Yes. Because I'd be surprised if they do much different than sharing front/rear ends with the Mustang. ......I'd imagine the whole business case is based on sharing as much as possible with the coupe/convertible.
I feel that'd be a more "worthy"/ acceptable/less controversial use of the Mustang name than Mach E was....
Do you think after the flack they took calling the C2 Electric SUV a Mustang Mach E that they would endure more abuse if they called it a Mustang +4 or whatever else they have in their hat?
Decontenting is noticed. Decontenting can drive customer purchase decisions. I have always been a fan of what was once known as the "surprise and delight" features that enhanced the customer satisfaction metric even after purchase. Making a non-opening moonroof? Cutting out the rear door express up/down switches? Eliminating the touch door lock on the exterior rear door handles? Dropping the automatic wipers? Losing Ford's keypad system? Dumping the power tilt/telescoping column? I understand making base models for people who don't care. I don't understand decontenting high-value vehicles, though.
Just today, this quote appeared in an MSN.com article:
"Our final entry is a surprising one. The Ford Explorer has been part of Ford's recall-heavy year, and the cost-trimming across the board is just eroding customer trust. Simplified climate control systems, cheaper plastics, and the loss of power passenger seats are just a few of the measures where Ford is trying to save a buck. ... If you want an American SUV, go with something else this year."
Fingers crossed all this is maximizing shareholder dividends. 🤞
Sure, but Ford has limited production capacity in Thailand so building Bronco Sport means less Ranger... that's the rub. This is why it was planning to restart production in India... but Ford changed its mind again on that.
For the foreseeable future, only place Ford can build Bronco Sport for APAC market will be China.