Ram Dakota Midsize Pickup Confirmed For 2027

[akirby]

11 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

This what Ford actually put out

 

All new built Ford tough gas powered trucks (notice everything else is not plural also)

 

IMO that is really nebulous and a word salad to say something without actually saying it. Lets not forget Ford's other promises over the years with SUVs and other products that never made it to market. 

 

I still don't see how Ford could make something more affordable then the Maverick unless they seriously limit the options, even if they applied the lessons from the CE1 program and not adversity affect the sales of the Maverick or Ranger. No do I really see a market for truck that is purely sold in the 20-30K range for cheap that can actually make a profit for Ford. 

The price increases with the Maverick are in line with the rest of the market increases since it came out also. 

Recreate the original Ranger as a unibody.  6 inches narrower than Maverick with a regular cab option.  Apply ce1 principles to a clean sheet vehicle and factory.  1.0 ecoboost with a hybrid option.  Or make it Maverick sized but with a regular cab option and cheaper platform to replace Maverick and Ranger.

 

I just think they see an opportunity to apply ce1 principles to ICE and this is the most logical place to start.  Single cab ranger was wildly successful because it was cheap.  My first one was $7999 in 1990.  Single cab Ranger or Maverick wouldn't be cheap enough to move the needle.  I think a smaller single cab at $20-$25k will sell well just due to price and should still be nicely profitable, just like the ce1 EVs.

 

Just spitballing here what all new affordable truck would be.

 

[Motorpsychology]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

Recreate the original Ranger as a unibody.  6 inches narrower than Maverick with a regular cab option.  Apply ce1 principles to a clean sheet vehicle and factory.  1.0 ecoboost with a hybrid option.  Or make it Maverick sized but with a regular cab option and cheaper platform to replace Maverick and Ranger.

 

I just think they see an opportunity to apply ce1 principles to ICE and this is the most logical place to start.  Single cab ranger was wildly successful because it was cheap.  My first one was $7999 in 1990.  Single cab Ranger or Maverick wouldn't be cheap enough to move the needle.  I think a smaller single cab at $20-$25k will sell well just due to price and should still be nicely profitable, just like the ce1 EVs.

 

Just spitballing here what all new affordable truck would be.

 

The CW is barking about the cost and increasingly, the physical size of pickups Ranger is a viable "real" truck. Make it the next F-150, while the Super Duty Line retains its current dimensions SDs are becoming a larger portion of F-Series sales. Ranger Super Duty has proven that a midsize truck can be made as capable or moreso as an F-150. CE1 truck becomes the Courier. VW may want to buy in and get a version of either or both.

[Sherminator98]

The problem with a smaller unibody pickup is once CAFE gets reset again, it will be a complete nonstarter to keep in production. I’m sure their will be a lead up to it again, but say launching it in 2029 when a new administration comes in and resets everything to what it was supposed to be, that product would be DOA with in five years of going into production. 
 

I hope ford is at least considering that possibility 

[fordmantpw]

If/when CAFE gets reset again, hopefully they will come at it with a little common sense.  It doesn't make sense to encourage manufacturers to produce larger vehicles, which consume more fuel, in order to increase fuel economy.  Typical backward government thinking.

[Sherminator98]

1 hour ago, fordmantpw said:

If/when CAFE gets reset again, hopefully they will come at it with a little common sense.  It doesn't make sense to encourage manufacturers to produce larger vehicles, which consume more fuel, in order to increase fuel economy.  Typical backward government thinking.

 

I doubt it since because there is an existing framework they would use. The Government isn't going to spend time/money to do things "right" 

[jpd80]

8 hours ago, akirby said:

Recreate the original Ranger as a unibody.  6 inches narrower than Maverick with a regular cab option.  Apply ce1 principles to a clean sheet vehicle and factory.  1.0 ecoboost with a hybrid option.  Or make it Maverick sized but with a regular cab option and cheaper platform to replace Maverick and Ranger.

 

I just think they see an opportunity to apply ce1 principles to ICE and this is the most logical place to start.  Single cab ranger was wildly successful because it was cheap.  My first one was $7999 in 1990.  Single cab Ranger or Maverick wouldn't be cheap enough to move the needle.  I think a smaller single cab at $20-$25k will sell well just due to price and should still be nicely profitable, just like the ce1 EVs.

 

Just spitballing here what all new affordable truck would be.

 

The bottom end of the market is always tricky, justifying prices for applied technology

when the market want sub $30k and that’s why Ford was careful to indicate that the

CE1 pickup is mid sized. Ford says one thing about price then does the opposite….

the promised $39k Lightning turned into $62k and we still believe CE1 is $30k in 2027?

 

Edited December 23, 2025 by jpd80

[Sherminator98]

17 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

the promised $39k Lightning turned into $62k and we still believe CE1 is $30k in 2027?

 

It won't have a 102 KwH battery in it either. 

 

Given what is happening with the EV battery market, cell price might even drop more because of a lack of demand. 

[jpd80]

7 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

It won't have a 102 KwH battery in it either. 

 

Given what is happening with the EV battery market, cell price might even drop more because of a lack of demand. 

