It has been reported that the U.S. automaker Ford has halted the development of its next-generation electronic and electrical architecture (FNV4), which it had been fostering as a core competitive edge for its electric vehicles (EVs) and internal combustion engine vehicles. Reuters reported on Wednesday that the project was effectively scrapped due to cost overruns and schedule delays, citing three sources familiar with the matter.
The FNV4 (Fully-Networked Vehicle 4) is a next-generation platform that Ford has invested heavily in for several years to integrate in-vehicle network systems and lay the foundation for software-defined vehicles (SDVs). It was planned to feature universality that could be used for EVs as well as internal combustion engine vehicles, OTA (Over-the-Air) updates, and improved quality control functions.
However, the project turned out to be more complex than expected, and costs skyrocketed as the development period grew longer. As a result, Ford eventually halted the development and is known to have switched to a strategy of reflecting the technology and insights gained in the process into its current software system.
Platform Development Commitment Remains
A Ford spokesperson indicated that the company is applying insights from the FNV4 platform to enhance its current software systems and will continue advancing in electronic and electrical architecture technologies.
The FNV4 project was led by Doug Field, a former Apple and Tesla executive who was brought into Ford in 2021. He was a key figure in the development of Tesla’s Model 3, and at the time, Ford was trying to narrow the technology gap with Tesla in software-centric vehicle development. Field’s annual salary in 2023 is known to be 15.5 million USD.
Ford’s discontinuation of FNV4 development sends an important message to the global auto industry preparing for the transition to software-centric vehicles (SDVs). This is a case where Hyundai Motor Company’s CCP, General Motors Ultifi, Volkswagen’s CARIAD, etc.’s electronic platform strategies require preparation in various aspects such as organizational operation, development risk management, and profit model conversion beyond technological capabilities.
In particular, the SDV platform is a big challenge for traditional hardware-centered manufacturers in two aspects: time and cost. Tesla has already been operating its own E/E architecture since Model 3 and has been flexibly updating OTA and driver assistance functions, but Ford tried to follow Tesla through FNV4 but was blocked by the wall of time and cost.
However, this decision does not mean that Ford has given up on its SDV strategy. Rather, it can be seen as adjusting the speed by considering realistic technological capabilities and market conditions. Ford is likely to pursue step-by-step platform improvement using the experience gained from FNV4, and may have shifted to a strategy that prioritizes practicality and flexibility in its software development competition with General Motors.
It is also worth noting that, as expectations for tech talent like Field have been high, Ford’s internal leadership structure and technology investment direction may be reorganized in the future.
