Post New

Steve, you have been saying this for a long time.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/04/13/opi...


Where Did All the Affordable Cars Go?
By Clifford Winston, The New York Times, April 12, 2026

...
The average transaction price for a new car now sits around $50,000. In December, it became just about impossible to find one for less than $20,000....

For anyone on a budget, an aging car is a trap. Auto repair costs jumped 15 percent in the last year alone, driven by the complexity of modern sensors and labor shortages. An average trip to the mechanic now costs roughly $840, an amount that around 40 percent of Americans likely could not cover with cash they have on hand. When faced with a costly repair, many are forced to choose between paying to fix their vehicle or making their loan payment. Little wonder then that repossessions — the extreme outcome of the modern automobile affordability crisis — roughly doubled in the last five years and are projected to surpass three million by the end of 2026, echoing the peak of the Great Recession....

The death of the econobox has eroded the independence that used to define American life, leaving motorists in a state of permanent financial and mechanical dependency....

While hourly compensation for the typical worker remained nearly stagnant [since the 1970s], massive stock market bull runs and rising home equity have enriched the most affluent households. Today, there are so many wealthy people who can afford luxury cars that it simply isn’t that profitable for companies to produce cars for the bottom 40 percent of Americans by income....[end quote]

This is a free-trade article that urges dropping tariffs and letting inexpensive, sometimes superior quality, Chinese and other cars into the U.S. at affordable price points. If that happens the marketplace will see the adjustment that happened in the 1980s when reliable, cheap Japanese cars began to erode the U.S. automakers' lock on the U.S. market.

Wendy

This is a free-trade article that urges dropping tariffs and letting inexpensive, sometimes superior quality, Chinese and other cars into the U.S.

Free trade is not a prerequisite for "affordable" cars. Whether to build "affordable" cars, or overgimmicked circus wagons, is a decision by management. As long as management thinks the stock market will reward them for escalating ATP and GP, that is what they will do. Company honchos openly say they don't care about market share. As they price their products beyond the reach of more and more people, they close plants and lay people off, to "right size" the company for the lower, but more profitable, volume.

Same thing with houses. If Pulte has a fixed about of land, which they can use for 1200sqft houses, like we boomers grew up in, or 3500sqft McMansions, they will build McMansions, because that is what is more profitable.

Most Affordable Cars

These are the least-expensive new cars you can buy, listed in order of base price.

https://www.caranddriver.com/rankings/best-sedans/...

That $23+k for the Kia, apparently the cheapest car in the US in 2026, is more than I paid for my VW Jetta wagon, 12 years ago.

For those who noticed how pricey the Sube Impreza is, Sube has dropped the base trim Impreza, accounting for the steep price escalation of that model.

Steve

That $23+k for the Kia, apparently the cheapest car in the US in 2026, is more than I paid for my VW Jetta wagon, 12 years ago.

In 2014 dollars that equates to $17,000.

Inflation. It’s a real thing.

In 2014 dollars that equates to $17,000.

The base price of a Jetta or Corolla sedan was just under $17K, in 2014. But a Jetta was not the cheapest sled on the US market.

A Honda Fit started at $15,650

A Toyota Yaris started at $14,370

A Nissan Versa Note started at $13,990

A Hyundai Accent started at $14,645

A Kia Rio started at $13,900

The Chevy Sonic sedan started at $14,170

A Chevy Spark started at $12,170

A Mitsubishi Mirage started at $12,995

You could get something new, with a warranty, for 14 large. Adjusting for inflation, that is $19,763.43 now. But you can't buy a new ride for under $20K now. So, the OEMs do what they always do to push more expensive products: "EZ credit", to put the Proles farther in debt. Used to be cars were financed for 3 years. Now, OEMs offer financing for 7-8 years, to push more expensive products on lower income people.

There was a piece on the NBC Evening News last week, that noted that some 28% of people with bad credit have their car repoed. I muttered "that's probably why they have bad credit, they buy stuff they can't pay for".

Steve

The solution to everything, seems to be, to get the Proles farther in debt.

Share of 7-year car loans grows as buyers ‘work harder to make the numbers fit,’ expert says

The share of car buyers in the first quarter who signed a loan for 84 months or longer reached about 23%, up from 10% a decade ago, Edmunds data shows.

The share of new-car buyers with annual income below $100,000 was 37% last year, down from 50% in 2020, according to Cox Automotive.

