When No Boring Cars Goes too Far: Ford's (NYSE:F) Race to Make Everything Exciting

One of the major dogmas that seems to be driving legacy automaker Ford (F) these days is 'no boring cars.' And indeed, Ford seems to be sticking to that pretty hard. It has removed several cars from its lineup, including, among others, the Fusion, the Focus, the Fiesta and the Taurus. There are reports that the Ford Escape, Ford's smallest SUV, is also on track for removal. And the question that is starting to rise in some quarters is whether or not Ford's pursuit of only exciting cars is, perhaps, going too far.
Confident Investing Starts Here:
Certainly, Ford has many exciting cars going for it right now. It has been ramping up efforts on its Ford Mustang line, including the Mustang electric vehicle series. Indeed, not so long ago, Ford rolled out a new kind of battery technology that is likely to improve its electric vehicle concepts, the lithium manganese rich (LMR) system. This kind of technological development is likely to prove helpful in getting Ford vehicles to be more regularly considered by drivers.
Ford has other improvements as well; the BlueCruise system is doing quite well, with service now up and running on over 130,000 miles of highway in the United States. This brings us closer to the dream of complete hands-free operation. And while BlueCruise itself is only a level 2 system, meaning that a human driver must be in place and ready to intervene as needed, that is still a significant step up from where we were.
Even Ford Pro is seeing some potential gains from Ford's increased infatuation with high tech. A report from back in March suggested that Ford could end up with an automated loading system for its delivery vehicles. That could be a huge win for any parcel delivery service or catering operation; being able to automatically load a vehicle means potential cost and time savings, depending on how the system is executed.
Jetsons or Terminator?
But not all of Ford's advances are wins. After all, like we said, the BlueCruise system is still a level 2 system. That means, as noted previously, it needs constant human oversight. That does not make it bad, but it does make it less than optimal. The automated loading system in Ford Pro vehicles could also be an issue; anything that increases complexity also increases potential failure risk; there are simply more moving parts and more potential points of failure. This may be a universal condition, but it is still an issue nonetheless.
Even some of Ford's current advances are having issues. The SYNC 4 infotainment system, for example, has an unexpectedly substantial failure rate. A major update came out back in late February to address this matter, which at least demonstrates Ford's eagerness to fix whatever problems it may have.
It is an issue that speaks to reliability, and in some cases, safety. So far, Ford has issued over 40 different recalls, from small ones impacting only a handful of vehicles—one recall was geared toward just three cars—all the way up to major ones impacting fractions of millions. But with over 40 recalls so far this year, and 2024—already regarded as a bad year for recalls—having just 64 in the entire year—it is looking like Ford's fascination with exciting cars is leading to some cars that are exciting for all the wrong reasons.
Is Ford Stock a Good Buy Right Now?
Turning to Wall Street, analysts have a Hold consensus rating on F stock based on two Buys, 12 Holds and three Sells assigned in the past three months, as indicated by the graphic below. After a 12.65% loss in its share price over the past year, the average F price target of $9.71 per share implies 6.9% downside risk.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

