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

[DeluxeStang]

6 minutes 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.

Which is why I personally believe a 2.3 or 2.7 base engine to appeal to more casual buyers, and offering a 5.0 to cater to more hardcore enthusiasts is the way to go. The best of both worlds. The more affordable, sensible engine options, and the crazy one. 

[rmc523]

7 minutes 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.

 

If you're doing an ICE product that leans heavily into Mustang branding, why would you not use perhaps the best Mustang-associated feature (the V8)?

 

Otherwise, you're just rebodying an Explorer.

[akirby]

23 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

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. 

I don't see the crossover buyer being the same as the coupe/sedan buyer.  Edge ST and Nautilus owners loved the 2.7L ecoboost.

 

Not saying they shouldn't do it but I think it would be more difficult to fit in a smaller than explorer crossover and more expensive than using the already existing 3.0 from the Explorer ST.  Assuming it ends up as cd6.

[akirby]

25 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

If you're doing an ICE product that leans heavily into Mustang branding, why would you not use perhaps the best Mustang-associated feature (the V8)?

 

Otherwise, you're just rebodying an Explorer.

People said the same thing about the 2.3L replacing the v6.  But like I said they can do it for nostalgia.

[DeluxeStang]

7 minutes ago, akirby said:

I don't see the crossover buyer being the same as the coupe/sedan buyer.  Edge ST and Nautilus owners loved the 2.7L ecoboost.

 

Not saying they shouldn't do it but I think it would be more difficult to fit in a smaller than explorer crossover and more expensive than using the already existing 3.0 from the Explorer ST.  Assuming it ends up as cd6.

Some valid points, and it is worth discussing that enthusiasts are varied, it's not a monolith. Some want turbocharged 4 and 6 cyls, some want v8s, others want performance hybrids and EVs. So it really depends on what kind of enthusiast Ford is trying to appeal to. Is it edge buyers? Trying to win mustang buyers over to a four door? Mach-e owners? 

 

On the topic of cd6 from a cost efficiency standpoint, I'd personally like to see cd6 2.0, an evolved and improved, more flexible version of the platform, that could become the base for all of Ford's unibody RWD products. 

[rmc523]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

I don't see the crossover buyer being the same as the coupe/sedan buyer.  Edge ST and Nautilus owners loved the 2.7L ecoboost.

 

Not saying they shouldn't do it but I think it would be more difficult to fit in a smaller than explorer crossover and more expensive than using the already existing 3.0 from the Explorer ST.  Assuming it ends up as cd6.

 

I definitely understand what you're saying by suggesting to just reuse Explorer powertrains to simplify production off the same platform (and presumably, plant).

 

However, I feel like there's a different expectation of an ICE-powered product with a Mustang badge, as I mentioned above.  Sure, plenty of folks would buy the base 2.3EB powertrain, but I feel like many would want the V8 from something Mustang badged that has an ICE powertrain.

[T-dubz]

On 3/16/2026 at 10:25 AM, akirby said:

I don't see the crossover buyer being the same as the coupe/sedan buyer.  Edge ST and Nautilus owners loved the 2.7L ecoboost.

 

Not saying they shouldn't do it but I think it would be more difficult to fit in a smaller than explorer crossover and more expensive than using the already existing 3.0 from the Explorer ST.  Assuming it ends up as cd6.

I agree. Any mustang suv would also be smaller than the Explorer, so the 3.0 should perform even better. I have no problem with that being the top engine.
 

I personally can’t see the Mustang suv being a super high performance vehicle. Nothing like a trackhawk or SRT jeep. I think Explorer ST performance is a respectable target. Good performance, well above average, but nothing crazy.

[rmc523]

8 hours ago, T-dubz said:

I agree. Any mustang suv would also be smaller than the Explorer, so the 3.0 should perform even better. I have no problem with that being the top engine.
 

I personally can’t see the Mustang suv being a super high performance vehicle. Nothing like a trackhawk or SRT jeep. I think Explorer ST performance is a respectable target. Good performance, well above average, but nothing crazy.

 

Wouldn't the goal be to have it perform better than the Explorer ST, as a smaller, more nimble vehicle, especially if they're attaching the Mustang name to it?

