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 flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
