You make a valid point in that much of the investment is already a sunk cost.  Unfortunately we don’t know what overall costs are to Ford so we can only guess if profitable at all.  Something else to consider is that perhaps marketing is trying to set the stage for future models that will only have fixed glass by preemptively eliminating features on present vehicles that will be compared against later.  If a feature has marginal demand and or generates minimal profit to start with, marketing may sacrifice pano now in order to make future vehicles not appear lacking when compared. My guess is that if they are eliminating pano roof now, it’s unlikely future models will have them.  Just suggesting Ford may be thinking ahead — or not; hard to say what’s actually behind decisions when we are not privy to all information.

Agreed, but as someone who has used a Supercharger WITH an adapter, it's not a big deal.

https://fordauthority.com/2025/07/this-data-point-about-ford-maverick-buyers-may-surprise-you/

Welcome to internet 101 where misleading headlines are the rule to get clicks...sigh    

Apparently they are now repealed   https://reason.com/2025/07/02/under-the-big-beautiful-bill-car-companies-wont-be-fined-for-failing-to-hit-arbitrary-fuel-efficiency-goals/   The issue is long term-what happens during the next administration if leadership changes. I think the prudent course is just keep what your doing mid term so your not caught with your pants down when things change

Well, they can start with factory install of NACS connector so customers can use Superchargers without an adapter....seeing as Ford was the first OEM through the gate to join the NACS revolution....are they waiting for a mid-cycle refresh to do it?

So lets see: 1993 Mustang GT or LX V8 (can't remember off the top of my head) was around $14K when I looked at it in High School   Today that would be $31,210.19 with inflation   The Ecoboost Mustang offers more performance and far better gas mileage in a far more refined package then the Fox Mustang in 1990s   Average cost of a new car in 1993 was $16,871, today it is $49740.   So given that information, the Mustang isn't that much more expensive given averages of the time.    I'm guessing the bigger issue is that your income hasn't kept up with inflation or gone up over time.     

Is Ford going to lower the price now that it’s a fixed piece of glass?  They used to use the pano as a selling point, and it is one of the best on the market.  But what if they don’t lower the price?  What kind of selling point is that?  Pay more get less?   The pano is an option.  If you want a lower price point reduce the number of vehicles you install it on or give people all three options. If the take rate suggest only 10% or less opt for the pano over time, then I get it. But to eliminate a great feature that people were clearly paying for makes no sense to me. 

I agree with you the 90’s styling wasn’t notable and I think it pays to evolve the retro styling. Hopefully Ford reverses course on the screens control everything trend. Though they needed to incorporate a bigger screen into the s650, they didn’t need to be that drastic. 

A fair question, but it’s not as if every buyer of those vehicles or those considering buying them evaporated.  Though the market may be smaller, there’s still a market for this vehicle type. What is the answer if they aren’t buying Mustangs?   Dodge must think there is a market since they are basically rebooting their game.