Ford Universal Electric Platform

[rmc523]

Ford EV Strategy Does Not Currently Include Solid State Batteries

 

According to Automotive News, there are currently “no plans for production of solid state batteries in the near future,” news that comes directly from Alvaro Masias, a battery research manager at The Blue Oval. However, Ford is apparently still interested in solid state battery technology, and will continue to explore its potential use in future models, regardless. “It’s a possible future technology,” Masias said.

[DeluxeStang]

16 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I just find it funny how Farley or Musk spin a topic to suit their narrative 

 

No buyer ever asked for overly complicated vehicles that was always done by manufacturers to suit their own ends. It was all to boost profits but look at where we are now, vehicles get more expensive while CEOs cry poor…….

Couldn't agree more, hopefully this is a wake up call. I hope Ford realizes it's not a monolith, some customers really want the lastest tech, and others want a more traditional experience. For instance, the next gen mustang should focus more on style, performance, and bringing the price down, hopefully significantly, instead of being loaded with tech like the s650. But a lot of their Lincoln products should be a tech powerhouse. 

[Motorpsychology]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

Couldn't agree more, hopefully this is a wake up call. I hope Ford realizes it's not a monolith, some customers really want the lastest tech, and others want a more traditional experience. For instance, the next gen mustang should focus more on style, performance, and bringing the price down, hopefully significantly, instead of being loaded with tech like the s650. But a lot of their Lincoln products should be a tech powerhouse. 

Whether or not the tech is costly to develop and install, profit comes in part from tying it to a subscription, In Ford's case Blue Cruise. I think Ford has done its homework and priced the vehicle and subscription based on its take rate to make money. From my personal experience, Ford's option & trim level content are more restrictive than other manufacturers. The Blue Cruise-equipped Explorer ST-Line that Ford repurchased from us was almost $2000 more MSRP than the Mazda CX-90 Turbo Preferred we replaced it with, and it has leather vs cloth (ActiveX) upholstery and a sunroof. Other content was comparable; we didn't give up anything.The Blue Cruise would have been an additional $745 for a "lifetime" subscription, had I wanted it. 

Ford isn't the only company installing equipment then charging a subscription to make it functional, the CX-90's wifi is subscription based. But I see it as a slippery slope. Remote start? Auto wipers? 360º cameras? What's next?

[Rick73]

7 minutes ago, Motorpsychology said:

What's next?

Some customers walking away.

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Some customers walking away.

And this is the interesting part, corporations like Ford are betting that more of its buyers will stay and pay higher prices. For the most part, that  seems to work, especially with the highly profitable F Series.

[Rick73]

16 hours ago, jpd80 said:

And this is the interesting part, corporations like Ford are betting that more of its buyers will stay and pay higher prices. For the most part, that  seems to work, especially with the highly profitable F Series.

Yeah, to Farley’s point on cutting back on autonomous driving features, and start with a watered-down version instead, it raises the question of whether there is actually a middle ground that can save buyers significant costs longer term.  Some drivers seem to love autonomous driving features while others at opposite extreme don’t want anything to do with it.  I don’t see a great solution to meet everyone’s preferences.

 

The problem I anticipate is that when vehicles are designed with that capability in mind, the vast majority of costs are already baked in so eliminating the feature by deactivating the software doesn’t really save buyers significant costs.  Manufacturers can reduce price but that’s just a silly game like Tesla is doing with newest affordable 3 and Y “Standard” trims, and have also done in past with limiting battery capacity.  The cost is sunk and someone has to pay for it one way or another.  When they turn something off in order to promote buying something else it may come off as controlling, intrusive and disingenuous.  That would not be good for a brand.

 

I like driving and find it relaxing so I’m probably not a good judge of autonomy’s true and full value.  Loss of privacy and possible system failure do concern me so would always avoid given a choice.

[jpd80]

I feel for Farley and Ford right now, So many earth-shock moments happening month after month, maybe just hunker down and concentrate on F Series supply issues, pay the cost of imported aluminium sheet and try to keep profits coming.

 

It feels like a last man standing period, GM has no issues with full sized pickups and SUVs because they stuck with steel. Could be a huge advantage moment for them….