[T-dubz]

41 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

Wouldn't the goal be to have it perform better than the Explorer ST, as a smaller, more nimble vehicle, especially if they're attaching the Mustang name to it?

I was mainly referring to 0-60 times. So I would expect it to be low to mid 5 seconds like the explorer st. I’m sure it will handle better. I also think the mustang name is more marketing than anything, just like the mach e was. As long as it’s faster than an average suv, they can get away with it. This allows them to keep price down so the vehicle has more appeal. They can sell a hell of a lot more of these at 45k with a 0-60 of 5.5 seconds then they would sell at 65k with a 4.5 sec 0-60. 

 

[rmc523]

3 minutes ago, T-dubz said:

I was mainly referring to 0-60 times. So I would expect it to be low to mid 5 seconds like the explorer st. I’m sure it will handle better. I also think the mustang name is more marketing than anything, just like the mach e was. As long as it’s faster than an average suv, they can get away with it. This allows them to keep price down so the vehicle has more appeal. They can sell a hell of a lot more of these at 45k with a 0-60 of 5.5 seconds then they would sell at 65k with a 4.5 sec 0-60. 

 

 

I could honestly see it mirroring Mustang pricing....

 

starting in the 30s and stretching on up in to the 60s, 70s, maybe more depending how far they go with any performance variants.

[fordmantpw]

If it carries the Mustang name, I think there will have to be at least one variant with a sub 5 second 0-60.

[ZanatWork]

If they put the Mustang badge on it, then a V8 option should at least have strong consideration as it's certainly part of the Mustang heritage.

If they want to separate it from the 3.0 Ecoboost, use the Dark Hose variant, and/or give it some more R&D to squeeze out more performance. This would be a performance vehicle, the numbers aren't just for numbers' sake. If the CEO wants Ford to be the "Porsche of off road", that requires the hardware to back the claim.

[DeluxeStang]

What concerns me is the fact that a gas powered mustang crossover is gonna lose a lot of the consumer base that made the mach-e so successful. That being the sizable portion of mach-e owners who just want a quiet, reliable, smooth, low cost of ownership crossover that also happens to be fast. A gas powered performance crossover isn't gonna be able to match the refinement or reliability of an EV. So a lot of those buyers are gonna pass. 

 

On top of that, if the performance of the gas mach-e is relative weak sauce compared to a mach-e gt, it's gonna feel like a downgrade in most respects. A V8 would help with that, it would be something that made the gas version of the mach-e feel special and like an improvement over the EV version. 

 

 

Edited March 18 by DeluxeStang

[Biker16]

On 3/16/2026 at 11:00 AM, rmc523 said:

 

If you're doing an ICE product that leans heavily into Mustang branding, why would you not use perhaps the best Mustang-associated feature (the V8)?

 

Otherwise, you're just rebodying an Explorer.

The target buyer won't care if it has a V8, its more about the vibes

[rmc523]

31 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

What concerns me is the fact that a gas powered mustang crossover is gonna lose a lot of the consumer base that made the mach-e so successful. That being the sizable portion of mach-e owners who just want a quiet, reliable, smooth, low cost of ownership crossover that also happens to be fast. A gas powered performance crossover isn't gonna be able to match the refinement or reliability of an EV. So a lot of those buyers are gonna pass. 

 

On top of that, if the performance of the gas mach-e is relative weak sauce compared to a mach-e gt, it's gonna feel like a downgrade in most respects. A V8 would help with that, it would be something that made the gas version of the mach-e feel special and like an improvement over the EV version. 

 

 

 

I think what this signals is that Ford thinks the upcoming CE1 crossover can satisfy demand for a Ford EV in the near future under a new, more profitable architecture, rather than trying to soldier on with Mach E.  I'd agree that I think Ford should keep it around (redesigned on CE1) as a sporty offering to maintain what it's built, but seems like that won't be happening.

 

22 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

The target buyer won't care if it has a V8, its more about the vibes

 

Putting the Mustang name on it will automatically mean the V8 is part of those "vibes" for many buyers.

 

Sure, a good chunk will buy the base powertrain for the looks, but not including it is a mistake, IMO.

