Mach-e won't transition to the skunkworks platform

[jpd80]

9 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

Ford had lots of other issues at time-the series they did about the Bronco dying in the 1990s and it trying to revive it since then didn’t pull any punches. 

Agree with that summation 

In the early days Mulally and his team not only axed lifestyle vehicles 

but was convinced for a short time that F Series was in terminal die back 

and that small efficient vehicles were the way to the future. All of that went out the window after about three or four years once the market recovered.

 

Remember Mulally had a real set against BOF vehicles and actively moved 

to replace as many as Ford could. That worked to a point but a lot of opportunity was missed…

Edited July 15 by jpd80

[rmc523]

17 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Agree with that summation 

In the early days Mulally and his team not only axed lifestyle vehicles 

but was convinced for a short time that F Series was in terminal die back 

and that small efficient vehicles were the way to the future. All of that went out the window after about three or four years once the market recovered.

 

Remember Mulally had a real set against BOF vehicles and actively moved 

to replace as many as Ford could. That worked to a point but a lot of opportunity was missed…

 

Was it truly "against" BOF vehicles, or more that Ford's BOF platforms at the time were outdated, and with the money issues, it just made more sense to consolidate to only a couple of platforms?

[Sherminator98]

4 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

Was it truly "against" BOF vehicles, or more that Ford's BOF platforms at the time were outdated, and with the money issues, it just made more sense to consolidate to only a couple of platforms?

 

That was exactly the reason-the reason why the NA platforms went away for the C and CD series from the EU, which brought their own set of issues that Ford is dealing with today. 

 

The only BOF platform that completely went away was the Ranger platform, which was going on almost 25 years without any major updates-I think the last platform update was like in 1989 and it was just sheetmetal and engine changes since then. The Crown Vic was replaced by the D3 and the Explorer (which was a close cousin to the Ranger in the early 2000s) moved to the D3 in 2010 then CD6.

[rmc523]

3 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

That was exactly the reason-the reason why the NA platforms went away for the C and CD series from the EU, which brought their own set of issues that Ford is dealing with today. 

 

The only BOF platform that completely went away was the Ranger platform, which was going on almost 25 years without any major updates-I think the last platform update was like in 1989 and it was just sheetmetal and engine changes since then. The Crown Vic was replaced by the D3 and the Explorer (which was a close cousin to the Ranger in the early 2000s) moved to the D3 in 2010 then CD6.

 

Right....it wasn't necessarily that Mulally was against RWD or BOF construction, more that those were the "low hanging fruit" options to go with while the company was struggling vs. some new RWD/BOF platform.

[jpd80]

On 7/16/2026 at 10:34 PM, rmc523 said:

 

Was it truly "against" BOF vehicles, or more that Ford's BOF platforms at the time were outdated, and with the money issues, it just made more sense to consolidate to only a couple of platforms?

Both, Mulally was all about ending what he saw as unnecessary duplication

and he didn’t have to look too hard to find many examples. The problem was that his insistence of One Ford vehicles actually stunted Ford’s growth just as GM started hitting its strides again.

The great BOF cull:

Panthers, BOF Explorer and Ranger (seen as cheap transport) could all be 

replaced by existing products for a recurring saving. Three plants and 

their vehicle production were closed down and for the most part, not missed

by anyone save for a few diehard fans.

 

Five seconds after Mulally retires and Fields is exploring RWD CD6 options,

bringing back a Bronco and Ranger….

 

The thing is how Ford flip flops with changing regimes…

 

 

Edited July 17 by jpd80

[akirby]

13 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Both, Mulally was all about ending what he saw as unnecessary duplication

and he didn’t have to look too hard to find many examples. The problem was that his insistence of One Ford vehicles actually stunted Ford’s growth just as GM started hitting its strides again.

 

 

The only thing I think Mulally should have done better was develop c2 earlier to replace both c1 and cd4.  I understand why he went with c1 and cd4 at the time based on resources and need to move quickly with existing platforms and the move to consolidate NA and Europe platforms did pay off.  
 

13 hours ago, jpd80 said:

The thing is how Ford flip flops with changing regimes…

And far too often within the same regime.  Farley especially is like the dog in UP! seeing squirrels everywhere.  I think he's tempered that a bit and is more focused on the mainstream vehicles.

