akirby

You can't include f150 and super duty and leave out Continental. And Puma and C-Max were way more car than crossover. I don't think there is a lot of overlap in trucks as you say although I said above I think they could replace Ranger with a new unibody like Maverick but more aggressive with more capability closer to Ranger. I think it could be cheaper and more profitable leaving MAP to expand Bronco offerings.

So it was perfectly fine to have Puma, Fiesta, Focus, c-Max, Fusion, Taurus and Continental but having 5 or 6 trucks is bad? I think this new affordable ICE truck at TTP will end up being a cheaper to build and more versatile Maverick that might end up replacing Ranger as the midsized truck offering. I

The fate of afeela? (for the taylor swift fans)

Far better than ecosport but tiny cars just don't sell well in the US.

I guess that's the advantage of a relatively low volume (Initially at least) new product. You're not losing existing revenue like cd6 explorer and not losing out on billions of new revenue so it's a lot easier to justify a slow managed rollout. Also keeps costs down. We'll see if they stick with it but maybe the skunkworks team really opened Farley's eyes to a different way of doing business.

The ones I've seen you press on one side and it pops out then you pull it to open.

I stand corrected. I thought the images of the ce1 pickup were single cab but now I see it's more Maverick sized. I don't think it will be larger than Maverick though.

Flush is ok if they're still mechanical.

If you're going that far just do a full restomod with a new frame, modern suspension and coyote powertrain.

There you go. Lower prices (or perception-of lower prices) yields more volume. Raise prices and volume usually siffers.

I guess that debunks the theory that not having cheap cars will hurt sales of higher priced vehicles. Good vehicles like F series, Bronco Sport, Maverick, Bronco, Ranger and Explorer will sell regardless. The harping on affordability and lower trims just confirms my previous statements that price sells. And it can be profitable if you don't need big incentives. That's why I think one of the TTP new trucks will be a slightly smaller than Maverick reg cab similar to the ce1 pickup. True entry level allowing a new Maverick to move up a little.

I'd love to see incentives overlaid on sales. Was it 2nd qtr when they did employee pricing or was that last year?

To me an EREV only makes sense if you normally drive less than 100 miles per day empty but occasionally need to take a long trip or tow something. Otherwise it's essentially a powerboost hybrid.

BTW just because I explain why Ford does something doesn't necessarily mean I agree with it. But sometimes mistakes of the past force less than ideal decisions now. I think the biggest goof other than EVs was not doing an even cheaper version of c2 a decade earlier and using it for edge, escape, fusion, focus, maverick and bronco sport with hybrid powertrains and having 3 c2 plants.

Because cR-V is more important to Honda than Escape is to Ford and Honda is more conservative. Ford did the same thing with Lightning because f150 is important.

That I agree with. Farley likes to swing for the fences with new ideas with no backup plan.

That's what they tried with the 2013 Fusion. I bought a Titanium. It was a great vehicle. Still the best looking mid sized family sedan IMO. But buyers only wanted cheap SE models and they had to put $4k on the hood to compete. Better styling would have increased Escape sales for sure but not necessarily increased profits. They are working on a new utility to replace Escape - either a C2 to build in Hermosillo or some joint venture with Nissan. I've advocated for a longer Bronco Sport. The problem is it's taking way too long to get here.

Commodities bring lower prices because there is nothing compelling about the product to support higher prices so price is the only factor. Nobody is going to buy premium ketchup - lowest prices always sells more. Maverick is a perfect example of a non commodity lower priced vehicle. It basically still has no real competition but started out at the low end of the market. They've been able to raise prices and maintain sales because it's not a commodity and that yields healthy profit margins.

But that is the reason whether you agree with it or not. You have new models to build so you either have to expand and build a new factory or free up an existing one. Ford chose to build one new plant but decided it was too expensive to build 2 more so they killed edge and nautilus to build the 3 rows and killed escape to build ce1. It's corporate finance 101. I'm sure edge and escape were profitable but at very low margins so they were the easiest to get rid of. Without the EVs they would not have killed them.

I agree that public charging is key but I don't expect huge numbers at first - maybe 50k-75k for the truck, a little more for the CUV. They can ramp up slowly and will eventually have 4 models in the plant. More people will put up with less than ideal public charging on a $25k ev than a $45k EV.

No but it's a hell of a lot further along than a theory on a powerpoint. First, if their ideas had not proven achievable they would never have announced the skunkworks project at all. Nobody is saying it's a sure thing and there will be challenges but factory workers have seen details close up and that tells me they're far enough along that it will come to fruition and meet most of the goals.

2 separate things. Buyers either want or are willing to live with EV limitations or not. For the ones willing to purchase an EV they might not be able to afford what they want or what they want might not be available yet. Look at large suv monthly sales and compare it to small cars and suvs. Out of 100 potential buyers almost all could afford a small car but only 10% could afford a new Expedition. As price goes up you lose potential buyers. That's why having a lower priced EV that can be sold at a decent profit is so attractive. That's where the biggest volume is. The challenge in the past was it was difficult to compete in that space and make healthy margins. That's where ce1 has the potential to be a game changer.

Nothing is guaranteed, but they've been working on it for almost 3 years now and building actual vehicles. This isn't vaporware. That's why it was a skunkworks project led by outsiders. Clean sheet no corporate distraction or impediments. New factory new processes. It doesn't have to be exactly the same. Gigacasting, electrical, new assembly processes can all be extrapolated to ICE.

I don't think that's it. I think it's much simpler. Start with 100 people who can afford a new car at $25k. Only 75 can afford a $35k car. Only 40 can afford a $45k car. Every $5k in price reduces the pool of available buyers. That's why for cars and SUVs the volume is inversely proportional to price. Want to increase sales? Drop prices. Not unique to EVs.

That would be made at MAP. Not enough volume to be in Tennessee and it doesn't fit the affordable moniker. A new affordable truck model has to be unibody and compact and/or midsized. It's the only thing that makes sense given the new direction with ce1.