An I6 is bigger pain in the ass to add to engine packaging and crash cell issues then an I4 or a V6 would be the major issue.
As for the all new Ecoboost I4-The original designs where based on Mazda JV engines from 15-20+ years ago, so they where due a major upgrade. They don't show any major improvement in MPG or performance, so like stated before-just keeping ahead of the emissions situation. The Mustang gets 1 MPG more on the highway and the Bronco actually loses 2 MPG city with the new engine (at least on Fuel Economy.gov)
The 2.7/3L Nano Ecoboosts are "new" design that only came out 10 years ago.
Its not like the mustang hasn't had white wheels before either
https://fordauthority.com/2023/03/1992-ford-mustang-convertible-summer-edition-up-for-auction/
The move to 3.5 V6 Ecoboost engines years ago has served Ford well
and adding the Nano 2.7 and 3.0 V6 EB engines almost guarantees
that Ford already has heavily amortised engine platforms that can
do the job until no longer needed.
While the 2.0/2.3 MPC EBs could possible be extended to I-5 or I-6,
I don’t think that disruption is warranted at this time but perhaps an
option for the future when ICE builds start to reduce significantly.
My earlier comment regarding buy in of the Ram 3.0 DOHC I-6 turbo
was in error as John Lawler made no such reference to Ram as a
possible engine supplier. The truth is that Ram would kill to have
the sales level that Ford has with F Series, so Ford must be doing
a lot of right moves.
Production upgrades to both V8 engine plants were announced earlier this year,
so hopefully USMC agreements can be negotiated to permit this proceeding.
MPC upgrades had more to do with staying in front of emissions limits, I'm hearing
anecdotes that the 2025 2.0 EB does not have GPF at least on some models.