[jpd80]

13 hours ago, akirby said:

The only thing I think Mulally should have done better was develop c2 earlier to replace both c1 and cd4.  I understand why he went with c1 and cd4 at the time based on resources and need to move quickly with existing platforms and the move to consolidate NA and Europe platforms did pay off.  
 

100% agree.

C1 & EUCD were developed to be close cousins for Europe and ROW

markets but I feel that both “coulda and shoulda” been  evolved

and covered by C2 but much earlier like 2010 intro…

 

Equally, I would have been happy for Ford to keep Mazda and its platforms for 

North America, they work well and would have allowed quicker USA tailoring.

set all of this in 2008 and run for 10 years, then see what cars and utilities 

were still needed…would have avoided the whole Powershift debacle.

 

13 hours ago, akirby said:

And far too often within the same regime.  Farley especially is like the dog in UP! seeing squirrels everywhere.  I think he's tempered that a bit and is more focused on the mainstream vehicles.

This, it seems like when things get hard, Ford switches plans and uses opportunity

cost as an excuse to dump a sensible plan to go chase profits in another direction.

The end seems to be a string of nonsense incoherent decisions (ass covering?)

I accept that my views ae coloured by not being US based, I simply 

see that Mulally made to much rationalisation that ended up hurting 

Ford in the US when it needed to really surge strongly in the

twenty teens by building a couple of new plants in Mexico.

(More things possible with costs under control?)

Anyway, water under the bridge…..

Edited July 19 by jpd80

[rmc523]

On 7/17/2026 at 6:38 PM, jpd80 said:

Both, Mulally was all about ending what he saw as unnecessary duplication

and he didn’t have to look too hard to find many examples. The problem was that his insistence of One Ford vehicles actually stunted Ford’s growth just as GM started hitting its strides again.

The great BOF cull:

Panthers, BOF Explorer and Ranger (seen as cheap transport) could all be 

replaced by existing products for a recurring saving. Three plants and 

their vehicle production were closed down and for the most part, not missed

by anyone save for a few diehard fans.

 

Five seconds after Mulally retires and Fields is exploring RWD CD6 options,

bringing back a Bronco and Ranger….

 

The thing is how Ford flip flops with changing regimes…

 

 

 

I remember Mulally wanted to green-light the Interceptor and MKR concepts when he arrived (which would've been BOF/RWD), but they were made with no actual way to construct them in mind, which obviously led to the D3 products.

 

I also think Mulally's got too stuck with keeping with the "save the company" portion of the plan and ever took the right next step.

 

For me, it should've been:

 

Step 1) Mulally's plan - shrink the company from 87 platforms down to a handful of global "core" platforms, with global models (Mulally did this)

Step 2) Take those now global platforms and built regional-specific models on said platforms to appeal to specific markets.  They sort of did this, but would also shoehorn products into markets they didn't fit (like Edge in Europe).  China could've used the same platforms with a variety of top-hats appealing to them.  US could've gotten something like Bronco Sport and Maverick sooner, etc. etc.

 

Instead, they just did One Ford, and then stopped.

[Texasota]

On 6/25/2026 at 3:16 PM, jpd80 said:

I see it now, a future Bronco pickup would integrate perfectly with existing Bronco SUV trim levels and option packages where Ranger looks odd man out.

 

Explorer Dude suggestion that Michigan plant becomes exclusively Bronco pickup/SUVs and Lincoln Bronco makes a lot of sense with higher $$ product mix and streamline parts delivery plus more common body stamping

 

Moving Ranger to TPP and making it a newer slightly larger more capable vehicle sends a strong message to GM and Toyota thst Ford wants more of that sub F150 market and branding it as an F truck is a big  marketing advantage 

JP, Farley talks up future proofing Ranger and having a hybrid version with exportable power (Pro Power Onboard) here:

https://fordauthority.com/2026/06/ford-ceo-jim-farley-says-company-will-future-proof-truck-business/

 

and Ford Authority has predicted in various articles that Ranger may have a hybrid version in 2027. Given the fascinating speculation here about F-100 being built at TTP for 2029ish delivery to replace the Ranger I’m dubious about 2027.
 

If you were a betting man, would you guess a Ranger hybrid before 2029 or will it be seen first in the F-100?