Better EV Stock: Ford vs. Tesla

Robotaxis aren't an optional extra for the car industry; they are the future of mobility. One company stands best placed to deliver affordable electric vehicles. The two companies could potentially become partners. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › -The comparison between Ford (NYSE: F) and Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) is valuable and valid because it speaks to where the auto industry is headed and highlights the relative position of each company as it moves toward electric vehicles and robotaxis. Whether it's a legacy automaker (Ford) or a dedicated battery electric vehicle company(Tesla), the key opportunities and challenges are the same. So, which company is better placed to thrive in the future? Tesla's launch of its full-self-driving (FSD) robotaxi is sometimes seen as a tactical move as its electric vehicle (EV) sales and market share come under pressure in 2025, but nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that major automakers, including Ford, and leading technology companies have invested billions in robotaxis and autonomous driving, and it's an integral part of the future of the auto industry. The reason behind the investment is a recognition that robotaxis have huge profit potential, not least because they offer a long stream of recurring income from ride-per-mile revenue. Another reality is that EVs are not cheap, and if they are the future of the auto industry, automakers need to make them more affordable. They also need to offer robotaxis to make mobility more affordable. However, don't take my word for it. Here's Ford's CEO Jim Farley in 2019 on autonomous driving and robotaxis: "The self-driving system is incredibly important to develop, but it's just one part of building a safe and scalable self-driving service that consumers can trust." Farley went on to outline a timeline for a "commercial self-driving service" in 2021, which Ford would fail to achieve. As for affordable EVs, last year, Farley reiterated the need to offer smaller and more affordable EVs to achieve profitability as an EV maker. The two things are strongly connected. You can't have robotaxi EVs if the vehicles aren't affordable. That's a point that resonated during a recent CNBC interview with Waymo, which has a robotaxi service already in place, yet co-CEO Tekedra Mawakana declined to outline a timeline for the company's profitability. Waymo's lack of profitability means its owner, Alphabet, is going to have to invest significant sums, at a loss, if it wants Waymo to build scale. That creates a huge opportunity for a company like Tesla that is just entering the market and potentially offers a much more commercial and scalable service. Tesla's advantage in scaling robotaxis lies in its ability to transform existing Tesla vehicles into robotaxis, as well as its capability to produce a dedicated robotaxi, the Cybercab. Unlike Waymo, Tesla doesn't need to partner with automakers to build scale. Moreover, Musk has disclosed that Tesla has been in discussions about licensing its FSD to other automakers -- another route to long-term profitability. I'll cut to the chase. If Tesla can make automated driving and robotaxis work, then there's only one winner here, and it's Tesla. First, Ford is a long way from having a profitable EV business. For example, its Model E segment lost $5.1 billion in 2024, and then $849 million in the first quarter of 2025. Ford sold 22,550 EVs in the first quarter, implying it lost almost $38,000 on every EV sold. Moreover, its EV models, the Mustang Mach-E, the F-150 Lightning, and the E-Transit, are far from being affordable EVs. In contrast, Tesla generated $7.1 billion in operating profit in 2024. Despite losing market share amid declining sales, it still dominated the U.S. market, holding 43.5% of the market in the first quarter of 2025. Ford was a distant second with 7.7%. Both Ford and Tesla are planning to release low-cost models in the future, but given Ford's ongoing losses, Tesla's profitability, and its ability to lower its average cost per car, down from above $38,000 in early 2023 to below $35,000 in late 2024, the latter looks far better positioned to do so sustainably. Ford backed off its robotaxi/FSD plans in 2022, following the shutdown of Argo AI by Ford and Volkswagen after years of heavy investment. The company had been created to develop the technology and received billions of dollars in investment from Ford and Volkswagen. For reference, General Motors has also ended robotaxi development. In contrast, Tesla is preparing for the official launch of its unsupervised FSD/robotaxi service in Austin, Texas, this month, and it may be live by the time you read this article. While the launch will be small and highly contained, it still marks the birth of Tesla's robotaxi offering. Musk believes Tesla will have a dedicated, low-cost robotaxi, the Cybercab, in volume production by 2026. Indeed, Ford may end up licensing FSD from Tesla, and to his great credit, Farley has indicated an openness to partnering on FSD. There is no guarantee that Tesla's robotaxi or FSD will be successful, and investors need to closely monitor events. Moreover, Musk has a history of being overly optimistic on such matters. That said, the major automakers have been and are still pursuing the idea of lower-cost EVs and robotaxis and automated driving, and currently, Tesla remains the best-positioned company to meet those aims. It's where the industry wants to be, and Tesla is in pole position. Ever feel like you missed the boat in buying the most successful stocks? Then you'll want to hear this. On rare occasions, our expert team of analysts issues a 'Double Down' stock recommendation for companies that they think are about to pop. If you're worried you've already missed your chance to invest, now is the best time to buy before it's too late. And the numbers speak for themselves: Nvidia: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2009, you'd have $373,066!* Apple: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2008, you'd have $38,158!* Netflix: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2004, you'd have $664,089!* Right now, we're issuing 'Double Down' alerts for three incredible companies, available when you join , and there may not be another chance like this anytime soon.*Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Lee Samaha has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet and Tesla. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Better EV Stock: Ford vs. Tesla was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio

