I think I agree with the assessment of it being a move to boost inventory ahead of plant shutdown and product cancellation.     I didn't realize there was no power liftgate on any BS model.     I still disagree with that idea too - the three coexisted for a while, and Edge sales were still healthy.

Depends on how much of it is offset by the affordable EVs...   If you think about it, we are in going into a transitionary period over the next 10-15 years and it also depends on how much the current administration can or is willing to change CAFE, which can always be changed back.    I'd venture to guess that the Bronco will get an EREV setup like the Scout, but I'm not sure how the impact of that is when it comes to CAFE. C sized products that are unibody would move to a EV platform. I'd guess anything under 185 inches overall length or so would get an EV setup in the next 10 years. Larger products like the Ranger and F-150 would get EREV setups also, since I'm guessing they would get better MPGs then a standard HEV or PHEV? Not much data on fueleconomy.gov to see how it works. 

I wonder if CAFE footprint rules will push the Bronco Sport to Edge size and the regular Bronco to Expedition size. I believe bzcat already said the next generation Maverick will have to be larger, and I wonder if that would make the Ranger redundant. 

Also the shift away from cars to utilities and trucks have lowered volumes dramatically.  What made sense for a 300k annual volume vehicle doesn’t necessarily hold for 100k.   Could that change back to more cars?  Maybe but I doubt it.  

The only reason we have a Ranger is because Bronco shares the platform and factory.  As a stand alone product it wouldn’t be worth it.   What you really seem to want is a fun sporty hatchback.  There are two problems with that.  First is the unintended consequence of CAFE which makes it difficult to sell smaller cars.  Second is to amortize the costs you need a lot of volume which can only come from cheaper more boring versions which are commodities and sell mainly on price.  We saw this with Focus.  ST and RS were great vehicles that nobody bought and they lost money on the rest.   EVs have really killed small cars just because of the shift in resources.  They’re the most expendable also thanks to CAFE.

Par   Perhaps I should say things weren't cheap, or affordable, but they were more affordable than they were now is a more accurate assessment. I just believe we're due for a correction with a lot of consumer goods, cars and homes being the most obvious ones.    My folks bought a 7 bedroom three story home in the suburbs outside of Salt Lake for 390 in 2012. Today, that house is worth about 750, at its peak it was over 900 because everyone is moving to Utah, why someone would want to move to Utah, I have no idea lol. But things have just increased so much in value that I don't believe it's sustainable long term.    My grandparents purchased a home in Seattle back in the 60s for about 20k. They recently sold that home for 1.4 million. Off the top of my head, I want to say adjusting for inflation, they paid the equivalent of about 250-300 grand for it. It's a nice house, but no way should it be worth 1.4 million even if it's in a nice area. 

Not directly.  I don’t believe Ford would have cancelled Edge just for Super Duty.  But once the 3 row EVs were killed they had to find something.

Car And Driver.com

I bought a 98 Mustang GT when I got out of the Army, that i saved for over 4 years, including a 10 month deployment to Bosnia    Trust me, it wasn't "affordable", but I gave up other things to have it. My income when I got out dropped nearly in half due to me going to school full time and I also went into the Army Guard to help pay car insurance on it.    Looking at the past is often with rose colored glasses without any nuance. Its like my parents buying a house for $26K in 1972 and having a $300 a month mortgage payment, but only making $5 bucks an hour at the time. It was only "cheap" 20 years later when my dad was making $65K a year or $30 an hour. 

That's true, but maybe Ford is to blame here to a degree by not providing the right sort of products. I won't deny most Ford sedan buyers aren't passionate enthusiasts, but that could be because the products themselves didn't evoke a ton of passion.    It's kinda like how decades ago, small trucks gradually lost their appeal. For years and years, all we heard was how there was no business case for the return of small affordable trucks, and how they'd fail if they made a return. But the maverick has proved all those people wrong. I'd argue it's because the maverick isn't just some half baked POS, it's actually a good vehicle with real effort put into it. It brought unique ideas to the table, like offering a hybrid powertrain so it could equal and surpass the fuel economy of most small cars.    The small affordable truck segment was even more dead in the states than sedans are, yet with the right product, the right sort of differentiation, and the right timing, they made a comeback. I understand what you and Akirby are saying, but I'm a firm believer that nothing is forever in the automotive world, and with the right product, and the right approach, past ideas can be revived in a way that helps a company thrive.