[rmc523]

41 minutes ago, Texasota said:

JP, Farley talks up future proofing Ranger and having a hybrid version with exportable power (Pro Power Onboard) here:

https://fordauthority.com/2026/06/ford-ceo-jim-farley-says-company-will-future-proof-truck-business/

 

and Ford Authority has predicted in various articles that Ranger may have a hybrid version in 2027. Given the fascinating speculation here about F-100 being built at TTP for 2029ish delivery to replace the Ranger I’m dubious about 2027.
 

If you were a betting man, would you guess a Ranger hybrid before 2029 or will it be seen first in the F-100?

 

My guess......it's all tied to Bronco.  I'd think if one gets it, the other will too, and Bronco is clearly in the drivers seat of the Ranger/Bronco pairing in the US.  A hybrid has been a rumor for Bronco since pre-debut, but hasn't shown up yet, but a next-gen model isn't slated until 2030 IIRC.....guess it depends if they allocated space for a battery or not as to whether we see it sooner or have to wait for a redo...

[Sherminator98]

2 hours ago, Texasota said:

If you were a betting man, would you guess a Ranger hybrid before 2029 or will it be seen first in the F-100?

 

I'm going with the F-100 being just the Ranger Super Duty...

 

Can look at it a couple different ways-

 

It gives Ford a product that adds to F-series sales number

 

It allows them to completely overmatch anything the Tacoma can do currently

 

It allows the base model F-150s to rise in price

 

It gives more room to the Maverick and CE1/Ranchero to grow in their price segments.  

[rmc523]

7 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

I'm going with the F-100 being just the Ranger Super Duty...

 

Can look at it a couple different ways-

 

It gives Ford a product that adds to F-series sales number

 

It allows them to completely overmatch anything the Tacoma can do currently

 

It allows the base model F-150s to rise in price

 

It gives more room to the Maverick and CE1/Ranchero to grow in their price segments.  

 

You mean direct same body (plus frame and under the skin updates) just with an F-100 badge?

 

That'd be a lazy approach, IMO.

 

Not to mention it'd confuse people.

Edited July 31 by rmc523

[Sherminator98]

2 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

You mean direct same body (plus frame and under the skin updates) just with an F-100 badge?

 

That'd be a lazy approach, IMO.

 

Not to mention it'd confuse people.

Nah basically everything from the Frame up would have different sheetmetal than the ROW Ranger. Maybe share stuff interior wise with the NG F-150. 
 

Basically you’d spilt the midsized market with a Bronco pickup (maybe) and then this heavy duty medium that is closer to a F-150. It would attract people at the lower end the F-150 market that are normally overbuying in a F-150 

[jpd80]

5 hours ago, Texasota said:

JP, Farley talks up future proofing Ranger and having a hybrid version with exportable power (Pro Power Onboard) here:

https://fordauthority.com/2026/06/ford-ceo-jim-farley-says-company-will-future-proof-truck-business/

 

and Ford Authority has predicted in various articles that Ranger may have a hybrid version in 2027. Given the fascinating speculation here about F-100 being built at TTP for 2029ish delivery to replace the Ranger I’m dubious about 2027.
 

If you were a betting man, would you guess a Ranger hybrid before 2029 or will it be seen first in the F-100?

Our Aussie experience with the PHEV Ranger is confusing and probably not indicative 

of How America sees hybridisation  as the next step with gasoline powertrains.

So yes, Ford US will be armed with what works for its market and I think the battery

size for on site power vs a prevented PHEV may be where the sees spot is for sales.

 

Aussie market is different, the PHEV needs to become diesel replacement as post 2028,

diesel pickups here will be almost impossible to sell because of emissions/economy regs

basically mandating PHEV as a minimum…wonder if this is similar to California and aligned states emissions legislation?

Edited July 31 by jpd80

[Texasota]

3 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

I'm going with the F-100 being just the Ranger Super Duty...

 

Can look at it a couple different ways-

 

It gives Ford a product that adds to F-series sales number

 

It allows them to completely overmatch anything the Tacoma can do currently

 

It allows the base model F-150s to rise in price

 

It gives more room to the Maverick and CE1/Ranchero to grow in their price segments.  

That doesn't jive with how I interpreted this post:

 

https://blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/79045-mach-e-wont-transition-to-the-skunkworks-platform/&do=findComment&comment=1255774

 

but my exuberance for a future F-100 could have caused me to read more into our Aussie friend's post than was intended. If F-100 is Ranger Super Duty only, then it leaves customers like me looking elsewhere. I don't need/want a Ranger SD or the off road chops of a Bronco pickup. Plus, F-100 SD only goes against the Ford mantra of an affordable truck from TTP.

