Ford results: Oswego restart, truck output and putting numbers to aluminum sheet

Vehicle output lost during the Novelis outage

Executives said the company lost about 100,000 units of production last year as a result of the Novelis aluminum sheet mill fires and expects to recover roughly 50,000 to 60,000 units in 2026 through capacity adjustments.

Management said the cost of sourcing replacement aluminum rose after the second fire when it became clear the Oswego mill would not restart by December as initially expected, prompting Ford to revise its nonrecurring cost estimate higher by roughly $0.5 billion to $1.0 billion.

Ford expects $1.5 billion to $2.0 billion in temporary costs in 2026 to maintain “aluminum supply continuity,” a figure that includes tariffs as well as what management described as premium freight. The reference to tariffs within that specific aluminum cost estimate may suggest Ford is, at least partially, sourcing aluminum from outside its usual domestic supply channels, potentially from overseas markets subject to Section 232 duties and elevated ocean freight rates.

To offset part of the lost volume, Ford added shifts and production lines, allowing it to recapture a portion of that output despite continued reliance on alternative aluminum supply.

Quantifying lost output and planned recovery

A 2025 academic case study of aluminum-intensive vehicles estimates the aluminum-bodied Ford F-150 contains about 240 kilograms of automotive body sheet (ABS) aluminum embedded in the finished vehicles.

If you apply that as a proxy for the truck-heavy lost-production figure Ford discussed, the estimate implies bout 24,000 metric tons of ABS aluminum that would have been contained in finished vehicles.

That “contained-in-vehicle” tonnage is not the same as how much sheet Ford and its stampers had to buy, because stamping converts a share of income sheet into prompt scrap.

Federal research and development center Argonne National Laboratory, sponsored by the US Department of Energy, assumes 72% stamping material efficiency in its Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies (GREET) model on automotive aluminum sheet stamping, which implies a 28% scrap rate.

Meanwhile, non-profit industry association Alumobility’s closed-loop paper describes press-shop use of around 60% of incoming sheet, which implies a scrap rate of about 40%.

If the truck body content is about 240kg of ABS per unit, then the implied income sheet and prompt scrap looks like this:

• With a 28% scrap rate, producing 240kg in the truck implies roughly 333 kg of income sheet per unit, and 160kg of prompt scrap per unit.
• With a 40% scrap rate, producing 240kg in the truck implies 400kg of income sheet per unit, and 160kg of prompt scrap per unit.

Applied to Ford’s about 100,000 lost unit figure, that brackets the manufacturing-side metal flows as follows. Aluminum ABS that would have ended up in finished vehicles comes out to roughly 24,000 metric tons.

• The incoming aluminum sheet required to make that much in-vehicle ABS comes out to roughly 33,300 to 40,000 metric tons.
• The associated prompt scrap generated during stamping comes out to roughly 9,300 to 16,000 metric tons.

Using the same math for Ford’s 50,000-to-60,000-unit 2026 recovery target, the implied in-vehicle ABS comes out to about 12,000 to 14,4000 metric tons.

• The implied income sheet required comes out to roughly 16,700 to 24,000 metric tons.
• The implied prompt scrap comes out to roughly 4,700 to 9,600 metric tons.

Assuming the aluminum used to support that incremental capacity increase is sourced entirely from imports, and setting aside any imported automotive body sheet required to support Ford’s normal ongoing operations, the implied 16,7000 to 24,000 metric tons of incoming sheet needed to support 50,000 to 60,000 units of recovered output. That also assumes to consist of aluminum-bodied F-150s, given that trucks remain the area of greatest inventory tightness and were most affected by the Novelis disruption – can be expressed as a share of total US aluminum sheet imports in 2025 excluding can sheet.

Using Census import data from January through November and estimating December volumes by applying the average monthly import rate over that period to arrive at a full-year anchor figure, the incremental sheet required to support the capacity additions alone would account for roughly 3.2% to 4.6% of all non-can aluminum sheet imports.

That category includes overwhelmingly large volumes of common alloy sheet, alongside brazing and bright sheet, certain fin and foil stock, as well as automotive body sheet.

Even still, this comparison reflects only the capacity added to recover lost production and does not include aluminum required to support output at other Ford plants or baseline production levels while Novelis’ Oswego hot mill remains offline.

Aluminum sourcing costs during the outage

The company said aluminum supply continuity costs would persist until Novelis is able to restart its hot mill, which Ford placed between May and September.

Ford framed those costs as distinct from tariffs discussed elsewhere in the call, such as auto parts tariff credits, indicating they stem from near-term sourcing decisions rather than broader trade policy exposure.

The restart window cited by Ford also provides a clearer timeframe than prior disclosures. Novelis last said in early January that the restart timing for its Oswego, NY, facility remained uncertain following a third fire that occurred in late November, with repair costs estimated at roughly $225 million.

