It’s no different than your motor oil turning black as it ages. It’s just dirt and debris being picked up as the coolant travels through the system. Remember, it also serves as a lubricant for the water pump too so that contributes to it as well. 

The yellow image was when the coolant was brand new, the orange was from today when I popped the hood to top it up with some more yellow motor craft.    Apparently it's normal according to some AI research, but I'm just curious if anyone else on this forum has noticed this with their Ford because we all know AI is kinda all of the place in terms of accuracy.    The yellow coolant went in about 15 months and 4,000 miles ago. 

You can’t just dismiss Ford’s EV losses as no big deal. As JPD80 has pointed out they have reached at least $11 billion. This has hurt Ford badly and I’m sure is a major reason new products (C2) are so slow or nonexistent. A lot of the costs of the EV program (factories for example) are capitalized over many years. I’m not an accountant and don’t know over how many years the auto industry depreciates fixes assets, but Ford likely has recognized less than 15% of the new factories costs to date. ‘

I genuinely don't know how people struggle so much to comprehend this. I don't have the numbers, I suspect the only people who really know how much Ford makes on their EVs are Ford themselves, but I'm willing to bet Ford doesn't lose a ton of money on the mach-e or lightning, hell, they might even break even or make a small profit.    The significant losses are attributed to EV development, and building factories that aren't even turning out EVs yet. Anyone who knows anything about product development knows getting started, and creating the product are the most expensive parts. Once the factories are built, and the products are engineered and being sold, if you did you're job right, you're in the way to be profitable down the road. 

Curious why you still think that is the case when new Bolt has more torque going to driven wheels?  GM engineers compensated for lower-torque and higher-RPM electric motor design by using proportionally lower gearing to end up with about the same torque at wheels as before.  Higher RPM motors are becoming more common for technical reasons, so they require different gearing.       The additional +/- 4% greater torque at wheels should make up for added +/- 3% higher mass, so acceleration should be about the same as before for all practical purposes that most drivers can detect; unless GM is misleading and I see no reason to think that.  Zero to sixty should remain in 6.5 ~6.6 second range as before.

They invested billions on EVs that aren’t yet for sale.

They've lost billions on EV's and recalls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It’s hard to say how much they care short-term after the pushback RAM got from many customers refusing to accept their new twin-turbo inline-6 in place of discontinued Hemi.  On paper the new engine was supposed to be better in pretty much every category and yet loyal customers said thanks but no thanks.  Obviously there were other factors involved as well, but I think RAM learned the hard way they better know what customers really want.  Lately Stellantis have proven the very opposite with one misstep after the other.   Some RAM/Stellantis North American buyers seem to be warming up to newer engine technologies but quite a few still prefer basic Pentastar V6 and Hemi V8.  Unfortunately for Stellantis neither of these engines should be around for another decade, at least in existing designs.  I could be wrong and both engines could still be in service in 2035, though I seriously doubt it.   On this subject, just saw that new upcoming EREV Jeep Grand Wagoneer will reportedly use Pentastar V6 so who knows how long Pentastar will remain?  For slightly smaller and lighter PHEV and EREV maybe they will use the newer 3.0L Hurricane I-6 in place of 3.6L Pentastar V6, with modifications of course.  Shouldn’t be too difficult to rework Hurricane I-6 for improved fuel efficiency rather than power.

I understand all that but you still have to get that heavy car moving from a dead stop and I could be wrong but I still think 100 lb/ft more torque gets it moving faster even with revised gearing.

The cool thing about electric motors is they make peak tq right off 0 rpm until they stop spinning, so yes gearing makes all the difference in this scenario. I'm with on it being a crutch on ICE, but on electric motors if they can keep it efficient at higher rpm then it is effectively the same thing just with more or less rpm depending.