Extra, Extra....Read All About It!

[robothero]

I'm only marketing adjacent, but I would have stuck with the number thing. E50 would be pretty cool, or ditch the "50" part for a different number that pulls specifically on EVs moving forward as they build out, eg any car that ends with an "30" or whatever is an EV (F130, F230), although having the numbers be lower would get TruckBros to imply its a lesser car.

Dunno, really don't like the name.

 

[speedrye]

I'm only marketing adjacent, but I would have stuck with the number thing. E50 would be pretty cool, or ditch the "50" part for a different number that pulls specifically on EVs moving forward as they build out, eg any car that ends with an "30" or whatever is an EV (F130, F230), although having the numbers be lower would get TruckBros to imply its a lesser car.

Dunno, really don't like the name.

Unfortunately, Ford already used the "E-" moniker for their Econoline vans, so it might get confusing.

I would've just stuck with Ranchero since that used to be a car with a bed, same as this... thing.

 

[BeerParty]

The unfathomable jokes will write themselves.

Just like the unafordable ones?

 

[R1TVT]

Whats better than one Fathom?
Fifty Fathoms.

 

[Hedges1]

I think the name fits, better than Ranchero which didn't seem to jive with the tech-forward and aero look I think they'll unveil. Fathom is new, and this truck is going to be about new buyers for the brand. Man, they just posterized Slate IMO

 

[cyure]

I think the name fits, better than Ranchero which didn't seem to jive with the tech-forward and aero look I think they'll unveil. Fathom is new, and this truck is going to be about new buyers for the brand. Man, they just posterized Slate IMO

Exactly. For a few thousand more you can get a truck with actual paint, power windows and so many more features.

And I’m sorry, but how many Slates are going to be driving around with terrible wrap jobs because people don’t realize how difficult that is to do. It’s just not going to be a good look.

 

[Nmagnatta]

Exactly. For a few thousand more you can get a truck with actual paint, power windows and so many more features.

And I’m sorry, but how many Slates are going to be driving around with terrible wrap jobs because people don’t realize how difficult that is to do. It’s just not going to be a good look.

The Slate will be a great vehicle for those High Schoolers that need a car for work or afterschool activities. You buy them the Blank Slate and then anything extra they want they pay for. Honestly if my kids were old enough i would seriously consider it.

 

[robothero]

The Slate will be a great vehicle for those High Schoolers that need a car for work or afterschool activities. You buy them the Blank Slate and then anything extra they want they pay for. Honestly if my kids were old enough i would seriously consider it.

I've said it before but I think Slate has high opportunity in a job truck segment. Thinking about the trucks they drive around on college campus or corporate campuses for odd jobs, short range travel landscapers etc.

If you're driving across campus with crap in the back for a maintenance project you don't need any bells and whistles.

 

[Hedges1]

I've said it before but I think Slate has high opportunity in a job truck segment. Thinking about the trucks they drive around on college campus or corporate campuses for odd jobs, short range travel landscapers etc.

If you're driving across campus with crap in the back for a maintenance project you don't need any bells and whistles.

Agreed. I think they get kinda cooked in the consumer market, but you'll see a ton of second hand Slates in high school parking lots 5-10 years from, once the fleets have beaten them up

 

[maynard]

I'm only marketing adjacent, but I would have stuck with the number thing. E50 would be pretty cool, or ditch the "50" part for a different number that pulls specifically on EVs moving forward as they build out, eg any car that ends with an "30" or whatever is an EV (F130, F230), although having the numbers be lower would get TruckBros to imply its a lesser car.

Dunno, really don't like the name.

I agree - they could have brought back "Futura"...

 

[maynard]

Whats better than one Fathom?
Fifty Fathoms.


View attachment 17339

or 20,000 leagues...

 

[J Alynn]

How much dealer markup, that’s the question.

As in “I can’t fathom how this thing will last at only $30K”

 

[J Alynn]

Unfortunately, Ford already used the "E-" moniker for their Econoline vans, so it might get confusing.

I would've just stuck with Ranchero since that used to be a car with a bed, same as this... thing.

