akirby Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 5 hours ago, jpd80 said: Whisper is that Delivery timeline for the second CE1 isn’t until cy2029 All new platform, Ford is clearly taking roll out cautiously to avoid issues like CD6 Explorer. By that I mean, get the construction and assembly processes down to pat with pickup and then any other type of vehicle should follow a similar path… 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 6 hours ago, jpd80 said: Whisper is that Delivery timeline for the second CE1 isn’t until cy2029 All new platform, Ford is clearly taking roll out cautiously to avoid issues like CD6 Explorer. By that I mean, get the construction and assembly processes down to pat with pickup and then any other type of vehicle should follow a similar path… 2029 sounds worse then it actually is because IMO its only 36 months from now. I'm guessing that LAP will be retooling for the next 6-8 months, then slowly coming back on line with the new CE1 pickup launching Summer of 2027 The CUV CE1 will most likely start preproduction in mid 2028 launching in early 2029? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 7 Author Share Posted January 7 (edited) 13 hours ago, Sherminator98 said: Nah I don't think it is that...because the CE1 will have multiple products built off it. I'm guessing the pickup was done first since Ford thinks that is what they are the strongest in. The issue is that it leaves other segments bare like the larger C CUV market in North America-but there is product coming, I just hope it gets here sooner then later. I'd agree that they probably chose the pickup because that's what Ford does best. I just worry about Ford slicing the pie thin/oversaturating the truck market at a certain point. We currently have: Maverick Ranger F-150 Super Duty They're adding to that: CE1 truck Bronco truck (TTP product) I give Ford more leash/benefit of the doubt when it comes to trucks, but at what point do you focus on other segments you've abandoned instead of adding more trucks? 7 hours ago, jpd80 said: Whisper is that Delivery timeline for the second CE1 isn’t until cy2029 All new platform, Ford is clearly taking roll out cautiously to avoid issues like CD6 Explorer. By that I mean, get the construction and assembly processes down to pat with pickup and then any other type of vehicle should follow a similar path… Let's hope that the Maverick-based crossover arrives before then. That's way too long to be out of a segment. Edited January 7 by rmc523 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 7 Author Share Posted January 7 I posted this in the other thread, but this is interesting: Wrangler - 167,322 Bronco - 146,007 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeluxeStang Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 1 hour ago, rmc523 said: I'd agree that they probably chose the pickup because that's what Ford does best. I just worry about Ford slicing the pie thin/oversaturating the truck market at a certain point. We currently have: Maverick Ranger F-150 Super Duty They're adding to that: CE1 truck Bronco truck (TTP product) I give Ford more leash/benefit of the doubt when it comes to trucks, but at what point do you focus on other segments you've abandoned instead of adding more trucks? This is where I'm starting to become concerned as well. It feels like Ford is saying "Well we struggled with other segments, and made a lot of money with trucks, so let's just make everything a truck". That's a really shortsighted perspective imo. There's nothing wrong with investing in highly profitable segments, but at what point are you slicing the pie too thin, while simultaneously neglecting other segments? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 3 hours ago, DeluxeStang said: This is where I'm starting to become concerned as well. It feels like Ford is saying "Well we struggled with other segments, and made a lot of money with trucks, so let's just make everything a truck". That's a really shortsighted perspective imo. There's nothing wrong with investing in highly profitable segments, but at what point are you slicing the pie too thin, while simultaneously neglecting other segments? 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 On 1/6/2026 at 1:09 PM, akirby said: 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. This is the new Ecomony it seems. The K-shaped economy reigned in 2025. It’s not going away in 2026 | CNN Business Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 4 minutes ago, akirby said: 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 I just had an image pop into my brain of a Bronco Sport pickup would be a way of questioning if BOF is necessary to buyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 2 minutes ago, Biker16 said: This is the new Ecomony it seems. The K-shaped economy reigned in 2025. It’s not going away in 2026 | CNN Business In other news, wealthy people are less affected by economic circumstances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 7 Author Share Posted January 7 8 minutes ago, akirby said: 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 That's not really a fair comparison, and you know it - you listed sedan and crossover versions of B-, C-, D-segment vehicles from two different brands. So let's pare that list down to sedan body styles (a more accurate comparison): B - Fiesta C - Focus C/D - Fusion/Mondeo D - Taurus With the new trucks, we'll have Compact - Maverick Midsize - Ranger, CE1 Truck, Bronco Truck Full Size - F-150 HD - Super Duty Maverick, Ranger, CE1 Truck, and Bronco Truck will all overlap each other a lot, so they'll have 4 different truck offerings right in the same size range. Sure, Maverick and Ranger have different use cases, but you're still adding 2 more models into the segment you already have products in. They may all do just fine, but at a certain point, it'd be nice to see them put effort other places. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 7 minutes ago, jpd80 said: In other news, wealthy people are less affected by economic circumstances Not trying to be political, but I'd implore you to look deeper into this. What is good for Ford isn't always good for Americans. What is the K-shaped economy, where the rich are getting richer and the poor are struggling? | Fortune Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 7 hours ago, akirby said: 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. I hope so, the way Ford’s engineers were going, vehicles were getting more and more complex, the opposite of what Ford wants with speed and efficiency building them I just hope people stay grounded and ease up on the thoughts of lots of different CE1 vehicles coming in the next couple of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 (edited) 1 hour ago, Biker16 said: Not trying to be political, but I'd implore you to look deeper into this. What is good for Ford isn't always good for Americans. What is the K-shaped economy, where the rich are getting richer and the poor are struggling? | Fortune And I put it to you that Ford’s deliberate move away from commodity vehicles was also because they tend to be directly affected in uncertain times. Edited January 7 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 7 Author Share Posted January 7 35 minutes ago, jpd80 said: I hope so, the way Ford’s engineers were going, vehicles were getting more and more complex, the opposite of what Ford wants with speed and efficiency building them I just hope people stay grounded and ease up on the thoughts of lots of different CE1 vehicles coming in the next couple of years. I think we'll be lucky to get 2 - the truck and crossover. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 1 hour ago, rmc523 said: That's not really a fair comparison, and you know it - you listed sedan and crossover versions of B-, C-, D-segment vehicles from two different brands. So let's pare that list down to sedan body styles (a more accurate comparison): B - Fiesta C - Focus C/D - Fusion/Mondeo D - Taurus With the new trucks, we'll have Compact - Maverick Midsize - Ranger, CE1 Truck, Bronco Truck Full Size - F-150 HD - Super Duty Maverick, Ranger, CE1 Truck, and Bronco Truck will all overlap each other a lot, so they'll have 4 different truck offerings right in the same size range. Sure, Maverick and Ranger have different use cases, but you're still adding 2 more models into the segment you already have products in. They may all do just fine, but at a certain point, it'd be nice to see them put effort other places. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeluxeStang Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 2 hours ago, akirby said: 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 That's the opposite of what I'm saying. That's just Ford doing the same thing but in the other direction, I favor a more balanced, varied lineup. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 59 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said: That's the opposite of what I'm saying. That's just Ford doing the same thing but in the other direction, I favor a more balanced, varied lineup. I favor a lineup that returns the best profit margins for the least investment. It's already balanced from a price standpoint starting with Maverick and more affordable new products on the way. This isn't a case where they're vulnerable to a recession. Nobody is going to suddenly start buying sedans over trucks and utilities because of a recession or high gas prices. They'll just buy fewer new vehicles period and more hybrids. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 It's ok to say you like sedans and wish Ford would make more. It's not ok to rationalize a business case that doesn't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 (edited) 2 hours ago, rmc523 said: I think we'll be lucky to get 2 - the truck and crossover. From what I understood, Ford Pro were supporting a good part of CE1 hence, the pickup, a Utility close to the pickup and a Van….although the way BEV van sales are going… Edited January 8 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 (edited) 3 hours ago, akirby said: 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. MAP produced roughly 217K Broncos and Rangers last year, so they have plenty of room to make a Lincoln variant if they wanted As for your cheap unibody product...why? It makes zero sense. Your basically asking for a unibody 1990 single cab Ranger or an ICE/Hybrid Slate pickup. The unfortunate fact is that vehicles aren't going to