Edited October 13, 2025 by jpd80

[twintornados]

12 hours ago, jpd80 said:

....It feels like a last man standing period, GM has no issues with full sized pickups and SUVs because they stuck with steel. Could be a huge advantage moment for them….

 

GM has no issues with full sized pickups and SUV's??

 

(cough-cough) 6.2 liter engine (cough-cough)

Edited October 13, 2025 by twintornados

[rmc523]

57 minutes ago, twintornados said:

 

GM has no issues with full sized pickups and SUV's??

 

(cough-cough) 6.2 liter engine (cough-cough)

 

His point is they're not having production issues.

[twintornados]

4 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

His point is they're not having production issues.

 

Their use of aluminum in body bits and pieces will also be impacted...

 

https://news.yahoo.com/entertainment/celebrity/articles/diane-keaton-famed-roles-father-184255872.html

 

Quote

A Sept. 16 fire at the factory severely damaged Novelis’ hot mill, leaving the company scrambling to contain the damage to customers, which include Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Toyota Motor Corp. and Stellantis, per a securities filing.

 

[balthisar]

On 9/30/2025 at 1:01 PM, DeluxeStang said:

I think if this was a disaster behind the scenes, the insiders on this site would have told us.

 

I hope that disclosing that there's actually an NDA isn't a violation of the NDA, but the NDA's are especially strong on this program. Like, all programs are always under an assumed NDA. Insider information is wrong to disclose, company rules, etc., etc., but P833 (program number is already public) actually had us sign an explicit NDA for the program. Insiders on this site aren't anonymous.

 

[fuzzymoomoo]

20 minutes ago, balthisar said:

 

I hope that disclosing that there's actually an NDA isn't a violation of the NDA, but the NDA's are especially strong on this program. Like, all programs are always under an assumed NDA. Insider information is wrong to disclose, company rules, etc., etc., but P833 (program number is already public) actually had us sign an explicit NDA for the program. Insiders on this site aren't anonymous.

 

Too that point, NDA or not rumors don’t fly around the company the way they did 5-10 years ago. 
 

used to hear all kinds of stuff on the production floor. I thought it might get even better when I crossed over to trades but it’s actually gotten worse if that’s the right way to phrase it. I used to be able to ask pretty much anyone certain things and get reasonably reliable information. Not anymore. 

Edited October 14, 2025 by fuzzymoomoo

[DeluxeStang]

57 minutes ago, balthisar said:

 

I hope that disclosing that there's actually an NDA isn't a violation of the NDA, but the NDA's are especially strong on this program. Like, all programs are always under an assumed NDA. Insider information is wrong to disclose, company rules, etc., etc., but P833 (program number is already public) actually had us sign an explicit NDA for the program. Insiders on this site aren't anonymous.

 

Fair enough. Automotive NDAs are notoriously brutal, and it seems like secrecy on this project is top notch, I don't believe anyone on this site working within the traditional Ford system has even seen these vehicles or knows the intimate details on them, as it kinda sounds like all of that is being contained to the long beach facility at the moment. 

 

I suspect given the additional layer of secrecy compared to normal programs, these skunkworks EVs will be like the Ford GT program all over again, known by a small team, but most of the details and products will be hidden from traditional Ford employees. My guess is a lot of them will see these vehicles for the first time the same time the public does. 

[jpd80]

15 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

His point is they're not having production issues.

Correct, I should have made better linkage between the first and second paragraphs of my post, not doing so leads to misunderstanding an a gotcha post….

 

16 hours ago, twintornados said:

 

GM has no issues with full sized pickups and SUV's??

 

(cough-cough) 6.2 liter engine (cough-cough)

As far as I know, the lifts failures were contained to 21-24 year models.

 

Also,

in order to have a warranty issue you have to first build the trucks and SUVs

[rmc523]

11 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Too that point, NDA or not rumors don’t fly around the company the way they did 5-10 years ago. 
 

used to hear all kinds of stuff on the production floor. I thought it might get even better when I crossed over to trades but it’s actually gotten worse if that’s the right way to phrase it. I used to be able to ask pretty much anyone certain things and get reasonably reliable information. Not anymore. 

 

Boo for us lol.

