Direct to Consumer debates

[chl]

Hey F-150 Lightning community,

You proved that an electric truck is a workhorse, a daily driver, and a literal powerhouse.

Today, we’re officially announcing the newest addition to the Ford EV truck family. It’s an all-new, affordable, mid-size electric truck, and the very first vehicle built on our new Universal Electric Vehicle (UEV) Platform.

Introducing the Ford Fathom.



We know EV affordability and sizing are massive topics in the industry right now, and we’re tackling both head-on. Here are the quick hits of what you need to know:

• The Price Tag: It starts at $28,350 (standard-range battery). We’re able to hit this price point thanks to a totally new "assembly tree" manufacturing process we’re spinning up at the Louisville Assembly Plant.
• The Name: We’re calling it Fathom. The Skunkworks team reached a new depth of innovation to make a truck this capable at this price point—fathoming possibilities we previously thought were out of reach. (Plus, it just sounds cool).
• The Tech: Every Fathom will be BlueCruise-capable and utilize Phone as a Key (PaaK). More importantly for this crowd: it will feature bi-directional power capability.
• The Footprint: It’s a mid-size truck, but clever packaging means it actually has more interior passenger space than a Toyota RAV4, plus the frunk and the bed for hauling your gear.

What’s Next? We’re looking at pre-orders opening in early 2027 alongside the full vehicle reveal, with customer deliveries starting in the fall of 2027.

I wanted to share this directly with you all because your feedback, your road trips, and your experience as an F-150 Lightning owner continues to inspire the teams who are building the EV ecosystem here at Ford.

If you want to stay in the loop, you can sign up for Fathom updates here: https://go.ford/signupFF

Let me know what you think below!

I look forward to getting official specs on things like...

Battery size: rumors have it at 51kWh for the 'base' version, but the Chinese Ford Bronco has a 104kWh LFP (BYD) battery - that would be nice to have in the new truck

Range and Miles per kWh: the Chinese Ford Bronco has a range of about 403mi on the 104kWh battery so about 3.88mi/kWh, and that Bronco does not look all that "aerodynamic" to me - if the battery is the rumored size (51kWh) then 3.88mi/kWh would give a range of about 198 miles

V2H (bi-directionality): the usefulness of that will depend on several factors - 1) the battery size and 2) the efficiency - net energy delivered to the home after internal losses due to DC-AC conversion. Practically speaking, a 51kWh battery could power my home emergency circuits for a day or two if I limit how much I use 'high' power appliances (microwave 2kW max and coffee pot 1kW) using a reserve of 2kWh. So really the rumored 51kWh battery would be a bit small for home backup in areas with long-duration outages (the hurricane zone)

Payload and Towing capability: it's a truck so that is a fundamental spec every serious truck customer will need to know

Price: I know this will sound like a 'radical' thing for Ford to do but...why doesn't Ford sell direct to consumers (DTC) to cut the dealer prep and delivery costs to the consumer? When the Lightning first came out the dealer 'mark up' and 'market pricing' were a big disincentive and created some 'bad will' towards the Ford brand...it delayed my purchase by over a year until the prices came back down to earth. The DTC model has many advantages for both Ford and consumers.

Fathom name: well, getting engineers to pick a name is 'risky' look at the crazy names some high-tech folks give to their children! lol. My wife didn't like the name - to her fathom implies something hard to understand, and yes, she is not an engineer so that is appropriate to sum up her approach to EV engineering, lol - I've been somewhat successful at simplifying it for her, but her eyes still glaze over now and then.

On a lighter note: expect to get ribbed (relentlessly) about the name...like the Chevy Nova was because to Spanish speaking people translates a "no go."

But as my grandmother told me when I was 3 years old, when people tease me just say "sticks and stone may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Not exactly true in branding and advertising though, alas.

I look forward to seeing one in person and test driving it, and hope it is successful. We need more EVs on the road, and the sooner the better!

Thanks for sharing!

PS: the Chinese Bronco info from this source:

Sponsored

 

[jefrank]

Price: I know this will sound like a 'radical' thing for Ford to do but...why doesn't Ford sell direct to consumers (DTC) to cut the dealer prep and delivery costs to the consumer? When the Lightning first came out the dealer 'mark up' and 'market pricing' were a big disincentive and created some 'bad will' towards the Ford brand...it delayed my purchase by over a year until the prices came back down to earth. The DTC model has many advantages for both Ford and consumers.

Not radical, but illegal in many, if not all, states due to dealership protection laws.

