| Something doesn't fully add up. Ford's $40k truck is allegedly based on a 125 kWh battery. Tesla's numbers are similar. The only cars anywhere close to such a huge battery all cost close to double. If we look at the car models with both EV and ICE versions, the EV markup tends to be huge. Hyundai Kona EV is 23k€ more than the ICE version, for 64kWh battery. Peugeot e208 is 16k€ more, for 50kWh battery. Volvo 20k€ more, for 75kWh. And it's not just automakers. Tesla Powerwall is $8k for 13kWh. LG battery is $7k for 9kWh. Just for the battery pack, it doesn't include installation or any other equipment necessary. So, one of these must be true: * Ford/Tesla are overly optimistic about the battery price trajectory and the base version(s) will be a paper launch * the public/journalists/policy makers are overly pessimistic about the battery prices and there's a huge price drop imminent * Ford/Tesla will sell these truck at a large loss. But why? * Consumers are being price-gouged. But why would trucks be an exemption to this? Also, both the truck and Ford Mustang Mach-E are huge energy hogs - where are they going to source the batteries from? |
Tesla has explained in detail in how they will get the cost down. Far more detail then anybody else by a large margin. Its all well documented and you will find 10+h of youtube videos and countless articles about it.
In Austin you will have a fully vertically integrated production facility almost from raw lithium hard-rock ore to a finished truck all in the same place. They are producing their own cathode materials, anode materials and battery cells, no paying profit to anybody else.
Even then I suspect the 40k version will not have Tesla usual margin.
Ford knows that F-150 is basically the lifeline of the company. The 40k version is a stripped down commercial version, I think normal consumers it starts at 52k and they hope to sell many of the longer range ones to make up margin. Ford profits from the ability to share a lot of production with existing F-150.