Car and Driver

2 hours ago

• Car and Driver

1981 Ford Escort XR3 Test: The Grass Is Definitely Greener

From the November 1981 issue of Car and Driver. If one needed any reassurance that a new day has dawned at the Ford Motor Company, the fact that Ford president Don Petersen has been seen tooling around in this lovely little red street rac­er ought to provide it. This is a type of car that is unthinkable in most of De­troit's board rooms today. It is exciting, aggressive, compromised entirely in the direction of driving fun, and—within the Procrustean confine of Detroit's automotive orthodoxy—frivolous ... "We can't wast our time on stuff like that," goes the litany. "People will think we're not serious about fuel economy. Tell the guys in Research and Development that we need a full status update on the new decal package!" There are two Ford Motor Companies, one in North America and one ev­erywhere else. The one in the United States is and has been taking gas lately, and it has been decided by the people who preside over Ford's fortunes to bring the two closer together, to make the North American one more like the Everywhere Else one. The Fiesta was an early step in that direction. The Escort/Lynx was another. The Escort has been a resounding success in the market ­place, but less so among the critics. It won the coveted European Car of the Year Award in spite of the fact that au­tomotive writers (the people who vote this particular prize) both here and abroad had serious reservations about its ride and handling. But there is a truth in the automobile business, truer than other truths: it says that the good cars are the ones that sell. The Escort sells. Now we have driven one that also goes. View Photos Aaron Kiley | Car and Driver The XR3 (shown here) that we man­aged to borrow from Mr. Petersen is the sportiest Escort Europeans can buy. It weighs 2000 pounds, while our own long-term-test (American) Escort weighs 2140 pounds, and its 1598-cu­bic-centimeter engine produces 96 horsepower at 6000 rpm, 98 pound feel of torque at 4000 rpm. This ratio of weight to power results in zero-to- 60 times on the order of 10 seconds and a quarter-mile time of 17.2 at 79 mph, considerably faster than any­thing an American could buy in the same size and price class. It's wonder­ful. You'll find the hood release on the underside of the steering column. Pop the hood and look inside. What you see is a neat little overhead-cam four with a two-throat Weber carburetor, a smooth cast-iron exhaust manifold feeding twin downtubes, the necessary cooling and electrical gizmos, and that's all, folks. Hardly, any of the stuff that the EPA has forced us to cram under the hood of our cars so that we may breathe from our exhaust pipe in relative safety; just the important bits. View Photos Aaron Kiley | Car and Driver But the engine compartment is only about the third thing you admire on the XR3. First there's the exterior. Ford­-Europe opted for a much cleaner, more discreet overall look for its Escort, and the XR3 benefits from that, especially at the front. Then there's a nice deep air dam under the narrow European bump­er, and a rubbery black "What'll it be, fellas" serving-tray spoiler on the rear deck. Fat Pirelli P6 tires on wide-rim 928-ish alloy wheels complete the pic­ture. As a visual experience, the XR3 attracts a lot of attention. Overtaking, waiting at crosswalks, stopped at traffic lights, it never failed to capture the hearts and minds of the overtaken and/or bystanders. And it isn't just a matter of zoomy looks, either. The aerodynam­ic aids bring the drag coefficient down to 0.38; a stock U.S. Escort's is 0.40, which was already an excellent aerody­namic performance. (Though how this is possible, with the enormous outside mirrors that jut out from the XR3's doors, will forever remain a mystery of modern science.) One's next impression is of the interi­or, which would look good in a Porsche and would be a quantum leap upward for most American cars. Gray cloth with red stripes covers the seats; the rear be­ing a folding bench for extra load space, and the fronts being Recaro look-alikes for extra creature comfort and security. The steering wheel is very small in di­ameter, padded, and almost as fat as the Pirelli outside. Everything about these furnishings exhorts one to sit down, start the engine, and bury the loud ped­al in the floorpan—which one invariably does, at least the first couple of times. But there's more. The windows go up and down electrically, and the Whit­man's Sampler-sized outside mirrors are adjusted the same way. The sunroof is as nearly perfect as one of those can be. It features tinted glass, it is manually operated, and it both slides fore-and-aft and pops up at the rear, depending upon whether you want sunshine or ventilation. There is also a sliding lou­vered screen to blank it off completely, if that