 

[chl]

Not radical, but illegal in many, if not all, states due to dealership protection laws.

Not exactly 'illegal' and not everywhere, based on my understanding...have to see what the status is now in your own individual state.

Last time I checked...

I think it was less than 1/2 of the 50 US states that banned DTC, and no Federal law that I am aware of.

Tesla got around the state bans didn't they?
Several states (over 20?) make an exception for EVs as I recall.

Virginia where I live allowed it but company owned show rooms are limited to 5...the number maybe have changed?

So it is a state by state thing.

 

[jefrank]

Not exactly 'illegal' and not everywhere, based on my understanding...have to see what the status is now in your own individual state.

Last time I checked...

I think it was less than 1/2 of the 50 US states that banned DTC, and no Federal law that I am aware of.

Tesla got around the state bans didn't they?
Several states (over 20?) make an exception for EVs as I recall.

Virginia where I live allowed it but company owned show rooms are limited to 5...the number maybe have changed?

So it is a state by state thing.

I said states. Maybe my scale is off a bit, I'll grant that, but Wikipedia says I was correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_automobile_selling_in_the_United_States

Tesla and Rivian (maybe other EV-only producers) got exceptions/revised laws in some states, but Ford isn't an EV-only producer and their dealer network will sue, 100%, and have the backing of many state laws in doing so. VW is having trouble with its dealers over Scout... setting up a separate company isn't enough to guarantee the ability to sell direct. Ford won't be able to sell direct in most of its markets unless a lot of states change their laws... and that isn't happening as long as the dealership lobby has lots of money to buy the status quo.

 

[chl]

DTC in Illinois for example :

Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Direct-To-Consumer Auto Sales

Sarah J. Reusche • September 9, 2024


On August 23, 2024, the appellate court in Illinois’ First Appellate district concluded that neither the Illinois Vehicle Code nor the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act prohibits manufacturers from obtaining dealer licenses to sell directly to consumers.

For Illinois auto dealerships, the threat of direct-to-consumer sales has been lingering over their business model since Tesla arrived on the scene in 2009. Shortly thereafter, electric motor vehicle manufacturers Rivian and Lucid also sought to obtain licenses from the Illinois Secretary of State to sell their vehicles directly to consumers.

Legal challenges followed, culminating in success at the trial court for Rivian and Lucid, and now this most recent appeal in Illinois Automobile Dealers Association v. Office of the Illinois Secretary of State, 2024 IL App (1st) 230100 (August 23, 2024). Trade associations for franchise motor vehicle dealerships argued that the Illinois Vehicle Code and the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act limited the sale of new motor vehicles to franchised dealerships, thereby precluding direct sales by manufacturers. Likewise, they argued that granting dealer licenses to Rivian and Lucid represented violations of their Due Process and Equal Protection clause rights under the U.S. Constitution.

https://www.lavellelaw.com/illinois-appellate-court-affirms-direct-to-consumer-auto-sales

-----


[ In a law suit brought by the Illinois Automobile Dealers Association (“IADA”) and numerous individual franchised dealers against Rivian, Lucid and the Illinois Secretary of State. ]

Rivian and Lucid are electric motor vehicle manufacturers that sell their vehicles direct to consumers rather than through franchised dealers. In 2021, the Secretary of State granted Rivian and Lucid motor vehicle dealer licenses allowing them to sell their vehicles directly in Illinois....

The Court found that the Illinois legislature could have excluded manufacturers from selling vehicles or obtaining a dealer license but did not do so and held that “the court declines to nevertheless read such an exclusion into the law via a tortured application of inapplicable requirements.” Order at 4. The Court also noted that the Illinois legislature, in 2017, rejected an amendment the IADA proposed that would have explicitly prohibited manufacturers from selling vehicles similar to what other states (such as Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan and South Carolina) have enacted. The Court appeared to chide IADA for seeking to prevent Rivian and Lucid from obtaining dealer licenses, when it had previously agreed that Tesla could sell direct to consumers....

https://www.seyfarth.com/news-insig...vehicles-direct-to-consumers-in-illinois.html

 

[chl]

Not radical, but illegal in many, if not all, states due to dealership protection laws.

