A sub $30k starting price in 2029? By that time, I doubt you’d get a Maverick for that starting price which is why I’m cautious about what Ford considers affordable  but I do agree that the. objective here is to occupy the price space below F150 and Explorer  which is approximately $38k.   I bet Ford is looking at Tacoma sales success and wondering how it can compete with that  by delivering a better truck than Ranger, could Ford split F150 /1500 market into say, F100 and F200 or, keep F150 and add a new F truck below absorbing Ranger sales?   So yes, mostly agree with your view but wondering how Ford gets there…..        

To that end, when Raj Nair left Ford, where did he go? Multimatic. The relationship has only gotten closer since then. 

Farley seems to say that adding shifts to existing U.S. plants is in the works.  He said this on Tuesday when Trump visited Dearborn Assembly.  From the Detroit News:   "Ford produces more vehicles in the United States, employs more hourly employees and exports more vehicles than any other automaker, but there's more that still can be done, Farley said about the message he gave to President Donald Trump during a visit on Tuesday to Dearborn Truck Plant that builds F-150 pickups: "At Ford, America's car company, we have more shifts that we can put on in our plants here in the U.S., and we have more to do."

Yea, in terms of more of them Chinese automakers entering the U.S., Canada, and Mexico markets, it's not a matter of if but when.

Ford has emphatically stated that the Ranger PHEV and the Ranger Super Duty are not coming to North America. Ford is of course referring to the current Aussie versions of those two Rangers.    I suppose it is possible that they could introduce a Ranger EREV to North America. Is that what you are thinking?

Am I the only person who thinks upgrading an existing plant that already makes ICE vehicles like FRAP would have been smarter in the current political environment than building a new greenfield plant?  Even if you had to idle FRAP for a year, you could easily build enough mustangs to meet demand during that downtime, and you would have a modern, retooled factory for the mustang and future products, at lower cost.

Look, I love my wife, and she is far from perfect. I am happy laud her when she does amazing things, but I love her enough to criticize her to others when she makes mistakes. Ford has done a lot to change the world; they have also made mistakes. Both are true; I and everyone here want Ford to succeed, but it doesn't make sense to acknowledge the former while ignoring the latter.

I think we are just looking at a 2nd T6 plant in the US. Don't over think it...   Lots of things Ford can do with T6 since it is the 3rd most important vehicle program globally after F-150 and Transit. Previously the investment was limited to one plant in the US because Ford needed to limit volume for CAFE considerations. Now there is no such concern so I'm betting Ford will add PHEV options to Bronco and Ranger, add extended cab Ranger, Everest, a Lincoln SUV, and probably a cheaper smaller truck similar to Toyota's Hilux Champ which is based on the Hilux chassis just smaller/cheaper. All this implies Ford will need another T6 plant as the current T6 plant is already on 3 shifts.    

Yea, electric vehicles and all that advanced driver assist/robotaxi stuff, along with new manufacturing processes, are the sources of most innovation in the Auto industry.    Ford should be makin' a lot of progress in those areas thanks to the skunkworks. Wouldn't be surprised if Ford's patent grants in 2026 and 2027 are much higher.   At the same time, akirby clarified some important points about the nature of patents, especially being a patent owner himself. That's why I added the qualification that while patents can be a proxy for innovation, they are an imperfect one.