[DeluxeStang]

Obligatory, patent images don't necessarily hint at future designs, but I believe this latest patent image gives us our best look yet at the CE1 truck. It carries over the cab forward proportions of the other patents, but looks far much flushed out in terms of details, and actually looks stylized. 

 

The first few cab forward patent images looked like pretty generic cab forward proposals, this looks like the kind of design I could actually see Ford releasing. 

 

I quite like it. This is about as good as a cab forward looking truck could look imo. 

[Motorpsychology]

I think it is a Decontent Schedule:

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, Motorpsychology said:

I think it is a Decontent Schedule:

They did talk about radical simplification 😂.

[Rick73]

11 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Obligatory, patent images don't necessarily hint at future designs, but I believe this latest patent image gives us our best look yet at the CE1 truck. It carries over the cab forward proportions of the other patents, but looks far much flushed out in terms of details, and actually looks stylized. 

 

The first few cab forward patent images looked like pretty generic cab forward proposals, this looks like the kind of design I could actually see Ford releasing. 

 

I quite like it. This is about as good as a cab forward looking truck could look imo. 

The bed extending into rear-seat space, with or without relocating rear window, definitely solves the problem of 4-door compact trucks having a bed that is too short to be useful for many hauling applications.  Other trucks have similar concepts, but this looks even more promising to me.  Hope it works great.

[T-dubz]

5 hours ago, Rick73 said:

The bed extending into rear-seat space, with or without relocating rear window, definitely solves the problem of 4-door compact trucks having a bed that is too short to be useful for many hauling applications.  Other trucks have similar concepts, but this looks even more promising to me.  Hope it works great.

It sounds cool, but as the Maverick has shown, the bed size doesn’t really seem to matter. People who buy small trucks aren’t buying them to move big things. If you are trying to build an affordable EV, there’s no need to have features like this that increase cost when the customers would have been perfectly happy without it. There’s probably a reason GM is the only brand that offers midgates (that I know of). 

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, T-dubz said:

It sounds cool, but as the Maverick has shown, the bed size doesn’t really seem to matter. People who buy small trucks aren’t buying them to move big things. If you are trying to build an affordable EV, there’s no need to have features like this that increase cost when the customers would have been perfectly happy without it. There’s probably a reason GM is the only brand that offers midgates (that I know of). 

 

 

What I really like about the patent drawings above is that it shows the entire midgate effectively being relocated (at least in function) to the B pillar.  Functionally this means truck can be used like a single cab with very long bed.  Unlike Chevy’s design, the partition should provide much better air conditioning, heat, and a level of security for passengers and personal belongings.  Should help a lot with noise and weather protection also.  Much depends on how well the new bulkhead at B pillar is sealed.

 

Below are pictures of Chevy with it open just at bottom and also with the entire rear wall/gate folded flat; which adds just over 3-feet of length according to video.  As can be seen the driver and passenger are exposed to cargo area and there’s minimal protection between cabin and cargo in bed, or from weather.  I haven’t seen the patent but expect that if executed well the Ford design will have a lot of fans, including me. 😀

 

 

 

 

P.S. — IMO Maverick’s bed length’s affect on sales is an unknowable variable that can be assumed or estimated, but unless buyers previously had a choice, we don’t know how great sales could have been.  Granted market research can sometimes predict preferences but other times they are completely wrong because what people say and what they actually end up buying may be very different.  I’m no expert on this subject but know that my 6-ft Ranger bed was often a little short for my needs.  Much less than 6-feet and I would not have purchased my Ranger years ago.  I know 4~5 foot bed lengths work for many, but what we can’t know is how many additional truck buyers a 6-foot-plus bed may attract even if required once in a blue moon. 🌖 

 

[T-dubz]

33 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

 

 

What I really like about the patent drawings above is that it shows the entire midgate effectively being relocated (at least in function) to the B pillar.  Functionally this means truck can be used like a single cab with very long bed.  Unlike Chevy’s design, the partition should provide much better air conditioning, heat, and a level of security for passengers and personal belongings.  Should help a lot with noise and weather protection also.  Much depends on how well the new bulkhead at B pillar is sealed.