is your pleasure. There is an AM/FM-radio/cassette system as well, but it plays through two raspy speakers and doesn't really measure up to the other interior appointments. View Photos Aaron Kiley | Car and Driver On the road, the XR3 is a mixed blessing. It is quick, but not really fast. Ten-second zero-to-60 times and a 108-mph top speed aren't go­ing to separate anybody's retinas, but they're certainly brisk in a car of this type. The handling is sort of standard front-wheel-drive-with-fat-sticky-tires understeer—which is a vast improve­ment over the soft-riding American Es­corts—and the roadholding, on smooth surfaces, is excellent. We generated a lateral acceleration of 0.75 g on the Chrysler Proving Ground's 282-foot skidpad, and the car felt stable and reas­suring. Lift-throttle or brake-induced oversteer was still there, but to a useful degree: a good driver can correct his line by steering the rear wheels with his right foot. Only on bumpy roads does the XR3 behave like an American-made Escort—but even then there is a differ­ence. The same vigorous pitching and uncontrolled vertical body movements tried to upset the car, as they would on a regular Escort, but the XR3's Bilstein shocks are just as vigorous in their con­trol of those movements. The result is that the XR3 stays on course, but the rear wheels patter over the rough stuff, occasionally lose contact with the pavement, and are snubbed rather viciously whenever they threaten to leave the ground entirely, as on the far side of a frost heave taken at, say, 50 or 60 mph. As unpleasant as this occasionally is, it is a vast improvement over the bump-induced instability and gener­al rough-road raggedness that we've found so troublesome in U.S. Escorts. That this he-man version of our Escort should share its bad habits at all was apparently unavoidable, given the basic similarity of chassis and suspensions. View Photos Aaron Kiley | Car and Driver The combination of unassisted steer­ing, small steering-wheel diameter, for­ward weight bias, and fat, sticky tires makes for very heavy steering in the XR3. A few minutes on our slalom course or a lot of parallel-parking prac­tice every day would be a real upper­-body builder. The car goes where it's pointed without a moment's hesitation, but it makes you work for every degree of steering deflection. In this sense it is decidedly sporty. The brakes are good, but not great. The disc-drum combina­tion suffers from premature rear lock­up, which lengthens stopping distance appreciably. The car's personality and general level of performance certainly cry out for discs at all four corners. The clutch, unlike the one on the XR3's American cousin, is a good one. It's smooth, it takes up predictably and gradually, and it accepts heavy-footed driving and quick shifts without protest. As in most front-wheel-drive cars, the shift linkage is less than perfect, but as front-wheel-drive cars go it is accept­able. The engine is strong and smooth, but noisy, starting off at a reasonable noise level and becoming increasingly tiresome as one approaches the 6300-rpm redline. This, however, is a small price to pay in a country where we are afflicted with so many little engines making lots of noise and not much horsepower. View Photos Aaron Kiley | Car and Driver The bad news about this little XR3 that Mr. Petersen lent us is that you and I will never be able to buy one, unless we sell the farm and move to Europe. The good news is that our friends at Ford are going to build an American version that we can probably buy in 1984. It will have the U.S. car's clunky grille, headlamps, and bumpers, unfor­tunately, and it will suffer to some de­gree from the horsepower drain that drags down the performance of all American engines these days, but we'd expect much of the character of the XR3 to survive. Equally good news—as reported in the other parts of this Es­cort/Lynx extravaganza—is that much of the lamentable ride and handling be­havior we've complained about in these cars is being set right in 1982. Perhaps the best news of all is that cars like the XR3 are beginning to show up in De­troit's corporate parking garage at last, and just in time. View Photos Aaron Kiley | Car and Driver Specifications Specifications 1981 Ford Escort XR3 Vehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door hatchback PRICE Base: $10,900 (Great Britain) ENGINE inline-4, iron block and aluminum head Displacement: 98 in3, 1598 cm3 Power: 96 bhp @ 6000 rpm TRANSMISSION 4-speed manual DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 94.4 in Length: 159.8 in Curb Weight: 2000 lb C/D TEST RESULTS 60 mph: 10.0 sec 90 mph: 28.2 sec 1/4-Mile: 17.2 sec @ 79 mph Top Gear, 30–50 mph: 8.9 sec Top Gear, 50–70 mph: 8.9 sec Top Speed: 108 mph Braking, 70–0 mph: 195 ft C/D FUEL ECONOMY Observed: 27 mpg EURO CYCLE FUEL ECONOMY City: 33 mpg C/D TESTING EXPLAINED