get any cheaper, just like housing pricing. There is no pressure to make them cheap and the reality is "affordable" is the 30-40K price range given the average price of a new vehicle is 50K. The Maverick already fills that role-if they want to drop the price, move it from Mexico to the US for production to get rid of tariffs but I have this suspicions that UAW costs and other things would make it cost even more if that wasn't an issue. Then put it into a brand new factory and watch it maybe sell 70K units when there are far better things to do like build an Escape/Edge replacement or even maybe a Bronco style Maverick that would more off road oriented that would be far more profitable. Then its also going to butt heads with other product like the CE1 pickup. Edited January 8 by Sherminator98 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 14 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said: As for your cheap unibody product...why? It makes zero sense. I was probably wrong about the single cab. I thought that's what they showed for ce1 and it would be the most affordable top hat. But why a cheap unibody truck? Same reason as cheap EVs. I think ce1 showed them how to lower costs on ICE so they can make decent margins on cheaper vehicles. Hyundai and Toyota are still selling sub $25k cars. A $25k maverick would sell like crazy and if I'm right about ce1 cost cutting it would be more profitable than a $35k maverick or bronco sport. Or a Ranger replacement that's 25% cheaper to build. It's a new growth opportunity that wasn't viable 3 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 18 minutes ago, akirby said: Hyundai and Toyota are still selling sub $25k cars. A $25k maverick would sell like crazy I'm not sure they can get a C class product to be that cheap-it would be a B class (like the cheaper products your talking about) and to be honest can they actually even make that work when it comes to a unibody pickup without it being a useless pickup? Not sure it would be even worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeluxeStang Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 3 hours ago, akirby said: I favor a lineup that returns the best profit margins for the least investment. It's already balanced from a price standpoint starting with Maverick and more affordable new products on the way. This isn't a case where they're vulnerable to a recession. Nobody is going to suddenly start buying sedans over trucks and utilities because of a recession or high gas prices. They'll just buy fewer new vehicles period and more hybrids. I get that, but at what point does it become a case of diminishing returns? Like the example you've given of Ford offering a lower cost smaller truck than a maverick, likely as a 2 door, extended bed variant. As a maverick owner, I just don't see the point in spending hundreds of millions on a vehicle with low sales volume, and low profit potential. Ford has a really good fleet truck with the maverick, for people who want a larger, more capable truck, you have things like ranger and f-series. Then for the segment of buyers who wants something really practical with a small footprint, you have this CE1 truck that's gonna have a shorter hood and a cab pass through most likely to maximize utility. Like walk me through the business case for what you're proposing, because I personally believe Ford has most of the fleet practical truck market locked down with CE1/ maverick, and f-series. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeluxeStang Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 7 hours ago, jpd80 said: I just had an image pop into my brain of a Bronco Sport pickup would be a way of questioning if BOF is necessary to buyers. But wouldn't a BS pickup basically just be a next gen maverick? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeluxeStang Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 3 hours ago, akirby said: I favor a lineup that returns the best profit margins for the least investment. It's already balanced from a price standpoint starting with Maverick and more affordable new products on the way. This isn't a case where they're vulnerable to a recession. Nobody is going to suddenly start buying sedans over trucks and utilities because of a recession or high gas prices. They'll just buy fewer new vehicles period and more hybrids. When it comes to trucks, what I would do is keep investing in, and strengthening the f-series to keep it class leading, but replace the ranger with a bronco pickup, something that looked virtually identical to the scout pickup with its boxy, rugged design. Keep the ranger name but the same truck for overseas markets where the ranger name is stronger. This effectively turns the ranger into a more aspirational model that gives it additional selling points over the Tacoma and frontier. Keep the next gen maverick pretty similar to the current maverick, but give it things like a full width pass through so you have the best of both worlds with a longer bed when you need it, and a four door cab when you want it. Then do a sporty ute ranchero lifestyle truck at the very bottom. Kinda alternate between lifestyle and fleet trucks that are differentiated from one another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.