pffan1990

Interesting video. Thanks for sharing. The 'Frame' channel uploader made a mistake in the description by saying that it was Toyota instead of Ford. lol

I don't see the comments section. Is that Borg?

My post you quoted sure didn't age well. lol ? That post was made before the reveal. While I like the new EV, I was shocked that the MEB-based EV shown will have the singular 'Explorer' name. I did read elsewhere after the reveal that the larger MEB-based, also to be made at Cologne next year, will be called 'Explorer Sport'. That's odd if they chose to do that. Seems like the small one that has been revealed would have the 'Sport' name attached and the larger yet-to-be-revealed be the singular named 'Explorer'. That is, if they wanted to even leverage the Explorer name for those two. But I now realize that Explorer was a mistake to use for those two in the European market. The upcoming Canadian-made Explorer EV could have been exported to Europe to give customers there the Explorer EV. I also agree with you about European Ford names would have been better used for the two MEB-based EVs. My guess is that Farley chose to do the new breakdown reporting format this early to provide transparency to the investors and please Wall Street. I can kinda see his thinking with the decision to do this now. We'll see how this new reporting format this early goes for Ford.

I like it! It looks nice and fresh and the interior is really impressive! I missed the live reveal but did see the well-edited version of the reveal that's shown in the same YouTube link. I think it will do well in Europe. Surprised about the singular 'Explorer' name though. Looks like Ford is reverting back to the regional basis of sales with the naming, design, and packaging as they did before with Escort, Ranger, Focus, etc. As long as they do good enough marketing for the Explorer sub-branding, confusion should be kept to a minimum. Agreed about naming, which I think will still be the case with North American GE2 version. I like the design and the interior too. I think they will do good with this. There were lots of Fords throughout the years that had two products with same names but I can't remember of any with three. I think the Explorer may be the first. Sounds logical to me especially from marketing standpoint. There was also the F-Series from 1970s that had Explorer and Ranger trim lines before those two were later re-used as separate model names. The same with Ranger Edge, which was a nice sporty truck with monochromatic colors. The new Explorer EV is shorter than the Edge but Explorer Edge, if sold here, would be a good name for it. It likely won't so the singular Explorer name is good enough for Europe.

My guess is that the European MEB-based EV will be 'Explorer Sport' and North American version will be 'Explorer xx' with a different second name. I doubt the Sport name would be used on the Oakville-made one if the EV would be 3-row seating, which is a given. Perhaps simply 'Explorer E' or something to denote that it's an EV while the ICE Explorer lives on for as long as Ford plans to keep making it. I'm sure Ford has a plan to further expand the 'Explorer' into a sub-brand as part of its Icon vehicles. Wouldn't be the first time as they did with Explorer Sport and Explorer Sport Trac in the past.

Yeah I had thought about that too regarding the ability to build all three at capacity at LAP. It still could have been done. However, I do think Ford underestimated the demand and success of the Maverick and even the Bronco Sport. I didn't even think about the lower costs of building the BS in Mexico as well as exporting to other markets from there. Good points on that. With Farley's recent comments regarding the Escape, perhaps the BS could be built at LAP as an overflow plant, in addition to Escape and Corsair. The BS's mid-cycle update would be a good time to do that. But I don't think they'll do that if LAP is likely to be converted into EV plant later this decade, according to an insider or two. At least Ford is committed to building more of Maverick, BS, and Mach-E at their respective Mexican plants to meet demand. We'll see...

Agreed. It would have made sense to build the Bronco Sport in Louisville where the Escape and Corsair are made. I do think the LAP has plenty of production capacity to be able to build all three. This would free up Hermosillo Plant for Maverick and the new North American Transit Connect, which was itself going to be based on the Maverick. I do think, if I'm not mistaken, there were plans to do it this way before it was changed/canceled.