Haven't verified this rigorously, but a search said:

In Michigan, state law generally bans car makers from selling new vehicles directly to buyers. Traditional franchise rules force retail sales through local, independent dealers. However, a legal settlement allows Tesla to sell and service vehicles directly within the state. Other EV startups face a restricted, unclear landscape without broad legislative exemptions

In early 2020, Attorney General Nessel announced a settlement with Tesla that interpreted the State’s dealer law to permit Tesla to engage in any aspect of marketing a vehicle—opening showrooms, giving test drives, receiving trade-ins, setting up the sales transaction—so long as the actual sales transaction was orchestrated out of state. It also interpreted the Michigan statute to permit Tesla to open service centers, so long as it did so through a subsidiary. In effect, this interpretation of Michigan law allowed Tesla to sell and service its cars in Michigan, subject to jumping a few formal hurdles. By 2020, the EV sales issue was not just Tesla’s. Not only were most of the legacy car companies beginning to roll out EVs, but a host of new EV start-ups—Rivian, Lordstown, Lucid, Bollinger, Nikola, and others—were preparing to reach the market. These new EV start-ups join Tesla in arguing urgently for the need to sell and service their vehicles directly in order to achieve critical mass and insist that traditional dealer distribution will not work for their business model. Because they are similarly situated to Tesla, at present these companies can arguably take advantage of the Tesla settlement and operate in Michigan as Tesla does. Unfortunately, the car dealers’ lobby—which was behind the 2014 legislation—is unhappy with any prospect of direct sales. In the fall of 2020, the dealers pushed a bill—H.B. 6233—in the Michigan legislature to “close the Tesla loophole.” The original version of the bill, passed in committee, would have preserved the Tesla settlement, but prohibited other EV start-ups from direct sales and service. The version of the bill changed through floor amendment and that ultimately passed in the House went even further—it eviscerated the Tesla settlement and denied direct sales or service to any car company, including Tesla. Fortunately, the Senate did not take up the bill, and it died with the last legislative session. It’s time for Michigan to adopt reform legislation to bring clarity to the question of EV sales and to permit car companies to reach their customers directly.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/law_econ_current/177/

 

[jefrank]

DTC in Illinois for example :

Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Direct-To-Consumer Auto Sales

Sarah J. Reusche • September 9, 2024


On August 23, 2024, the appellate court in Illinois’ First Appellate district concluded that neither the Illinois Vehicle Code nor the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act prohibits manufacturers from obtaining dealer licenses to sell directly to consumers.

For Illinois auto dealerships, the threat of direct-to-consumer sales has been lingering over their business model since Tesla arrived on the scene in 2009. Shortly thereafter, electric motor vehicle manufacturers Rivian and Lucid also sought to obtain licenses from the Illinois Secretary of State to sell their vehicles directly to consumers.

Legal challenges followed, culminating in success at the trial court for Rivian and Lucid, and now this most recent appeal in Illinois Automobile Dealers Association v. Office of the Illinois Secretary of State, 2024 IL App (1st) 230100 (August 23, 2024). Trade associations for franchise motor vehicle dealerships argued that the Illinois Vehicle Code and the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act limited the sale of new motor vehicles to franchised dealerships, thereby precluding direct sales by manufacturers. Likewise, they argued that granting dealer licenses to Rivian and Lucid represented violations of their Due Process and Equal Protection clause rights under the U.S. Constitution.

https://www.lavellelaw.com/illinois-appellate-court-affirms-direct-to-consumer-auto-sales

-----


[ In a law suit brought by the Illinois Automobile Dealers Association (“IADA”) and numerous individual franchised dealers against Rivian, Lucid and the Illinois Secretary of State. ]

Rivian and Lucid are electric motor vehicle manufacturers that sell their vehicles direct to consumers rather than through franchised dealers. In 2021, the Secretary of State granted Rivian and Lucid motor vehicle dealer licenses allowing them to sell their vehicles directly in Illinois....

The Court found that the Illinois legislature could have excluded manufacturers from selling vehicles or obtaining a dealer license but did not do so and held that “the court declines to nevertheless read such an exclusion into the law via a tortured application of inapplicable requirements.” Order at 4. The Court also noted that the Illinois legislature, in 2017, rejected an amendment the IADA proposed that would have explicitly prohibited manufacturers from selling vehicles similar to what other states (such as Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan and South Carolina) have enacted. The Court appeared to chide IADA for seeking to prevent Rivian and Lucid from obtaining dealer licenses, when it had previously agreed that Tesla could sell direct to consumers....

https://www.seyfarth.com/news-insig...vehicles-direct-to-consumers-in-illinois.html

Cool, Tesla and Rivian won the right to sell cars in Illinois, but that suit doesn't allow GM, Ford, Stellantis, VW, etc. to do the same.

