jpd80

A quick calculation shows that the V6 producing 226 lb ft at 4,000 rpm is approx 172 hp. I think this is a similar setup as the BYD Sharks 6 but instead of the 1.5 turbo I-4 they use a V6 In any regard, I agree with you that if you have a 14,000 lb trailer load on, a discharged battery is not a good idea but wonder how often that is likely to occur. In that instance, Thers a direct connection between the ICE engine and the wheels to improve efficiency, so hopefully, towing on a flat road would allow a decent speed plus some power going to the battery…

Correct and I would put the T3 in the same category as nice looking aero F150 (better than EV Silverado) You can also see why I was mentioning to RMC re CE1, the graft of mid engined front onto pickup and utility/vans While that’s a picture of the 3-row above, it gives a glimpse of what Ford is doing on a slightly smaller vehicle. The more I look at it the more I think it should work well on a mid sized vehicle… The clinical groups rejected the 3- row because they were expecting like the Lucid Gravity but that’s something Ford can do on T3 SUV……wonder if that’s a plan that saves ton of grief?

Sounds like you saw the early mock up of the 3-Row. Ford made big changes because of battery range issues. If Ford had stuck with that styling like the attached Gravity, it would have sold well but battery range would have sucked. The later modified Ford 3-row Utility was very dart shaped at the front….and more like a crossover than SUV That issue Ford was having with clinics was that the groups were expecting a boxy 3-Row like Explorer. If you look at eh Ford presentation and squint hard, you’ll get an idea of the actual profile I seem to be unable to link the motor authority report form May 23, 2023 but it shows the Gen 2 Ford 3- Row profile after Aero updates..later in the article. You can see that the seating positions were significantly lowered making it more like a dart shaped crossover….. https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1139733_ford-three-row-electric-suv-with-350-miles-of-range-coming-in-2025

If that was the case then, CE1 would have CyberTruck like proportions but smaller with better sheet metal styling.. I could see how that would work for everything on the list - pickup, Utility, Van…..heck maybe even a sports coupe. As with every case, small changes in styling can have massive impact, I hope they get the balance right.. And that’s what worries many folks….kinda like what GM did with short nose on the EV Silverado. I don’t know if that proportion works with more conservative squarer truck line…

The annoying add on to that is Ford Europe has been doing an awful job of supplying vehicles to ROW markets, places like Australia are thriving on sales of Ranger and Everest exactly because everything else in a passenger vehicle is unobtainable….they're virtually ceding the market to Toyota and Mazda.

Good point. I’m hoping that CE1 styling is another Taurus moment for Ford, the proportions of Ford’s newest EVs are different to what people are used to with ICEs but it could avalanche that interest in a positive way. I’m not a fan of short noses on things other than vans but I’m willing to wait and let others make up their own minds.

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? All of this feels like Ford is trying to make people like the types of vehicles it wants to make, not make the vehicles it know people want to buy……or maybe it’s just clueless about what the market wants exactly because those buyers really don’t know themselves…

I remember the GM ignition switch issue from 2014, many thought the 800,000 recall would hurt GM but it became the perfect opportunity for dealers to start talking to owners about their next new vehicle…

I just hope that people don’t throw too much expectation on CE1 vehicles to to take all before them. A smallish mid sized BEV pickup, SUV and Van is a great start to heading Ford down the right path but we still need to see how the market accepts these vehicles and their new era proportions…

Yes but only the vehicle concept was sped through in three months, engineering the vehicle took relatively shorter time because most of the Eng/dev is based on C2 Transit Connect floorpan and other C2 electrical and mechanical modules and suppliers, so basically a new tophat combined with US Escape powertrains. So I would put it to you that Recall issues are due to the poor quality of parts supplied either by external suppliers or Ford own power train. A lot of Maverick’s major issues are also share with Escape/Corsair. Even with the big book of rules, Ford still couldn’t get an acceptable quality level. Once again, Ford delivers a great little vehicles filled with worrisome parts quality issues.. Back to CE1 development and yes, I agree that we still to seen how the market takes to those vehicles. It is surprising that Jim Farley would share the actual cost savings developing the vehicles (30% of normal) and I’m under no illusion that this is just Jim Farley’s latest bag of “magic beans” but, it shows that Ford is really trying to change its ways and with that we should give them the chance to prove it. What the CE1 team did is take in external knowledge of best practice from companies like Tesla and BYD, If you want to compete with those companies, at least start at the same cost and manufacturing base.

As reported in another thread, CE1 BEVs were developed at $0.30 on the dollar of what Ford Engineering would have cost. A lot of the issue at Ford is the built up bureaucracy, the big book of Ford design and development rules that must never be ignored lest bad things happen……. Perhaps it’s time for ICE developments to become small efficient brownfield projects. Maybe start with what’s already there and implement all the cost saving and efficiency ideas and root out all the nonsense.

