Mach-E Sales Jump 35% in August

[stoopid]

I think so too.

And considering YTD sales are only up 6% with this huge August number, that’s not very good.

Certainly this is a “choose your headline” kinda situation.

Mach E had a great “month” a mediocre “year” and Ford EV sales are having a terrible year (down 5.7%).

The great month is probably the least important data point unfortunately.

Funny you posted what you did, because I was scrolling down getting ready to post a different take on those same numbers. The fact Ford's EV segment is ONLY down 5.7% isn't bad, considering how poorly the entire EV market is doing. And the MME being up 6.7% year over year is also a sign the vehicle is at least holding its own and not at risk for the chopping block anytime soon.

Consumers at least see the MME as a viable option and are getting in before the credits expire. Was there no upward movement in August sales, then certainly doom and gloom would be warranted. The overall numbers are not good for Ford, but being a MME owner forum I don't honestly care so much about the other models as long as mine stays relevant and supported through the length of my ownership. I didn't buy a Lightning, or Bronco. Don't care whether they even exist tbh.

Sponsored

 

[ChrisO]

This is normal customer behavior. Things like this "bring forward sales" that were most likely going to happen a bit later. I'm sure the same thing is happening with heat pumps, solar, and such.

I remember the "Cash for Clunkers" program in 2009. The sale numbers went way up during the program, and way down after, until they basically returned pretty much normal a year or so later.

I think it is a little too soon to tell if the removing of the incentives is going to tank the US EV market or if it has got to the point where it can survive without them. In Germany they recently removed theirs and they did have a big slow down, but it does seem to be recovering now. But they don't have the same "headwinds" to as we do in the US right now.

 

[dbsb3233]

People confuse Earnings on Profit (EOP) with Direct Contribution to Margin (DCM) far too often.

Each Mach-E sold offsets it's cost to procure and build. Ergo they make money on each car (DCM).

The operation of running a business with their Mach-E sales is not profitable (EOP). They need to pay down debt on capital items, pay R&D, pay for lab facilities, etc.

Point being, no one is spending the money to be in the EV business to make a profit today. They're spending money to be a player in the automotive business (at all) in 20 years. Writing is on the wall. ICE will be relegated to industrial and commercial niches.

I get your point, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it should be 20 years for an established carmaker who's already profitable overall. For a startup, yes, if they last that long (although probably more like a 10-year fuse than 20). But for a company that already has a century of automotive manufacturing experience, the capital, and the infrastructure, it shouldn't take nearly as long because they start from an advantageous point that a startup doesn't have.

Ford made a lot of missteps and had a lot of bad timing with EVs over the last 8 years. Some of that was beyond their control, but some was their own doing. A lot of people criticized GM a few years back for waiting too long and being behind Ford (Tesla stans roasted Mary Barra daily), but it turns our waiting longer appears to have been the right choice. They've arguably passed Ford now, in a shorter period of time. It shouldn't take 10-20 years, and arguably doesn't have to. Waiting (and leveraging profitable ICE longer) appears to have been the right play, and doesn't mean they'll be toast on EVs for not starting sooner as is often the critique.

 

[XGC75]

Let's wait to see what Ford has been working on with their new manufacturing architecture. We'll see leapfrogging more often than not. The game is playing much faster these days. There's more innovation.

Plus, I don't think GM is winning right now. They're on a faster pace of deployment, yes, but they're making their share of mistakes, too. Personally I'm watching Lucid. They're not playing their financial cards well but their products are inspired.

 

[dbsb3233]

Let's wait to see what Ford has been working on with their new manufacturing architecture. We'll see leapfrogging more often than not. The game is playing much faster these days. There's more innovation.

Plus, I don't think GM is winning right now. They're on a faster pace of deployment, yes, but they're making their share of mistakes, too. Personally I'm watching Lucid. They're not playing their financial cards well but their products are inspired.

Not winning, just losing less than Ford now. My point was really about the timeframe though. They've done more in a shorter period of time than Ford. It doesn't need to take 1-2 decades. All the talk we hear about some manufacturers being "too far behind on EVs to ever catch up" has been wrong IMO. Largely because they underestimate how long this whole transition will really take, and how long ICE/hybrid will remain the majority in the US. I've often said we're roughly 10 years into a 30 year transition.

I've got a Lucid Gravity on order, but it's really rolling the dice. Amazing vehicle, but the odds of the company still existing in 3 years look like they're shrinking by the day.

 

[Mach1E]

Funny you posted what you did, because I was scrolling down getting ready to post a different take on those same numbers. The fact Ford's EV segment is ONLY down 5.7% isn't bad, considering how poorly the entire EV market is doing. And the MME being up 6.7% year over year is also a sign the vehicle is at least holding its own and not at risk for the chopping block anytime soon.

Consumers at least see the MME as a viable option and are getting in before the credits expire. Was there no upward movement in August sales, then certainly doom and gloom would be warranted. The overall numbers are not good for Ford, but being a MME owner forum I don't honestly care so much about the other models as long as mine stays relevant and supported through the length of my ownership. I didn't buy a Lightning, or Bronco. Don't care whether they even exist tbh.

Talk about the ability to put lipstick on a turd…..

You think it’s good that year over year sales are down because other brands are down more?

I might agree if we were in a recession or if overall car sales were suffering.

But we aren’t and they aren’t.

Same goes for the people here reading this data and talking about profitability and the future of EVs.

This data is BAD NEWS for EVs. Plain and simple.

Ford ICE vehicle sales are UP and more profitable. EV sales are the opposite.

Which product do you think a manufacturer prefers? The one increasing in sales and making them money, or the “other one?”

Ideology in business only works if you can stay in business.