Agreed. A little legacy never seems to hurt

 

[6-ScoutFamily]

Interesting. I wonder what it's wading depth will be with a name like that.

Six feet under…

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I'm not especially trusting of Ford's EV program anymore. They made a couple of fantastic vehicles in the Lightning and Mustang, but the cancellation of the Lightning was a huge misstep, in my opinion. I'll trust that this vehicle is available when I see real people driving it. If it's real and is the size of the Tacoma, I think it could be a huge hit.

 

[Hedges1]

I'm not especially trusting of Ford's EV program anymore. They made a couple of fantastic vehicles in the Lightning and Mustang, but the cancellation of the Lightning was a huge misstep, in my opinion. I'll trust that this vehicle is available when I see real people driving it. If it's real and is the size of the Tacoma, I think it could be a huge hit.

It never crossed 5% of total f150 sales in any year, was losing money on every unit sold with no path to profitability. They needed to do something different. I hope the EREV lightning gets here soon, would be a great compliment to BEV small truck

 

[Mousehunter]

Ford shot themselves in the foot with the Lightning roll out. First they supersized production, adding fixed costs - but never needed any of that excess capacity. Then the dealers did not want to sell them, and gouged customers. By the time the gouging was over, the public had already decided that they were too expensive - so they threw away much of their wave of initial sales. Things might have gone different if the dealerships had not tacked on an addition 10-20k on the first models out, and if the dealers would have actually stocked some of the less pricey options. If you think you want a $40k truck, sure - the dealer might be able to upsell you occasionally. If you go in for a $60k truck that has a 15k premium on it - you never go back.

I think Ford may make Lightning II's eventually. But they need to get the buyers back in the door first. Maybe, this new model will get the dealers to want to sell them. Then when people are going into the dealer for EV trucks, they might be able to upsell some of them to Lightning II's. Once Lightning II's start selling, sure they can make some with higher trim levels as well.

Now my personal problems with Lightnings were probably a me and Texas thing. I tow a lot more than the average consumer - and a Lightning could not replace my current truck for towing. Second - most trucks sold in Texas are not nearly as low to the ground as the Lightnings were. Sure cutting 2" off helps the range - but it simply did not look like the trucks most Texan's wanted to drive in their price range. Or at least that is how it felt to me where I live. I think most of the 2wd trucks sold here already had some sort of factory lift - and honestly a huge percentage of the trucks sold were 4x4 anyway. At the price of the Lightning - most people were just getting the 4x4's anyway.

 

[THil08]

How much dealer markup, that’s the question.

You can calculate that. Look up the markup rate for ford EVs.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

It never crossed 5% of total f150 sales in any year, was losing money on every unit sold with no path to profitability. They needed to do something different. I hope the EREV lightning gets here soon, would be a great compliment to BEV small truck

This oft-repeated myth of "losing money on every vehicle sold" is furthering an accounting lie.

They invested a bunch of money and accounted for that investment in a way they could have the taxpayer cover their investment bill. Then they spread the myth that they were losing money on every vehicle sold so they could write off a big chunk of R&D that they got to keep. A write-off like that should come with a release to the public domain all of the IP they are asking the public to foot the bill for. No tax write-off without a benefit to the taxpayer.

They didn't lose money on every vehicle they sold. They recovered a portion of their investment on every vehicle sold.

When they cancelled the vehicle is when they stopped recovering their investment and their investment became realized losses. They lost money on every vehicle they refused to sell.

They could have tried to sell enough to make back their investment. But they didn't bother. And so they will continue to make this silly claim. And the automotive press will continue to love that narrative so will fail to challenge them on it.

This will be true for the Fathom too. The "loss" on the first vehicle sold will be $5B or whatever amount they have spent on their new EV program (less $2k or whatever the vehicle sells for over the direct, fixed manufacturing, labor, shipping, advertising, etc costs). The second sale will reduce the "losses" per vehicle from $5B to $2.5B (less 2*$2k). The 10,000th sale will reduce the "losses" to $5B/10,000 or a "loss" of $500,000/vehicle sold...