 

[jefrank]

Haven't verified this rigorously, but a search said:

In Michigan, state law generally bans car makers from selling new vehicles directly to buyers. Traditional franchise rules force retail sales through local, independent dealers. However, a legal settlement allows Tesla to sell and service vehicles directly within the state. Other EV startups face a restricted, unclear landscape without broad legislative exemptions

In early 2020, Attorney General Nessel announced a settlement with Tesla that interpreted the State’s dealer law to permit Tesla to engage in any aspect of marketing a vehicle—opening showrooms, giving test drives, receiving trade-ins, setting up the sales transaction—so long as the actual sales transaction was orchestrated out of state. It also interpreted the Michigan statute to permit Tesla to open service centers, so long as it did so through a subsidiary. In effect, this interpretation of Michigan law allowed Tesla to sell and service its cars in Michigan, subject to jumping a few formal hurdles. By 2020, the EV sales issue was not just Tesla’s. Not only were most of the legacy car companies beginning to roll out EVs, but a host of new EV start-ups—Rivian, Lordstown, Lucid, Bollinger, Nikola, and others—were preparing to reach the market. These new EV start-ups join Tesla in arguing urgently for the need to sell and service their vehicles directly in order to achieve critical mass and insist that traditional dealer distribution will not work for their business model. Because they are similarly situated to Tesla, at present these companies can arguably take advantage of the Tesla settlement and operate in Michigan as Tesla does. Unfortunately, the car dealers’ lobby—which was behind the 2014 legislation—is unhappy with any prospect of direct sales. In the fall of 2020, the dealers pushed a bill—H.B. 6233—in the Michigan legislature to “close the Tesla loophole.” The original version of the bill, passed in committee, would have preserved the Tesla settlement, but prohibited other EV start-ups from direct sales and service. The version of the bill changed through floor amendment and that ultimately passed in the House went even further—it eviscerated the Tesla settlement and denied direct sales or service to any car company, including Tesla. Fortunately, the Senate did not take up the bill, and it died with the last legislative session. It’s time for Michigan to adopt reform legislation to bring clarity to the question of EV sales and to permit car companies to reach their customers directly.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/law_econ_current/177/

In Michigan, Teslas are officially sold in some other state and then the title has to be transferred. Michigan doesn't allow manufacturers to be dealers and, therefore, cannot issue titles.

 

[chl]

Cool, Tesla and Rivian won the right to sell cars in Illinois, but that suit doesn't allow GM, Ford, Stellantis, VW, etc. to do the same.

I suppose, haven't really studied it since I live in Virginia.

But in Virginia, Ford could not do DTC because they have "pre-existing franchise networks" unless they spun the EVs off into a separate business I suppose.

Do I really need a dealership for the purchase? I don't think I do, but some buyer will.

In general I 'hate' anti-competative things, but I understand franchise purchasers need some protection or they wouldn't invest in one.

But I think we can also see the problem when Franchised Ford dealerships don't do a good job with our Lightnings in repairs and service for what ever reason.

 

[chl]

In Michigan, Teslas are officially sold in some other state and then the title has to be transferred. Michigan doesn't allow manufacturers to be dealers and, therefore, cannot issue titles.

I see that.
Hard to get around these laws sometimes...we have the best politicians money can buy after all.

Old business models are under pressure - used to be you'd buy a car and the dealership would make the majority of their income from maintenance and repairs.

EVs require almost no maintenance so that hurts the bottom line, I get it.

But I don't want to pay more for the vehicle because of old business models as a consumer.

 

[chl]

I said states. Maybe my scale is off a bit, I'll grant that, but Wikipedia says I was correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_automobile_selling_in_the_United_States

Tesla and Rivian (maybe other EV-only producers) got exceptions/revised laws in some states, but Ford isn't an EV-only producer and their dealer network will sue, 100%, and have the backing of many state laws in doing so. VW is having trouble with its dealers over Scout... setting up a separate company isn't enough to guarantee the ability to sell direct. Ford won't be able to sell direct in most of its markets unless a lot of states change their laws... and that isn't happening as long as the dealership lobby has lots of money to buy the status quo.

That seems to be pretty accurate. Legacy companies with existing franchises would have to change the agreements and maybe do other things, like spin the EVs off to a separate business entity to avoid some state laws.

Contracts can be rewritten and a franchise is a contract.

It would be nice if Ford could do one or both of those things and sell DTC.