The only bit of good news for EVs from this data is the increase in Mach E sales, but that appears to be an artificial bump from the ending of tax credits. Let’s see how we finish the year. I’m predicting a huge drop in sales starting next month unless Ford does drastic price drops (which just kill the bottom line profit).

 

[Mach1E]

So, let me get this straight, the real Mustangs are not selling as well as the Mach E's. So, this makes the real Mustangs more exclusive, got it.

I heard something on a video last night I hadn’t heard before. It was a comparison video of the GT500 vs GTD (from a guy who owns both).

They were talking about the Mustang name and how the GTD is really only a Mustang in name and style but not really a “Mustang.”
They said Ford only used that name because they need it for GT3 racing.

In the same conversation they said that they only named the Mach E a “Mustang” in order to save the v8 Mustang using EV credits to offset emissions because they’re considered to be part of the same vehicle “line.”

Not sure if there’s truth to that. I figured even if it was a Ford Edge Mach E the credits would still apply the same. Interesting nonetheless.

 

[nvabill]

I heard something on a video last night I hadn’t heard before. It was a comparison video of the GT500 vs GTD (from a guy who owns both).

They were talking about the Mustang name and how the GTD is really only a Mustang in name and style but not really a “Mustang.”
They said Ford only used that name because they need it for GT3 racing.

In the same conversation they said that they only named the Mach E a “Mustang” in order to save the v8 Mustang using EV credits to offset emissions because they’re considered to be part of the same vehicle “line.”

Not sure if there’s truth to that. I figured even if it was a Ford Edge Mach E the credits would still apply the same. Interesting nonetheless.

Yes, it sure is. Saw a great video of the GTD on Jay Leno's Garage, amazing how little of the original Mustang is actually used in the final product!

 

[GreaseMonkey]

So, let me get this straight, the real Mustangs are not selling as well as the Mach E's. So, this makes the real Mustangs more exclusive, got it.

The real mustang is the one that sells more. Cause this is a Ford, not a Ferrari. Exclusive is code name for colossal failure.

 

[Mach1E]

The real mustang is the one that sells more. Cause this is a Ford, not a Ferrari. Exclusive is code name for colossal failure.

Well that’s never been the case.

The crappiest mustangs have always been high volume and the best ones the lowest volume.

Now if you’re making the argument that the “real Mustang” is the crappy base models with the least horsepower…… I don’t want to be a real Mustang!

 

[GreaseMonkey]

Well that’s never been the case.

The crappiest mustangs have always been high volume and the best ones the lowest volume.

Now if you’re making the argument that the “real Mustang” is the crappy base models with the least horsepower…… I don’t want to be a real Mustang!

I’m not splitting hair. To me, a Mustang is the full product line. I don’t care about the specific trim and engine specs. The entire line doesn’t sell very well. And that’s including the effect of the death of the Camaro. Mustang Mach-E sells better. Nothing is exclusive in Ford’s offerings when look at it at the product line level. Anything selling at “exclusive” volumes is a failure.

 

[stoopid]

... I might agree if we were in a recession or if overall car sales were suffering.

But we aren’t and they aren’t...

We are very much in a recession. Probably have been for a few years. Not all the classic metrics are capturing it because our economy is so lobsided / top heavy, but average folks aren't keeping up with basic bills, jobs loss is increasing, and personal debt (and default) is at record levels.

Most of what you're railing against when you quoted my post were things not even IN my post.

Your posts are very angry, lashing out in tone. How can we help cheer up your day?

 

[stoopid]

I’m not splitting hair. To me, a Mustang is the full product line. I don’t care about the specific trim and engine specs. The entire line doesn’t sell very well. And that’s including the effect of the death of the Camaro. Mustang Mach-E sells better. Nothing is exclusive in Ford’s offerings when look at it at the product line level. Anything selling at “exclusive” volumes is a failure.

This is the proper take. Ford wants to sell 150,000 Mustangs (or even 1,000,000) annually, not 40 or 50,000. The fact they're not selling well by any measure, absent direct competition, means it's struggling. That just is.

ICE vehicles will be outselling EVs for a while more, especially when there's intentional green energy policy headwinds and more obvious shortcomings (namely spotty charging infrastructure, and after credits expire - price). Fords numbers are where they should be given context of the market. They are not operating in a bubble, so sales for any manufacturer always need to be compared and contrasted to the whole market. Treading water right now if well ahead of the curve.

 

[Mach1E]

We are very much in a recession. Probably have been for a few years. Not all the classic metrics are capturing it because our economy is so lobsided / top heavy, but average folks aren't keeping up with basic bills, jobs loss is increasing, and personal debt (and default) is at record levels.

Most of what you're railing against when you quoted my post were things not even IN my post.

Your posts are very angry, lashing out in tone. How can we help cheer up your day?

That’s the problem with written text, people read emotion where none exists.

Having a fine Friday, no anger at all!

But bad news is bad news. And that’s what this data is for EV sales.

As far as a “recession” goes, you are trying to redefine what it means. And no, not only are we not in a recession, we don’t have the classic “warning signals” of one either currently. https://www.franklintempleton.com/insights/anatomy-of-a-recession

And to the point at hand, car sales are up for Ford while EV sales are down. Can’t blame the economy for that no matter how you define “recession.”

 

[Mach1E]

I’m not splitting hair. To me, a Mustang is the full product line. I don’t care about the specific trim and engine specs. The entire line doesn’t sell very well. And that’s including the effect of the death of the Camaro. Mustang Mach-E sells better. Nothing is exclusive in Ford’s offerings when look at it at the product line level. Anything selling at “exclusive” volumes is a failure.

Just making the point that high sales volume doesn’t necessarily equal the “good one.”

Typically the highest volume vehicles out there are the most boring ones and the lowest volume are the cars I really like.

My post you quoted was mostly tongue in cheek though.

Sponsored