Ford’s comments imply an internal planning assumption that the hot mill will not return before late spring and may remain offline through much of the summer.

The cost estimate and restart window indicate that Ford does not expect aluminum supply conditions tied to the Oswego outage to normalize in the first half of 2026.

Guidance for 2026

Nevertheless, Ford’s 2026 guidance points to a recovery year in earnings and cash flow, while also acknowledging that aluminum-related sourcing costs will remain a factor.

Ford pegs US automotive industry sales at 16.0 to 16.5 million units amid flat pricing.

The company forecast adjusted EBIT of $8 billion to $10 billion, up from $6.8 billion in 2025. At the same time, Ford projected capital spending of $9.5 billion to $10.5 billion, modestly above the prior year.

Within the driver of year-over-year change, Ford identified Novelis-related items in two opposing categories. On the positive side the company cited higher volume enabled by capacity actions, while it listed costs tied to temporary costs tied to temporary aluminum sources on the negative side.

Cost items appeared largely neutral on a net basis, with material and warranty cost reductions and tariff improvements offset by commodity costs and incremental inventory. Notably, Ford did not classify aluminum sourcing costs as a one-time item, instead placing them among the factors influencing year-over-year results.

F-Series output

The decline in F-Series production weighed more heavily on Kansas City Assembly than on Dearborn Truck Plant, though both facilities were materially impacted by lower output.

Both facilities also opened January 2025 with unusually high output compared to the prior year that distorted subsequent percentage comparisons for the first half of the year.

Throughput moved into a sustained downtrend after July, though Dearborn broke from that pattern with a sharp increase in December, when Novelis had initially expected to restart its Oswego, NY aluminum automotive body sheet mill before a Nov. 20 fire pushed the timeline back again.

Full-year comparisons obscure that effect. On an annual basis, F-Series production declined only modestly from 2024 levels, which could suggest stability absent further context. January production figures indicate truck plants had not yet returned to prior-year output levels, leaving Ford’s near-term performance more exposed to developments in truck production than to broader shifts in vehicle demand.

Production shifts

In terms of output, January production increased by 2.8% from the prior year.

That figure implies stabilization. However, the underlying composition of production changed significantly.

Truck output remained below year-earlier levels. F-Series production declined at both Dearborn Truck Plant and Kansas City Assembly, while Super Duty output also fell sharply year over year.

These reductions occurred even as Ford increased production in several SUV and crossover lines.

Explorer output rose substantially at Chicago Assembly, while Bronco and Bronco Sport production also moved higher, likely as Ford worked to maintain SUV volumes following the discontinuation of the Escape.

This production reallocation helped support total vehicle counts, yet it altered the mix in a way that limited the recovery in truck-linked output. That pattern first became apparent in the fourth quarter. During that period, truck production declined sharply at key plants, while Ford increased output in selected SUV and crossover programs.

Over the full year, production reallocations made 2025 appear more balanced that in was in the latter half of the year. Several non-truck lines posted year-over-year gains, while trucks declined modestly on an annual basis.

Inventory levels entering 2026

As of January, Ford entered the year with lower inventory levels across several major vehicle categories, most notably trucks.

Gross stocks of Ford truck fell 18.6% from the prior year, while F-Series inventories declined 24.8% over the same period. Ford-brand SUV inventories also moved lower, down 9.8% year over year, while total SUV inventories across Ford and Lincoln declined 11.9%, largely due to a sharper contraction on the Lincoln side.

While the wind-down of the Escape program contributed to lower SUV inventories, that change does not account for the magnitude of the inventory drawdown on trucks. The January snapshot instead suggests Ford began 2026 with limited availability in its highest-volume and highest-revenue product category.

Inventory reduction contrasts with accumulation, which typically occurs due to demand-driven slowdowns. Yet, these inventory conditions developed during the fourth quarter of 2025, when production fell year over year, likely owing to supply-side constraints at least partially stemming from the fire at Novelis’ automotive body aluminum sheet mill in Oswego, NY during the quarter.

Looking ahead

While ford outline a partial recovery in output through capacity adjustments, the aluminum required to support that recovery remains exposed to higher costs and alternative sourcing well into 2026.

For readers who made it this far into the aluminum math behind Ford’s operational shifts, the company reported a 5% revenue decline to $45.9 billion in the fourth quarter from the year earlier period and posted a $11.1 billion dollar loss compared to a $1.8 billion profit in fourth quarter 2024.

Full-year revenue edged up 1% to $187.3 billion for 2025 but still logged a $8.2 billion loss as opposed to a $5.9 billion profit over the same period.

In an industry where aluminum volumes and prices usually are often folded quietly into raw material disclosures, this quarter tied them more directly to the bottom line.