Many Ford dealerships have an anti-EV bias according to some owners experiences, so maybe they wouldn't have a problem letting ford sell only EVs DTC?

Just an outside the box idea maybe, 'radical' as I said initially.

But the law is an evolving thing, and if it can't keep up with change, it ought to be rewritten.

We should have laws regarding business that benefit and protect consumers.

DTC auto sales are mostly beneficial to both the buyer and the seller compared with the franchise models from what I have read from economists and legal folks who write about that kind of thing.

 

[Kickinback]

Hey F-150 Lightning community,

You proved that an electric truck is a workhorse, a daily driver, and a literal powerhouse.

Today, we’re officially announcing the newest addition to the Ford EV truck family. It’s an all-new, affordable, mid-size electric truck, and the very first vehicle built on our new Universal Electric Vehicle (UEV) Platform.

Introducing the Ford Fathom.



We know EV affordability and sizing are massive topics in the industry right now, and we’re tackling both head-on. Here are the quick hits of what you need to know:

• The Price Tag: It starts at $28,350 (standard-range battery). We’re able to hit this price point thanks to a totally new "assembly tree" manufacturing process we’re spinning up at the Louisville Assembly Plant.
• The Name: We’re calling it Fathom. The Skunkworks team reached a new depth of innovation to make a truck this capable at this price point—fathoming possibilities we previously thought were out of reach. (Plus, it just sounds cool).
• The Tech: Every Fathom will be BlueCruise-capable and utilize Phone as a Key (PaaK). More importantly for this crowd: it will feature bi-directional power capability.
• The Footprint: It’s a mid-size truck, but clever packaging means it actually has more interior passenger space than a Toyota RAV4, plus the frunk and the bed for hauling your gear.

What’s Next? We’re looking at pre-orders opening in early 2027 alongside the full vehicle reveal, with customer deliveries starting in the fall of 2027.

I wanted to share this directly with you all because your feedback, your road trips, and your experience as an F-150 Lightning owner continues to inspire the teams who are building the EV ecosystem here at Ford.

If you want to stay in the loop, you can sign up for Fathom updates here: https://go.ford/signupFF

Let me know what you think below!

I want a full size BEV Lightning again. Please bring it back. If you want just add the EREV as an optional engine choice for those who need it.

 

[Rice_classic]

We should have laws regarding business that benefit and protect consumers.

America is not a country, it is a corporation. We exist to serve corporate interests. Laws to protect us exist when protecting us advances corporate interests... like how we are being "protected" from Chinese EVs.

 

[chl]

America is not a country, it is a corporation. We exist to serve corporate interests. Laws to protect us exist when protecting us advances corporate interests... like how we are being "protected" from Chinese EVs.

That is the cynical view, and it is not 100% wrong or right.
Right now it is clearly being run by a cabal of corrupt families, but that too will pass.

When the general public's and businesses' interests coincide, that is usually a good thing no matter what the origin.

Often what advances business interests does so because it benefits the general public as well.
Public education, health and welfare laws, disease prevention, all benefit employers and employees.
Sometime the impetus for the improvement comes from the public sometimes from business.

And sometimes it is a struggle to get any change to the status quo, of course.

Sometimes it take a grass-roots movement to get the attention of the law makers and get some reforms, things that corporate lobbyists would not want because of short-term thinking and greed generally.

Anti-trust law, social security and medicare, unemployment insurance, wage and hour laws, child labor laws, civil rights, women's suffrage, mandatory seat belts, environmental laws, etc. are all examples where it took a lot of fighting the moneyed interests to get improvements and laws to enforce them.

Sometimes it takes a spectacular failure to get change - a stock market crash, an economic depression, a financial crisis, for example. All those things led to some improvements.

Did most people ignore the warning signs that could have headed them off?
Were errors made?
Yes.

Heading off a catastrophic global climate crisis is another one of those struggles right now.
I wish I could be more optimistic about how that one will end up.

America is an evolving democracy.
A few steps forward and a step back now and then.

 

[dorbi]

I see that.
Hard to get around these laws sometimes...we have the best politicians money can buy after all.

Old business models are under pressure - used to be you'd buy a car and the dealership would make the majority of their income from maintenance and repairs.

EVs require almost no maintenance so that hurts the bottom line, I get it.

But I don't want to pay more for the vehicle because of old business models as a consumer.

Big agree. Dealers serve no purpose that the automaker themselves cannot fulfill just as well, if not better.

They ONLY serve to inflate prices and make a buck as the middle man.

Sponsored