Depreciation can lead to being “underwater” on the loan, which can lead to carrying that so-called negative equity into a new car loan if you trade it in.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/14/car-loan-terms.htm...

Same thing with houses. Don't build lower priced houses. Stretch out the financing, so the Prole can go farther in debt, to pay for a McMansion.

This proposal landed with a thud, this time. I'm sure it will pass in the future.

Industry Reacts To Idea Of 50-Year Mortgage

In a social media post this past Saturday, Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte noted that the Trump administration is developing a plan to introduce 50-year mortgage terms for prospective homebuyers.

"I think it could be a good thing for homeowners to have another option that helps with affordability. Lower monthly payments can open the door for more people to buy a home, especially first-time buyers," said Tyler Hodgson, founder of NXT Mortgage via LinkedIn. "The 50-year mortgage won’t fit everyone, but for the right buyer, it could make homeownership possible when it otherwise wouldn’t be. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds."

https://nationalmortgageprofessional.com/news/indu...

Bill Pulte, who floated the plan, is closely related to Pulte Homes, builder of McMansions, which would benefit from the increased number of people who could qualify for a 50 year mortgage.

Steve

50-year mortgage terms for prospective homebuyers.

That will lead to multi-generational home ownership due to the lack of affordability, with the house being paid off in 50 yrs by 1-3 *future* generations (descendants) of the original buyers. So, FEWER future homes to be built as a result (not affordable). And thus, fewer home builders (and fewer jobs in the construction trades).

So, FEWER future homes to be built as a result (not affordable). And thus, fewer home builders (and fewer jobs in the construction trades).

Ah, but they make more profit on each one they do sell. That is the strategy the CEO of Ford articulated, a few years ago, when he announced he wanted to abandon the 2-row SUV market. The 2-row market is huge, but, Farley cried, there was too much competition to charge as much as he wanted to. So abandon, the segment, only offer huge 3-row, SUVs, then close plants and lay people off to "right size" the company for the lower, but more profitable, volume.

With 50 year financing, Pulte could shift more people into 5,000sqft McMansions, instead of 3,500sqft McMansions, and take more money off them.

Steve

With 50 year financing, Pulte could shift more people into 5,000sqft McMansions, instead of 3,500sqft McMansions, and take more money off them.

Nice try, but you didn't do the MATH.

Total Profit = Profit PER UNIT x Number of units SOLD.

The Profit PER UNIT goes UP 30%--but the Number of units SOLD goes down by 50% to 75%.

Remember, this is for the *total industry*, not just for one builder. Pulte may not survive.

100% profit TODAY goes to 130%, BUT the number of units *sold* FALLS from 100% to 25%-50%.

So, NEW Total Profit = 130 x 25% = 32.5 compared to OLD Total Profit (100% x 100) = 100 (25% total number of NEW buyers due affordability AND lack of space to build new houses).

Increasing the NEW Total Profit can't work when the price is beyond the affordability of the *far fewer* number of buyers who can get the financing for the FAR more expensive houses. Most people who would LIKE their own house can NOT afford it due to HIGH PRICES.

Still LONGER financing terms? Same problem, only the number of builders goes DOWN FAST while the ELIGIBLE number of buyers falls even further.

The Profit PER UNIT goes UP 30%--but the Number of units SOLD goes down by 50% to 75%.

Do you have some data on demand elasticity with respect to price?

What I am proposing is 50 year mortgages would qualify people for a 3500sqft McMansion, who are currently priced out of the market, because no-one wants to bother building 1200sqft houses. Meanwhile, people who currently qualify for a 3500saft house, could qualify for a 5,000sqft house (picking numbers from the air for illustrative purposes). More people in the market, and Pulte taking more money off of each of them. Of course, eventually, Pulte would stop building 3500sqft houses, because they would drag down their ATP and GP metrics.

Farley seems to think the road to profit nirvana is built on progressively bigger, more expensive, vehicles, and the elimination of everything below average.

Ford CEO Farley Says Two Row ICE Crossovers Going Away

FoMoCo isn't exiting the ICE business anytime soon, but does plan on reinventing that lineup by focusing on passion brands and exiting slow-selling or low-margin segments, much in the way it stopped selling sedans in the U.S. years ago. However, the Ford CEO provided even more clarity on this matter during the automaker's recent earnings call by noting that The Blue Oval won't be making and selling ICE-powered two-row crossovers in the future, too.

https://fordauthority.com/2023/02/ford-ceo-farley-...

