When Ford debuted the Mustang Mach-E concept in 2019, there was a palpable sense of excitement. It felt like the iconic automaker was about to make a giant leap in its efforts to compete with Tesla. The Mach-E was a showstopper, boasting a sleek design, outstanding specifications, and competitive, if not industry-leading, battery range. This was followed by the even more celebrated launch of the F-150 Lightning, a vehicle that seemed poised to dominate the electric truck market. However, as we look back, it’s clear that these launches were not the start of a revolution at Ford, but rather two expensive moonshots aimed at a market that never fully materialized.

The Early Promise and Rapid Decline

Ford’s entry into the electric vehicle (EV) market began with great promise. The Mustang Mach-E and F-150 Lightning were heralded as game-changers. The Mach-E, with its 90 kWh battery pack, was over-engineered and designed with premium features and materials that Ford assumed would justify a Tesla-like price tag. The F-150 Lightning, meanwhile, was celebrated for its early arrival, beating competitors like GM and Tesla to market.

Initial demand seemed to validate Ford’s strategy. The Mach-E received far more pre-orders than Ford could handle, and the F-150 Lightning generated similar buzz. The market seemed insatiable, and Ford doubled down, investing billions in expanding manufacturing capacity, not just for these two vehicles but also for their massive BlueOval City project—a new battery and vehicle manufacturing complex in Tennessee.

But then, the landscape shifted. Inflation spiked, interest rates soared, and Tesla, facing its own challenges, ignited a price war by slashing prices on the Model Y by over $20,000. The Mach-E, once positioned as a Tesla competitor, suddenly found itself dead in the water. Ford was forced to cut Mach-E prices by $10,000, and while 2023 saw a recovery in volumes, it was nowhere near the 150,000 units Ford had ambitiously planned to produce annually. Instead, the Mach-E is now selling at a rate of about 50,000 to 60,000 units per year in the U.S.

The F-150 Lightning’s story is even more troubling. Ford’s massive investments to expand production capacity now seem like a miscalculation. Not only has competition stiffened, but the F-150’s core market—towing and hauling—has proven to be a poor fit for a pure EV. Towing significantly reduces range, making it impractical for many truck owners who depend on their vehicles for long hauls.

The European Disarray and Fragmented Strategy

While Ford struggled in the U.S., its European strategy was equally disjointed. Instead of building on the Mach-E’s bespoke architecture, Ford chose to leverage Volkswagen’s ID.4 platform for its European models, like the Explorer and Capri EVs. Although these vehicles feature unique Ford designs, they are fundamentally Volkswagens underneath.

This piecemeal approach extended to the U.S. as well. Alongside the Mach-E and F-150, Ford also launched an electric commercial van, a re-engineered version of its gas-powered model. This meant Ford was juggling multiple strategies: a bespoke architecture for the Mach-E, a modified internal combustion engine (ICE) chassis for the F-150 and van, and platform sharing in Europe. The lack of a cohesive EV platform stood in stark contrast to competitors like Hyundai-Kia and General Motors, who had launched numerous EVs across various segments using dedicated EV platforms.

The Missing Strategy and Financial Fallout

Ford’s fragmented approach begs the question: where is the strategy? While the automaker has sunk billions into its EV efforts, it has failed to develop a scalable, cost-effective platform that can support a range of vehicles across different segments and markets. Instead, Ford has been reactive, launching individual products without a unified vision.

Today, Ford is losing over $5 billion a year on its EV business. The automaker has publicly acknowledged the need to revamp its EV strategy, and a skunkworks team in Southern California is reportedly working on a new, low-cost EV architecture. However, Ford has been tight-lipped about this new direction, with most public statements focusing on scaling back investments and delaying or canceling future models.

CEO Jim Farley, once celebrated for the Mach-E and F-150 Lightning launches, now faces scrutiny for having misjudged the EV market so badly. While GM and Hyundai-Kia have had their own struggles, they are at least fielding a diverse lineup of EVs across various segments. Ford, on the other hand, has found itself stuck with a few high-profile but financially draining models.

Conclusion: Waiting for Ford’s Next Move

Ford’s EV journey has been anything but smooth. The company overestimated the market’s appetite for premium-priced EVs, misjudged the truck market, and failed to develop a coherent EV strategy. Today, the Mach-E is a sales success, but Ford loses money on every unit sold. The F-150 Lightning has also been well-received but is not generating the profits Ford had hoped for.

As we wait for Ford to announce its next move, the question remains: can the automaker pivot in time to save its EV ambitions, or will it continue to flounder in a market that is moving faster than Ford can adapt? The answer will determine whether Ford’s foray into electric vehicles is remembered as a bold but failed experiment, or as a crucial turning point in the company’s storied history.

To see just how chaotic Ford’s EV strategy has been so far, consider this the table below. Ford now has 6 EVs on the market, on 5 different platforms. Three mid-size SUVs, two totally different commercial vans, and of course the F-150. The complexity is impossible to rationalize in an industry where flexibility and scale are crucial fundamentals to drive down costs and support pricing margins. It also limits Ford’s ability to enter new segments without yet another ground-up development process, which, it’s worth noting, Ford now has underway in their SoCal ‘skunkworks’ project where they are aiming to develop yet another platform and architecture. The beat goes on.