I posted on this topic extensively before. Ford has 3 challenges in Europe:    1. US GAAP requiring pension costs to be reported as expense at the time the pension is earned. IFRS allows companies to report pension costs as expense at the time they are paid. This is why GM couldn't turn a profit with Opel but PSA can turn a profit in year 1. Has nothing to do with the product or strategy. It is literally just how the costs are reported.    2. Ford doesn't have a premium brand in Europe so it struggles with margin. VW can justify making small margin on a Skoda Octavia because it makes 3 times that on an Audi A3 which is basically identical car. So it has to focus on market segments that are less sensitive to price - in the old days, it focused on "company car" market which were white collar employee perks in all the major European markets. These cars were purchased by the company and given to the employees to use. Employees do not pay income tax on use of car and employer write off the car in full as deductible business expenses. Large companies were often not very price sensitive because they needed the expenses to offset taxable income. Ford dominated the "company car" market in UK as well as a lot of the European countries without native brands - e.g. Belgium, Greece, Denmark etc. Together, it made Ford a major volume brand. The "company car" market has largely disappeared with tax reforms at EU level that gradually make "company car" less attractive employment perk (in most EU country now employee has to pay income taxes on use of company car). For companies that still offer this benefit, it just make more sense to give employee the cash and let them buy their own cars. When that happened, people started buying things like Audi A3 and Mercedes A-Class instead of Ford Mondeo. Ford never really adopted well to the post-"company car" reality in Europe.   3. UK and EU CO2 target. Unlike CAFE in the US, this is a hard target that cannot be cheated by making cars wider/longer. The only way to meet the target is to make cars that is lower CO2 emission - i.e. EV and hybrids. In Farley's calculus, it makes more sense to sell Mustang/Ranger and some EVs then a lot of Fiesta and some EVs. Mustang/Ranger have higher margins than Fiesta - it's related to the previous point but the regulatory framework forces that decision. 

I understand this perfectly. There's only so much money to go around to fund the development of new products, you can't greenlight everything. 

The issues with Ford EU are less about their ability to make affordable vehicles and more about  the insistence of charging customers premium pricing. ford EU took Mulally’s right sizing production to the extreme level of cutting out important entry point pricing and focusing on premium trim sales. Anyone with a brain could see exactly what would happen the moment Ford killed Fiesta and Focus, more than half of their customers left and never came back.

And, the whole reason that Flat Rock even exists is exactly because Ford made a series of decisions to do the least amount of  investment and disruption. It cost the least to  evolve Mustang to S650, skip a planned $500 million paint shop upgrade and there by, not do anything to upset the UAW…   The other product planned for FRAP was not that remarkable, it was the PHEV Mustang that was pit on indefinite pause  and the 2.3 PHEV basically gifted to the Ranger T6 project.

Very true. Ford knows how much an extra week of changeover time on a launch costs. Loss of quality or goodwill when problems result from that launch, hard to place a number on it. Ford managers and Contract companies being evaluated and pay/bonus determine by reporting "Green Status." 

That’s what you’re not understanding.  Every new vehicle takes company resources in terms of capital, expense and people outside of factory capacity.  That includes new vehicles under development or planned for the near future.  All this happens years before the factory space is needed.  It’s a prioritization issue.

Mary Barra was smart to get GM out of Europe.  It's going to be impossible to compete with a desperate and subsidized VW.  

I agree that a product projected to generate a billion dollars in profit shouldn't be phased out in favor of something that would be significantly less profitable. But allocating more product for flat rock isn't really doing that, because taller vehicles can't be built there in the first place. Making a new car form factor at flat rock isn't a business decision that would come at the expense of other products in terms of production capacity. Maybe in terms of R and D funds.   All flat rock can currently build is lower vehicles, so that rules out basically any utility or truck. Offering something, anything to be built at flat rock alongside the mustang would be a better alternative that leaving the factory underutilized as long as said product can generate a profit. That's why I've proposed something like a mustang sedan, or an RS 200. Something that would sell in relatively low volume, yet would have respectable profit margins in theory.    It's just better than doing nothing imo. Ford wants to build more enthusiast cars, flat rock is underutilized and can only build cars at the moment. So put it to good use. I don't think flat rock should build a compact hatch that retails for 17 grand, but a mustang sedan, or a c8 rival, something from Lincoln, or even a thunderbird, those are all cars that could easily retail for 50 grand or more. That's billions of dollars in revenue, and robust profits that Ford could be leaving on the table. 

Sounds promising. I just hope in the pursuit to make things like the electric motors cheaper that Ford doesn't make them terribly low quality or something. Ford does that a lot, saving money upfront but paying for it with warranty costs down the road. Hopefully a lot of emphasis with CE1 is being placed on quality/reliability and not just making it as cheap as possible. 

The whole "Midsize" and "Full-size" terms are for marketing purposes, much like "Military Grade," which makes the material or object sound tough and durable, as opposed to Military Spec (mil spec) which are a set of standards commodities must meet or exceed. The EPA classifies cars based on interior volume, and trucks based on Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). Pickup Trucks are either Small: GVWR <6,000 lb (2,700 kg), or Large: 6,000–8,500 lb (2,700–3,850 kg). There is no "Midsize" truck class officially. So, the Maverick is a Small truck at 5,231 lb (2373 kg), and the Ranger is a Standard truck with a GVWR ranging from 6,050 lb (2,733 kg) to 6790 lb (3,080 kg) depending on powertrain; right in there with its Super Duty brethren. When or if a CE-1 or -2 BEV pickup comes out it will probably exceed the Small category, but will be probably be marketed as a Built Ford Tough Midsize Truck.