GM and Ford Take Their Rivalry Into Defense and Energy Storage
Detroit's two largest automakers are chasing military contracts and energy storage revenue as vehicle demand cools, opening a new front in a rivalry that is more than a century old.
General Motors and Ford are both pursuing new growth outside passenger vehicles, including military contracts and energy storage businesses, extending a rivalry that dates back more than a century, CNBC reported on September 5, 2026.
Detroit's oldest corporate feud has found a new battlefield. General Motors Co. (ticker: GM) and Ford Motor Co. (ticker: F) are both hunting for growth outside the business of selling cars and trucks to consumers, and two of the destinations they have landed on are the same: military contracts and energy storage. That puts the two companies, whose rivalry stretches back more than a century, in competition again in markets neither was built to serve.
The move was reported by CNBC, which described both automakers as looking for new potential growth areas, including by seeking military contracts and getting into energy storage businesses.
Why two carmakers are shopping for new customers
The logic is not hard to follow. A mass-market automaker's core business is cyclical, capital-hungry and increasingly crowded, and the transition to electric vehicles has forced both firms to build capacity in batteries, power electronics and software that has no guaranteed payback from vehicle sales alone. Once a company owns cell plants, inverter engineering and high-volume assembly, the question of what else those assets could produce answers itself.
Energy storage is the most natural extension. Grid-scale and commercial battery systems use the same chemistry, the same cells and much of the same thermal and control engineering as an electric vehicle pack. For an automaker with contracted cell supply, storage is a way to keep factories loaded when vehicle demand softens, and to sell into a customer base — utilities, data centers, industrial sites — whose buying decisions are driven by power availability rather than consumer confidence.
Defense is the more novel turn. Detroit built military vehicles at scale during both world wars, so the precedent exists, but the modern procurement business is nothing like the one their predecessors knew. It runs on long qualification cycles, cost-accounting rules, security clearances and program offices, and it rewards incumbency. What automakers bring to it is the one thing the defense industrial base is chronically short of: the ability to make complicated hardware in volume, repeatedly, at a known cost.
What each side actually brings to the fight
Neither company has disclosed the size of these efforts, and it would be a mistake to model them as material revenue lines yet. The realistic near-term contribution is small relative to a business that sells millions of vehicles a year. The strategic contribution is different: both markets offer contracted, multi-year demand that is less exposed to interest rates and consumer credit than a pickup truck sold on a 72-month loan.
That distinction matters to how investors should read the announcements. A defense contract win does not change the earnings picture in the quarter it is signed. It changes the shape of the revenue base over years, and it changes the multiple the market is willing to pay if it becomes recurring. The same is true of storage, where the revenue is lumpy at first and then becomes an annuity of service and warranty work.
The risk is dilution of focus. Both companies are simultaneously managing an EV ramp, tariff exposure on parts and materials, and a software agenda. Adding two unrelated go-to-market motions — one selling to government program offices, one selling to utilities and developers — is a management-bandwidth problem before it is a technology problem.
How the shares stand going in
The market has not repriced either company on the news. In the most recent session, ended at 20:00 GMT on September 4, 2026, GM last traded at 87.76, up 0.62% on the day from a previous close of 87.22, having ranged between 85.69 and 87.76. Ford last traded at 14.62, up 1.46% from a previous close of 14.41, with a session range of 14.30 to 14.64. Both closed at or within a cent of the top of their daily range, and both outperformed the broad tape.
In the most recent session, ended at 20:00 GMT on September 4, 2026, GM last traded at 87.
That tape was mixed. The S&P 500 tracker (SPY) closed at $770.19, down 0.39%, against a previous close of $773.17. The Dow 30 tracker (DIA) closed at $534.08, down 0.53%. The Nasdaq 100 tracker (QQQ) was the outlier, closing up 0.18% at $718.96. Two industrial names finishing green on a day when the Dow lost half a percent is not a verdict on strategy, but it is a data point about where the marginal buyer was looking.
The valuation gap between the two is the backdrop to everything. Investors have long applied a low multiple to Detroit on the grounds that the earnings are cyclical and the capital intensity is permanent. Any credible path to contracted, non-consumer revenue is, in principle, an argument against that discount. Whether the argument survives contact with actual contract awards is the open question.
The century-old pattern repeating
GM and Ford have competed on trucks, on financing arms, on hybrids, on autonomy and on EV platforms. In almost every case, the pattern has been the same: one moves, the other follows within a cycle, and the market ends up split rather than won. There is little reason to expect defense or storage to break that pattern, which means the more interesting question is not which company gets there first but whether either can build a durable structural advantage before the other copies it.
In defense, advantage would come from a qualified production line and a program of record — something that takes years and is very hard to displace once established. In storage, advantage comes from cell cost and supply security, where both companies have made large commitments and neither has an obvious edge.
What to watch next
Three things will tell investors whether this is a strategy or a talking point. First, disclosure: whether either company begins breaking out defense or energy revenue as a reportable segment, or at least quantifying backlog. Second, capital allocation: whether new capacity is dedicated to these markets or simply repurposed from underused EV lines. Third, personnel — hiring program managers and cleared staff with procurement experience is the cheapest and clearest signal that a company intends to compete seriously for government work.
Until those appear, the honest position is that two large industrial companies with spare capability are testing adjacent markets. That is a rational response to a slowing core business. It is not yet a reason to change an earnings model.
Key facts
- GM last close: 87.76, +0.62%, as of 20:00 GMT Sept. 4, 2026
- Ford (F) last close: 14.62, +1.46%, as of 20:00 GMT Sept. 4, 2026
- New growth areas cited: Military contracts and energy storage
- Broad market that session: SPY $770.19 (-0.39%), DIA $534.08 (-0.53%), QQQ $718.96 (+0.18%)
Frequently asked questions
What new businesses are GM and Ford pursuing?
According to a CNBC report published September 5, 2026, both General Motors and Ford are seeking new potential growth areas beyond passenger vehicles. Two named areas are military contracts and energy storage businesses. Neither company has disclosed the scale of these efforts, so the revenue contribution is not yet quantifiable from public information.
Why would automakers move into energy storage?
Grid and commercial battery storage systems use much of the same technology as electric vehicle packs — cells, thermal management and power electronics. An automaker that has already contracted cell supply and built factory capacity can sell into utilities, data centers and industrial customers, keeping plants loaded when consumer vehicle demand is weak.
Have GM and Ford made military vehicles before?
Both companies have a long industrial history that includes wartime production, and their rivalry dates back more than a century. Modern defense procurement, however, works differently: it involves long qualification cycles, government cost-accounting rules, security requirements and program offices, and it strongly favors established incumbent suppliers.
How did GM and Ford shares perform most recently?
In the session ending at 20:00 GMT on September 4, 2026, GM last traded at 87.76, up 0.62% from a previous close of 87.22. Ford last traded at 14.62, up 1.46% from 14.41. Both finished at or near the top of their daily trading ranges.
Did the wider market rise that day?
It was mixed. The S&P 500 tracker SPY closed at $770.19, down 0.39%, and the Dow 30 tracker DIA closed at $534.08, down 0.53%. The Nasdaq 100 tracker QQQ was the exception, finishing up 0.18% at $718.96. Both automakers outperformed the Dow that session.
What should investors watch to judge whether these ventures matter?
Three signals: whether either company begins reporting defense or energy storage as a separate segment or discloses backlog; whether new capital is dedicated to these markets rather than repurposed from idle lines; and whether they hire experienced government program managers. Absent those, the efforts should not be built into earnings models.
Sources
Photo: Tom Fisk · Pexels Licence — source
