We might finally know what the cancelled Ford three row looked like

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

Are EV range estimates determined by the automaker, or does the EPA determine the estimates? (Seems the EPA wouldn’t since there’s no tailpipe emissions). I wonder what the range difference is between highway and city driving. 

MPG ICE ratings also come from the mfr following very specific rules and procedures.  EPA only does spot checks to verify  the mfr results.

[DeluxeStang]

3 hours ago, Zestyg said:

not hard to see

 

edit: played with proportions more to make it look more like the airflow graphic they showed in that presentation.

I'm scared lol. 

[Sherminator98]

4 hours ago, Zestyg said:

the fact that he seems to like how the skunk truck looks concerns me

 

A broken clock is correct twice a day (unless its digital and your just fucked then :p) 

[twintornados]

6 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

I've heard it looks pretty close to the electric small Toyota pickup concept that was called like the TPU. 

 

Toilet Paper Unit? Goes with the TRD lineup?

[Zestyg]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

I'm scared lol. 

What if I exclude the shittier edits I made and focus on the more proportionate one that kinda looks like if Tesla didn’t fucking suck at making trucks. I like this one!

 

I have noticed that all of this kinda looks similar to the Model 3, which Doug Field did have a large part in making.

 

it also reminds me of the Hyundai Santa Cruz, which might be a bad sign.

Edited April 17 by Zestyg

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, twintornados said:

 

Toilet Paper Unit? Goes with the TRD lineup?

My bad, it's actually called the EPU for electric pickup, such a creative name 🤣.

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, Zestyg said:

What if I exclude the shittier edits I made and focus on the more proportionate one that kinda looks like if Tesla didn’t fucking suck at making trucks. I like this one!

 

I have noticed that all of this kinda looks similar to the Model 3, which Doug Field did have a large part in making.

 

it also reminds me of the Hyundai Santa Cruz, which might be a bad sign.

I think there are some ok.ideas here, I just believe we need to tweak it a bit. 

[jpd80]

9 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

That's my concern too - that the aero doesn't come into play until certain speeds, so hopefully CE1 ranges will be ok.

 

 

Yup, this thing is clearly an aero-first design (makes sense given the name).  Borg said he loved how it looked and would've bought one.........I feel like it's equivalent to Flex/MKT in that it may have had a group of loyal followers, but the general buying public would be turned off by it.

Yes, you nailed it.

the first time I saw it, I had thoughts of MKT that had been

smoothed down at the front  for more aero…….

 

The maddening part about Ford’s electric plans is that they must have known

that the more soft/aero a design is, the less their traditional utility

and truck buyers will like it. I mean, who the F are they designing this thing for?

I shudder to think it was for a new bunch of buyers so that it wouldn’t cut into existing sales…

 

Thers a lot of complex thinking inside Ford and sometimes the objectives defy logic….

Things that probably fly as face saving in the board rooms but ordinary buyer wince at.

Edited April 17 by jpd80

[rmc523]

7 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Yes, you nailed it.

the first time I saw it, I had thoughts of MKT that had been

smoothed down at the front  for more aero…….

 

The maddening part about Ford’s electric plans is that they must have known

that the more soft/aero a design is, the less their traditional utility

and truck buyers will like it. I mean, who the F are they designing this thing for?

I shudder to think it was for a new bunch of buyers so that it wouldn’t cut into existing sales…

 

Thers a lot of complex thinking inside Ford and sometimes the objectives defy logic….

Things that probably fly as face saving in the board rooms but ordinary buyer wince at.

 

I don't think there's necessarily a problem with coming out with a product to try to appeal to different customers than your traditional base.

 

But it has to be done very well.  Escape/Bronco Sport are examples of Ford targeting different buyers, but they phoned it in on the latter, and we saw the results.

 

This product as shown, I don't know if it's fair to say it's phoned in, because I'm sure a lot of work and effort and tech when into it, but design wise - the part buyers see the most - it seems lackluster, IMO.  It's not a "drop dead gorgeous/gotta have that" type of sleek, and it certainly won't appeal to boxy vehicle buyers.  Basically, for me, it's falling in no-mans land between those two groups, and that seems to be the exact reaction the focus groups had.