[JTL2017]

I think there should be four Mustang nameplates. The two-door Mustang is the obvious flagship (GTD, Shelby, etc.). Then stretched four-door liftback, an EV crossover (new Mach-E), and a Mustang “Cayenne” version.

 

While it won't make the enthusiasts happy, I think these make sense for the platforms. The new Mach-E being based on CE1 and the Mustang “Cayenne” being on CD6. 

[akirby]

5 hours ago, fordmantpw said:

If it carries the Mustang name, I think there will have to be at least one variant with a sub 5 second 0-60.

Explorer ST is 5.2 seconds so a smaller lighter version should easily do mid 4s with some tuning and performance gearing.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

Putting the Mustang name on it will automatically mean the V8 is part of those "vibes" for many buyers.

Crossover buyers are not coupe buyers.   Even coupe buyers love the 2.3 ecoboost.  It does not NEED a V8, but it wouldn't be a bad thing if it had it.

[fordmantpw]

16 minutes ago, akirby said:

Explorer ST is 5.2 seconds so a smaller lighter version should easily do mid 4s with some tuning and performance gearing.

 

I didn't realize the Explorer ST was that quick.

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

 

I think what this signals is that Ford thinks the upcoming CE1 crossover can satisfy demand for a Ford EV in the near future under a new, more profitable architecture, rather than trying to soldier on with Mach E.  I'd agree that I think Ford should keep it around (redesigned on CE1) as a sporty offering to maintain what it's built, but seems like that won't be happening.

 

 

Putting the Mustang name on it will automatically mean the V8 is part of those "vibes" for many buyers.

 

Sure, a good chunk will buy the base powertrain for the looks, but not including it is a mistake, IMO.

 

28 minutes ago, JTL2017 said:

I think there should be four Mustang nameplates. The two-door Mustang is the obvious flagship (GTD, Shelby, etc.). Then stretched four-door liftback, an EV crossover (new Mach-E), and a Mustang “Cayenne” version.

 

While it won't make the enthusiasts happy, I think these make sense for the platforms. The new Mach-E being based on CE1 and the Mustang “Cayenne” being on CD6. 

Here's what I would do. I'd keep an affordable "coupe" swoopy, sporty crossover for CE1. Something maybe slightly smaller, and a lot more affordable than mach-e that fell in-between the size of mach-e and escape. A similar design, just slightly more muscular, tighter than the mach-e. Something to make mach-e owners happy, but also escape buyers. 

 

Then I'd have a larger gas powered suv with decent sized engines, maybe a larger, boxier shape. This could be something that appeals to not only people who want a gas powered mach-e, but also people who want a more direct edge replacement that sits higher than mach-e did. 

 

I wouldn't call both of them mustang, I believe having multiple mustang SUVs would be too much. So maybe using the mustang name on the gas performance crossover and call the EV like Galaxie or something. 

[T-dubz]

2 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

What concerns me is the fact that a gas powered mustang crossover is gonna lose a lot of the consumer base that made the mach-e so successful. That being the sizable portion of mach-e owners who just want a quiet, reliable, smooth, low cost of ownership crossover that also happens to be fast. A gas powered performance crossover isn't gonna be able to match the refinement or reliability of an EV. So a lot of those buyers are gonna pass. 

 

On top of that, if the performance of the gas mach-e is relative weak sauce compared to a mach-e gt, it's gonna feel like a downgrade in most respects. A V8 would help with that, it would be something that made the gas version of the mach-e feel special and like an improvement over the EV version. 

 

 

IMO mach e buyers were never “Mustang” buyers. They just wanted an EV. I don’t think there would be much cross shopping either. 

if ford can keep the price down with a v8, i have no problem with it. Most competitors with a v8 though are 80k and above. Of course those also have 700+ hp.

 

maybe it will follow similar pricing and engines as the mustang like some of you have suggested. I personally think the 2.3 in my Bronco goes pretty good. I can imagine a smaller, lighter vehicle with the 2.3 and possibly a performance tune being pretty fun to drive. Even better if it starts around the price of a mustang ecoboost. I would be interested in a vehicle like that.

