Ford cancels Model e Dealer Program, letting all US retailers sell EVs

[Blue highway]

I care more that a dealer has competent techs to work on my car than that they have a DCFC... more DCFC's around is better than less, but as a economic proposition it makes no sense for dealers to do that.

having said that, my car has had zero mechanical issues over 3 years now.

Sponsored

 

[milepost1]

With expanded resources and training, all dealers will be able to sell and service electric vehicles and support Ford customers. This means more than 90% of Americans will live within 20 miles of a Ford dealer that can sell and service EVs such as the Mustang Mach-E, F-150 Lightning, and Enon-Transit.

Here’s what you need to know:

• To help reduce barriers to entry for both our dealers and our customers, Ford will discontinue the voluntary Model e EV Program from July 1, 2024, effectively opening EVs up to the entire Ford dealer network – doubling to over 2,800 the number of Ford Dealers that can sell and services EVs.
• Before the end of 2024, Dealers who were not part of the voluntary Model e Program will have access to EV inventory and will be visible on Ford.com, giving customers greater choice of dealers and EV stock.
• For a Dealer to sell and service EVs, they must demonstrate fundamental EV Competency, which most already meet. EV Competency includes:
• Staying current on existing EV Training Planners across all roles to ensure EV knowledge and employee safety
• Having the hardware and equipment elements needed to safely and effectively perform EV service work
• Installing two Level 2 chargers & three NEMA plugs

While the voluntary Model e Program is being discontinued, the experiences that were part of the Program have had a highly beneficial impact on customer satisfaction. Ford recommends that Dealers continue to provide customers with these elevated experiences.

Ford is committed to EVs, and is looking forward to partnering with dealers to increase EV accessibility to customers across the U.S., regardless of where they live.

Probably has more to do with dealer lawsuits against Ford. Dealers are forcing Ford to continue dealer model and not spend money to accomadete EVs. Dealer now free to continue mediocre EV service, fight direct selling model. Dealers shooting self in foot for short term anti EV stance. Ford would love to get rid of dealer model and goto direct sales. But who is fighting ANY change to dealer model? Well Dealers of course. Who has HUGE PAC lobbies in state and nation? Dealers. Who contributes large sums of money to pay (donate) to elected officials? Dealers. Who works to "protect" dealers from Ford, and works to allow Ford to have little control over dealers? Surprise! Dealers. Who won a law suit in MI forbiding Ford requiring EV investement? Dealers. Tesla still can not sell cars in certain states, why? Car dealers. Even states that tesla can sell directly, usually have lots of restrictions/regulations. Why? To protect car Dealers. So is real problem Ford or dealers?
Research why Ford was more or less forced to stop Program. Research why Ford has little control of dealers. I am sure will be law suites against requiring even level 2 and nema plugs. Ever wonder why why there are no Ford dealers owned by Ford? This applies to most car manufacturers.

 

[mkhuffman]

Probably has more to do with dealer lawsuits against Ford. Dealers are forcing Ford to continue dealer model and not spend money to accomadete EVs. Dealer now free to continue mediocre EV service, fight direct selling model. Dealers shooting self in foot for short term anti EV stance. Ford would love to get rid of dealer model and goto direct sales. But who is fighting ANY change to dealer model? Well Dealers of course. Who has HUGE PAC lobbies in state and nation? Dealers. Who contributes large sums of money to pay (donate) to elected officials? Dealers. Who works to "protect" dealers from Ford, and work to allow Ford to have little control over dealers? Surprise! Dealers. Tesla still can not sell cars in certain states, why? Car dealers. Even states that tesla can sell directly, usually have lots of restrictions/regulations. Why? To protect car Dealers. So is real problem Ford or dealers?

How do you know Ford would love to get rid of the dealer model?

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

How do you know Ford would love to get rid of the dealer model?

The dealer model has its uses. The alternative is sales and service centers literally everywhere? That sort of sounds like oh … manufacturer owned dealerships? Same players, different name is all.

Putting the screws to aberrant and rogue dealers would be a good thing. It might even work.

