Yeah, that's what I've heard too, so it was interesting to hear these reports of Ford's mega casting working different.

Yeah there has been some horror stories with EVs and them needed to get repaired after a minor accident. 

V578 was the code name for the Maverick Based van.  So this would be a Maverick based Utility (U), but at the same time, the Bronco Sport has CX designation.    Some more info:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KA467/Ford_development_codes   This link is pretty good-has lots of info with links to the actual info.   

If you click through to the source (link) you will see it says Ford Mid sized CUV (C2 | U758), not Bronco Sport. Unless U758 has been previously assigned to Bronco Sport, Autoline was misreporting the source and it would instead match the rumors of the Maverick SUV.

So, I did find this article that gives a few more details:   I guess they've designed it with repairs in mind.....   Ford Watched What Happened To Rivian Owners And Built Its $30K EV Truck Differently | Carscoops   Engineers have designed these castings with repair in mind, including predefined cut zones that tell technicians exactly where to section and replace damaged areas. As one Ford executive explained to AN’s reporter, making repairability a priority early on “actually becomes an advantage.” Some designs also incorporate sacrificial components that absorb minor impacts, helping shield the larger cast sections from damage in everyday accidents.  

Well, we've all assumed it was a 2nd gen model, so naturally it'd be "different" from the current version.   A regional production spot for finally globalizing Bronco Sport makes more sense to me.....

Yeah, I still don't understand how Maverick nor Bronco sport haven't been globalized.  Seems like a no-brainer, especially for a market like Australia     I used the phrase "low cost"......I should've used Ford's terminology of "affordable".....which seems to be anywhere in the $30s-40s range.     It does seem odd what they've done down under, with other models for China not brought over.

That's a good word for it - premium.  lol     I wonder if the initial tie up opened Ford's eyes to a different way of doing it, that also led to the CE1 approach.   And that maybe the Rivian tie up was too "early" in that sense.

Goin' back to the start of this thread, both the Ford head honcho and Thatcham Research suggest that Ford's radical new assembly process, which follows some of the principles that Tesla currently uses, will result in new vehicles were less expensive with a mega-casting and better off with the repairs to a conventional design.   Thatcham Research has revealed the results of a two-year, crash testing, damage assessment and repair process study on the large rear structure in the Tesla Model Y, made using “Mega Casting” The results show that Mega Cast structures can be cheaper to repair than steel structures, when the manufacturer makes the right choices in design, engineering, repair techniques and spare parts provision    

I haven't had a major accident in 20 years (knock on wood) and the last accident I had I was rear ended with driving my wife old Escape almost 10 years ago just after she got it. I think the damage was about 5K then.    Its more or less a wash because I won't see any real savings in either repair or buying a vehicle, since I replace my cars every 7-8 years or so.