The front would work really well on the supposed truck Kia wants to bring here. It has that wide, muscular and assertive look to it. Much better than their overseas truck which is a WTF design. 

Side and rear look great. The front is the low point for me. It’s not bad, but I think they could have done a better job. Interior looks good but it’s the same as all Kia interiors. 

You do mind because you can’t imagine anyone who doesn’t obsess about aero and efficiency and value as if everybody uses excel spreadsheets to buy vehicles.   Try reading more and posting less because you just keep spouting the same BS over and over and arguing with everybody.

In my defence , I was responding to how do we know if a vehicle is profitable or non-profitable and in the past Farley has expressed concerns that larger batteries  don’t give bigger profits like larger ICE vehicles do. Who knows what that figure is for Lightning without government tax credits… I think they were petty important to the business case.   Ford will never outright tell us which vehicles are non-profitable until after they are axed, all we can ever see is their profitability preference.

Thanks...I heard somewhere that there is a "fuel pressure regulator" outside of the fuel tank at the rear of the Navigator that can be an issue.  I tried to look up that art on Rock Auto just to familiarize myself with the part and where it might be located but I can't seem to find one.  Any insight as to where that might be if there is one?  Thanks!!

Sigh outside of a long distance driving, you wouldn't need to stop for a charge and well after driving 300 miles or so (roughly 5 hours behind the wheel) who wouldn't want to take a piss break and get something to eat that takes about 20-30 minutes to do?   Its a consideration, but at the same time, if your only doing it maybe once or twice a year? what is the big deal?    

https://fordauthority.com/2025/11/ford-ceo-jim-farley-says-evs-will-be-small-part-of-u-s-market/

That’s not what I said and you know it.  I did say that if Mach E can’t make 300 miles now at the price point with its given battery capacity, and that making it even less aerodynamic will make range even less, and further from 300 miles.   I don’t mind anyone disagreeing with me, but having my words twisted around and intentionally misrepresented is a different matter.   Contrary to your viewpoint, I am not obsessed with aerodynamics per se; I just happen to understand the effects better than most.  I’m suppose to given my education so it’s not surprising I often have a much different view on that subject.

This is your quote.....   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?     He's stated the form factor he wants, and your response effectively says "forget what you want, that can't be done without this silhouette".     Kia EV9 already matches Mach E's drag coefficient in a more traditional SUV profile that he's looking for.  Yes, that's a more expensive vehicle, but the aerodynamics can be overcome in a more traditional silhouette.  I'd have to imagine that Ford will be looking at something more similar in profile to the EV9 for the CE1 SUV version after going way too far the other way with the ultra sleek/weird looking 3-rows that were canned.  

You can keep throwing parts at it, but it sounds like you really need to hook it up to diagnostics that you can monitor a bunch of stuff.  I could think of several things like a partial sensor failure or fuel pump relay.  It could also be a low voltage problem.