 

[RWG]

Since EV sales have slowed down, I am sure it seemed a bit counter productive to restrict dealer sales participation. By lowering the dealer requirements it may increase sales short term but if a dealer is not totally committed to supporting the EV product line, potentially long term customer satisfaction is at risk. ( From personal experience, we know what it is like to work with Ford dealer representatives that do not really understand the technology. )

So over time, we shall see if the latest move was a good decision.

 

[dbsb3233]

The dealer model has its uses. The alternative is sales and service centers literally everywhere? That sort of sounds like oh … manufacturer owned dealerships? Same players, different name is all.

Not to mention the massive investment Ford would have to make to set up service centers across the country. For customers that are currently used to being able to get service at any of 5-10 dealers in a typical metro area, without driving an hour away. That means replacing thousands of existing places to get service.

All for a product (personal cars) that may be largely obsolete by 2040 anyway, if robotaxis start displacing personal cars in big percentages by then as some expect.

The existing, massive dealership network doesn't look so bad afterall when comparing it the huge lift to replace it.

 

[phil]

It's definitely a quandary. That's the reason Ford made the Mach-E and the Lightning in the first place, because they knew the North American market generally didn't like small econocars. There's not *no* market for them, but it's definitely a smaller slice of the market here.

But they're losing $billions making them, which is not working either. And there doesn't seem to be a quick fix to that high cost equation that will make them profitable anytime soon. So, they have to change something. Government mandates require they have some mix of low and/or zero emission vehicles in the fleet to keep from getting raked over the coals with fines. In order to make them profitable, that means more hybrids (which only help their CAFE avg marginally), and smaller BEVs. They don't need a small BEV to be a best-seller, they just need to sell ENOUGH to help their CAFE averages.

In other words, it's back to compliance EVs. But with the experience now to hopefully not make them too compliancy.

Sounds like a desperate longshot. I'm not saying you're wrong about the plan. I'm saying failure is far more likely than success.

 

[dbsb3233]

Since EV sales have slowed down, I am sure it seemed a bit counter productive to restrict dealer sales participation. By lowering the dealer requirements it may increase sales short term but if a dealer is not totally committed to supporting the EV product line, potentially long term customer satisfaction is at risk. ( From personal experience, we know what it is like to work with Ford dealer representatives that do not really understand the technology. )

So over time, we shall see if the latest move was a good decision.

The more market share EVs gain, the more dealers will get onboard selling and servicing them. What they really care about is what gets them the most business (like any business).

EVs make up ~8% of new sales in the US (gradually rising), and maybe 1-2% of total vehicles on the roads. Most are newer, so that means <1% of service appointments. That's why they aren't committing a lot to service. There's almost no money in it... yet.

When they gain significant more market share, they'll get onboard more. But right now a service department just finds them an annoyance.

 

[jeffMachE]

The dealer model has its uses. The alternative is sales and service centers literally everywhere? That sort of sounds like oh … manufacturer owned dealerships? Same players, different name is all.

Putting the screws to aberrant and rogue dealers would be a good thing. It might even work.

2 opinions:
-Companies in general want to know/own their customers. With a Dealership model, Ford doesn't know/own the customers, the dealer's do. Ergo, Ford would like to eliminate the Dealership model. That's very simplistic, and as others have pointed out, there are massive benefits to having a 2800 location footprint.
- The real issue (to me at least) is that the power dynamics between Ford and the Dealers are far to much on the Dealer's side. Ford (and all the other OEM's) are hamstrung by this and we, as consumers, pay the price with poor service, higher costs, etc. If the relationship were more balanced, then I believe that we, as consumers, would benefit. But that's the problem with a 3-party model - its really hard to get all the incentives lined up across 3 players.

 

[dbsb3233]

Sounds like a desperate longshot. I'm not saying you're wrong about the plan. I'm saying failure is far more likely than success.

That's often what happens when the government mucks up the free market. Without that, Ford would probably just stick with what they do well and make profits from (ICE & hybrid). Something they're very good and successful at.

But the government is effectively forcing them to add products that (a) they lose money on (bigger EVs), and/or (b) aren't popular in the US market (small EVs). So yes, they'll probably continue to fail to be profitable on the bigger EVs and fail to sell of lot of the Gen2 small ones. But they'll bite that bullet and do it anyway to protect their actual cash cow (ICE & hybrid sales). As long as they can, anyway. Which will probably be for a lot more years than EV advocates expected or wanted. ICE ain't going anywhere anytime soon.

