I understand your perspective and yes I don’t like to get involved in the politics too much on here either because I don’t want something I enjoy to get tainted.  I also recognize the potential impact on your livelihood so I’m hoping for the best for you and that a reasonable deal for both parties is reached.  I would like to get beyond the rhetoric because it’s tiresome.  

Agree for sure.  If affordability is the key,  all of those optional features can only be had I would imagine at significant cost. I would think they are working at scavenging a lot of components out of the "parts bin" to come up with a rock bottom utility vehicle that still remains compliant with all of the Federal mandates.

I think a full-size Bronco would work well. It would be a much better option than a Sequoia TRD Pro. 

I still don't see the reasoning to replace the Ranger in North America when the expense is covered by ROW, just to spend more money on another brand new product that costs even more in R&D on what is ultimately going to be a dead segment in 10-15 years (expecting replacement by an EV product)   It just doesn't make ANY sense to me from a business perspective, nor does a unibody product, that will be laughed at by perspective Ford truck buyers-the Maverick doesn't count because its was a cost leader and pointed at competing hatchback style products with its price.    It would be like Ford stop building the Fusion just to replace it with a wagon like product that really doesn't appeal to the market. 

Wondering if Ford is going to invest in a CE1 style production system there....interesting indeed. 

Is this a hedge against Chinese production (at least for global export)?

The article mentioned both.  Knock it off.

uhem 

The front really doesn't go with the body. They are placing a Ram looking front onto a Fiat truck. Maybe the next generation will look better integrated.

Umm....