Ford Kills Development of FNV4 (fully-networked vehicle

[luebri]

ord could be light years ahead if they just licensed from Tesla..... I have no idea what Rivian and Lucid do, but I'm sure their technologies are similar to Tesla.

Totally agree. What you're saying is exactly what VW group is getting as a result of their recent agreement with Rivian.

Not sure exactly how similar to Tesla Rivian's hardware infrastructure is but their resulting UX is held in high regard.

If only Ford would have been an early investor and had a good relationship with Rivian.... oh wait.. what... they were?!?. What a lost opportunity.

Sponsored

 

[F150ROD]

The 12v became a standard and its used widely. However if everyone did it exactly the same there would be some missing competition. The market will sort this out. New buyers paying the kind of price we do will demand newer and better technologies and those that can innovate and understand that it takes some investment will win.

I get shot down a lot around here for this and I'm ok with that, but Ford could be light years ahead if they just licensed from Tesla. I'm not sure Tesla wants to let anyone else have it, but Ford could still customize everything. They could keep a forward looking dash. Otherwise it's ready to go out of the box. I have no idea what Rivian and Lucid do, but I'm sure their technologies are similar to Tesla. The disaster that Ford has on its hand trying to update SW and deliver a new option or two once in a while has to be costing them dearly.

I've said the same thing. Frankly, I think Tesla as a supplier is more valuable than as an Automaker.

 

[Scorpio3d]

My thought is vehicles should communicate which would make self driving easier and safer and the underpinning of EV charging is "sort of common" (NACS vs CCS) but what about CCS2 etc?

I see the need for competition but I also think there are areas that can be homogenized" for the benefit of the consumer and the manufacturer.

We have sort of seen that with everyone adopting NACS for future vehicles some are already starting the transition. We have seen this play out before to some extent with VHS versus beta max.
We do have iOS versus android but I think that is here to stay. So I think there will always be many different vehicle architectures as there is now.

I would imagine Ford sold their Rivian stake when they decided they were going to build the F150 Lightning more or less the same as the ICE F150 they seem to want to have the same or similar experience in all of their vehicles??

 

[Danface]

We have sort of seen that with everyone adopting NACS for future vehicles some are already starting the transition. We have seen this play out before to some extent with VHS versus beta max.
We do have iOS versus android but I think that is here to stay. So I think there will always be many different vehicle architectures as there is now.

I would imagine Ford sold their Rivian stake when they decided they were going to build the F150 Lightning more or less the same as the ICE F150 they seem to want to have the same or similar experience in all of their vehicles??

The fact that the ICE and EV share a lot of parts is a most likely a plus for Ford and for the consumer, less part numbers probably saves them a fair amount of money not to mention being able to leverage the "F-150 brand"

 

[electricpig]

FWIW, I think Rivian is evolving into a auto OS company. Keep your own line of EV'a to develop on, have theost.advanced software, but license portions of the previous versions to other brands. Basicly what is happening with Volkswagen when Volsweo finally accepted that they really really suck at software.

 

[rtshinn]

DETROIT, April 30 (Reuters) - Ford Motor (F.N), opens new tab has killed a program to develop next-generation electrical architecture - the brain of modern cars - that its executives have called pivotal to competing with electric-vehicle pioneers such as Tesla, three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.
Ford had invested heavily in the system, known internally as FNV4 (for fully-networked vehicle), to streamline vehicle-software functions. The goal was to cut costs, improve quality and add profitable features in both electric and gasoline-powered vehicles.

The team, based in California, is tasked with developing advanced software and affordable electric vehicles


https://www.reuters.com/business/au...velop-tesla-like-electronic-brain-2025-04-30/

Welp….

Anyone who has done software development knows how this happens because they've seen it numerous times before. Paralysis by Analysis, feature creep, adding people in an attempt to cut time, lots of meetings, bloated project management methodology, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Glad I don't do that anymore.

 

[Citizen0]

So The Verge had an interview today with Ford software chief Doug Field. I think the article goes into a lot more detail on what canceling FNV4 means and the direction Ford is heading.

Overall I think it may be the right move for a legacy auto manufacturer. The devil will be in the details and implementation. If it works it could provide a better customer experience in all of Ford’s vehicles, both ICE, hybrid, and BEV. I definitely have some concerns with how the updating process is across the various build years for the Lightning and Mach E, but hope for the best.

What do y’all think?

https://www.theverge.com/ford-motor...ug-field-interview-software-zonal-domain-fnv4

 

[GDN]

So The Verge had an interview today with Ford software chief Doug Field. I think the article goes into a lot more detail on what canceling FNV4 means and the direction Ford is heading.

Overall I think it may be the right move for a legacy auto manufacturer. The devil will be in the details and implementation. If it works it could provide a better customer experience in all of Ford’s vehicles, both ICE, hybrid, and BEV. I definitely have some concerns with how the updating process is across the various build years for the Lightning and Mach E, but hope for the best.

What do y’all think?

https://www.theverge.com/ford-motor...ug-field-interview-software-zonal-domain-fnv4

Interesting article, but I'm not sure why they (or any manufacture) continue to separate ICE from BEV when it comes to SW experience and being able to update and improve/add features. The only difference is the drive train. The ICE owners would love to see new features and concepts brought to the vehicle or improved. There are a few that don't translate - something like Dog Mode - you can't start the car to run an AC remotely if you don't know that it is parked outside. Maybe really big updates don't work well without the alternator/engine running, but otherwise, there are still improvements and updates that could be delivered to make a user experience continue to improve for the money paid.

Best of luck, but at the end of the day it's going to be about cost and what the newer architectures can save manufacturing. Maybe they can hit the right middle ground, but they better hit that fast and make it work.

 

[Maineiac12]

Why Ford decided to merge its next-gen architecture with its current platform

Good read

https://www.theverge.com/ford-motor...ug-field-interview-software-zonal-domain-fnv4

 

[GDN]

Article noted in another thread.

https://www.f150lightningforum.com/...nv4-fully-networked-vehicle.26986/post-513839

 

[TaxmanHog]

Consolidate threads on topic

 

[CD4TNF]

So The Verge had an interview today with Ford software chief Doug Field. I think the article goes into a lot more detail on what canceling FNV4 means and the direction Ford is heading.

Overall I think it may be the right move for a legacy auto manufacturer. The devil will be in the details and implementation. If it works it could provide a better customer experience in all of Ford’s vehicles, both ICE, hybrid, and BEV. I definitely have some concerns with how the updating process is across the various build years for the Lightning and Mach E, but hope for the best.

What do y’all think?

https://www.theverge.com/ford-motor...ug-field-interview-software-zonal-domain-fnv4

Interesting. I'm reading it as Ford is balancing economics of scale vs cutting microprocessors. The fact there isn't savings in reducing microprocessors is interesting. Ford taking this midway approach of spreading the investment across BEV and ICE and Hybrid.

Sounds like Ford is sticking to the core idea of zonal architecture. Quite an insight that the smaller, simpler functioning microprocessors are quick, reliable and baked into Ford's partnerships. Don't reinvent those. Those can be grouped under main "zones". Seems like that will be the biggest and easiest win.

 

[Maineiac12]

I found it interesting that the module vendors want to control the software as well. Surprised they don’t function like CPU, GPU, and other chip vendors and allow people to make software for their platforms. Sounds like Ford wants to push them in that direction.

Sponsored