpected fire at the plant where Ford gets necessary materials to make the trucks. All of this while Ford is already undergoing massive cost cutting across the board to try and maintain their bottom line.

It's the perfect storm, and Ford has every reason in the world to discontinue Lightning permanently and focus their EV efforts on development of the new "T3" truck so that IF the next administration starts breathing down their necks again in '29 they'll be ready. I'm not saying I hope Ford kills the Lightning. I actually hope they do not. I'm just saying they have every reason to.

And no, WSJ isn't a horrible reporting entity. They are no less credible than Car and Driver, Yahoo! Finance, or any of the other sources that have been reporting the same thing for weeks now.

 

[Garyl]

Opened up the November 2025 issue of the ag trade publication Prairie Farmer, this is the first ad behind the cover

 

[Deleted member 22541]

Having owned 2 AVALANCHES (they were great trucks) this looks great! Wonder price point?

 

[djwildstar]

Say it anit so! Someone please prove this article wrong.

The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdock, who has reason to be anti-EV: In addition to being a leading conservative opinion-maker, he has significant oil and gas investments around the world. Prior to 2021 his news outlets promoted climate change denial, and since then have softened to be merely "skeptical" of it.

Ars Technica has a better article about the production suspension. This article includes the following quote from a Ford spokesperson:

"F-150 Lightning is the best-selling electric picup truck in the US -- despite new competition from CyberTruck, Chevy, GMC, Hummer, and Rivian -- and delivered record sales in Q3. Right now, we're focused on producing F-150 ICE and Hybrid as we recover from the fire at Novelis. We have good inventories of the F-150 Lightning, and will bring Rouge Electric Vehicle Center back up at the right time"

.

 

[RickLightning]

Look at it from Ford's perspective.

They had to subsidize the sale/lease of every Lightning that was sold. They lost billions on the project. And after all that, the Lightning over the last 4 years has accounted for less than 5% of all F-150 sales. But, they soldiered on and did it anyhow because the administration at the time was breathing down their neck.

Now you've got this new administration who has taken all the pressure off of them....and then suddenly there's an unexpected fire at the plant where Ford gets necessary materials to make the trucks. All of this while Ford is already undergoing massive cost cutting across the board to try and maintain their bottom line.

It's the perfect storm, and Ford has every reason in the world to discontinue Lightning permanently and focus their EV efforts on development of the new "T3" truck so that IF the next administration starts breathing down their necks again in '29 they'll be ready. I'm not saying I hope Ford kills the Lightning. I actually hope they do not. I'm just saying they have every reason to.

And no, WSJ isn't a horrible reporting entity. They are no less credible than Car and Driver, Yahoo! Finance, or any of the other sources that have been reporting the same thing for weeks now.

I'll disagree with some of your statements.

The word "subsidize" is too vague. Did they lose money on each Lightning sold, i.e. sold the vehicle for less than the cost to produce it, excluding R&D? I don't think so.

Did they "soldier on" because an administration was breathing down their neck? Garbage. In 2010, Bill Ford said that EVs would be "the biggest game-changer for the auto industry. In 2011, he said that about 25% of Ford's fleet would be electrified by 2020. He is a huge fan of EVs, and he determines the overall company direction.

Ford also produces EVs to get in compliance on emissions for their fleet, and if that is relaxed they have less incentive to produce EVs.

 

[WXman]

I'll disagree with some of your statements.

The word "subsidize" is too vague. Did they lose money on each Lightning sold, i.e. sold the vehicle for less than the cost to produce it, excluding R&D? I don't think so.

Did they "soldier on" because an administration was breathing down their neck? Garbage. In 2010, Bill Ford said that EVs would be "the biggest game-changer for the auto industry. In 2011, he said that about 25% of Ford's fleet would be electrified by 2020. He is a huge fan of EVs, and he determines the overall company direction.

Ford also produces EVs to get in compliance on emissions for their fleet, and if that is relaxed they have less incentive to produce EVs.