[Sherminator98]

IMO I think the issue with this product and other EVs:

Other automakers saw the success that Tesla was having with their products and tried to replicate it.

 

However the problem with that was they where trying to chase down a certain type of customer who was already being served by Tesla products

 

I'm personally slightly turned off by the minimalist style and interiors of Tesla products-they look "boring and cheap" 

I get why its being done also (weight savings/cheaper to build)

 

Styling has been overall disappointing with the vast majority of EVs-Kia's EV and the Mach E are some of the better looking products, but once again, the exteriors are getting hit with that minimalist style again. 

 

Once again, IMO Automakers need to stop making EVs "look different" with in reason, because there is a rather large portion of the car buying public that doesn't want to stick out or look different like say early Prius or Tesla buyers who think they are better then other people who don't have a hybrid or EV. I think that also doesn't help EV sales either. 

[tzach]

1 hour ago, Sherminator98 said:

IMO I think the issue with this product and other EVs:

Other automakers saw the success that Tesla was having with their products and tried to replicate it.

 

However the problem with that was they where trying to chase down a certain type of customer who was already being served by Tesla products

 

I'm personally slightly turned off by the minimalist style and interiors of Tesla products-they look "boring and cheap" 

I get why its being done also (weight savings/cheaper to build)

 

Styling has been overall disappointing with the vast majority of EVs-Kia's EV and the Mach E are some of the better looking products, but once again, the exteriors are getting hit with that minimalist style again. 

 

Once again, IMO Automakers need to stop making EVs "look different" with in reason, because there is a rather large portion of the car buying public that doesn't want to stick out or look different like say early Prius or Tesla buyers who think they are better then other people who don't have a hybrid or EV. I think that also doesn't help EV sales either. 

Totally agree, EVs need to look like normal cars, just really well styled ones!

[rmc523]

2 hours ago, tzach said:

Totally agree, EVs need to look like normal cars, just really well styled ones!

 

I honestly think this is why the Model S did so well when it came out - it was an EV, but more importantly, it was a great looking vehicle that happened to be an EV.  Products since have become more science projects, though other companies have also done more normal designs.

[Zestyg]

16 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

I think there are some ok.ideas here, I just believe we need to tweak it a bit. 

Borg replied to you;

 

”I know there was some edgy looking sketches out there, but they don't seem to have informed this trucks design, or any truck I've seen at least. Ford is SO conservative, they don't do lumpy unless it's a Raptor .

BTW the UEV has a conventional blue oval Ford badge, no scripted badge like Aeros. There is actually a partial photo of the front end somewhere from Ford. It evokes Ford pickups with the shape of the lighting and fascia creases, I think it looks quite fine. It's really not as slopped as the Aeros either, the front end is higher, but it's short and smooth.”

so relative to the microsoft paint image I put together, it has a blue oval and is higher/flatter in the face (remember that picture of the worker polishing the front end?).

 

he also said the lighting evoked more ford truck, so I moved the lower headlights over to get more of that shape, but the whole thing looks very Tesla he says.

 

[jpd80]

3 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

I honestly think this is why the Model S did so well when it came out - it was an EV, but more importantly, it was a great looking vehicle that happened to be an EV.  Products since have become more science projects, though other companies have also done more normal designs.

Exactly, it’s pretty obvious that Ford was targeting Tesla X as a competitor for the three row,

I couldn’t believe that it turned its back on the more traditional styled Utility buyer preference.

It was a terrible mistake and pretty much the opposite to what Lightning was.

 

Interesting that Ford tried both ends of the spectrum and still couldn’t crack EV buyers,

maybe the true sales depth just isn’t as deep in Nth America as automakers believe it to be…..

[DeluxeStang]

6 hours ago, tzach said:

Totally agree, EVs need to look like normal cars, just really well styled ones!

Pretty much. The mach-e is an extremely attractive coupe suv, I'd argue it's the only genuinely attractive coupe suv. It's odd how Ford nailed this right out of the gate, and now is struggling with it. 

[Sherminator98]

Officially an article now

 

https://www.thedrive.com/news/fords-never-seen-canceled-moonshot-ev-has-been-hiding-in-plain-sight-online-for-a-year

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, Zestyg said:

Borg replied to you;

 

”I know there was some edgy looking sketches out there, but they don't seem to have informed this trucks design, or any truck I've seen at least. Ford is SO conservative, they don't do lumpy unless it's a Raptor .