What happened to the other posts here? A separate thread regarding 'synthetic fuels vs bevs' or just 'synthetic fuels' could have been made and the synthetic fuels posts here be moved there. Did I miss something? Edit: Nevermind for my confusion, this is the new separate thread regarding the synthetic fuels vs BEVs. The original 'perpetual future Ford products' thread can be found here... https://blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/67722-perpetual-future-ford-products-thread/

Surely prices would go down over the next few years as the article mentioned. The same idea with costs of EV batteries going down over the next few years. Interesting points you made about limited use for classic cars and auto racing. That may be the direction it goes in the future; perhaps decades from now after full EV transition is complete. Similar to how some classic steam and coal-fired trains are still used today, but in low numbers, as 'moving museums'. But synthetic fuel would be good during the transition for at least the next 15-20 years until full EV transition has completed.

Yes, you're correct that the last major update to the E-Series was done in 2008. That's also when the front styling and the interior changes were done at the time. Perhaps the reason why Ford chose to continue using the Twin-I-Beam front suspension on the 2WD of new 2023 F-250 and F-350 is that they intended to continue using it on the updated E-Series. Otherwise, Ford could have just made 4x4 standard on all Super Duty to keep costs low. Seems logical that the newly-updated F-Series TIB front suspension be carried over to the new E-Series. I'm surprised Ford never offered a factory 4x4 or even AWD system for the Econoline/E-Series. Now is their chance to do so to stay competitive. I was just thinking out loud about moving engine forward but later realized that would cause more issues and add more expenses. The redesigned front (A-pillar to front bumper) end with new fenders, hood, grille/headlights/bumper should be good enough to provide more room. I do think the 7.3L gas V8 takes up a lot less space than the old V10 does to provide more interior space. Hopefully the update would provide fleet customers with better ease of maintenance and repairs within the engine bay. Surely the doghouse size could be reduced, if not eliminated altogether, with new interior. See below for other ideas regarding this solution. That's actually a good idea! Sharing the cab with Medium Duty and E-Series would reduce costs and be easier to produce. How about using the same aluminum cab from the newly-updated F-Series Super Duty Chassis Cab that's also produced at Avon Lake? They can use the same Super Duty cab for Medium Duty as-is in Chassis Cab form but use the one-piece flip nose hood. The new cab can be used on the E-Series with open back. The E-Series would need an adapter at the back of the new cab, to maintain the same curved sides as current E-Series cab back, so the current upfitters can still build their products from ambulance, shuttle bus, RV/motorhome, etc., with minimal changes, if needed. The E-Series and E-Series-based Stripped Chassis (and F-59 Stripped Chassis too) can also receive all-new redesigned frame to keep it competitive for ICE as well as easily-adaptable for EV either in the aftermarket (such as Winnebago's EV experimentation) as well as Ford's own EV setup from the factory. A great way to future-proof the new frame to prepare for when it gets time to start shifting away from ICE towards EVs before a true EV-based Stripped Chassis platform arrives at some point. As long as the redesigned frame maintains the same dimensions, from same wheelbase as well as same back-of-cab-to-rear-axle length as current E-Series, for the upfitters to continue producing their products. While at it, Ford could offer Super Duty's 4-door crew cab on the E-Series which would be great for some markets. Imagine the C-class RV market expanding to include crew cab E-Series with longer over-the-roof sleeper area, for one example. It may be that Ford simply plans on doing a very mild update to stay competitive at least through this decade. Or Ford could surprise us with major updates that would blow the competition away. We'll see.

I'm shocked that the E-Series has lasted this long. The basic cab design dates back to 1992 MY and the frame even older than that. I thought that this was going to go away at some point with another all-new commercial cutaway product in its place. But it seems that Ford has plans to keep the E-Series going. An all-new interior including usage of flat-screen would be good to reduce costs by sharing parts with Transit. While the cab may stay the same, they could redesign the entire A-pillar to front bumper section. Wider and longer fenders and longer hood. Perhaps even one-piece forward-tilting for ease of maintenance and repairs. This would be able to reduce the doghouse size and accommodate the larger engine with ease. The last time a diesel V8 engine was used was in the 2010 MY. The 6.7L turbo-diesel V8 engine would be able to fit with the new front end redesign. Surely the frame would have some updates too including the suspension bits. But I'm sure Ford wants to minimize the cost of the updates while having the updates substantial enough to stay competitive. So we'll see.