Now that’s a huge kick in the ass to Ford Engineering but Farley is not ready to drop the other shoe just yet.. (maybe future ICE programs should be run that way too….)

Ford’s original intent was for T3 to take over from most F150 sales, so imagine how that would have skewed the development of NG ICE F150. Fast forward to now and clearly, everything has changed in terms of priorities, T3 will have more modest sales goals while NG F150 will still be expected to be a major profit earner…….. Now imagine that a lot of the Ford Blue engineering teams were laid off because Ford was switching to a more BEV oriented manufacturer………there’s a bit of fast footwork going on behind the scenes.

I’ve been critical of many if not all of Ford’s CEO since Nasser in the early 2000s. I have to keep reminding myself that the CEO works hand in glove with the wishes of the board and Bill Ford has a big say in what the company’s direction will be…… he fired Mark Fields because he didn’t move quickly enough with electrification plans….as it turns out, Fields was probably right to be cautious…. Getting the pace of change right is so important. Too slow to market and you miss being the major product, too quick to market and there’s not enough buyers…,. Today, the the issue is balancing quality fixes against warranty costs and accountants that show its sometimes cheaper to do less than eliminating a problem…

Also, if current government is more open to reviewing CAFE limits and possibly make things easier, it would be wise to hold off and see what happens…

Not an excuse but, I suspect that part of the new delay was caused by the GM announcement that the 2026 Twins would be a refresh of the current versions, not the anticipated all new vehicles that Ford would have to closely match in arrival time. I agree that it’s not good when Ford stretches out product cycles, risking buyers getting tired of buying a more expensive new version of basically the thing they’re trading in. Someone has convinced Farley that this makes good sense…… or maybe it’s also linked to Lightning running longer due to T3 delay, the use of current cycle F150 could also be the reason not to change things but that sounds a bit like the tail wagging the dog….

But what Farley comes up against is that Ford’s accountants are demonstrating that it’s probably better to keep taking the up front savings from screwing suppliers and just deal with warranty issues if or when they happen is cheaper than fixing quality issues. Somewhere in that haze is the right balance of fixes that gets customer satisfaction back on track and the negative press gone.

Meh, it was reworked to be very aero to help increase battery range… so yeah, it had a dart shape which was the opposite to what the “Boxy SUV” folks expected.

that was more the styling of the BEV 3-row… If CE1 has a usable frunk, then it most likely wouldn’t be that swoopy….

Absolutely. But it’s not cab forward in the traditional sense, in those designs the driver and passenger footwells are forward of the front wheels. From what I can see re CE1, it’s more like the short nose proportions of the cybertruck but without the ugly stainless steel body. Was this the aim of those ex-Tesla engineers and stylists? The only concern I have (and probably Ford too) is that the proportions are just so different to a current conventional ICE design. I agree with your thoughts that buyers may take some time getting used to that closer to the front seating position, the feeling that it’s less safe would be uppermost., convincing folks that the crash protection zone is still adequate…. Id love to know how Ford can continually take what would be potentially a good idea on affordable BEVs and more or less sabotage it by going too far with radical design that they know is a hard sell to buyers.. In his quest to throw out the big book of Ford rules, Farley may have created new marketing issues. I hope not but this is going to take a leap of Fatih……

I don’t think it’s as much as Ford losing significant F150 sales in the past year as combined F Series sales were similar between 2023 and 2024 and F150 being roughly 60% of those sales. Looking at RAV4 sales, Toyota managed to lift sales from 434,493 in 2023 to 475,195 last year more to the point, I think RAV4 won because Ford and GM are not competing strongly enough against the RAV4 but instead want only the high value customers which opens the door to Toyota

This is a bit like selling the short nose of the Transit/Transit Connect to a completely new audience. While you’d never try to sell them a van, the short nose may have some appeal

Most definitely, agree with that. Im not disputing the need for larger vehicles and for them to be treated fairly with respect to the load carrying and tow requirements…..just think about the partition of class 2A vs 2B. In the end, it seems like most people either side of the CAFE limits got what they wanted…

The reason Mulally left Boeing was because he was passed over for CEO several times. Back then, Boeing was already in touble and people who became CEO actually made things much worse. After leaving Boeing, Mulally was asked about the troubles at his old employer but he was too smart to embroil himself in those issues…

Quite simply, the answer is both. The lobby groups were definitely there but it takes two to tango and the government of the day was sympathetic and willing to support manufacturers building larger less efficient vehicles all the way up to the GFC. I wonder where we would be today if CAFE regs had been more reasonable for cars and slightly tougher for utilites than Trucks…..water under the bridge but fun thinking about how the government basically legislated a pathway for most buyers to switch to Trucks and utilities.