jpd80

Isn’t it ironic that Rivian was rejected because electric foundation was incompatible with Ford’s own engineering approach with hundreds of individual controllers….. Here again, I wonder what Jim Farley would have done differently now thst Ford embraces a similar philosophy in CE1. (South Park what would Brian Boitano do ) it seems like they had a great platform and partner with Rivian but Ford’s own engineering torpedoed the whole thing……

On reflection, you’re right. The Lincoln was going to be much bigger like R1S

This one or the Bronco Sport planned for next year?

I remember seeing a podcast where Jim Farley thanked Sandy and his team for their dedication in researching better assembly way and how his advice would save Ford time and resources. Sandy was on the verge of tearing up that the chief of Ford paid him that amount of credit….

Yes, we used to use similar to Europe Urban Extra urban mileage but in the last few years that’s all changes to new testing cycle that’s more real world https://realworld.org.au Real-World Testing: While the 2025 models are certified with these figures, recent testing has shown many 2025 models in Australia can exceed official lab-tested fuel consumption by up to one-third. The 2025 Ford Ranger PHEV has a claimed combined fuel economy rating of 2.9L/100km based on lab testing, featuring an 11.8kWh battery that provides around 45-49km of electric-only range (WLTP). Real-world driving suggests that once the battery is depleted, fuel consumption increases to roughly 7–9.5L/100km in mixed driving.

Bring back the Excursion with 6.7 diesel. Canyonero….

Currently, only about a quarter of GT Mustangs in inventory are manuals, no manual being offered in the 2.3 Ecoboost version Overall, it’s about one eighth of Mustang sales or just over 12%.

Remember, Jim Hackett hit the ground running when Fields was fired in 2017, Lightning was a direction from the top (make this happen) and it was in quick time. After covid, Ford’s battery costs blew right out and made the long range very expensive. Jim Farley could not have done things differently because he had an expectant Bill Ford encouraging him and Ford execs to ramp up production but in the end, they never got that deep into forward ordering and production volume never hit ramp up targets anyway.

R2 looks like a restyled version of the Lincoln that Ford was considering a few years back.. It would be wise for Ford to style its CE1 as both a BEV Bronco and an upmarket Land Rover styled Lincoln…

Maybe if gas goes up to $7/gallon, they will be hugely popular….

I do recall a recent response by a new PHEV Ranger on and Australian forum, he is pleased with the vehicle and as mentioned doesn't always charge up the battery but interestingly, driving it as a hybrid, he still gets good fuel economy, averaging US 27 mpg to 35 mpg which sounds like a great result.

Ah but see, this is also a sizeable bet, Ford already has $5 billion invested in CE1 and setting up Louisville. So let’s say the process does indeed yield a $40,000 vehicle with a healthy profit margin, that’s half the job. The other half of the job is building the size and styling of vehicles that appeal to enough buyers to give it a go. Then there’s another piece to the puzzle that has been alluding Ford…..how many buyers actually want a BEV? Im not knocking the project, it’s just that this is now Ford’s fourth go at developing an affordable Electric vehicle and some level of skepticism is to be expected, especially when every other time Ford was convinced that the vehicle would succeed until it was realised that it wouldn’t…

Disagree strongly. The reason why Ford USA walked away from involvement in the first generation T6 Ranger was because they wanted a smaller lighter truck. That happened at the kick off meeting back in 2006 but Allan Mulally refuesed to even consider a replacement for the US Ranger, because he wanted Ford to offer existing products instead and just shut down all the BOFs (Ranger, Explorer & Sport Trac) and just push Escape. The Maverick is a great but unique vehicle in a sea of rather bland compact utilities, the moment all other brands start trying to copy it, Ford will change its tune and start calling it a commodity…..but until then it is a darling product just like Edge was when it first sold just below D3 Explorer’s price point.

And for money invested the Lightning was well spent in getting a place holder in there against the BEV sSilverado Interestingly, Ford first delayed and then canceled its ground up designed BEV replacement for the Lightning, I think the truth was it wasn’t all that different to the Chevrolet BEV Silverado that gets modest sales… I just think that Ford and GM thought they could replicate Tesla’s success with BEVs but with big profitable vehicles, it was a Cha Ching moment from word go, they thought they were going to cash in big time while still selling their highly profitable full sized ICE trucks……both brands drank the Kool aid and didn’t see the warning signs

This is all about green image and being seen as reducing CO2 emissions with current ICE vehicles. Let me explain by using Australia’s New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (based on Euro 6d) The V6 diesel Ranger has a NVES CO2 rating of over 220 g/km while the PHEV Ranger is down around 66 g/km which is basically the object of the new regulations - the elimination of high CO2 producing vehicles. From what I gather, the Shark 6 with bigger battery is even better with 46 g/100 km Its also an opportunity for businesses to make the switch - I think that now a consideration that’s required under the new ISO 9001 certification Australia's New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES) sets mandatory, annually decreasing CO2 𝐶𝑂2 emission limits for new passenger (Type 1) and light commercial vehicles (Type 2) starting in 2025. In 2025, the targets are 141g/km for Type 1 and 210g/km for Type 2, with limits tightening to 68g/km and 122g/km respectively by 2028 Key NVES CO2 𝐶𝑂2 Emission Targets (Headline Limits) 2025: Type 1 (141g/km), Type 2 (210g/km) 2026: Type 1 (117g/km), Type 2 (180g/km) 2027: Type 1 (92g/km), Type 2 (150g/km) 2028: Type 1 (68g/km), Type 2 (122g/km) How the NVES Works Scope: Applies to new passenger cars, SUVs, utes, and vans up to 4.5 tonnes gross vehicle mass. Targets: The targets are national averages for each manufacturer's fleet, meaning they can sell high-emission vehicles if offset by low-emission models. Credits & Penalties: Manufacturers earn credits for beating targets or incur penalties for exceeding them. Companies can trade credits. Compliance: The system incentivizes a faster transition to fuel-efficient, hybrid, and electric vehicles. Results (2025): In the first, partially-implemented period, many brands were above their targets, leading to the need for credit trading.