I was probably wrong about the single cab.  I thought that's what they showed for ce1 and it would be the most affordable top hat.   But why a cheap unibody truck?  Same reason as cheap EVs.  I think ce1 showed them how to lower costs on ICE so they can make decent margins on cheaper vehicles.  Hyundai and Toyota are still selling sub $25k cars.  A $25k maverick would sell like crazy and if I'm right about ce1 cost cutting it would be more profitable than a $35k maverick or bronco sport.   Or a Ranger replacement that's 25% cheaper to build.   It's a new growth opportunity that wasn't viable 3 years ago.

I wonder if I could swap this in my 04 Aviator. I know totally not worth it but would be a huge upgrade over the 5R55S

MAP produced roughly 217K Broncos and Rangers last year, so they have plenty of room to make a Lincoln variant if they wanted   As for your cheap unibody product...why? It makes zero sense. Your basically asking for a unibody 1990 single cab Ranger or an ICE/Hybrid Slate pickup. The unfortunate fact is that vehicles aren't going to get any cheaper, just like housing pricing. There is no pressure to make them cheap and the reality is "affordable" is the 30-40K price range given the average price of a new vehicle is 50K. The Maverick already fills that role-if they want to drop the price, move it from Mexico to the US for production to get rid of tariffs but I have this suspicions that UAW costs and other things would make it cost even more if that wasn't an issue. Then put it into a brand new factory and watch it maybe sell 70K units when there are far better things to do like build an Escape/Edge replacement or even maybe a Bronco style Maverick that would more off road oriented that would be far more profitable. Then its also going to butt heads with other product like the CE1 pickup. 

Ford be like: "We're always introducing new and innovative products", yet we only get a new Mustang trim every year or two. 😕 

From what I understood, Ford Pro were supporting a good part of CE1 hence, the pickup, a Utility close to the pickup and a Van….although the way BEV van sales are going…

It's ok to say you like sedans and wish Ford would make more.  It's not ok to rationalize a business case that doesn't exist.

I favor a lineup that returns the best profit margins for the least investment.  It's already balanced from a price standpoint starting with Maverick and more affordable new products on the way.  This isn't a case where they're vulnerable to a recession.  Nobody is going to suddenly start buying sedans over trucks and utilities because of a recession or high gas prices.  They'll just buy fewer new vehicles period and more hybrids.

That's the opposite of what I'm saying. That's just Ford doing the same thing but in the other direction, I favor a more balanced, varied lineup. 

You can't include f150 and super duty and leave out Continental.  And Puma and C-Max were way more car than crossover.   I don't think there is a lot of overlap in trucks as you say although I said above I think they could replace Ranger with a new unibody like Maverick but more aggressive with more capability closer to Ranger.   I think it could be cheaper and more profitable leaving MAP to expand Bronco offerings.

I think we'll be lucky to get 2 - the truck and crossover.