Yes, most reports over the last few years have indicated that it costs more to produce the Lightning than Ford can sell them for. So, they are losing money on every one sold.

Yes, they soldiered on because the administration was breathing down their neck, which is the precise reason why they used the already existing F-150 and simply swapped out the driveline. Ford even admitted it was a rush job, and that the next generation would be finally put upon an EV dedicated platform.

If you are asserting that they planned this truck 15 years ago, that is garbage. If that were true, they would have had plenty of time to design, build, test, and sell a totally different vehicle.

Ford already was in better shape on CAFE rules because they've had the little EcoBust engines and smaller vehicles in production for many years.

 

[RickLightning]

Yes, most reports over the last few years have indicated that it costs more to produce the Lightning than Ford can sell them for. So, they are losing money on every one sold.

Yes, they soldiered on because the administration was breathing down their neck, which is the precise reason why they used the already existing F-150 and simply swapped out the driveline. Ford even admitted it was a rush job, and that the next generation would be finally put upon an EV dedicated platform.

If you are asserting that they planned this truck 15 years ago, that is garbage. If that were true, they would have had plenty of time to design, build, test, and sell a totally different vehicle.

Ford already was in better shape on CAFE rules because they've had the little EcoBust engines and smaller vehicles in production for many years.

Ford used the existing F-150 to get to market before the competition. Same reason for the Mach-E as far as the vehicle's systems, i.e. they took components from their other EVs and used them at first, then started seeing what they could eliminate in future years. Goal was to get to market ASAP.

In addition, by making the Lightning an F-150, the goal was to lure gas F-150 buyers, vs. coming out with something they were unfamiliar with.

 

[02Reaper]

Yes, most reports over the last few years have indicated that it costs more to produce the Lightning than Ford can sell them for. So, they are losing money on every one sold.

Yes, they soldiered on because the administration was breathing down their neck, which is the precise reason why they used the already existing F-150 and simply swapped out the driveline. Ford even admitted it was a rush job, and that the next generation would be finally put upon an EV dedicated platform.

If you are asserting that they planned this truck 15 years ago, that is garbage. If that were true, they would have had plenty of time to design, build, test, and sell a totally different vehicle.

Ford already was in better shape on CAFE rules because they've had the little EcoBust engines and smaller vehicles in production for many years.

While the current Lightning wasn't planned 15 years ago, this video is from 6 years ago. The electric F150 had been prototyped by then.

 

[djwildstar]

So, they are losing money on every one sold. [...] Yes, they soldiered on because the administration was breathing down their neck, which is [...] why they used the already existing F-150[.]

I don't buy this perspective.

From available reporting, Ford started working on an "electric F-150" in February 2018. It is hard for me to believe that the first Trump administration (remember, inaugurated in January 2017) was "breathing down Ford's neck" to build electric pickups.

It is much more likely that Ford became aware of multiple companies working on EV pickup trucks. Tesla had a pickup truck on their master plan starting in 2016, and Rivian revealed its first two products, the A1T pickup and A1C SUV in December 2017 (they were renamed R1T and R1C about a year later). This put Ford in a difficult position: either develop a BEV pickup of their own, or cede leadership of what was expected to be a significant market segment to a pair of EV startups.

I think the decision to base their BEV pickup on the F-150 was brilliant. If buyers want a re-invention of the pickup truck concept, Tesla has got that covered, while Rivian has the EV adventure/lifestyle angle. I think Ford (correctly) assumed that there's a reason that the F-150 is the best-selling pickup in the US, and it isn't because it's the cheapest. So it stands to reason that "An F-150, but electric" would appeal to a lot of buyers. Sales have proven that out: the Lightning is the best-selling electric pickup in the US.

