Moosetang

I don't know why, but I got serious Chevy vibes from the stacked headlights under the camo.

Going to be one of those rare ones where I like the tail better than the front. The perched-on-top look for the headlights is going a long way towards throwing off the nose.

It's interesting how the Jeep interior reviews. Lots of praise for character, sorta mixed positive comments on comfort, but definitely smaller and noticably more cramped than Ranger. Gonna be a lot easier for Ford to add character than for FCA to add space.

I'm fairly close to a Ford dealership, even though this seems to be Honda country most days. Seen 2 Rangers in the wild, haven't seen one sitting on the lot when I've been by.

Hadn't seen that statement, interesting. I guess we'll see what comes.

Ford's said their BEV F-150 is still based on the F-150 chassis so some of the mules were certainly Fords. I wouldn't be shocked if Ford's F-150 mule and Rivian's F-150-bodied mule look pretty different, considering one is trying to hide it's Ford identity while the other is trying to hide that it's a Rivian by using a Ford body.

All else equal, I prefer "maverick" to "bronco scout." That said, if they're attempting to make Bronco a brand-within-a-brand it's a pretty decent option and I much prefer it to "bronco II" or something like that. Maybe the Maverick name will end up appearing on the new "affordable nameplate."

Interesting news to be sure, and an extra layer on this is that Ford seems to have passed up the option to do some sort of investment/partnership with Lucid. Rivian must have really impressed, and/or offered enticing terms.

The fascia isn't as bad as I was expecting, but it's still got issues. And I still don't exactly love details here and there around the rest of the vehicle. Oh well. Maybe it will grow on me, maybe I'll just ignore it until the MCE. The Lincoln still looks damned good.

Hmmm...no, sir, I don't like it. I'm holding onto a bit of hope for when I see this finalized and in the flesh, but so far I'm pretty let down. The Aviator is just completely great execution of the things Lincoln wanted to do with their vehicle while this....isn't. The front has a derpy face, the sides are poorly executed, and the center stack looks like GM designed it. Woof.

Well done to FoMoCo, Lincoln, and everyone who has their hands in this vehicle. Looks amazing, and great specs. I eagerly look forward to reviews.

Given the state of affairs, there' essentially 2 things politicians could do to impact GM's plans here. One would be to drive materials costs down by ending the tariff war, the other would be to offer infrastructure/recapitalization loans (or at least gov-backed loans) to pay for modernizing and retooling the plants to produce the vehicles GM needs to sell. Since neither is likely (and both would probably need to happen for it to work), finger-pointing is what we get. Tax breaks and photo ops with His Orangeness aren't gonna keep those plants open, and nobody's going to quasi-nationalize the company by passing laws forbidding the closing of plants.

Knee-jerk reaction is the nose looks, well, bad.....though not disastrously so. Certainly a let down compared to the very good Lincoln (concept) nose and the baby Bronco. Rest looks decent. Completely willing to believe the final product will come across better. Still, was hoping for a home run and I'm just not seeing it.

Lest we forget Ford designed some nearly perfect rideshare/new mobility electric cars years before such things were a thing.

All-new frame is interesting, it brings me to wonder if the "Made more like NA wants" Ranger coming in a few years might be re-using that frame (maybe adapted for things like Vs). Seems like a large investment for a short run if not.

Yeah that face continues to be not great on the Edge. I remain nostalgic for the 3-bar, against all sanity and logic.

Pretty glowing review, nits aside, and looks like it's certainly worthy.

F cancer, man.

How does a Ranger tell you to turn your head and cough?

Can we get a boxer flat-4 with it?

So does Contintental, I think it will be fine.

Just because someone on Breitbart says it's happening that way doesn't make it so. Canadian government and Canadian steel industry officials have pointed out that there's no massive stream of Chinese steel "posing" as Canadian steel for import into the US. And that imposing blanket tariffs on Canadian steel is further hurting their ability to fight cheap Chinese steel on the opem market. If Trump really wanted to fight Chinese steel dumping, he would be imposing greater tariffs on China, not Canada, and hammering Xi Jinping about currency manipulation. Strangely, though, at every opportunity he's let them skate. And suddenly, right after the Chinese goverment dumps money into a Trump-brand building prohect, he's cut a deal to create thousands of jobs for a Chinese company which is guilty of massive industrial espionage in the US. That's what happens when you elect a successful scam artist out to milk his office for all its worth.

Part of this equation is going to come down to how the cars Mustang competes against react to the new market reality. If the other pony cars and imports that Mustang is battling scale back their refresh cycle to save money, Ford likely will take a somewhat similar route. On the other hand, it's possible some of them will crank up the refresh tempo in order to compete more effectively, in which case it will be interesting to see how aggressively Ford responds.

It's interesting to me that neither Musk nor those with interest in/influence upon his company have realized that what Tesla needs is a Gwynne Shotwell. Gwynne is the President and C.O.O. of SpaceX, and is generally the person whose job is to translate Musk's high-concept ideals and desires into a pretty well-functioning (though far from perfect) company. And because she is known to be competent and business-savy, when investors and the like need someone to reassure them that SpaceX isn't off it's rocker they can go to her rather than trying to pierce Musk's personal reality bubble.

I don't even know where to begin with this. Keynesian economics rebuilt the West after WW2 and produced the "American Golden Age" that people who are now wistful for better days remember, 30 of the last "40 years" from the 70s to the late-2000s were rather Friedman's Monetarism, and despite 2008 it seems like some are trying to resurrect it. Economic policy, of whatever sort, is not directly responsible for the National Debt, nor are trade deficits, and the largest debt increase of the past decade was this Administration's business-focused tax cuts. Reducing the buying power of American consumers by causing costs to spike, however, risks a slowdown over the long haul. Especially retaliatory tariffs make it harder for the industries to compete in markets other than our own. Kudlow is a TV clown whose actual career as an economist died decades ago in a cloud of addiction issues. Since the 90's the only thing he's ever done is toe an arch-conservative party line to drum up TV ratings, and that's why he was hired by the current Administration. Even supporters of Trump economic policy, whatever they believe that to mean, were critical of his hiring on the grounds that he's an unqualified nimnal and likely to just rubber-stamp whatever comes from Oval Office rather than attempt to craft realistic policy. Even if you believe the current system of trade, and the various trade deals now in place, are all terribly wrong and require reconstruction or replacement, Unilaterally slapping tariffs on random industries is a terrible way to go about it. Like it or not, the other side of a trade agreement gets a vote. And if you demonstrate that you will violate agreements on a whim, punish friends and reward enemies, and so on you're gonna get a much worse "deal" from the other side of the table.