The fun comes when the battery runs down to less than about 25%, on the Shark 6, power is then limited to what the ICE generator can supply. ….so this is why I hope that the F150 EREV has enough ICE power to tow even with completely discharged battery…  

It won't be underpowered.  It's still a BEV powered by electric motors just with a smaller capacity battery.  

I'll keep an open mind, but I'm betting the F-150 EREV's Achilles heel will be long distance towing (under-powered and inefficient). Something like what @jpd80 is proposing sounds more promising in my opinion.  Can't wait to see what Ford comes up with.

I just paid $2.07/gal for E10/87 at a QT in west Broken Arrow. 

Just as a reality check, Toyota’s annual net profit for FY2025 was $31 billion While it has commercial vehicles, Thers no comparison to F Series as Tundra is stuck behind much better products from Ford, GM and Stellantis.   your point on optimisation of smaller passenger vehicles and commercials for Asia, Europe North America and ROW markets puts them way out in front. Toyota is effectively the  21st century GM at its height.   Conversely, I wonder whether the thing that brings them undone (Chinese BEVs) will affect their income way earlier than North American brands like Ford and GM maybe throw Stellantis in there too…thanks to Ram and Jeep.

Ford was never worried about cost on small cars because of high union labor and CAFE offsets and the preference Americans have for trucks and suvs.   F series is very close to corolla and tesla model y as the worldwide best seller and it's only sold in North America.  It also produces twice as much revenue and probably 2-3 times the profit margin.  It would be stupid not to prioritize it.   The Asians optimized small cars because that was their F series in their home markets so that's where they invested.  I bet F series has a similar cost advantage over Tundra.   My point on C2 was it took them too long to get there and now they have other things to invest in.  Toyota has been optimizing costs for decades.  Ford needs a jump start and ce1 has the potential to provide it because it's a clean sheet  and it was developed by outsiders not Ford lifers.  And I do think it can be applied to ICE vehicles.

I put a lot of Ford’s problems down to the increased outsourcing to suppliers, so many parts now controlled by computer chips and software owned by suppliers - that extra level of complication has significantly increased  costs and painted Ford into a corner where it has to increase prices of drop under performing vehicles.   Somewhere along the line Ford gave up on how to build efficient low cost vehicles that could turn a decent profit. or did they ever do that? Just making vehicles so that dealers had something to service and a potential return customer and future sales to other family members…   People wonder why Ford keeps cutting vehicles but I think the truth is Ford would rather invest the money elsewhere. Its a sad state of affairs but maybe the reality is that the company can get the same return by doing less.

C2 unit cost is high relative to the competitor because Ford's volume is tiny compare to Toyota, Hyundai, or BYD. This is the legacy of 2 decades of continuous shrinking. As a result, Ford now doesn't have the economy of scale to compete in the biggest vehicles segments on a worldwide basis even with a state of the art worldwide common architecture like C2. What's the point of C2 if it is still "too expensive"?    Ford is like a petrol-state with failed economy... too much reliance on a singular source of revenue so the economy failed to develop a diversified industrial base.  Ford's crude oil is F-150 which is propped up by structural advantages in the US like Chicken Tax and Sec179 depreciation. Instead of being like Norway where petrol profit is invested for the future, Ford has turned into Nigeria where it is incapable of delivering content and cost competitive products. I really hope UEV or CE1 is everything Farley says it is because it maybe the end of the road for Ford as a major car company if it doesn't deliver. What is being said about UEV is also what was being said about C2 and CD6 less than a decade ago... and what Mularlly said about OneFord before. We've seen this movie before... it ends in Ford cutting models, withdrawing from markets, and playing the we can't compete card. 

And people often forget that C2 itself is an evolution of C1 which began in 2004 in Europe. Larger vehicles using EUCD were regarded as C1+ because they used a lot of shared power train, suspension and construction modules.   The best part of C2 is its maturity of design and adaptability to modern requirements, being able to build vehicles from small compacts to large mid-sized utilities and cars gives Ford one of the broadest product envelopes it ever had.

Well, you also only get to decades of being build with only minor changes by actually sticking with something and not starting over every X years....   That's what I was getting at - it seemed C2 was finally that platform that could underpin several smaller models for a few decades, and now they're working on something else.