https://www.fromtheroad.ford.com/us/en/articles/2026/ford-in-house-smarter-cheaper-vehicle-technology     Well that explains why they dropped the other system they were working on back in May.    I hope that Ford has the HW and SW talent to make this work. 

Can you post that picture? I cannot find it. 

Ford would be wise to keep the Maverick name. It’s only been around ~6 years and already has solid name recognition and a solid reputation as a reliable, affordable (nay cheap) vehicle.    Would be so on brand for Ford to come up with a new name just because. 

Ok that makes sense, i think I was conflating CAFE and Emissions-larger vehicles over certain GVW don't need to meet CAFE. 

Not to mention IMO it is a waste of resources that develop something that has been paid for by ROW investment and I seriously doubt that Ford can find an additional 70K buyers for more Bronco and a Lincoln Bronco, when those can be currently can be comfortably added to the plant.    The unibody question has been already answered by the Maverick-expand upon that instead of reinventing and competing with the CE1 truck with an ICE product. Apply what was learned with CE1 manufacturing processes to the next gen Maverick. 

Disagree.  If Ford is going to be a leader in trucks they need to keep a capable truck for towing that will fit in a garage.  The unibody low capability low price can be applied to the Maverick.  Ranger's volume has been limited by deference to the Bronco.  if this is the Bronco/Ranger truck that is fine but need to not lose the capability of the current ranger in a midsize truck.  Not everyone can/wants to deal with the gargantuan full size pickup.

Unlikely.  Issue is with the block and the way Ford designed it.  They put a cooling slit in between the bores.  That eventually cracks and causes the head to leak.  So the issue isn't with the head/top end.  It's with the block.  Once that block is cracked, won't matter what you do with gaskets and heads.

It is the opposite. For medium duty (F-450 chassis cab to F-650) and heavy duty (F-750) the engines must be dyno certified. The regulations are much stricter, which is why dyno certified engines are rated at much lower power and torque numbers in order to meet the EPA regulations. The rules do account for GVW, in that the emissions are scaled in a g/tonne metric instead of an absolute number, which is why you can have really big displacement engines in class 8 trucks, but probably couldn't put that same engine in a class 5.

Possible but I think a 4wd dakar rally inspired mustang with a Predator blown v8 is more likely and matches the sillouette shown earlier.

I think the writing is on the wall that Ranger is a dead man walking.  50k sales and no new models.   Expansion of Bronco lineup.  It's a very small niche now with Maverick on the lower end and most buyers in that space don't need the true 4wd or payload/towing capacity.     Kill current Ranger.  Expand Bronco with hybrids and a pickup.   Replace Maverick with a cheaper to build midsized unibody pickup with more capability than Maverick.  Offer cheap basic street versions like Maverick and lots of off road/upper trim levels for the Ranger crowd.   This plus importing Bronco Sport frees up Hermosillo to make crossovers.  Maybe Corsair and Nautilus and an Escape and/or Edge replacement.