 

Below are pictures of Chevy with it open just at bottom and also with the entire rear wall/gate folded flat; which adds just over 3-feet of length according to video.  As can be seen the driver and passenger are exposed to cargo area and there’s minimal protection between cabin and cargo in bed, or from weather.  I haven’t seen the patent but expect that if executed well the Ford design will have a lot of fans, including me. 😀

 

 

 

 

P.S. — IMO Maverick’s bed length’s affect on sales is an unknowable variable that can be assumed or estimated, but unless buyers previously had a choice, we don’t know how great sales could have been.  Granted market research can sometimes predict preferences but other times they are completely wrong because what people say and what they actually end up buying may be very different.  I’m no expert on this subject but know that my 6-ft Ranger bed was often a little short for my needs.  Much less than 6-feet and I would not have purchased my Ranger years ago.  I know 4~5 foot bed lengths work for many, but what we can’t know is how many additional truck buyers a 6-foot-plus bed may attract even if required once in a blue moon. 🌖 

 

I think we can know. Colorado and ranger don’t even offer a longer option. Frontier and Tacoma do, but I’d guess their sales are so low that no one would even notice. The most popular f150 comes with the shortest bed.

 

Now with that said, long bed trucks look ridiculous IMO and they can be harder to maneuver. This mid gate solves those problems so that’s a plus. However, I think ford should keep these new EVs as simple as possible for a few reasons:

1. Lower price will attract more customers

2. Ford has a problem with quality and recalls so the less places for failure, the better.

3. If these EVs are being built on some new assembly line, then I would think you’d want to make it as simple as possible to ensure everything runs smoothly.

 

[jpd80]

22 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Obligatory, patent images don't necessarily hint at future designs, but I believe this latest patent image gives us our best look yet at the CE1 truck. It carries over the cab forward proportions of the other patents, but looks far much flushed out in terms of details, and actually looks stylized. 

 

The first few cab forward patent images looked like pretty generic cab forward proposals, this looks like the kind of design I could actually see Ford releasing. 

 

I quite like it. This is about as good as a cab forward looking truck could look imo. 

Thinking that this is aimed at the likes of Maverick buyers, people who don’t need BOF 

like Ranger and more usable space in back for people who want more than a Utility.

 

The thing Ford must not do is over hype this and retry to be all things to all buyers.

Its a great package but don’t spoil it by giving buyers false /misleading impressions.

[DeluxeStang]

10 hours ago, Rick73 said:

The bed extending into rear-seat space, with or without relocating rear window, definitely solves the problem of 4-door compact trucks having a bed that is too short to be useful for many hauling applications.  Other trucks have similar concepts, but this looks even more promising to me.  Hope it works great.

Agreed, if this thing has a shorter hood/longer bed than a maverick, let's assume the bed is 5 ft compared to the mavs 4.5 ft. With this pass through, you're probably looking at 6-8 ft of total storage space, in something with a similar footprint to the maverick. 

[DeluxeStang]

5 hours ago, T-dubz said:

It sounds cool, but as the Maverick has shown, the bed size doesn’t really seem to matter. People who buy small trucks aren’t buying them to move big things. If you are trying to build an affordable EV, there’s no need to have features like this that increase cost when the customers would have been perfectly happy without it. There’s probably a reason GM is the only brand that offers midgates (that I know of). 

I get where you're coming from, this is a relatively expensive and complex thing to include in a vehicle that's meant to be all about low cost and simplicity. But a thought occured to me, no doubt Ford is targeting both commerical and retail buyers with this vehicle. A lot of those commerical buyers and some retail buyers really want that additional bed storage, to the point of asking for 2 door, long bed trucks. 

 

But by offering a design like this, Ford could create something that offers both the benefits of 4 door crew cabs, and long bed 2 door trucks. Something that allows you to carry people in the backseat for when you want, and significantly improving cargo space when you need to, all in one vehicle, the best of both worlds. 

 

That could pay dividends in the future. Instead of needing to produce a 2 and 4 door cab, with carrying wheelbases and bed lengths, you just make one configuration, like the maverick has now. Saving a lot of money with reduced tooling, manufacturing, and engineering costs, while also creating a more flexible product that's better for the consumer.