I wrote Farley off as a buffoon, who sits in his echo chamber, waiting for the yes-men around him to validate his latest brain fart, but that's just me.

Steve

Farley seems to think the road to profit nirvana is built on progressively bigger, more expensive, vehicles, and the elimination of everything below average.

You mention this a lot, but sometimes I wonder if this is the right read on what he said. He decided that Ford was going to discontinue ICE 2-row SUV's. This was around the time when Ford also decided it was going in big on their new EV platform. I always took it to mean that Ford wasn't moving away from small SUV's, just small ICE SUV's - that because of model timing their two-row SUV's were going to be among the first to migrate to their purely electric platform.

Still turned out to be a poor decision, but for different reasons.

You are wrong to look at this from a consumer's perspective. This is a simple mathematical equation based on maximizing executive compensation. The plight of potential buyers of items which are non-optimal from a corporate executive compensation perspective is simply not important.

We are also at a potential point of inflection, as Chinese cars bypass US models from a technological standpoint. Neither the VW beetle nor the Yugo threatened US car makers, but the underestimation of Datsun (now Nissan) and Toyota by the US manufacturers, the AWU and the various US trade organizations was not that they simply cost less, but that they were far more reliable and technically more advanced than the contemporary US models.

So, I believe that the powers that be will be less likely to let the camel push its nose under the tent than in the past and will leave US drivers driving inferior cars than those driven by, for example, our northern neighbors.

Jeff

So, I believe that the powers that be will be less likely to let the camel push its nose under the tent than in the past

Har har har. You assume that history means more to CEO’s than their bonus check. I believe that’s a pretty poor assumption.

Do you have some data on demand elasticity with respect to price?

Nothing specific, but we are all seeing it in real time now. Demand falls off DRAMATICALLY when prices shoot up AND interest rates increase.

However, that is not the direct cause of what I see happening.

Bigger house AND much higher price means NOT affordable for a family. 50-yr mortgage essentially makes multi-generational households a necessity. So the kids can NOT afford a new house Pulte wants to sell (too big, too expensive = unaffordable) to get their profit.

We are seeing that with Ford. They are abandoning the large market for the smaller one. Bigger ATP and GP, but FAR FEWER VEHICLES SOLD. So Ford shrinks--and shrinks--and shrinks. Fewer and fewer and fewer buyers for their EXPENSIVE (but not better !!) vehicles. We see the Chinese cars. Competition eats up Ford and spits them out. Much less expensive cars sell--as fewer Ford cars get sold to the total US market. Remember: US not interested in markets outside the US. Plus, US mfrs can NOT use many foreign-made parts, especially the parts that are expensive when "Made in USA" but far more reasonably priced if made outside the US. TARIFFS mean the cost is ALWAYS HIGH !!

You mention this a lot, but sometimes I wonder if this is the right read on what he said. He decided that Ford was going to discontinue ICE 2-row SUV's.

Ford have stopped making the Escape 2-row crossover. Not a great car in any case. They do still make the Bronco Sport 2-row crossover, which is a more "stylish", rugged looking vehicle. Built in Mexico, likely far better margins than the Escape.

In Europe Ford have some great small cars and trucks/vans. Brother has a plug-in hybrid Transit van. Over the weekend he sent me his last fill up data: 1150 miles, 760 miles electric, 86mpg (UK gallons). Pretty impressive.

Anyone looking for reliable, easily repairable, (no car is trouble free), transportation and is unconcerned with how the lack of status of your car reflects on you, should consider this;

2002-2005 Buick Le Sabre with ~ 150,000 miles on the clock. Another 200 to 250,000 miles can be expected to be delivered. Parts cheap and readily available, shade tree mechanics can participate, 30 mpg on the highway all day long.

Ford have stopped making the Escape 2-row crossover. Not a great car in any case. They do still make the Bronco Sport 2-row crossover, which is a more "stylish", rugged looking vehicle. Built in Mexico, likely far better margins than the Escape.

Yes, they've stopped making those ICE 2-row SUV's. But I'm not entirely sure that their plan was to stop making all two-row SUV's forever, or whether it was more that they weren't going to create a new model/upgrade of an ICE 2-row SUV instead of a BEV since the future was going to be all-electric.

