Ford CEO Jim Farley Says Focus, Fusion Had To Die For Bronco And Maverick To Exist

[Sherminator98]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

It’s a bit frustrating to watch because Equator + Equator Sport (Territory) would be a head start

on a next generation of Escape and Edge  for cohesive ROW production but understand that 

Europe must keep eyes on heavily biased electrification EREVs and BEVs, hoping for a solution.

What would cure Ford Europe’s ills with sales?

 

I'm curious as to what is being done outsides of ICE changes on these products vs higher end C1 products like Escape/Kuga/etc in 1st world countries.

 

What exactly is the Equator based on? Is it a modified C1? Is it something else? 

[jpd80]

4 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

I'm curious as to what is being done outsides of ICE changes on these products vs higher end C1 products like Escape/Kuga/etc in 1st world countries.

 

What exactly is the Equator based on? Is it a modified C1? Is it something else? 

C1 became C2 back in the twenty teens and included significant lightening.

 

The Chinese Ford Territory was developed in partnership with its Chinese joint venture partner JMC, Jialing Motor Corporation, blending Australian design/engineering with Chinese manufacturing. The vehicle was based initially on the JMC Yusheng S330 platform for the Chinese market and later refreshed with full Ford design input.
 

Ford Australia's design studio in Melbourne led development, with testing in both Australia (Geelong) and China (Nanjing), creating an affordable, tech-focused SUV for emerging markets. 
 

The Equator Sport was a full redesign of the Territory by Ford to their specifications and no longer based on the Yuesheng S330.  The Equator being the three row extension of that design.

 

The Equator Sport retaining it Territory name in countries like Mexico and South Africa.

 

Edited January 17 by jpd80

[akirby]

16 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

It seems like the stars are aligning for Ford to produce affordable cars again using CE1 almost certainly using the same plant as the one the truck is gonna rely on. He said their volume target is 300,000 units annually which I don't see Ford hitting out of that plant unless they do quite a few different top hats. 

Absolutely but only after the other products are maxed out.

[akirby]

21 hours ago, Biker16 said:

 
Look, I love my wife, and she is far from perfect. I am happy laud her when she does amazing things, but I love her enough to criticize her to others when she makes mistakes.

Ford has done a lot to change the world; they have also made mistakes. Both are true; I and everyone here want Ford to succeed, but it doesn't make sense to acknowledge the former while ignoring the latter.

It doesn't make sense to bash Ford about cars but fail to praise them for their truck, suv and commercial vehicle success either.
 

You think they're lazy and incompetent and propped up by government regulations and tariffs that force buyers to buy expensive trucks and suvs.  Fact is Americans prefer trucks and utilities especially mid size and larger and it has nothing to do with tariffs or regulations.  Even with CAFE favoring larger vehicles there were and still are plenty of small car choices.  Buyers still moved away from them to utilities and trucks.  That's the market and Ford is simply playing to their strengths.

 

We've been super critical of Ford's bad decisions.  We even acknowledged that they were incapable of making cost effective cars and small utilities in the past.   The very innovation you claim they don't have is exactly what is behind ce1 and that will bleed over to ICE products.  It's the exact reset you say they need yet you give them no credit for even trying.

 

What you consider a failure is just a different way to do business.  

[Biker16]

5 minutes ago, akirby said:

It doesn't make sense to bash Ford about cars but fail to praise them for their truck, suv and commercial vehicle success either.
 

You think they're lazy and incompetent and propped up by government regulations and tariffs that force buyers to buy expensive trucks and suvs.  Fact is Americans prefer trucks and utilities especially mid size and larger and it has nothing to do with tariffs or regulations.  Even with CAFE favoring larger vehicles there were and still are plenty of small car choices.  Buyers still moved away from them to utilities and trucks.  That's the market and Ford is simply playing to their strengths.

 

We've been super critical of Ford's bad decisions.  We even acknowledged that they were incapable of making cost effective cars and small utilities in the past.   The very innovation you claim they don't have is exactly what is behind ce1 and that will bleed over to ICE products.  It's the exact reset you say they need yet you give them no credit for even trying.

