Agree demand for smaller and more affordable cars exists, but I’m not sure Ford can be profitable given competition.  It is interesting that manufacturers like Honda have the City and Toyota the Yaris in other markets, which when powered by hybrid powertrains and driven conservatively are reported to achieve over 60 MPG.   I like Honda City which is a little smaller than present-day Civic, yet is larger and roomier than my mid-90s Civic. Doubt Honda will sell City in US, but if affordability continues to gain popularity, who knows?  IMO the Civic has become so large over the years that there is now room for a cheaper and smaller model below Civic.

I expect not only VW but also Ford, GM, Stellantis, Hyundai/Kia and many other manufacturers that sell both ICE and BEV probably make most of their profits from ICE and hybrid vehicles.

Accountancy based management strategies.   Minimum number of plants driven hard is super great for efficiency but leaves little or no production space for growth or contingency plans if the market conditions change or the UAW becomes overly aggressive.   Ford creates a lot of its own problems by the choices it makes, profit now vs future consequences. How on earth do you plan for the future when the target keeps changing?      

Still looks a bit overwhelming.

A decision made in back 2018 as an easy answer to the problem of no affordable BEV, outsourcing looked like the smart thing to do but today, it’s continuing sales failure. Jim Hackett got the praise, now Jim Farley has the mess to clean up.   T

I had the impression that when tryin' to tackle problems in Texas, the state legislature there wouldn't be a fan of heavy-handed, anti-market kind of legislation that makes the problem worse. That's what S.B. 388 is and does.   But I ain't from Texas, so maybe my initially positive impression of government in the Lone Star State isn't warranted. That's sad, cuz as I mentioned earlier, I like Texas.   Anyway, the best thing that Texas legislators and ERCOT can do to tackle those problems is the same as what other state legislators and other RTO/ISO like MISO and PJM should do:   State regulators and policymakers should focus on converting signed-GIA projects into operational assets. Maintain[ing] grid reliability in the coming years will depend not on hypothetical gas plants or political signals from Washington, but on whether the renewables already in the pipeline can get built. That means tackling permitting, interconnection delays, and construction headwinds now, while the opportunity is still viable.

Yea, maybe Ford could do just that for its upcoming CE1 products. The current Ford EV lineup in the U.S. (F-150 Lightning, MME, E-Transit) is already engineered with that kind of durability. CE1 battery technology should be even better. So a standard 200,000 mile battery warranty for CE1 products could be a selling point and competitive advantage for Ford. 

I hope it does come.  Ford needs product to sell, and this model sounds interesting. 

I’m not clear on how you are correlating promoting American exceptionalism with dismissing your competition.  That did happen back in the day when foreign competition was entering the market, but I think it’s pretty evident American business take foreign competition seriously today.     The MME is demonstrative of Ford’s capability to build a quality EV. You do not see many complaints about their batteries or drive motors.  If the anecdotal evidence regarding the MME’s battery life referenced in the other thread is an indication, I see no reason not to believe CE1 will not have just as robust drivetrain. What is built around that remains to be seen. 

Ford really needs lower priced hybrids (small car and/or crossover) that they can sell globally. They lost too much market shares when they replaced their strong selling core models in Europe with slower selling BEVs. The Explorer EV sales are weak and the Capri EV I read is doing much worse. Their VW cousins are doing much better.