[Sherminator98]

14 hours ago, T-dubz said:

IMO mach e buyers were never “Mustang” buyers. They just wanted an EV. I don’t think there would be much cross shopping either.

 

Just to provide an opposite viewpoint, I'm looking at a Mach E as my next vehicle if it is still around in another 4-5 years...and I've owned two Mustang Coupes prior to this.

 

Anyways-from my perspective-the Mach E would be a better overall fit vs the coupe (which I wouldn't mind either) because its more practical and has a better seating position (i.e. easier to get in and out of) but yet still offer good performance (I'd most likely go with a Mach E GT) 

 

The biggest issue (again for my perspective) is that coupe is a slight pain in the ass to get in out of-I guess I'm used the higher seating position that the Escape and my SHO offered at the time. The Bronco I have now is a slight pain to get into at times-because it sits higher and I have limited space to get into it in my garage with my wife's car in the way-I can't get the door opened up all the way-otherwise it isn't.

 

I didn't realize this till I got my Fusion to hold me over-both my wife and I said the same thing-the seating position was almost identical to the Mustang I had and we weren't huge fans of that because we got used to the higher seating positions that other Fords we had offered. 

[fordmantpw]

1 hour ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

Just to provide an opposite viewpoint, I'm looking at a Mach E as my next vehicle if it is still around in another 4-5 years...and I've owned two Mustang Coupes prior to this.

 

Anyways-from my perspective-the Mach E would be a better overall fit vs the coupe (which I wouldn't mind either) because its more practical and has a better seating position (i.e. easier to get in and out of) but yet still offer good performance (I'd most likely go with a Mach E GT) 

 

The biggest issue (again for my perspective) is that coupe is a slight pain in the ass to get in out of-I guess I'm used the higher seating position that the Escape and my SHO offered at the time. The Bronco I have now is a slight pain to get into at times-because it sits higher and I have limited space to get into it in my garage with my wife's car in the way-I can't get the door opened up all the way-otherwise it isn't.

 

I didn't realize this till I got my Fusion to hold me over-both my wife and I said the same thing-the seating position was almost identical to the Mustang I had and we weren't huge fans of that because we got used to the higher seating positions that other Fords we had offered. 

 

The higher seating position is the reason my wife wants her next vehicle to be a Bronco instead of the Mach-E.  Maybe we should just swap! 😄 

[RobertAshcroft]

On 2/6/2026 at 12:26 PM, Sherminator98 said:

 

No, Ford stated this:

https://www.fromtheroad.ford.com/us/en/articles/2025/ford-affordable-electric-vehicle-platform-midsize-electric-truck

I'm guessing it will be around $35K or so for starting MSRP
 

The sub 40K price point is to fit in the other products that are coming

 

There are five new products coming:
 

One is the CE1 Pickup

 

We can infer the other is going to be the new van going in Ohio, which will be C1 based hybrid replacement for the Transit Connect

 

So that leaves us with three more products-

 

My assumptions:

A new Bronco nameplate to replace the Edge/Escape...but might be just an updated Bronco Sport

 

EV CUV on the CE1, which apparently is going to be called the Escape

 

Some sort of sedan, not sure if it will be a hybrid or based on the CE1. 

 

Надёжный и удобный игровой опыт можно найти с win.casino, где всё работает просто и стабильно.

That seems like a pretty reasonable breakdown - especially the van and CE1 truck. I’m still curious what they do with that last slot, a sedan would make sense but feels like a bit of a gamble in today’s market.

Edited March 24 by RobertAshcroft

[Motorpsychology]

On 3/18/2026 at 3:11 PM, JTL2017 said:

I think there should be four Mustang nameplates. The two-door Mustang is the obvious flagship (GTD, Shelby, etc.). Then stretched four-door liftback, an EV crossover (new Mach-E), and a Mustang “Cayenne” version.

 

While it won't make the enthusiasts happy, I think these make sense for the platforms. The new Mach-E being based on CE1 and the Mustang “Cayenne” being on CD6. 

Bring back Mercury for the CD6?

1997 Mercury MC4 Concept.  Take my money. I'd sell my Ranger for this if I could get back out of it, lol!

 

 

Edited March 24 by Motorpsychology
add pic