 

What you consider a failure is just a different way to do business.  

 

That's fair. In my experience, a lot of fandoms treat brands like sports teams, not corporations or businesses. 

 

I am/was a Cleveland Browns fan. I can look at our team's performance over the last 5 years and realize that our ownership is completely trash. I can also appreciate Miles. Garrett, for being one of the best players in the league. I'm beginning to like Sanders as well, but I think it was a mistake to let go of Baker Mayfield for a sexual predator. 

 

It may make sense to some people, but I took it personally. 

 

Much like I take it personally that they discontinued every Ford product I have ever bought, while the data can be interpreted in many ways, the way I see it, and many others, by the way, is that Ford gave up; they chose to become a truck manufacturer and not a full-line manufacturer, which they have been their entire existence. They decided not to compete, regardless of the reason. And make themselves vulnerable to changing market conditions. If we had an energy crisis as we did in 2008, I don't think Ford could respond the way it did back then. And this seems to be a strategic choice to prioritize short-term opportunities over long-term risk mitigation. 

 

This pattern of taking products that customers love and canceling them often for short-term gain, hurts the brand. People who bought F-150 lightnings adore them. They really do. They know it's not perfect, but the expectation wasn't that Ford would give up; it was that they would work to address the issues and make the product better. I guess this has more to do with how they did it than with the fact that they did. You could have said we're going to pause production for 2 years and roll out an EREV that will be better than the existing product. The pattern of neglecting products and blaming customer choice on why sales are bad. This has happened dozens of times in the last 30 years. The pattern of launch and neglect should be addressed. It hurts the brand. I feel it has damaged the brand so much that they are over-reliant on sub-brands like the Bronco, the Mustang, and the F-Series for their products, because there is so little nameplate recognition outside of those. 

 

Again, this is my opinion, or take it for what it's worth. I also feel this is also American, and I feel we value free speech even if we disagree with it. If I cross the line, let me know, but I see no problem with criticizing them. I wish I could be more positive. 

 

 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Biker16 said:

Much like I take it personally that they discontinued every Ford product I have ever bought,

Which is understandable but it gives you a completely biased view of Ford and their decisions.
 

1 hour ago, Biker16 said:

And make themselves vulnerable to changing market conditions. If we had an energy crisis as we did in 2008, I don't think Ford could respond the way it did back then.

This is where your facts are wrong.  In 2008 buyers did not move to smaller vehicles.  They just stopped buying period.  F150 sales dropped dramatically and small trucks like Ranger did not increase but also dropped and so did Corolla sales.  The market went from 17M to 11M overnight.  There is no evidence that says high fuel prices would hurt Ford more than others especially considering Ford's investment in EVs, hybrids and EREVs.  Commercial vehicles are fairly immune to fuel price hikes anyway because there aren't alternatives.  
 

This just proves your ongoing bias and need for rationalization of smaller cars.  In no scenario does Ford NEED small cars to be successful.  Having more affordable and more fuel efficient trucks and suvs fills any voids in their lineup.  Cars may come as incremental sales to fill out plants but they're not a priority.  Not selling sedans has not hurt sales of trucks and suvs.  
 

It's like Wendys, McDonalds and Burger King not selling hot dogs.  You can get a hot dog at any gas station for $2.  They'd rather sell $6 burgers.  If you really want a hot dog (car) go to the gas station (Asian brands).

[Biker16]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Which is understandable but it gives you a completely biased view of Ford and their decisions.
 

This is where your facts are wrong.  In 2008 buyers did not move to smaller vehicles.  They just stopped buying period.  F150 sales dropped dramatically and small trucks like Ranger did not increase but also dropped and so did Corolla sales.  The market went from 17M to 11M overnight.  There is no evidence that says high fuel prices would hurt Ford more than others especially considering Ford's investment in EVs, hybrids and EREVs.  Commercial vehicles are fairly immune to fuel price hikes anyway because there aren't alternatives.  
 

