If they're that concerned about it, they could've put out a concept to gauge reaction.  I wouldn't be surprised if they did that Monday, but at the same time, you're getting pretty close (development timeline-wise) to launch to make wholesale changes if the designs are panned.

Hypocritical GM To Follow Ford, Import CATL Batteries From China   As Ford Authority reported back in June, Blue Oval Executive Chairman Bill Ford touched on a report that the company’s cross-town rival – General Motors – was behind lobbying efforts intended to place tougher rules on “foreign entities of concern,” as well as targeting licensing agreements such as the one The Blue Oval has in place with Chinese battery maker CATL. Ford is indeed licensing technology from CATL to build its own lithium-iron phosphate (LFP) batteries in Michigan, but now, GM is apparently playing the hypocrite by importing batteries from the same company from China, too. According to GM Authority, The General now plans to import LFP batteries from CATL “as a temporary stopgap measure” as the automaker works to build those types of batteries itself in Tennessee starting in 2027. “For several years, other U.S. automakers have depended on foreign suppliers for LFP battery sourcing and licensing. To stay competitive, GM will temporarily source these packs from similar suppliers to power our most affordable EV model,” the company said in a statement.

This was the last Toyota unibody "truck"     But Toyota did make unibody compact trucks for a long time - the subcompact Publica truck lasted 2 different generations and was made from 1960s to 1988. The compact Corona truck also went 2 generations and was replaced by Toyota Stout which became Hilux.                 There was also Toyota Crown pickup which also went multiple generations... another car-based truck but Crown was body on frame so not unibody.

Not really a reskin... just new bumpers. It's a minimal update on the exterior but new batteries and as you noted, new NACS charge port. 

The electric van is targeting the same market as Ford's upcoming CE1 van - aimed at the rideshare networks that are set to buy as many as a million units in the next decade.    The front runner so far is Geely which has a contract with Waymo. VW is also in the running which has a contract with Uber. But both of those contacts are now under a lot of pressure because of tariff on imported vehicles from China and EU (especially China).    This is a huge opportunity for Ford and GM. Ford is well positioned because it already sell lots of vans and there is lots of expertise inhouse. GM needs a partner which is why Hyundai entered the picture.    The South America collaboration is also interesting. Hyundai is quite aggressive in Brazil but only has limited range of models. GM is relying on its China operation to supply new models for its South America operation (e.g. new Spark, Tracker, Captiva are all SAIC-GM designs or imports) but looks like it will now rely on Hyundai. This has long term implications on GM's presence in China and its relationship with SAIC. 

The main point is that in the past much of the data used to emphasize the charging problem went by number of apartment dwellers regardless of whether they purchased new vehicles or not.  Obviously it’s wrong to analyze the problem that way.  The article stated, as an example, that a significant number of apartment, condo, etc. dwellers do not own vehicles at all.  This makes sense to me in that in large cities where multi-family housing is more common, they may rely more on mass transit, walking, Uber, etc. By contrast it’s hard to function without a vehicle when living in suburbs.   An income difference also exists making less-wealthy people in apartments more likely to purchase used cars, or keep new ones longer.  And there are also discrepancies by age.  Just saying that we can’t assume that because a certain percentage of population live in apartments and multi-family dwellings, that that same percentage of BEV buyers will have a harder time charging their EVs.       Hoping for a van like previous-generation Transit Custom with high roof, which was low enough to fit in my home garage yet tall enough inside to stand, or come very close so as to make moving around easy.  Was available in Europe and also Mexico, as well as many other countries, but never made it to US.  Importing from Mexico not practical unless very old AFAIK.  Full-size Transit sold in USA are either too tall to be home garageable or else so low that requires bending over excessively to move around inside.   And to save everyone time, I already know Ford isn’t going to make a van just for my needs.  😀 That’s pretty goddamn obvious and doesn’t need repeating.    

CE1 is centered around the use of LFP batteries and new software defined chassis so I don't think you can just retroactively use bits and pieces of it on Mach E. The cost reduction in CE1 is derived from the fundamental shift away from component outsourcing and into a more integrated approach where Ford controls the battery production and the vehicle architecture is software defined rather than mechanically defined. This is why Farley is talking about the transformative nature of this launch.    I think Mach E will eventually move to CE1 platform but we are several years away from that.       

The Lightning did not get refreshed with the 25s, so it would make sense that it gets updates if sticking around longer.    Just hit 50k miles on mine and still love it.

Dark Horse is just a fancy name for GT Track Performance package. It's not the same as a limited production run themed special or performance edition that would peek collector interest. Looking at auction sites like BAT for clues to what is the most desirable S550 and S197 Mustangs and they are invariably the limited run themed editions - Boss302, Bullitt, Mach 1, GT350, GT500 etc.   Don't get me wrong... I think Dark Horse is a great idea vs. just an option code - it does create focus and interest. But it's not quite it because there is no scarcity around Dark Horse... no FOMO. Ford will build as many as dealer will order. [edit: I think also the name lacks any historical context which maybe not helping]   Ford needs to create scarcity to keep the buzz around Mustang nameplate... limited production run of something really cool is the way to do it. But they need to do it right of course. Look at the frenzy surrounding some of the special 911... I'm not saying Ford needs to copy everything Porsche is doing but if Farley want Mustang to carry the torch for Ford performance car, it needs to replicate the scarcity and FOMO.   If you want to see an example of doing it wrong, see Nissan's attempt at NISMO Z... the car has the NISMO name but has the wrong transmission and no buzz.   

Cybertruck there could be a coincidence.  Report states there were three F-150s towing identical trailers, and at least two are in same lane as if following each other.  The CT is clearly in a different lane and not towing, so may have been there by pure chance.   Anyway, speculation on possible reasons for F-150 testing are interesting.  The suggestion that they are testing new LFP battery packs could make sense, if testing under high load.  Trailers clearly have weight distribution hitches suggesting they could have been fairly heavy.  Could be testing other powertrain components as well, though wouldn’t explain need for camouflage.  Also, I would guess these trucks did not have much higher-capacity battery packs similar to those available on Silverado because it would add a lot of weight, particularly if using LFP batteries that are generally heavier per kWh.  If trucks were much heavier I’d expect Ford to incorporate 8-lug wheels like on Silverado.  Ford went that route even with Ranger Super Duty.  Would be interesting to know what exactly they were up to.