I don't know that Ford is needing something to take up the entire factory at this point, though - they probably just want something  to be in the factory just so they get some use out of it.  And we know Ford isn't the best with plant utilization.

The Maverick is enough for unibody lifestyle pickups, don't need two. 

Neither of those would fill up an entire factory - they could easily be added to MAP with or without a 3rd shift.

I don’t see the math here.  How can Ford make a unibody Ranger that is as capable as the current Ranger and be $5K cheaper?  If you make it less capable, then you just have another Maverick.  If it is as capable as the current Ranger, I don’t see the cost savings.  

Is Norman the name of your car? 😂

Theoretically, work would be mostly done for Bronco, and "plug and play" into Ranger.....I know it's not that simple, but, it wouldn't be like starting 100% from scratch.     Ford's own sales release highlights talk about base Bronco trims being "affordable".  Meaning, if Ford does go with a Bronco (not Sport) truck, they can offer a base model and still adhere to their "new affordable pickup" label.       The Chinese Ford Edge is reportedly 77.2" wide, while Nautilus is 76.9" wide, both on C2, which falls within your width criteria above, but presumably you'd need to beef it up for truck duty.   The problem with your Maverick to TTP theory is that they've called it a new nameplate, so just moving Maverick won't fit that description.   Bronco Truck or Bronco Sport Truck are my two theories....they're the only thing that make sense, as they're "adjacent" products to what Ford already has.       I doubt a unibody truck would nearly equal Maverick's fuel economy.   Spending extra money to develop a regional product that fills the same gap as a ROW-economies of scale product seems like a waste of funds to me, especially with other self-created holes in the lineup.  I'm already skeptical on the 2 Bronco truck options mentioned above, but at least I can argue they're "adjacent" products targeting a particular customer that may not otherwise buy a midsize truck.   As I've said before, I'm worried about Ford slicing the truck pie too thin by oversaturating with options.  The trucks are much more safeguarded against downturns than they were years ago (i.e. better fuel economy, etc), but they run a risk of all the eggs in one basket, IMO.     As you said above, we'll have to wait and see...............oh to be a fly on the wall in Ford's product planning rooms.....

I was thinking of a V6 derivative of 7.3L Godzilla mainly for EREV generator power. 

Reviewed a recent video on u tube that talks about a new 7.0 liter V8 (gas) for 2027 Super Duty trucks. It might be just speculation but when you think about evolving a Godzilla V8, it makes allot of sense to me! If you add direct injection to current port injection, a 7.0 liter super duty would be about 450 hp and about 510 ibs-ft of torque, better than the current 7.3. Direct injection would allow higher compression ratio assisting in improving the efficiency of powertrain. Maybe in super duty, we can find a way of idling on 4 cylinders instead of the stop/start solution of improving f/e and reducing emissions. This could utilize a derivation of the 5.0 liter DOD system adopted to a pushrod, rocker arm design. what do you guys and gal think? edselford

6.8L should be standard engine in this class. Just a thought.