This just proves your ongoing bias and need for rationalization of smaller cars.  In no scenario does Ford NEED small cars to be successful.  Having more affordable and more fuel efficient trucks and suvs fills any voids in their lineup.  Cars may come as incremental sales to fill out plants but they're not a priority.  Not selling sedans has not hurt sales of trucks and suvs.  
 

It's like Wendys, McDonalds and Burger King not selling hot dogs.  You can get a hot dog at any gas station for $2.  They'd rather sell $6 burgers.  If you really want a hot dog (car) go to the gas station (Asian brands).

 

Then this is where we disagree. 

 

I have an opinion; you are welcome to disagree with it. 

My opinions aren't just about small cars; Small cars were the beginning. It's about discontinued mid-size cars, pickup trucks, Vans, support utility vehicles, and electric vehicles. The pattern of launching a product and then abandoning the product is not limited to small cars. It started with small cars because it was the easiest to do, small cars are low margin. Hard to build and are sold in a competitive market. So it makes sense to invest less in that segment. But when did it make sense to do the same with small and medium CUVs? The question is when do they break the cycle. 

 

Ford, for all intents and purposes, going forward will be a regional automaker, due to the fact that they are not a successful full-line automaker. The vehicles that Ford sells are focused on the United States, at the exclusion of other global markets. From a business point of view, this makes short-term sense, in the long term, all the sales growth in the auto industry is coming from markets outside of the United States, being unable or unwilling to compete in those markets, places for it, a disadvantage against competitors with greater volume, greater economies to scale, and greater manufacturing and product development capabilities. 

 

In many ways, this is 100% logical, and business schools have studied this phenomenon at length. 

Legacy companies focus on what they do best optimizing themselves to deliver the most profits, even if it reduces their ability to compete against new entrants into the marketplace. 

 

I could be wrong,  it's happened before but I don't think I am. 

 

[DeluxeStang]

5 hours ago, akirby said:

Absolutely but only after the other products are maxed out.

Agreed. With some saying the mustang sedan is s650 based, that means this sedan is its own thing. Maybe the return of the escort or Galaxie name if they want to keep reviving the heritage names? 

[ausrutherford]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

Agreed. With some saying the mustang sedan is s650 based, that means this sedan is its own thing. Maybe the return of the escort or Galaxie name if they want to keep reviving the heritage names? 

Well I doubt they would use Escort. 

 

If we are talking about a platform-sharing sedan to the Mustang, then Falcon would be the logical choice. 

[rmc523]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

Agreed. With some saying the mustang sedan is s650 based, that means this sedan is its own thing. Maybe the return of the escort or Galaxie name if they want to keep reviving the heritage names? 

how does it being S650 based mean its its own thing?

 

with Ford talking about using their own icon nameplates, I doubt it’ll be much else aside from a Mustang sedan 

[jpd80]

51 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

how does it being S650 based mean its its own thing?

 

with Ford talking about using their own icon nameplates, I doubt it’ll be much else aside from a Mustang sedan 

For years, the Mustang based sedan has been bashing up against the reality of costs.

Ford  had the perfect opportunity of elevating the Falcon platform years ago but 

Mulally nixed that in favor of already developed and US based D3 Taurus/Explorer.

Admit that was a great idea for recurring increases in profits vs retired BOF platforms.

 

Then again, with Continental there was the opportunity of using CD6 but Ford then

chose to back end on the CD4 developed Chinese Taurus (lead by Ford AUS team).

 

Every time, ford has the potential for scales of economy, they choose home room politics

but in the end, time ran out for cars as mass migration to utilities took hold, people just wanted them more and were prepared to pay more as well..

Edited January 17 by jpd80

[DeluxeStang]

4 hours ago, rmc523 said:

how does it being S650 based mean its its own thing?

