Is that not part of the problem though? The vehicle he wants is not available for under $40k yet, as far as I know anyway. Combination of 300 miles of range, “well equipped” and not too small leads to a vehicle with higher price. Mach E is not the best in aerodynamics already, but if made into more of a traditional SUV its added drag would reduce highway driving range even more. The standard Mach E already falls well below the requested 300-mile wishlist, and we want to make it even worse? IMO it comes down to good things cost a lot, and while engineers can continue to make things more affordable, we also need to reset expectations so they align closer with reality. 😀
In the latest round of decontenting - the '26 Bronco Sport loses the standard 12.3" digital cluster - I'm guessing it'll have regular gauges surrounding a smaller screen again? Black Diamond package also loses a bunch of standard features.
2026 Ford Bronco Sport Ditches 12.3-Inch Cluster Display For Three Trims
According to sources familiar with the matter, the 12.3-inch instrument cluster display is being killed off from the 2026 Ford Bronco Big Bend, Heritage, and Outer Banks trims. In its place, these three trims get the eight-inch cluster display as standard, a modest step down. For context, the 12.3-inch cluster display was formerly standard on all Bronco Sport trims.
There are also some changes headed to the 2026 Ford Bronco Sport Black Diamond Package. The bundle loses its cargo mat, cargo management system, rubberized second-row seatbacks, fender tie-downs, interior grab handles, molded-in-color (MIC) bumper with a steel plate, and the two D-ring rear recovery hooks - although these can still be purchased as standalone, extra-cost options.
I think it'll fall somewhere right in the middle and straddle the compact/midsize segments. I think your last sentences are accurate, though the "considerably" is probably excessive.
I agree that they should at least have an entrant, and keep it up to date until they do move forward with T3.
They definitely need to take CE1 learnings and apply it to T3. If they can manage to make a small inexpensive vehicle profitable, how/why can't they do the same for a larger vehicle?
I don't really think this is telling us much at all......aside from things we already knew - that ICE F-150 is the profit driver for the whole company. It also represents 40% of the entire company's sales, vs 1.4% of sales? Naturally they're going to prioritize it.
The full size BOF SUV segment is one of the few where rebadge efforts are accepted.
Other segments aren't, and will undo all the work Lincoln/Ford have done to separate/differentiate the two. Advocating reverting to the rebadge approach makes zero sense to me, regardless of which comes first.
This is what they were working on, and apparently the proportions were terrible and they canned it.
So you want a more traditional SUV profile, not the fastback type like Mach E.
That just means regular F150s are more profitable than Lightnings which is not a surprise. F150 is probably more profitable than just about everything else.
Greedy electrical unions lobby for this legislation. Just like every ten years they come up with another plug configuration so school buildings need upgrades. New dryers used to be 3-pronged -- probably originally 2-pronged. They are are now 4-pronged. I get the grounding advantage. But you don't need any more prongs. But someday they'll be 5 pronged, then 6, then 7. In the name of safety of course! Baloney! Traffic lights went from 1 signal to 2 in each direction. Good idea since either a bulb might burn out or a truck might block your view. But now a third signal is creeping onto the scene. Someday there will be 4 in each direction, then 5, then 6. It will never end. Greed.
Twenty minutes is still too long when I can fill my gas tank in 5 minutes. Charging overnight is not a problem. Stopping for recharge on the road is a problem.