That actually looks nice. ----- I seen something interesting earlier today about synthetic fuel that Ford is looking into. With its alliance with Red Bull, the synthetic fuel is carbon-neutral where it puts out as much carbon as it was used to produce the fuel. No modification would be needed for any production gasoline engines to run the synthetic fuel. Prices are already dropping on the one that Porsche uses for their 911 in their Mobil 1 Supercup racing series. Farley is quoted as saying that he wants loyal customers of F-Series, Bronco, and Mustang to continue to have experience with them. He said that electric tech is not yet capable for those who use trucks to tow. So the synthetic fuel is a good way to go for the next few decades with these work trucks and those 'Icons' like Bronco, Mustang, etc. It's a good idea that Ford has Blue, Model E, and Pro. Perhaps the S650 isn't the last ICE Mustang after all? This will be interesting to see what the future holds. https://www.foxnews.com/auto/ford-save-v8-mustang-electric-synthetic-fuel

I noticed that too. There also appears to be a chase rack on the bed behind the cab. It's slightly taller than the cab roof which I think provides aerodynamics over the open bed.

Just wanted to let you know I read all your above post. So if it disappears, I have already read it. I think it's a server glitch as it sometimes happens to me too. Maybe try using word processor to type out thoughts and then copy-paste here. I use TextEdit plain-text word processor on my iMac to type out the long comments and then paste here. Sometimes while adding more, I copy/paste back to TextEdit and save. It happens to me too and I think it's due to going over a certain amount of characters. But I'll be sending you a message in your inbox later where we can continue our convo. I don't want to derail this thread. But I appreciate your response. --- Back on topic: I really do like the new 2024 Ranger based on what has been shown so far. I like the subtle Maverick styling on the front.

I saw that too about him being the Ranger vehicle engineer and his full name included. His post signature indicates that he's retired. It does make sense that this may be a direct leak or he just isn't right in his head. lol I haven't seen the other forums yet even though I lurk those daily. I'm about to check them out soon before going to sleep. Yeah it makes sense that this was likely a leak as others are saying.

Somebody's going to be out of their job. I'm surprised the forum even kept the photos on there.

I'm looking forward to seeing the reveal of next generation Ranger. I know Ford will hit a homerun with this one. I'm glad that they still have Super Cab planned for it as I mentioned in my previous post. It also seems that there will be two bed lengths for the Crew Cab too. This will give the new Ranger a huge advantage over the competition. The possible reveal at New York makes sense because it would give time for customers to go over all the info after reveal, read through order guides, talk to their dealers, etc. within a few days or so of the ordering starts. Maybe the reveal is before NYIAS at a standalone event and then it gets shown at NYIAS for the tourists there? Looks like Ford is really cutting down on the time gap between reveal, ordering date, and start of production. A lot better than reveal and waiting over a year before ordering.