Given all of this, it makes for a clear decision regarding the future of the Lightning:

• IF you believe that EVs in general, and full-size EV pickups and SUVs specifically, will never amount to more than 10% to 20% of comparable gas and hybrid sales, then it makes sense for Ford to cancel the F-150 Lightning. There's no sense in maintaining EV marketshare or building expertise with EVs if they will never be more than a niche market. Leave EVs to the EV-specific start-ups like Tesla and Rivian, and EV-focused traditional carmakers like Hyundai and Kia.
• IF you believe that EVs represent a key area of market growth, then it is important for Ford to maintain their leadership position in this segment by building better pickup trucks and compact crossovers than their competition. Even if this represents a loss per unit sold, it is an important investment in maintaining and growing their future business.

I don't believe figures like $35,000 to $100,000 that are often bandied about, because these confuse capital investments with the cost to produce an existing design. I DO suspect that the loss of CAFE penalties and Federal income tax incentives (both zeroed out in July 2025) do mean that Ford loses a bit on each EV sold. Back-of-the envelope calculations suggest that each Lightning sold prior to July 2025 saved Ford between $500 and $1000 in CAFE penalties, and most carmakers took advantage of the $7500 Federal tax credit to inflate margins as much as possible.

 

[Altivec]

I dont even think it is that complicated. They have the best selling truck. They know what works, what people want in a truck, and how buyers use them. They took all their experiance making trucks and made the exact same thing, but electric. They made an electric truck, not an electric vehicle to act like a truck.

That IS why I love the Lightning and i know im not alone. Its an F150, but electric. Its not a new attempt. Its not trying something different.

And as far as a rush job goes, well I do think they moved with haste, but I dont think its rushed. We are seeing with the other platforms that there isnt much, if any, efficiency to be had. About the only thing they could have done different was an 800v architecture, but when they started making the lightning that was exceedingly rare and with hardly any charger support.

I agree with you 100%. The biggest problem with the lightning is Ford themselves. For what ever reason, shareholders, ceo, internal management, etc... are having some sort of tug of war and many don't want the lightning to succeed.

The marketing just plainly sucks. 4 years later and I am showing and explaining the benefits to other truck buyers. They say "I didn't know that" and you can see the revelation in their mind of how great the lightning is. Some have even told me point blank, that they will be looking at a lightning for their next truck. I mean I sold more lightnings than marketing has.

They have the best selling EV truck after 4 years of no refreshes and the pillaging of features year after year. Can you imagine if they tried. There should be commercials of contractors such as ourselves saying we are saving thousands in fuel each year, another one, look at us power our entire job site, look at us storing and charging our tools in the frunk. Nope... all we have are a bunch of commercials with gas F150's driving down the road and saying ford tough at the end.

Killing the lightning would be a decision that would be the end of Ford in the global market. Ford might not be doing those commercials but some other company will. I know I won't be going back to gas so if Ford doesn't have something for me, then good bye.

 

[MotoGary]

The marketing just plainly sucks. 4 years later and I am showing and explaining the benefits to other truck buyers. They say "I didn't know that" and you can see the revelation in their mind of how great the lightning is. Some have even told me point blank, that they will be looking at a lightning for their next truck. I mean I sold more lightnings than marketing has.

Couldn't agree more. Ford's marketing for the Lightning should a case study in college marketing courses on how NOT to do it! I've never seen a product as great as the Lightning mis-marketed so badly. I wonder where the Lightning would be had it been marketed by the team at Apple.

 

[Traconesu]

Say it anit so!

Someone please prove this article wrong.

@Ford Motor Company , what say you?





https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/...4?st=w5AVK8&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

A fire at the Novelis aluminum plant in Oswego, New York on September 16, 2025, has significantly impacted Ford's production due to the plant being a key supplier of aluminum sheet. The fire is expected to cost Ford between $1.5 billion and $2.5 billion in profit this year, and has caused temporary pauses in F-150 and F-150 Lightning production to mitigate the impact. While the Oswego facility's hot mill is expected to resume operations by the end of December 2025, the fire will disrupt the auto industry's supply chain for months.

 

[njaehner]

Uh oh. The Novelis aluminum plant caught fire again...

https://www.oswegocountynewsnow.com...cle_d31aaf98-43e2-4af8-bd64-bfa7213e4d8f.html

Sponsored