Ford to launch 5 new sub 40k affordable models by 2030.

[Sherminator98]

30 minutes ago, BenKohnen said:

I've suspected that both the Escape and the Edge are victims at least partially of the "death to jellybean SUV's" mentality at Ford, too. While both have been solid products, neither invokes actual emotion. Nobody was rushing out to buy hats and shirts that proclaim their love of their... Edge or Escape. I'm in that boat myself. I've bought merch for just about every model I sell, and certainly for my Maverick, but never in three Escapes have I bought anything that proclaims my ownership of an Escape. Edges are kinda the same. Great vehicles, you'll have people who buy them over and over, but they're not passion products.

 

The other side of that is the Escape is/was a good product, but it wasn't "cheap" enough for the North American market in the grand scheme of things-it was over engineered for the EU market where they sell at a higher average selling price. I'm guessing Ford didn't have that issue with the Mazda based models. 

 

Costs didn't get under control till the post 2020 refresh when people where bitching about how cheap it felt, even though the Bronco Sport "looked" cheaper, but the materials/look are just about identical between the two on my experience with both the products. 

[akirby]

30 minutes ago, BenKohnen said:

While both have been solid products, neither invokes actual emotion. Nobody was rushing out to buy hats and shirts that proclaim their love of their... Edge or Escape.

Escape yes but not Edge.  Starting in 2011 with the Sport model with the 3.7L v6 and later the ST model with the 2.7L ecoboost it did appeal to enthusiasts and owners were passionate.  Not all of them but quite a few.  What was missing was a hybrid option.  Had they done a c2 hybrid edge and Nautilus in 2019 and kept a performance option of some kind I don't think it would have been killed.  
 

Likewise I think a rwd mustang suv will be a hit albeit at lower volumes.

[BenKohnen]

5 hours ago, akirby said:

Escape yes but not Edge.  Starting in 2011 with the Sport model with the 3.7L v6 and later the ST model with the 2.7L ecoboost it did appeal to enthusiasts and owners were passionate.  Not all of them but quite a few.  What was missing was a hybrid option.  Had they done a c2 hybrid edge and Nautilus in 2019 and kept a performance option of some kind I don't think it would have been killed.  
 

Likewise I think a rwd mustang suv will be a hit albeit at lower volumes.

Very true, we had a handful of extremely passionate Sport/ST buyers. Even did some simple custom graphics for one of our Edge ST buyers, he loved the logo and wanted it on his windshield, so we made him a couple vinyls of the ST logo. Edge definitely needed a hybrid, and even a slightly de-tuned 2.7 for the high Titanium packages as an available would have been nice. The things that could have been...

[Trader 10]

8 hours ago, akirby said:

Escape yes but not Edge.  Starting in 2011 with the Sport model with the 3.7L v6 and later the ST model with the 2.7L ecoboost it did appeal to enthusiasts and owners were passionate.  Not all of them but quite a few.  What was missing was a hybrid option.  Had they done a c2 hybrid edge and Nautilus in 2019 and kept a performance option of some kind I don't think it would have been killed.  
 

Likewise I think a rwd mustang suv will be a hit albeit at lower volumes.

Think Porsche Cayenne, only much better looking?

[bzcat]

13 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

I know unpopular option, but the Edge was replaced (in different ways) by the Bronco, Mustang Mach E and to a lesser extent the post 2020 Escape. I'm also guessing that the EV that was expected to come from Oakville would have also fell into that range at the upper end. There was no one for one replacement-but the price/size segment was filled by other products that had their own pluses and minuses. 

 

The other issue is, how popular is the 2 row CUV market? I did a quick look and getting the info parsed out is a pain in the ass-the one site I looked at has the Explorer and Bronco Sport listed as "mid sized" CUVs. I'd personally put the Explorer as the start of the "large" CUV range and the Bronco Sport on the small CUV size range. 

 

Sub 180in OL is small

 

Plus 192in OL is large

 

anything inbetween that would fall in the midsized range. 

 

 

 

Your opinion may be unpopular but it is true. Ford basically replaced Edge with Mach E and Bronco. Except both were on the fringe of that segment and missed the mark which Farley has repeatedly try to gaslight everyone by saying it doesn't exist.

 

Farley is the only CEO that kept saying there is no market for 2-row mid/large CUV. The reality clearly disagree with him. With a few exception, this list of vehicles are all selling just fine.