>>You mention this a lot, but sometimes I wonder if this is the right read on what he said. He decided that Ford was going to discontinue ICE 2-row SUV's.<<

Ford have stopped making the Escape 2-row crossover.

Exactly what I was going to mention. Last December, Ford ended production of the Escape, their second best selling SUV in 2024, after the Explorer, it's platform mate, the Lincoln Corsair, and closed the plant, laying off some 2800 USians. Supposedly, Ford will retool the plant for an "affordable" EV pickup. I suspect that "affordable" EV is vaporware, as "affordable" is not in Farley's business plan, and the US is extremely EV hostile now.

My theory about why automakers went ape over EVs: they looked at the ATP and GP that Tesla used to show, and thought EVs were easy money. Then the market started to mature, more players entered, and Tesla had competition. Their ATP and GP started to erode. EVs no longer look like easy money. Ford sank Billions into EVs. It's "Blue Oval City" EV pickup plant, completion having been delayed a couple years, is now, supposedly, being completed to build ICE F-Series trucks. That invites the musical question: does Ford really need that much additional F-Series capacity, or is Farley just trying to avoid writing off the plant, even if it cannibalizes other Ford truck plants? Ford also started building three battery plants. Now, Ford says one of the plants will be used to build home backup battery systems, to avoid writing it off.

The CFO of Volkswagen, several years ago, said the brand was being taken "upmarket", and he didn't care about the impact on volume. The same plan was expressed publicly by an Audi honcho in the UK. Se, we can look forward to VWs priced like Audis, and Audis priced like Bentleys.

April 6, 2022

VW to scrap models and focus on premium market -CFO tells FT

BERLIN, April 6 (Reuters) - German carmaker Volkswagen will axe many combustion engine models by the end of the decade and sell fewer cars overall to concentrate on producing more profitable premium vehicles, its finance chief was quoted as saying on Wednesday.

"The key target is not growth," Arno Antlitz told the Financial Times newspaper. "We are (more focused) on quality and on margins, rather than on volume and market share."

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportat...

I think these guys are all being sold the same "plan" by McKinsey. rather than really looking at what they are doing. VW wants to be "upmarket", but looking at Warranty Week's annual table of global warranty claims expense, as a percent of sales, shows that VW is now building some of the very worst cars on the planet, for which they are charging premium prices. Ford is also routinely flamed for their sky high warranty claims expense. As a typical "JC", Farley blames the crap product on his predecessors. Ford shattered the previous record for recalls last year, but warranty claims expense isn't as bad as VW.

Ford shatters decade-old recall record with 152 safety alerts issued this year alone across multiple models

Ford Motor Company logged far more recalls in 2025 than any other automaker, according to federal safety data, eclipsing a decade-old industry record and underscoring ongoing quality issues affecting millions of vehicles across multiple model lines.

According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Ford logged 152 recalls in 2025. The manufacturer with the second-most recalls was Honda, with 53, followed by Forest River with 32, General Motors with 27 and International Motors with 26.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/ford-shatters-...

Every year, since being promoted to CEO in 2020, Farley has promised to address their wretched quality. Every year, the number of recalls grows.

On the wire today:

Ford Has Already Recalled 7.4 Million Cars This Year

Last year, Ford Motor Company issued more recalls than any other automaker ever. It surpassed the previous record holder, General Motors, by more than double, with 153 recalls affecting nearly 13 million vehicles.

It’s unlikely that Ford will issue as many recalls this year, but based on what we're already seeing, the number of affected vehicles could actually surpass 2025’s number. So far in 2026, the Blue Oval has issued 18 recalls involving 7,396,427 vehicles

https://www.motor1.com/news/789583/ford-2026-recal...

And they want you to pay premium prices for that.

Steve

I think these guys are all being sold the same "plan" by McKinsey. rather than really looking at what they are doing.

Probably the best summation of what’s going on than anything I’ve read on the interwebs in years.

I remember when Westinghouse told us to stop taking low-ball and trade advertising because they wanted “the sales margins” to go higher.

“But, but, but we produce 16 one minute vacancies every hour of the day or night, and if we don’t fill them we have zero revenue instead of “some” revenue.*

“Doesn’t matter,” they said, “we need to show the street that our sales margins are improving.”