 

with Ford talking about using their own icon nameplates, I doubt it’ll be much else aside from a Mustang sedan 

As in there are two sedans if what we're hearing is right. There's the mustang sedan, which insiders have claimed is s650 based, and then there's this affordable RWD EV performance sedan. It's possible both are mustang sedans, and Ford is essentially letting different development teams compete to see which one is the better all around product before deciding which one to put into production. 

[DeluxeStang]

4 hours ago, ausrutherford said:

Well I doubt they would use Escort. 

 

If we are talking about a platform-sharing sedan to the Mustang, then Falcon would be the logical choice. 

Falcon would be a solid choice, I think Galaxie is a really cool name that would suit an exciting performance product incredibly well also. 

[akirby]

6 hours ago, Biker16 said:

 

Then this is where we disagree. 

 

I have an opinion; you are welcome to disagree with it. 

My opinions aren't just about small cars; Small cars were the beginning. It's about discontinued mid-size cars, pickup trucks, Vans, support utility vehicles, and electric vehicles. The pattern of launching a product and then abandoning the product is not limited to small cars. It started with small cars because it was the easiest to do, small cars are low margin. Hard to build and are sold in a competitive market. So it makes sense to invest less in that segment. But when did it make sense to do the same with small and medium CUVs? The question is when do they break the cycle. 

 

Ford, for all intents and purposes, going forward will be a regional automaker, due to the fact that they are not a successful full-line automaker. The vehicles that Ford sells are focused on the United States, at the exclusion of other global markets. From a business point of view, this makes short-term sense, in the long term, all the sales growth in the auto industry is coming from markets outside of the United States, being unable or unwilling to compete in those markets, places for it, a disadvantage against competitors with greater volume, greater economies to scale, and greater manufacturing and product development capabilities. 

 

In many ways, this is 100% logical, and business schools have studied this phenomenon at length. 

Legacy companies focus on what they do best optimizing themselves to deliver the most profits, even if it reduces their ability to compete against new entrants into the marketplace. 

 

I could be wrong,  it's happened before but I don't think I am. 

 

I agree they do too much launch and abandon but the reason for that is their recent small and midsized platforms are not cost effective so margins are low.  Improvements would help sales but nobody is paying a premium for better vehicles like those so it won't move the needle on margins.  C2 is the first step in the right direction but it needs another generation of cost reduction which I think ce1 will provide especially the electrical.  Not moving Edge and Nautilus to C2 with hybrids a decade ago was a big mistake.

 

So when Ford abandons a vehicle it's usually because margins are low or negative and no prospect to improve that short of a whole new platform.  So they've already decided the juice isn't worth the squeeze before they abandon it.  Why throw good money after bad IF you have better options like Maverick and Bronco Sport that can be sold at higher margins on the existing platform?

 

And you're right at some point you run out of those options which is why they're going back to affordable vehicles on new platforms.  We'll see if they're able to achieve the expected cost savings and if they'll stick with affordable vehicles but that doesn't mean those vehicles need to be cars.

[Sherminator98]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

As in there are two sedans if what we're hearing is right. There's the mustang sedan, which insiders have claimed is s650 based, and then there's this affordable RWD EV performance sedan. It's possible both are mustang sedans, and Ford is essentially letting different development teams compete to see which one is the better all around product before deciding which one to put into production. 

 

I'm assuming that possible EV sedan might be on the smaller side then the Mustang

 

A 4 door Mustang would be about 200-205 inches long and EV sedan would be like 190 or so-think Tarsus vs Fusion

Edited January 18 by Sherminator98

[rmc523]

I feel like a CE1 sedan is a pipe dream at this point.

 

think about it - the cE1 crossover is what 2028-2029 at best right now.   A sedan is less of a priority than that.  So we’re talking at least 2030 at the earliest for that typos product.  And with how Ford does product development, I’m sure it’ll be cancelled before then lol

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

I'm assuming that possible EV sedan might be on the smaller side then the Mustang

 

A 4 door Mustang would be about 200-205 inches long and EV sedan would be like 190 or so-think Tarsus vs Fusion

Agreed, I'm thinking like a charger rival for the mustang sedan, and a model 3 rival for the EV thing. An EV sedan with sporty, clean, somewhat muscular styling could be pretty cool. Something similar to this to diffentiate it from the lumpy frog look of the model 3 would be nice. 