 

Chevy Blazer

Honda Pilot

Hyundai Santa Fe

Jeep Grand Cherokee

Kia Sorento

Mazda CX-70

Nissan Murano

Subaru Outback

Tesla Y

Toyota Highlander

Toyota Crown Signia

VW Atlas Sport

 

I explained before that I think Ford decided to cancel Edge because it didn't want to retool Oakville for CD6 or C2 production. But Oakville has basically been unproductive for 3+ years... it just seems crazy to idle a plant like that and walk away from one of your solid sellers because your CEO won't acknowledge reality. 

Edited March 11 by bzcat

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, Trader 10 said:

Think Porsche Cayenne, only much better looking?

Mach-e but even better looking. The mach-e is already a really good looking crossover. A next gen that was a little leaner, lower, wider would make for a striking vehicle. 

[akirby]

59 minutes ago, bzcat said:

Farley is the only CEO that kept saying there is no market for 2-row mid/large CUV

I don't think he ever said there was no market.  I think he said or meant that Ford couldn't make money with their current products.

[Trader 10]

14 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Mach-e but even better looking. The mach-e is already a really good looking crossover. A next gen that was a little leaner, lower, wider would make for a striking vehicle. 

Yes, but an ICE version, which I think akirby was referencing, would sell in much higher volumes. 

[jpd80]

17 hours ago, akirby said:

I don't think he ever said there was no market.  I think he said or meant that Ford couldn't make money with their current products.

It was kind of implied that the two row Utility market had become commodity vehicles which is sad because in the past, Ford was

more than capable of supplying vehicles that could compete and

make money. The 10% return edict was introduced to cut vehicles 

that made no financial sense to Ford but would previously support

dealer sales and service centres with ongoing work.

 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

It was kind of implied that the two row Utility market had become commodity vehicles which is sad because in the past, Ford was

more than capable of supplying vehicles that could compete and

make money. The 10% return edict was introduced to cut vehicles 

that made no financial sense to Ford but would previously support

dealer sales and service centres with ongoing work.

 

They are commodities and not only was Escape too expensive they totally blew the styling.  As much as I hate to admit it, daughter's Rav4 is a far better vehicle and has a low cost platform.

 

Ford really had to start over so cancelling Edge and Escape might end up being a great move if we get better replacements.

[mackinaw]

7 minutes ago, akirby said:

......They are commodities and not only was Escape too expensive they totally blew the styling.  As much as I hate to admit it, daughter's Rav4 is a far better vehicle and has a low cost platform.....

 

Farley said awhile back that Rav4 had a $4,000 cost advantage over the Escape.

[akirby]

3 minutes ago, mackinaw said:

 

Farley said awhile back that Rav4 had a $4,000 cost advantage over the Escape.

I believe it.  Toyota has been tweaking the same basic platforms and powertrains for decades while Ford had multiple new platforms and powertrains and lower volume.  Hopeful that C3 will fix a lot of that.

[jpd80]

6 hours ago, akirby said:

They are commodities and not only was Escape too expensive they totally blew the styling.  As much as I hate to admit it, daughter's Rav4 is a far better vehicle and has a low cost platform.

 

Ford really had to start over so cancelling Edge and Escape might end up being a great move if we get better replacements.

There is the Chinese C2s, 

- Territory/Equator Sport 107” WB 76” wide

- Equator 116” WB 76” wide

 

Both the same width as Edge but wheel bases that cover two row and three row much better

 

It all depends on what today’s buyers really want,

RAV4 seems to be really catching that at the moment

[rmc523]

On 3/10/2026 at 9:21 PM, DeluxeStang said:

Mach-e but even better looking. The mach-e is already a really good looking crossover. A next gen that was a little leaner, lower, wider would make for a striking vehicle. 

making it even lower would make it even less of a crossover.  Its already low as it is

[T-dubz]

10 hours ago, rmc523 said:

making it even lower would make it even less of a crossover.  Its already low as it is

Yep. And the new rivian r2 is going to give the mach e a run for its money. IMO it’s a much more interesting EV with similar price and performance, but better looks and abilities. I think it has almost 4” more ground clearance than the Mach e.

Edited March 13 by T-dubz

[akirby]

2 hours ago, T-dubz said:

Yep. And the new rivian r2 is going to give the mach e a run for its money. IMO it’s a much more interesting EV with similar price and performance, but better looks and abilities. I think it has almost 4” more ground clearance than the Mach e.

You won't see any performance EVs from Ford going forward.  Too expensive.  Better to put that effort into ICE vehicles like a RWD mustang crossover.

[DeluxeStang]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

You won't see any performance EVs from Ford going forward.  Too expensive.  Better to put that effort into ICE vehicles like a RWD mustang crossover.