BTW the UEV has a conventional blue oval Ford badge, no scripted badge like Aeros. There is actually a partial photo of the front end somewhere from Ford. It evokes Ford pickups with the shape of the lighting and fascia creases, I think it looks quite fine. It's really not as slopped as the Aeros either, the front end is higher, but it's short and smooth.”

so relative to the microsoft paint image I put together, it has a blue oval and is higher/flatter in the face (remember that picture of the worker polishing the front end?).

 

he also said the lighting evoked more ford truck, so I moved the lower headlights over to get more of that shape, but the whole thing looks very Tesla he says.

 

See now this looks a little better. So have you seen the truck in full, or just the front end image within Ford? I kinda hope they have some contrasting design elements or lines running across the front end to break up the front end.

[morgan20]

28 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

It's odd how Ford nailed this right out of the gate, and now is struggling with it. 

 

Possible reasons for that:

• The marketing big shots at Ford got lazy recently, they're not puttin' forth the effort they should to promote MME
• De-contenting for 2026 model year
• Pricing isn't as competitive as it used to be, especially compared to Ioniq 5 and EV6
• No major refresh since MME was introduced in 2021

[Zestyg]

25 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

See now this looks a little better. So have you seen the truck in full, or just the front end image within Ford? I kinda hope they have some contrasting design elements or lines running across the front end to break up the front end.

I believe Borg was referring to this photo

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

Pretty much. The mach-e is an extremely attractive coupe suv, I'd argue it's the only genuinely attractive coupe suv. It's odd how Ford nailed this right out of the gate, and now is struggling with it. 

The project was not allowed to be a failure, it was given Mustang brand

to ensure enough of the right kind of buyers were attracted to it.

(those prepared to pay a premium for Mustang name)
 

Remembering that the project was originally a rescue of the electrified C-Max,

Hackett and Farley basically spent double the money on that project to get it right.

and because of that, they couldn’t let it fail before covering at least some of that

development money - it’s the only reason why it’s still around on an orphan platform.

 

Edited April 17 by jpd80

[Sherminator98]

2 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Remembering that the project was originally a rescue of the electrified C-Max,

Hackett and Farley basically spent double the money on that project to get it right.

and because of that, they couldn’t let it fail before covering at least some of that

development money - it’s the only reason why it’s still around on an orphan platform.

 

it was originally an EU compliance vehicle also

[DeluxeStang]

The fisker had proportions that look pretty close to the skunkworks truck, plus the design is a little more minimal. Something like this would also be pretty slick. 

[jpd80]

5 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

it was originally an EU compliance vehicle also

Which developed out of the electric Focus that was originally developed by

Magna as a demonstration to Ford of its electrical systems…..

 

In hindsight, had the compliance vehicle continued as Focus with say Escape added,

I think Ford would have done famously well in Europe and completely justified costs.

Edited April 17 by jpd80

[Sherminator98]

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

In hindsight, had the compliance vehicle continued as Focus with say Escape added,

I think Ford would have done famously well in Europe and completely justified costs.

 

Nah it was all about the styling of it-They went with a Mustang likeness to help with the marketing.

If it looked like some of the renderings they had it would have done even more terribility 

[jpd80]

31 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

Nah it was all about the styling of it-They went with a Mustang likeness to help with the marketing.

If it looked like some of the renderings they had it would have done even more terribility 

(this is not aimed at you)
The complete idiocy was that the C-Max MPV body should have been completely dumped

but too much had already been spent, so they spends double turning it into something more attractive.

 

Had the money been spent more wisely in the first place, Europe would have received

the two compliance vehicles that it desperately needed to meet approaching regulations.

 

Instead, Farley made things much worse because his pride wouldn’t let go of a mistake

and so, he pushed Hackett to double down on something that was for the most part, 

contrary to the affordable BEVs that Europe desperately needed. Ford developed a

vehicle of hubris that was barely profitable because they couldn’t let go.

(at one point, break even was just below $50,000)

 

Fortunately, enough people bough in Mach E in rich trim mixes but the moment

Ford stopped push advertising, it started dropping away…

Edited April 18 by jpd80