Agreed with everything you said above about Brett and auto journalists in general. One of the things that gets me is that despite evidence to the contrary, which can be easily looked up in a matter of minutes, the so-called auto journalists continued to say the 7G Mustang was going to be CD6-based, even if most of us already knew this was not the case. Some of the writers were still saying that all the way up until the reveal last September. While this is the only auto forum I am active on with an account, I do lurk many other forums without accounts. Those include the Mustang 6G/7G, Bronco 6G, Bronco Sport, and the F-150, Lightning, F-Series Super Duty, and Maverick of those forums. I read the posts and check out pics but don't have accounts to participate. I'm shocked at how quick users attack one another over an opinion, gatekeeping, and whether or not a user is an insider. This happens on few of these forums but mostly on the Bronco6G that I've seen. Some Mustang ones too. There was one guy on the Bronco6G who claimed to work for Webasto and warned, quite some long time ago, that the top was not in good shape and to prepare for bad news. They ridiculed him but he was right. The Webasto top problems occurred and users there suddenly realized they had a legit user there but ran him off. There are too many Debbie Downers there and other forums too, where the sun just won't come up in the morning over any news, and Ford just can't win. That's why I'm glad to only be active on this forum. It's really bad on the Mustang 6G/7G where some users are really full of it. One guy, whose name I won't say here, has the tendency to refer to his username as a third person, acts as if he's an insider. He ridicules others and acts smug whenever he's right but backtracks and insults when he's wrong. He said there was going to be a shorter wheelbase version specifically for the new Shelby variant with no back seats. Well, interesting that isn't happening. I have seen your posts there and enjoy reading them as I enjoy reading yours here. So insightful and knowledge that the posts are well-written as a long book chapter, with words and lots of photos. You were right with your inside info, especially with guessing timeline of public prototype testing, reveal, production, all based on past history of Mustang development. Of course some there ridiculed you on that but you were still correct on that. Back to Brett though, it is infuriating that he gaslit the Mustang forums with that horrible article with the alleged window sticker sheet that had the supposed 450hp figure for the 5.0L V8. Some considered it a legit article and said 450 horsepower was enough. Then came debate on whether or not 450 is needed or should it be around 480, etc. Brett done divided the Mustang community with that article which we now know as false. Ford then announced the correct power figures, which I wonder whether it was a direct response to that horribly-written article. I won't link it here but if you find it, the original article is still there on the FA site without any edits or revisions. Lots of readers roasted Brett in the reader comment about the lack of editing and for causing quite a stir. I'm surprised he even still writes for Ford Authority after that. I wasn't aware you attended the Mustang Stampede event. Hope you enjoyed it despite some disappointments. Clearly they didn't rehearse the event as one woman on stage, who works at the Mustang plant, was so nervous that she couldn't say what she actually did at the plant. She was so nervous while also announcing the start of the reveal where the new Mustangs were driven in. But I tell you, I was irked seeing StangMode standing on stage being interviewed by the host. He claimed for a long time on his YouTube that he had inside info that there was going to be a 4-door ICE Mustang sedan which isn't happening. At the event sometime prior to the Stampede, he claims that they were going to reveal the new Mustang, but it was just a camoed prototype under the tarp. That right there destroyed his whole credibility along with many other things he said which wasn't true. Out of all the brilliant Mustang YouTubers, they had to have him? I won't say any more as I don't want to derail this thread, but I'm sure you know about him and how many fans don't like him.

I didn't think the Tremor would trickle its way down to the Super Cab beyond its current Super Crew/Crew Cab short bed configuration. I'm just glad that Ford is at least still doing the Super Cab for the next gen Ranger. As for Ford Authority, I would take any articles written by Brett Foote with a grain of salt. It's already shown that he either has wrong sources or he uses lots of uneducated guesses. So the FX4 is a logical thinking with this as what 'wildosvt' said too. I noticed that FX2 rear-drive package also has front skid plate too. It's not exclusive only to Tremor which Brett seems to think.

Perhaps the 'Mustang Mach-E Sport'?

Yes, I think there's confusion with the 'Explorer Sport' name which is likely going to be the GE2 Explorer variant. I do wonder if Ford EU has plans to resurrect the 'Capri' name? A few years ago, the Ford of Europe chief of design, Amko Leeenarts, expressed his desires to resurrect the Capri including its familiar design. Probably won't happen though. There is a recent photo of the new MEB BEV where a blanket cover was moved just a bit to show its basic front design. Nothing 'capri' about it. But I also doubt it will be called Explorer Sport especially in Europe only on the VW MEB. https://www.carscoops.com/2019/11/ford-capri-to-make-a-return-who-would-not-want-that-says-design-chief/

I'm not a GM fan nor a Corvette fan though I do recognize its significance in the American history of cars as a 2-seater sports car. They may as well make it a sub-brand using the Corvette name as what Ford is doing with Mustang. The second name being for the additional family of vehicles. Like the 'Mustang Mach-E' for example while singular 'Mustang' being the traditional rear drive 2+2 coupe/convertible. They can do that with Corvette by keeping its current car the 'Corvette' and the EVs the 'Corvette A', 'Corvette B', etc. but with actual names instead of letters. However, I'm more curious about the 'future trio of electric Mustangs' the article mentioned. Does GM know something we don't know about future Mustang EVs? Specifically the 'trio' of them. Hmm...

