Ford announced earlier this week that it would delay or completely cancel several electric vehicle models in an effort to align with consumer trends and hone in on a more profitable business after losing billions chasing Tesla.
While it may not be the most ideal thing, it is the best strategy for Ford right now, as it will shift more toward hybrids, leaning on current EV offerings and stopping the bleeding on financials.
Ford was arguably the most committed when it came to legacy automakers. It had put forth a solid investment plan that would see it expand its EV offerings over the course of a decade, bringing exciting offerings to each market based on its needs.
Ford’s love affair with EVs softens as profitability and consumer trends take focus
However, being the most committed does not always mean the most successful. Ford had suffered tremendous losses in 2023 because of its overwhelming commitment to EVs, so much so that CEO Jim Farley admitted at one point that it was on the lower end of its investment range for electrification moving forward.
“We’ll probably be on the low end of that range,” Farley said earlier this year about the $8 billion to $9 billion investment range. “And we’re being very consistent about our discipline on profitability.”
But now, things have totally changed.
Earlier this week, Ford all but admitted that it simply did not have the time or the money to keep going with its EV commitment. It was costing it billions, and instead of chasing after Tesla, it did what it should do: chase after money to keep it afloat. As Van Wilder’s dad said in the movie, “Sometimes in life, you have to realize a poor investment and cut your losses.”
Ford made the right choice. It was going along with the EV goals too far and too hard. Honda’s executives said recently that you simply cannot force people to buy something they don’t want. Right now, Teslas are what people want, at least in the United States, as the automaker, despite a growing number of competitors, continues to hold a sizeable lead in market share over competitors.
The lack of a truly competitive EV offering that appeals to consumers is what the issue is. There needs to be a product that truly outperforms Tesla in every way. That’s how people will switch, and that’s how EVs will be worth it. This goes for all companies, not just Ford.
To be the best, you have to beat the best.
“We’re committed to creating long-term value by building a competitive and profitable business,” Ford’s Vice Chair and CFO John Lawler said earlier this week as the company announced its softening EV stance. “With pricing and margin compression, we’ve made the decision to adjust our product and technology roadmap and industrial footprint to meet our goal of reaching positive EBIT within the first 12 months of launch for all new models.”
It will still bring forward a variety of new models, including a new truck, in the coming years. But for now, it is best that Ford does what it needs to do: scale back its commitment to EVs and continue to rely and lean on the Mustang Mach-E, F-150 Lightning, and E-Transit for the time being. The truth is that Ford simply did not and did not have enough of a consumer base that is interested in EVs, thus not justifying its mass commitment, and it might have cost them their business if it kept up the shtick.
From left to right: Ford’s F-150 Lightning, E-Transit van, and Mustang Mach-E (Credit: Ford)
Tempering its EV push and bringing new models as people want them is going to help Ford maintain capital while also softening the negative effects EVs have had on its financials. Ford has lost money on every EV it’s ever delivered to a customer, although it may not be the best thing for it to continue acting like things are all okay.
But in the meantime, Ford can do a few things to help consumers: offer affordable vehicles that cater to needs and develop a vehicle lineup that truly makes consumers on a massive scale consider things other than Tesla.
Leaning on classic names like the Mustang and F-150 and electrifying them might have won some people over. But it seems, especially with the popularity of the Bronco and Bronco Sport, Ford is missing a huge opportunity by not even hinting toward an EV version of the vehicle.
I think a lot of people might be disappointed, but this announcement seemed like it was coming sooner rather than later. As someone who has driven Fords and still owns one, I was hoping to make my next vehicle an electric Bronco. I have talked highly about the F-150 Lightning. But it is evident that it is still making a lot of its money selling the gas-powered F-Series and its other tried and true vehicle models.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
Elon Musk
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.
Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.
The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.
The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.
Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing
Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.
Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.
The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.
Tesla revealed plans to develop its own maps internally to fix Navigation issues and give owners more control over their routing.
On the company’s Q3 2026 Earnings Call, a question was asked about FSD Navigation issues, particularly speed limit recognition, parking, and routing. These are issues that surface from version to version and seem to be seriously challenging for Tesla’s AI team to resolve.
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said in response to the question:
“You’re totally right that we shouldn’t be depending on external people’s maps. So we are building our own maps, but not like the same way as OneMoreMap. We are building an entirely new architecture with essentially AI-based mapping and navigation.”
He continued:
“It’s going to be super awesome. It’s going to be integrated with voice. You can talk to it, ask for different routes. It’s going to learn your personalized preferences, plus the fleet preferences. The collective intelligence of all the cars is going to flow into making the maps and navigation super cool.”
Elluswamy said this issue should be confronted, and the mapping should be available for people by the time the v15 release starts deploying to customers.
“And over the next several months,” he added, “it’s just going to take over all of the navigation functions, parking, destination handling. And it will know you better than you know yourself in some regard for the driving task, and then handle it fully.”
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Navigation is perhaps the most notable complaint with FSD, and although it has gotten better, it is still flawed. Much of the time, FSD will take people on routes that are not preferred by the driver, but Tesla tried to combat this with a routing feature in the Summer 2026 Update.
Tesla currently relies on Google for map data, but it is sort of counterintuitive to believe the company would rely on a third party for this. These improvements will be welcome, as routing and navigation have been such a pain point for so many owners for so long.
Quotes via Motley Fool
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