 

Edited July 31 by Texasota

[Texasota]

37 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Our Aussie experience with the PHEV Ranger is confusing and probably not indicative 

of How America sees hybridisation  as the next step with gasoline powertrains.

So yes, Ford US will be armed with what works for its market and I think the battery

size for on site power vs a prevented PHEV may be where the sees spot is for sales.

 

Aussie market is different, the PHEV needs to become diesel replacement as post 2028,

diesel pickups here will be almost impossible to sell because of emissions/economy regs

basically mandating PHEV as a minimum…wonder if this is similar to California and aligned states emissions legislation?

Yes, I think North America is likely getting a Ranger (or F-100) Powerboost. It will meet my wants/needs very well. I wish I knew how long I have to wait to order the new GenerLink/Ford transfer switch so I can have whole house backup via Pro Power Onboard.

[HotRunrGuy]

10 hours ago, Texasota said:

Yes, I think North America is likely getting a Ranger (or F-100) Powerboost. It will meet my wants/needs very well. I wish I knew how long I have to wait to order the new GenerLink/Ford transfer switch so I can have whole house backup via Pro Power Onboard.

Looks like it is available now?

 

https://shopgenerlink.com/products/generlink-transfer-switch-ford-bundle

 

HRG

[Sherminator98]

11 hours ago, Texasota said:

but my exuberance for a future F-100 could have caused me to read more into our Aussie friend's post than was intended. If F-100 is Ranger Super Duty only, then it leaves customers like me looking elsewhere. I don't need/want a Ranger SD or the off road chops of a Bronco pickup. Plus, F-100 SD only goes against the Ford mantra of an affordable truck from TTP.

 

Affordable (IMO) is a nebulous term anyways-given the fact that average transaction price for a new vehicle is $50K these days. But that is whole another topic. 

 

Just looked at the pricing structure of Ford's current lineup:

Maverick: 28K
Ranger: 33K
F-150: 37K
Super Duty: 46K

 

Future lineup:

Maverick:~30K

CE1 EV:~30K

F-100: ~35K

F-100 SD: ~38K

F-150: ~$42k
Super Duty:~$48

 

So what I'm thinking is the F-100 will aline better with US customer tastes-it will remove pricing pressure on the F-150 at the lower end and not be as "crippled" by perception that current Ranger may have with the customer base. I'd also venture to guess that it would fit better for fleet usage-the F-150 is a bit too big for some roles and the Maverick/CE1 wouldn't be able to handle say off road usage as well (think park vehicles for example) and more body styles.

 

The SD Ranger/F-100 SD would create a whole new market 

[Texasota]

6 hours ago, HotRunrGuy said:

Looks like it is available now?

 

https://shopgenerlink.com/products/generlink-transfer-switch-ford-bundle

 

HRG

Yes, I’ve been reading all about it. I just need @jpd80to design/engineer/deliver an F-100 hybrid for me first. JP, I not getting any younger. 

Edited August 1 by Texasota

[rmc523]

On 7/31/2026 at 6:32 PM, Sherminator98 said:

Nah basically everything from the Frame up would have different sheetmetal than the ROW Ranger. Maybe share stuff interior wise with the NG F-150. 
 

Basically you’d spilt the midsized market with a Bronco pickup (maybe) and then this heavy duty medium that is closer to a F-150. It would attract people at the lower end the F-150 market that are normally overbuying in a F-150 

 

Hmm, I see.   Not sure how you'd share components with F-150 when that'll be bigger all around?

[Sherminator98]

4 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

Hmm, I see.   Not sure how you'd share components with F-150 when that'll be bigger all around?

 

I was thinking switch gear, vents, similar styling, maybe seats? I know it wouldn't be a direct fit or interchangeable between them. 

[akirby]

35 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

Hmm, I see.   Not sure how you'd share components with F-150 when that'll be bigger all around?

Same way Focus and Fiesta shared parts.

[rmc523]

54 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

I was thinking switch gear, vents, similar styling, maybe seats? I know it wouldn't be a direct fit or interchangeable between them. 

 

Well, parts like that are a given.

 

Ford already shares switchgear across many models (i.e. Bronco's air and radio controls are the same as F-series with different knob finishes).