Ford quietly kills multi-billion dollar software-defined vehicle plans

The apparently failed project has contributed a lot to the multi-year losses of the automaker, billion dollars on EV and software operations

Tesla, Rivian and other mainly electric car manufacturers are responsible for bringing a spicy new fashion word on the market: “software -defined vehicle”. But it’s not as easy as it sounds. Although demonstrably most new cars are mainly distinguished by their user -oriented software, the term specifically refers to vehicles that depend on the code that runs under the hood to improve performance, improve facilities, and more over time, instead of requiring mechanical parts. After four years after chasing a new future, Ford has decided to close technical efforts on their software -defined vehicle platform, FNV4.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

Ford remains with architecture -based architecture despite substantial investments elsewhere

A Ford SkuSkRorks team located in California led by former Apple and Tesla Bigwig Doug Field should bring Ford’s vehicles to the next generation. Instead, Field throws in the towel, or, at least, that is a way to look at it. In a release, Field claims that the FNV4 platform is now being integrated into the current Ford architecture. The result, dubbed FNV3.X, will still have a kind of the same benefits that FNV4 could have offered: a single shared architecture over the entire model line, regardless of the powertrain.

So what does this actually mean for shoppers and drivers? Well, it means that you can expect you to see more of the same from Ford. The expensive multi -year investment seems to have a return, definitely limited in reach. Veld says that the FNV3.X platform will mean faster (OTA) software updates, “democratization of access to new functions” and “modernizing industry”, with vague promises of “advanced vehicle security, driving and infotainment improvements for many more customers.” Do not change the automotive landscape exactly.

Ford not only makes EVs, and it is a big reason for the step back

The allure of Zonal Architecture is primarily the relative simplicity of the OEM and supplier side. The use of one system that controls everything, from powertrain to safety functions and the power windows, is tempting when they are interspersed with the Messier Domain-based architecture that we know today. It is easy to see why EVs lend themselves to the simpler design, but it is not that easy with gas-driven and hybrid vehicles. “By following a more incremental approach, we have expanded the number of vehicles in our portfolio that will get the latest infotainment systems and blue ruise,” Field said in an interview with The edge. He also says that FNV4 would have made that impossible.

Last thoughts

All in all, Field presents valid points so that you wonder why Ford in the first place has pursued a software-defined vehicle platform. “Our customer experiences range from enjoying a Mustang-Cabriolet on a ride along the coast, a small company with a fleet of F-150s or transit buses, to an extensive hunger with the family in a Lincoln navigator,” he says. And he is right: all those vehicles do drastically different things, possibly extremely different customers. “One size fits all” is not the approach that automakers should consider when bringing the next step. It is a pity that Ford did not realize that for Sinking tons of money in his ambitious software project.