Current battery price is $100 to $120/Kwhr, so even if you make that battery 40 Kwhr,

so that’s like $6K-$8k saving on the battery. So there’s your $30,000 price provided

that none of the steps in all new construction processes causes unforeseen added  costs.

[Sherminator98]

5 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Current battery price is $100 to $120/Kwhr, so even if you make that battery 40 Kwhr,

so that’s like $6K-$8k saving on the battery. So there’s your $30,000 price provided

that none of the steps in all new construction processes causes unforeseen added  costs.

 

I just saw that LFP is going to be around $81KwHr

 

[jpd80]

1 minute ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

I just saw that LFP is going to be around $81KwHr

 

Just remember that is due to competition from China overproduction,

not because Ford plants can produce them cheaper.

[Texasota]

21 hours ago, rmc523 said:

why would that kill your enthusiasm for it?   That’d be the entire point of such a model…

When I first thought about it I was thinking that a hybrid Bronco could be a way I could get a Ford hybrid midsize pickup. Then started thinking about the removable doors and roof does not match my needs or use case. I would never take it off road. I'd be paying for a lot of capability I would never use. 

Edited December 24, 2025 by Texasota

[twintornados]

11 hours ago, Texasota said:

When I first thought about it I was thinking that a hybrid Bronco Hemi Gladiator could be a way I could get a Ford hybrid Jeep Hemi powered midsize pickup. Then started thinking about the removable doors and roof does not match my needs or use case. I would never take it off road. I'd be paying for a lot of capability I would never use. 

 

Changed models/brands and the statement remains the same....

[Motorpsychology]

18 hours ago, fordmantpw said:

If/when CAFE gets reset again, hopefully they will come at it with a little common sense.  It doesn't make sense to encourage manufacturers to produce larger vehicles, which consume more fuel, in order to increase fuel economy.  Typical backward government thinking.

"If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is."

 

[rmc523]

21 hours ago, Texasota said:

When I first thought about it I was thinking that a hybrid Bronco could be a way I could get a Ford hybrid midsize pickup. Then started thinking about the removable doors and roof does not match my needs or use case. I would never take it off road. I'd be paying for a lot of capability I would never use. 

I mean. I guess.  I have virtually no usage for the off-road capability my Bronco has, but I bought it because I liked it.

im sure most people don’t use their vehicles to capacity

[akirby]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

I mean. I guess.  I have virtually no usage for the off-road capability my Bronco has, but I bought it because I liked it.

im sure most people don’t use their vehicles to capacity

Some just can't understand liking the way a vehicle looks regardless of how it's used.   

[fuzzymoomoo]

On 12/23/2025 at 9:06 AM, akirby said:

Recreate the original Ranger as a unibody.  6 inches narrower than Maverick with a regular cab option.  Apply ce1 principles to a clean sheet vehicle and factory.  1.0 ecoboost with a hybrid option.  Or make it Maverick sized but with a regular cab option and cheaper platform to replace Maverick and Ranger.

 

I just think they see an opportunity to apply ce1 principles to ICE and this is the most logical place to start.  Single cab ranger was wildly successful because it was cheap.  My first one was $7999 in 1990.  Single cab Ranger or Maverick wouldn't be cheap enough to move the needle.  I think a smaller single cab at $20-$25k will sell well just due to price and should still be nicely profitable, just like the ce1 EVs.

 

Just spitballing here what all new affordable truck would be.

 

You lost me at 1.0 EcoBoost. That engine does not belong in a truck. It struggled in the EcoSport by all accounts, it would be awful as a truck engine. 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

You lost me at 1.0 EcoBoost. That engine does not belong in a truck. It struggled in the EcoSport by all accounts, it would be awful as a truck engine. 

Exact same power as my 1990 2.3L Ranger.  Just sayin.

[Sherminator98]

On 12/25/2025 at 8:19 AM, akirby said:

Exact same power as my 1990 2.3L Ranger.  Just sayin.

 

1990 was almost 36 years ago too

 

And they want their pickup back 😛

 

[rmc523]

On 12/25/2025 at 8:19 AM, akirby said:

Exact same power as my 1990 2.3L Ranger.  Just sayin.

consumer demands are exactly the same as back then too!

[akirby]

49 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

consumer demands are exactly the same as back then too!

What hasn't changed is price sells.  The trick is to be able to sell inexpensive (relatively speaking) vehicles at a decent profit.

[fuzzymoomoo]

On 12/25/2025 at 8:19 AM, akirby said:

Exact same power as my 1990 2.3L Ranger.  Just sayin.

That truck probably weighs half of what you’re talking about. 

[rmc523]

What’ll be interesting to see with this new Dakota is how it affects Ram 1500 sales on the lower end, as until recently they’ve had the classic model around for the lower priced segments, and theoretically Dakota can step in there to an extent

[akirby]

9 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

That truck probably weighs half of what you’re talking about. 

Not the one I'm talking about.  

[twintornados]

6 hours ago, rmc523 said:

What’ll be interesting to see with this new Dakota is how it affects Ram 1500 sales on the lower end, as until recently they’ve had the classic model around for the lower priced segments, and theoretically Dakota can step in there to an extent

 

As long as it has a Hemi in it......lol

[akirby]

2 hours ago, twintornados said:

 

As long as it has a Hemi in it......lol