Westinghouse went under about five years later.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

There are all kinds of advertising: the one most people know is “You pay me X dollars, I run your commercial.” Read about it all the time for Super Bowl ads and such. There are lots of others:

1) I have this product, I’ll sell it for $29.99 and give you $10 out of each sale. The station may get rich, or more likely will get a few bucks for a slot (just like and airline seat that flies empty) instead of nothing. This is “direct response”, with a 1-800 number

2) I have this product, 5,000 units. I’ll give you $100,000 and you run this commercial until I’m sold out. This is also “direct response”, with a 1-800 number.

3) “You have a restaurant we’d like to eat at. I’ll give you advertising at retail price, you give us “trade” at retail price”. We eat good, you get ads for the cost of raw materials.

4) “We need news cars. We’ll give you ads, you give us a couple cars”. Again trade, no money changes hands.

Those are fairly straightforward. It gets trickier when a concern promoter comes in and gives you 100 tickets in trade. You can then 1) send your workers to the concert, 2) offer them to other clients for goodwill, 3) do a contest on your own station to increase listenership/viewership, 4) offer them to other clients to use in a contest of their own.

There’s more, but you get the idea. You could turn bad or unsold inventory into *something*, and often use that something to induce cash advertisers to come aboard. Take that away and you’re in the position of selling spots-4-dollars, and nothing else. Then everybody wants your prime time and nobody wants the crap time which you used to fill up with trades and low-ballers.

I remember when Westinghouse told us to stop taking low-ball and trade advertising because they wanted “the sales margins” to go higher.

You threw me for a second, until I remembered Westinghouse had a broadcast division. Yup. It's all about training Wall St to look at the metrics you can easily control. You can't easily control how many cars you sell or your market share. That requires working to outcompete the other guys. But you can control ATP and GP, simply by stop offering everything with "below average" ATP and GP. Simply cutting the products with "below average" metrics, is quick, and easy, and the honchos can get back to the golf course.

Steve

Simply cutting the products with "below average" metrics, is quick

Simply cutting management with "above average" costs, is quick--and more effective.

We are discussing this year's challenges. Wait until someone thinks to ask Claude (et al) what product mix will maximize top tier executive compensation (including staff reduction as volume drops). All the rest will be window dressing.

Jeff

(including staff reduction as volume drops)

Someone on bubblevision, decades ago, noted how the stock market rewarded companies for announcing a RIF in the thousands, if not tens of thousands. After all. Saint Welch taught us that employees are nothing but a cost to be minimized.

Steve

what product mix will maximize top tier executive compensation

That's easy.

All expenses are for executive compensation.

Zero payments for anything else.

No rent, no office space, no assistants, no facilities or equipment anywhere.

Executives can not be fired or let go for any reason.

Their annual inflation-adjusted compensation is required to *increase* by at least 10%.

"The CFO of Volkswagen, several years ago, said the brand was being taken "upmarket", and he didn't care about the impact on volume."

But not in China Market.

https://cnevpost.com/2026/04/16/vw-launches-id-uny...
VW launches ID. UNYX 08 in China as Xpeng partnership bears fruit
The ID. UNYX 08 is priced from 229,900 yuan ($33,702) and features smart driving chips and solutions from Xpeng.

The model's launch marks an accelerated phase in Volkswagen's electrification transition in the Chinese market.

The new vehicle is built on an 800-volt high-voltage silicon carbide platform to offer faster charging speeds.

It is equipped with lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries supplied by CATL, offering two capacity options of 82 kWh and 95 kWh, delivering a driving range of up to 730 kilometers.

In terms of smart driving hardware, the ID. UNYX 08 is equipped with two Turing AI chips provided by Xpeng, giving the system a total computing power of up to 1,500 TOPS.

The vehicle adopts Xpeng's second-generation Vision-Language-Action (VLA 2.0) smart driving solution, enabling enhanced Level 2 city navigation driving assistance functions and supporting over-the-air (OTA) updates.


https://www.autoweek.com/news/a44689601/volkswagen...
Volkswagen and Guangzhou-based automaker XPeng plan to collaborate on two new EVs meant for the Chinese market, relying on XPeng's own platform, with the two expected in 2026.