Yahoo

4 hours ago

• Yahoo

Ford Apparently Doesn't Care About Engines Anymore

Read the full story on The Auto Wire We have bad news for Ford fans: a top executive just said the automaker doesn't care about engines anymore. His justification is that consumers don't care about them, either. And boy, do people have a lot of hot takes about at a recent Bernstein conference, Ford Vice Chair John Lawler shared his controversial thoughts. 'I don't think that consumers really think about powertrains the way they did 30 years ago. Where combustion engines defined what a vehicle was; the horsepower, the displacement, the torque, and everything about the vehicle; I think a lot of that is gone.' As Ford and other Western automakers face the looming threat of Chinese brands which sell vehicles at unbelievably low prices, the Blue Oval and others are looking for every competitive advantage possible. That includes outsourcing engine development and manufacturing to suppliers. In other words, your Ford might have the exact same engine as a Honda or Chevy or Kia. Lawler believes car shoppers won't care. Unfortunately, we think for a portion of the market this is true. For some people, all they care about is when they push the ignition button the car turns on and it goes. They don't know or care about how many cylinders it has, the displacement, or how much power it makes. But there's always been a subset of society that has this kind of attitude. Suddenly, Lawler and others in the industry believe they should cater to them, but really it's a pretense. The real reason isn't because there are consumers who don't care about engines. What it comes down to is automakers are scared spitless they're going to get mowed over by Chinese automakers. Instead of leaning into what they do best and riding out the storm, they're going to try beating the Chinese at their game. It's a dumb move. The thing is your average person who buys a Nissan Rogue or some other beige vehicle doesn't care about the engine, until they do. If the thing is sluggish because it doesn't make much power and they have trouble merging onto the highway, they care. If the engine blows up at 80,000 miles because it was engineered or manufactured poorly, they care. They might not obsess over engine specs like enthusiasts, but there's a reason why Toyota sells so many Camrys: everyone knows they're super reliable and that's largely because of the proprietary engine design. Take that away and what is the Camry? It's revealing how the automotive media is largely agreeing with Lawler, even if begrudgingly because they've all bought into the narrative that electric cars are inevitably the future. That's the other thing driving this move. Automakers want to justify killing off internal combustion engines and taking away resources to further develop them is a wonderful way to do that. But Ford and others can't just turn away from ICE engines. They have to turn public opinion against them, salting the earth for Toyota or anyone else who might try to keep innovating in that space. They want to force the industry into electrification now that EV mandates won't be happening. We hope they fail and miserably so. Long live ICE. Source: Automotive News Image via Ford Join our Newsletter, subscribe to our YouTube page, and follow us on Facebook.