Agreed, but where are we drawing the line on performance? I don't see Ford doing an EV like the model s plaid for instance where it's this insane vehicle with over 1000 hp that does 0-60 in under 2 seconds. We're not gonna get that from Ford. 

 

But it feels like CE1 is at least somewhat performance oriented. We know the truck is gonna do 0-60 in about 4.5 seconds or even faster if their claims about it being faster than a mustang Ecoboost hold true. That's not insanely fast by EV standards, but it's pretty peppy. It's possible CE1 could maybe dip into the low 4s, or high 3s for a performance sedan which would make it pretty comparable to a mach-e gt. 

 

I'll be curious to see what the performance ceiling is on it. 

Edited March 13 by DeluxeStang

[akirby]

I'm talking about a Mach-E GT type EVs with dual or triple high performance motors and batteries with performance suspensions and brakes.   You'll see cheaper lighter single motor EVs with more range that still have great acceleration but not ludicrous speed.  While there is a market for that it's pretty small and there isn't much profit there due to the high costs.  
 

OTOH a performance mustang based sedan and suv can use off the shelf powertrains and suspensions and other parts and still make money at lower volumes and keep the Mustang coupe and the sub brand alive.

[DeluxeStang]

15 minutes ago, akirby said:

I'm talking about a Mach-E GT type EVs with dual or triple high performance motors and batteries with performance suspensions and brakes.   You'll see cheaper lighter single motor EVs with more range that still have great acceleration but not ludicrous speed.  While there is a market for that it's pretty small and there isn't much profit there due to the high costs.  
 

OTOH a performance mustang based sedan and suv can use off the shelf powertrains and suspensions and other parts and still make money at lower volumes and keep the Mustang coupe and the sub brand alive.

What kind of powertrains would you like a gas powered mustang SUV to have? Personally, I would like it if they mirror the coupe, and sedan. We know the coupe is probably gonna go hybrid at some point, it's inevitable, and it sounds like the sedan is gonna be the same deal. So with that in mind, a 2.3 and 5.0 hybrid would both be pretty neat. The 2.3 for more casual consumers, and the 5.0 for the all out hot rod. I don't know how well a hybrid AWD 5.0 would perform, but I'd imagine it would get pretty close to the 0-60 performance of the mach-e gt with better top end. 

 

My personal dream would be a new platform, either a revised cd6 or something different that the coupe, sedan, and crossover could all share. 

[akirby]

Sedan same as coupe.  SUV same as Explorer.

[rmc523]

On 3/13/2026 at 6:44 PM, akirby said:

Sedan same as coupe.  SUV same as Explorer.

 

Though it creates a production hurdle if based on CD6, I could see them trying to put the 5.0 in the crossover.

[DeluxeStang]

On 3/13/2026 at 4:44 PM, akirby said:

Sedan same as coupe.  SUV same as Explorer.

Out of curiosity, why no 5.0 in the mustang SUV as an option? I feel like it needs something spicy to give it that extra zing that something like the mach-e gt had. Having a crossover that did 0-60 in close to 3 seconds and then pivoting to a gas powered performance crossover that does it in like 4.5 or 5 seconds is gonna feel like a downgrade to some performance buyers. 

[DeluxeStang]

13 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

Though it creates a production hurdle if based on CD6, I could see them trying to put the 5.0 in the crossover.

Apparently explorer team members were kind teasing the idea of a 5.0 explorer. Not coming out and saying "Oh we're gonna put a 5.0 in the explorer in 2027" but more like a "We've been looking at the success of the V8 powered stellantis crossovers and think that's pretty cool and worth paying attention to" kinda comments. 

[akirby]

Only reason to do a coyote crossover Explorer or Mustang 2 row is nostalgia.  I doubt it would have more performance than the 3.0L ecoboost.

[DeluxeStang]

1 minute ago, akirby said:

Only reason to do a coyote crossover Explorer or Mustang 2 row is nostalgia.  I doubt it would have more performance than the 3.0L ecoboost.

Better sound, more appealing to enthusiasts who a performance vehicle is catering towards, and adds even higher volume to shared mustang components like the 5.0, further improving economies of scale which will bring costs even lower.

 

That's not to say the 3.0 Ecoboost is bad, it's not. It's just when you're making a performance aspirational product, it's about performance and power numbers, which is where the 3.0 is decent, but it's also about drama, about having that almost element of exotic flair. That's where a 5.0 would vastly surpass the 3.0. On a normal product, I'd say it doesn't matter. But enthusiasts pay attention to these sorts of things.