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

[MotoGary]

Look up the definition of the word "Prestigious" and I guess you never heard of the National Enquirer to be able to make that comparison.

It's about trustworthy reporting of which the wsj has NONE! Not about important things anyway, they have 0 ZERO integrity. Fluff stories don't count.

Without integrity, there can be no prestige.

Attacking the WSJ as not a credible source doesn't make the story less true. Would you consider Car & Driver and Motortrend as sources with "0 ZERO Integrity" too? They've also echoed the WSJ story. I think most people would count them as "prestigious" automotive new sources.

You may not agree with the opinion pieces of the WSJ, but it has a very high rating for accurate news reporting. Is there something in the story that you question as not true? What source would it need to come from for you?

BTW, even "fluff stories" count when it comes to credibility. Who decides which stories are "fluff"?

For the record, I want the Lightning to succeed. It's my favorite vehicle of all time. I don't like reading stories of its possible demise either. But when my Lightning was totaled earlier this year, I made the agonizing decision not to replace it with another one. Why? It's seems that the writing is on the wall. The current situation with Ford subsidizing the Lightning simply isn't sustainable. The smart play right now might be to lease rather than buy a Lightning.

I'm hopeful that Ford's new midsized truck EV project will make it! In the meantime, I have a Slate reserved with high hopes that it also makes it to market.

Sponsored

 

[RLXXI]

Attacking the WSJ as not a credible source doesn't make the story less true. Would you consider Car & Driver and Motortrend as sources with "0 ZERO Integrity" too? They've also echoed the WSJ story. I think most people would count them as "prestigious" automotive new sources.

You may not agree with the opinion pieces of the WSJ, but it has a very high rating for accurate news reporting. Is there something in the story that you question as not true? What source would it need to come from for you?

BTW, even "fluff stories" count when it comes to credibility. Who decides which stories are "fluff"?

For the record, I want the Lightning to succeed. It's my favorite vehicle of all time. I don't like reading stories of its possible demise either. But when my Lightning was totaled earlier this year, I made the agonizing decision not to replace it with another one. Why? It's seems that the writing is on the wall. The current situation with Ford subsidizing the Lightning simply isn't sustainable. The smart play right now might be to lease rather than buy a Lightning.

I'm hopeful that Ford's new midsized truck EV project will make it! In the meantime, I have a Slate reserved with high hopes that it also makes it to market.

Your opinion of the wsj is clouded. Fluff stories don't count.

I know what I'm taking about on this topic. You do you and believe what you want.

 

[Texdan]

Too lazy to search -
anyone have tabs on Lightning sales by year or month since inception?
Would be interesting to see and scrutinize as we await FORD's strategy.

 

[dkuhlman99]

Wall Street is the determining force. If shareholders are unhappy about the profits and this vehicle is a drain then the future of the Lightning is bleak.

 

[MotoGary]

Your opinion of the wsj is clouded. Fluff stories don't count.

I know what I'm taking about on this topic. You do you and believe what you want.

The only opinion I have about the WSJ is that it is more “prestigious” than the National Enquirer. 30+ Pulitzer Prizes vs 0.

I’m very open to hearing what you know about this topic. Seriously. If you know something factual that refutes the WSJ story that nobody else knows about, please share.

 

[RLXXI]

The only opinion I have about the WSJ is that it is more “prestigious” than the National Enquirer. 30+ Pulitzer Prizes vs 0.

I’m very open to hearing what you know about this topic. Seriously. If you know something factual that refutes the WSJ story that nobody else knows about, please share.

Not baiting me into this nonsense. I stand firm by my opinion. If you don't like my opinion, that's a you problem not a me problem.

 

[davehu]

Too lazy to search -
anyone have tabs on Lightning sales by year or month since inception?
Would be interesting to see and scrutinize as we await FORD's strategy.

 

[Texdan]

great info - thank you!

 

[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

 

[Texdan]

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.

Sponsored