But it will buy them time to hope battery prices come down, to improve their manufacturing cost structure, and try to regain the tax credits.

 

[phil]

That's often what happens when the government mucks up the free market. Without that, Ford would probably just stick with what they do well and make profits from (ICE & hybrid). Something they're very good and successful at.

But the government is effectively forcing them to add products that (a) they lose money on (bigger EVs), and/or (b) aren't popular in the US market (small EVs). So yes, they'll probably continue to fail to be profitable on the bigger EVs and fail to sell of lot of the Gen2 small ones. But they'll bite that bullet and do it anyway to protect their actual cash cow (ICE & hybrid sales). As long as they can, anyway. Which will probably be for a lot more years than EV advocates expected or wanted. ICE ain't going anywhere anytime soon.

But it will buy them time to hope battery prices come down, to improve their manufacturing cost structure, and try to regain the tax credits.

You paint a very ugly picture. But I can't disagree with any of it.

 

[Jimrpa]

It's definitely a quandary. That's the reason Ford made the Mach-E and the Lightning in the first place, because they knew the North American market generally didn't like small econocars. There's not *no* market for them, but it's definitely a smaller slice of the market here.

But they're losing $billions making them, which is not working either. And there doesn't seem to be a quick fix to that high cost equation that will make them profitable anytime soon. So, they have to change something. Government mandates require they have some mix of low and/or zero emission vehicles in the fleet to keep from getting raked over the coals with fines. In order to make them profitable, that means more hybrids (which only help their CAFE avg marginally), and smaller BEVs. They don't need a small BEV to be a best-seller, they just need to sell ENOUGH to help their CAFE averages.

In other words, it's back to compliance EVs. But with the experience now to hopefully not make them too compliancy.

So, the “billions” that Ford is “losing” include a lot of huge one-time expenses (like building a new plant). I’m not saying they’re making money on them, just that the claims of over $100K in losses per vehicle are … mischatacterised.

 

[Jimrpa]

Is there a UL listing mark?

There are no markings other than a manufacture-style QR-type code that can’t be read (they usually can’t since they’re defined by the manufacturers).

 

[dbsb3233]

So, the “billions” that Ford is “losing” include a lot of huge one-time expenses (like building a new plant). I’m not saying they’re making money on them, just that the claims of over $100K in losses per vehicle are … mischatacterised.

Agree that the "per-vehicle" reporting we often hear is misleading. But ultimately it is X amount spent annually minus X amount of revenue from annual sales. And if they're coming up short by $billions/year now in the 4th year of the Mach-E line (and I think 3rd on Lightning and eTransit), it's a problem.

It is hard to know how much of the money spent is for future ventures though, like Blue Oval City. But the fact that Ford has scaled back/delayed many of their EV plans suggests that's only part of it, and they really are far from true profitability on the Gen1 lines. Whatever the per-vehicle number, it must not be close enough to just keep on track with minor tweaks.

 

[Herbknowsit]

This thread has so many salient and thought provoking posts. Best forum I've ever visited by far.
You may scoff at my comparison here but Trek Bicycle and Specialized bikes got fed up with their dealers selling multiple brands and not fully committing to their programs, service training and stock levels. (like many huge auto dealers). So they own and operate quite a few of their own shops. I thought they were nuts taking on that type of overhead but it is working for them. I for one am hoping that Ford does put in regional, company owned service only centers where we can get quality service and warranty. It would take some heat off dealers who are struggling to get up to speed with EV. If you read this forum; you know it's a huge detriment to selling more EV's if people can't get things fixed on a timely basis. I am certainly NOT anti-dealership having bought 5 Honda's from local dealer simply because they followed One Price sales policy but mostly because their techs were/are aces. However they were not behind EV's and didn't step up to the plate and order Prologues or I'd have one in my garage.
I expect at some point to have an issue arise with my MME and hope I luck out with a dealer that is dialed in. Back in my Volvo days I totally gave up on their dealerships and elected to find independent specialists who knew what the hell they were doing. Too bad EV sales aren't far enough along to have that option. But I am curious to learn what parts you might find common between the various EV's now on the market. Or, is everything unique to each brand?

Sponsored