Report: Ford's EV Skunkworks Team to Create Three Affordable Electric Models

by Chris Teague

Published: March 19th, 2024

report ford s ev skunkworks team to create three affordable electric models

A few weeks ago, Ford announced that it had created an internal skunkworks team to focus on affordable EVs and a new platform to underpin them. Bloomberg recently reported more deeply on the project, noting that The Blue Oval may be planning up to three new electric models on the new architecture, including a compact SUV and a small pickup truck.

Ford is also expected to build an EV for ridesharing services, and Bloomberg reported that Ford has fewer than 100 people working on the project. The first model is due in late 2026 with a starting price of around $25,000, though it’s unclear if Ford’s extensive losses on its EV business will have an impact.

The report also stated that Ford will use lithium-iron-phosphate battery cells to save money, an approach that it already uses for base Mustang Mach-Es and which Tesla takes with the cheapest Model 3.

Despite its losses, Ford is still pushing to earn the number one EV sales spot, which Tesla currently holds. All automakers in the U.S. are grappling with wavering EV demand and rising production costs. However, the threat of China flooding the market with cheap electric models is too frightening to ignore. Tesla also reportedly plans to (finally) get its affordable EV out the door in the next year or so.

Chinese vehicles already have a steep import tariff, and lawmakers have floated a popular plan to bump it to 125 percent. That said, Chinese EV manufacturers building vehicles in Mexico could get around that tariff, as goods produced south of the border don’t have financial penalties attached to them, thanks to the U.S.-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement.

[Image: Ford]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

#Ford #FordMustangMachE #FordF150lightning #affordableevs

Chris Teague

Chris grew up in, under, and around cars, but took the long way around to becoming an automotive writer. After a career in technology consulting and a trip through business school, Chris began writing about the automotive industry as a way to reconnect with his passion and get behind the wheel of a new car every week. He focuses on taking complex industry stories and making them digestible by any reader. Just don’t expect him to stay away from high-mileage Porsches.

More by Chris Teague

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 22 comments

3SpeedAutomatic on Mar 21, 2024

The Mach E and Lighting felt contrived and poorly executed. Felt like they were shoved down your throat to keep Biden and La La Land happy. Marketing dropped the ball on this one. The EV Skunk Works is Plan "B" to make up for the Plan "A" screw up.
Fiat will introduce a ground up EV Fiat 500 which has been in production in Europa for 3+ yrs running. Based on this, Stellantis could gain the high ground by introducing a small EV SUV along the lines of a RAV4 or CR-V just to wet the appetite of consumers. If done correctly, the anxiety over range and charging could be quelled with advertisements of Grandma happy with her EV grocery getter or a Mom on her daily school run. Need to nurture interest in EVs, not force the issue. If done correctly, Stellantis could climb out of its rut and change the mindset about EVs in North America.
The clock is ticking. 🧭 🧭

1 Reply
Danny on Apr 17, 2024

I'm in total agreement that the Biden disaster of pushing electric vehicles caused this problem. We didn't even test this total heavier battery operated vehicles before they hit the market. I am sure with all the crashes with them that the costs and loss of life is greater with the added extreme weight. This winter their were problems with them even charging. Biden cut our nation's throat by stopping our countries oil drilling to push these stupid electric vehicles. These iwners don't even have a clue how expensive it is to replace those batteries in their vehicles. Biden really blew it on pushing this. Even he dies nit in one.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
FreedMike If Dodge were smart - and I don't think they are - they'd spend their money refreshing and reworking the Durango (which I think is entering model year 3,221), versus going down the same "stuff 'em full of motor and give 'em cool new paint options" path. That's the approach they used with the Charger and Challenger, and both those models are dead. The Durango is still a strong product in a strong market; why not keep it fresher?