Especially when they don't realize how quickly and far along engine technology has gone. Just 15 years ago, the 2007 Mustang GT's 24v SOHC 4.6L V8 engine only had 300 horsepower and 320 lb-ft of torque. That was actually impressive back then! Now, the engine is a 5.0L with lots of high-tech features... 32v DOHC with variable timing, dual injection, etc. and etc. Then look even further back 25 years ago to 1997 - the second year of the 4.6L V8, by the way - and find that it only put out 215 horsepower and 285 lb-ft of torque for the 16v SOHC and 305 horsepower and 300 lb-ft of torque for the 32v DOHC. It's impressive with how far Ford has gone with their engine capability and technology, especially considering it's an old engine! Then there's the fact that the 'S650' Mustang actually lives on rather than canceled as many people previously feared. Some people just can't be happy.

Wow you were spot on! ? We discussed this before and I liked your idea of evolving the current MME platform into a new one while using tech from GE2 for the 'C2' based US vehicles. A great way to amortize the development costs of the MME platform. I previously suggested the Maverick, Bronco Sport, and even 1st generation Escape for this platform which is now 'CE1'. I also previously mentioned the 2nd generation Escape BEV could eventually be on the GE2 once the Explorer/Aviator was out and all initial production bugs were worked out. I even had an idea of having the next generation MME be on GE2 (I previously thought this was Ford's plan and it may still be that) and then taking the current MME (after it's updated/redesigned onto new now-known-as 'CE1') and rename it 'Mustang Mach-E Sport', creating another new member of the Mustang family. But now I see that the GE2 is apparently a mid-size 3-row BEV? This was news to me because I thought the GE2 architecture was scalable to include smaller 2-row BEVs. This could have eventually been for Escape BEV, the next generation MME, as well as other global small BEVs as well. I'm sure that's still the case but the 2-row BEVs from GE2 would still be a long way off since Ford wants to get the high-margin Explorer/Aviator and other mid-size BEVs out as soon as possible. Makes me wonder what Ford's plans were for the MME in general as well as the true 2-door Mustang BEV if the GE2 was a mid-size 3-row BEV architecture. I may have this tidbit wrong so please correct me if I'm wrong regarding GE2. I think the next generation 'MME' should evolve onto larger GE2 with both 2-row and 3-row (two lengths) as a sporty Mustang-inspired Lifestyle crossover and offered with a 5,000-pound factory tow package. The smaller 'MME Sport' continues as it's marketed but on the newer CE1. This could be offered with a 2,000-pound or 3,500-pound factory tow package. We shall see what happens. This is why your idea of what is now known as CE1 is logical. It's a great short-term solution for smaller 2-row US-based 'C2' vehicles. Until either the actual scalable-smaller GE2 BEVs come out - likely later in decade or early 2030s - or if the CE1 eventually becomes GE2-based smaller CE2, which would be an all-new global smaller BEV architecture. That would be great for 2nd generation BEVs of Maverick, Bronco Sport, Escape, and globally: Fiesta, Focus, Galaxy, etc. I seen some suggested Capri and Cortina, etc. Those would work in Europe and there's old nameplates that could be leveraged in Australia and other places too with the global CE2, but that's still a long way off. By then, at least the development costs would be reduced and hopefully the battery tech by then would enable longer range, quicker charge, and be safer, while still being cheaper to develop and produce. Yes the LAP in Louisville did have a long-term future planned. Ford already done lots of work in making the plant green as possible over the years. They wouldn't have done that if they intended to eventually shut it down or sell the plant in the near future. The new battery plant is not far from LAP which already told me that Ford intends on keeping LAP for its EV future. So I'm thrilled with this new info, though still not 100% officially confirmed.

I agree and it appears that Farley does too. It seems that he's going forward with the GE2 and TE1 BEV architecture for BEVs in North America instead of the MEB-based vehicles as in Europe.