In Europe Ford have some great small cars and trucks/vans.<i/>

The Toyota Hilux is famously labeled "indestructible", ISIS utilized Toyota Hilux trucks in their rapid conquest of Mosul in 2014. It was so dependable and able to move quickly over terrain that it literally defeated columns of tanks. The Toyota Hilux has been know to run for 50,000 miles, and in Mexico is a favorite of work crews. Even after severe damage, they are known to be repairable. ISIS was able to repair and salvage the Hilux in the field and keep moving. American Car Companies have kept it banned.

Not Sold in the United States

Not Sold in the United States

Heard about this - Chicken Tax - in a discussion with an auto dealership friend a while back and did a Gemini query summarized below:

The Chicken Tax: Protecting US Trucks

The Chicken Tax is a 25% tariff on light trucks imported into the United States. While most automotive tariffs are relatively low (around 2.5% for passenger cars), this specific tax has remained in place for over 60 years, effectively creating a "moat" around the American pickup truck market.

The Origin: A 1960s Trade War
The tax is not named after the trucks, but after the product that triggered it: frozen chicken.
The Conflict: In the early 1960s, American factory-farmed chicken began flooding European markets, particularly West Germany and France. To protect their local farmers, these countries placed high tariffs on U.S. chicken.
The Retaliation: In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson responded with Proclamation 3564, placing a 25% tariff on four items: potato starch, dextrin, brandy, and light trucks.
The Survival: Over the decades, the tariffs on the other three items were lifted, but the truck tariff was kept—largely due to lobbying from domestic automakers who realized it effectively blocked foreign competition.
Impact on Prices and Innovation in 2026
The Chicken Tax is a primary reason why the U.S. pickup market is dominated by "The Big Three" (Ford, GM, and Stellantis).
High Profit Margins: Because they are shielded from low-cost overseas competition, domestic manufacturers can maintain high prices. As of 2026, the average transaction price for a full-size pickup often exceeds $65,000.
Lack of Small Trucks: The tax discouraged the development of small, affordable "lifestyle" trucks for decades. Only recently have "compact" options like the Ford Maverick or Hyundai Santa Cruz appeared, and even then, they must be built in North America to be viable.
Market Insularity: The tax has essentially "frozen" the U.S. truck market in time, favoring massive, heavy-duty designs over the smaller, more fuel-efficient "work trucks" common in the rest of the world.

In Europe Ford have some great small cars and trucks/vans.

Ford's EU line has imploded in recent years. The Focus, long a best seller, was discontinued last year, and the plant in Saarlouis closed. Outside of commercial vehicles, Ford has two ICE models remaining; the Puma and Kuga (same as the Escape Ford used to make in the US). Ford's two EV models, built at the Cologne plant, are built on a VW platform. Ford recently announced plans for new EV models that will be designed and built by Renault, with a Ford "brand" pasted on.

Renault Group and Ford form a strategic partnership for passenger and commercial vehicles, starting with two affordable electric cars in Europe

A cornerstone of this collaboration is a partnership agreement for the development of two distinct Ford-branded electric vehicles. The new models will be based on the Ampere platform, leveraging Renault Group's strong EV assets and competitiveness, and produced by Renault Group in the North of France, illustrating Ampere's ElectriCity's “state-of-the-art” manufacturing capabilities and expertise.

https://media.renaultgroup.com/renault-group-and-f...

With the loss of the Focus last year, and the loss of the Fiesta the year before, Ford's Q1 2026 EU market share has fallen to 3.5%. As recently as ten years ago, Ford's EU share was over 8%.

Ford is trying to interest Chinese automakers in building their products in Ford's underutilized plant in Valencia.

Chinese auto giants eye Ford plant in Valencia as talks gain momentum

Источник: https://russpain.com/en/economy/chinese-auto-giant...

Ford closed all it's plants in Brazil some years ago.

Ford closed all it's plants in India a few years ago too. To great excitement, in 2024, Ford announced they would reopen the Chennai plant, to build cars for export only. Then crickets for several months. Then Ford announced the plant will build engines, not cars, for export only.

Ford will return to engine production in Chennai for export markets

https://www.automotivelogistics.media/plant-logist...

Ten years ago, Ford was selling over 800,000 cars/year in China, good for about a 3.5% market share. Last year, Ford China sales shriveled to 99,400 units, from about 247,000 the year before.

Welchism in action: cull the company down to only the most profitable models, in the most profitable market.

Steve

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.