[DeluxeStang]

12 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

I feel like a CE1 sedan is a pipe dream at this point.

 

think about it - the cE1 crossover is what 2028-2029 at best right now.   A sedan is less of a priority than that.  So we’re talking at least 2030 at the earliest for that typos product.  And with how Ford does product development, I’m sure it’ll be cancelled before then lol

It's possible, but a part of me is wondering if the product pipeline post CE1 truck launch is getting moved around a bit. We've heard a lot about the CE1 truck of course, and know it's coming first. But beyond that, the sedan is the only one I've seen Farley talk about, and in relative detail. Like it's not just "We might make a sedan". It's looking pretty likely, and it's him describing flushed out details like it being a performance car, and even what kind of cargo closure system it's gonna have. That's relatively specific once you start thinking about product features and how to position it in the marketplace. By comparison, it's crickets on the utility so far. 

 

It's possible he's just put that much thought into the proposal before work on it has even begun. But that kinda also sounds like a product that's already being developed and that's why he knows those details. Time 

Edited January 18 by DeluxeStang

[rmc523]

18 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

It's possible, but a part of me is wondering if the product pipeline post CE1 truck launch is getting moved around a bit. We've heard a lot about the CE1 truck of course, and know it's coming first. But beyond that, the sedan is the only one I've seen Farley talk about, and in relative detail. Like it's not just "We might make a sedan". It's looking pretty likely, and it's him describing flushed out details like it being a performance car, and even what kind of cargo closure system it's gonna have. That's relatively specific once you start thinking about product features and how to position it in the marketplace. By comparison, it's crickets on the utility so far. 

 

It's possible he's just put that much thought into the proposal before work on it has even begun. But that kinda also sounds like a product that's already being developed and that's why he knows those details. Time 

fair enough points.  Or also maybe the crossover just doesn’t have anything THAT unique about it?   As in it’ll be a similar shape to the truck but with a covered cargo area?

[Schpark]

On 1/17/2026 at 12:04 PM, akirby said:

This is where your facts are wrong.  In 2008 buyers did not move to smaller vehicles.  They just stopped buying period.  

 

 

I did.  I bought a 2008 Focus and it was a great little car (and also sold an Expedition for Flex).  Would have loved to buy another for my youngest but cannot.  I would have settled for a Fusion...but cannot.

[Sherminator98]

6 hours ago, Schpark said:

 

I did.  I bought a 2008 Focus and it was a great little car (and also sold an Expedition for Flex).  Would have loved to buy another for my youngest but cannot.  I would have settled for a Fusion...but cannot.

 

The market as a whole didn't

 

[morgan20]

On 1/17/2026 at 1:04 PM, akirby said:

It's like Wendys, McDonalds and Burger King not selling hot dogs. 

 

Good analogy. None of them could compete with Portillo's anyway (my family and I had lunch at the Portillo's on the south side of Indy before headin' up to an event downtown). 😃

 

[DeluxeStang]

22 hours ago, rmc523 said:

fair enough points.  Or also maybe the crossover just doesn’t have anything THAT unique about it?   As in it’ll be a similar shape to the truck but with a covered cargo area?

Def a possibility, but I hope that isn't the case. I'm hoping it's a second gen mach-e. 

[akirby]

9 hours ago, morgan20 said:

 

Good analogy. None of them could compete with Portillo's anyway (my family and I had lunch at the Portillo's on the south side of Indy before headin' up to an event downtown). 😃

 

They just opened one near me.  Will have to try it.

[HotRunrGuy]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

They just opened one near me.  Will have to try it.

 

Make sure you get a Chocolate Cake Shake too,,,,,,

 

HRG