I see you have doubts.    The question is, why don't we have vehicle choice anymore?    20 years ago. You could buy a full-size pickup and a city car from General Motors.    There were buyers for compact cars, and every automaker had an entrant in the compact and midsize sedan market.     Do you genuinely believe that the evolution towards crossovers happened through osmosis and not through a concerted marketing campaign by automakers to sell the most profitable vehicle they could?   People like me who bought a 2012 Focus.  All 300,000 of us didn't just disappear from the marketplace. Essentially, we were forced to buy a different vehicle because it was no longer being produced, primarily because of the automaker's profitability goals, not because of our actual choice.    If the automakers had their way, they would only sell vehicles that generated the most profit. It is not in their interest to sell vehicles that minimize the opportunity for profits. And to this end, they have used public policy and marketing to shape buyer preferences, as well as simply not selling vehicles people want and selling the cars they want people to buy.     

Adam Smith would be rolling over in his grave if he saw the state of our free market.    For the record, the United States developed and pioneered the lithium-ion battery that is driving the electrification of the entire planet.    We invented it!    The federal government of these United States funded that.    On the other hand, the United States economy is built on the petrodollar system, which replaced the gold standard as the backing for the United States currency.  The petrodollar incentivizes policies and investments in fossil fuels and the industry to support the United States dollar's strength.    The idea that the Chinese government subsidizes EVS's success ignores the fact that the United States has invested trillions of dollars in fossil fuel production over the last hundred years. And the main reason EVs are not taken off the market in the United States is marketing by legacy automakers and oil companies that sow doubt in customers' minds about the viability of electrification as a whole.    Fossil fuel producers have funded multiple political campaigns. To continue subsidizing the production of fossil fuels, as well as to reduce environmental permitting requirements, is necessary to continue producing them.    And we are at a point in this country where they have so much control over the regulatory process that we are being left behind in the electrification revolution. Not because we don't have this technology, but because our politics won't allow us to change.    EVS are cheaper to run than gas vehicles. All the world's fastest-growing markets have seen explosive electric vehicle growth, but not here.    There's a reason for that.     

I agree with you, but I think it's corporations, not unions, that are doing most of this.    The perfect example is the rapid shutdown standard for solar panels. And the "fire lobby" created the need to shut down every solar panel on a residential structure individually to ensure the safety of firefighters who may be on the roof. This, and many other reasons, is why solar is so much more expensive in the United States than in other countries.    The requirements from utilities, fire departments, cities, electricians, and the state and federal government all add up.    They're doing the same thing with EV chargers.l, anything anything to make it harder for an individual to do something for themselves.   Don't even get me started on housing.           

Well given what is being talked about in my world, you might only have about 24-30 months to do so. 

Maybe it’s a street legal version of that? I can’t see it being any variant of a mustang, 4 door or otherwise. It could be a completely new GT, but I don’t see ford developing both the hyper car and a new GT at the same time.

A better year for Bronco but hasn’t taken that much out of Wrangler, maybe 5,000 less sales this year at Q3.   Anyways, well done Ford.

I figured the Bronco would take a pretty good bite out of Jeep.  Not too sure what the Scout will do.

Wouldn't be surprised if Ford is next to announce somthin' like that for suppliers. The head honcho said the following on the Office Hours TV show and podcast this week:   Speaking to "Office Hours," Farley warned that the US was also far too dependent on other countries, such as China, for vital materials like rare earths, which are used to manufacture advanced magnets that are critical to the auto industry.   China imposed restrictions on imports of rare earths earlier this year amid the trade war with the US, sparking supply chain chaos at automakers and other manufacturers across the globe. "I don't think most Americans have any idea how scary our dependency is on certain countries," said Farley.

I think the term people are searching for is aspirational, something you aspire to own one day.   GM used to use that term as a way of encouraging buyers from lower GM  brands to own say, a Cadillac. Whatever you say, having desirable/ gotta have vehicles is a big part of the equation but not so exclusive as to make them beyond the reach of most buyers. The quest for profits from least number of buyers can  act against  being able to sell more of those products.   Definitly a complex issue but I think Ford needs to get their math right so that it can grow sales in products it intends to sell in the next few years, all without killing sales of the more profitable existing models, definitely a tough nut to crack.

That was the actual LeMans hypercar race car.