I agree totally regarding the need for a new Explorer, but the lack of a new generation is very likely due to the huge EV losses which have slowed Ford’s new product development by years. 

Well you can thank the money thrown away on the three row EV for causing that. Hopefully Ford has decided to fix that. 

It's not the cheapest thing to do. I bet it is actually very expensive to keep producing ICE at Flat Rock. Which is why it needs more products to reduce unit costs.   Remember the objective here: Keep the 2 door Mustang alive at Flat Rock. It has no where to go and Ford is not going to invest in a new RWD ICE platform just for Mustang and build it elsewhere.    UEV requires mega casting and completely different assembly method. Cannot be introduced to Flat Rock while S650 is still using old school methods. This is why Louisville is shut down to retool for 18 months.    UEV Mustang doesn't accomplish what Farley wants for Mustang and Flat Rock. UEV sedan probably has a solid business case but I doubt it will be called Mustang... there is no business case for two Mustang sedans.    Also, I have no idea what Ford will do to replace Mach E... seems like it will be really dumb to throw away the goodwill the nameplate has generated with its owners. If I'm in charge of product planning at Ford, one the UEV CUV will absolutely be called Mach E, just like I would reuse the Escape and Maverick name... 100% no brainer decision.   This is basically what I would do for product planning in North America:   C2.2 or C3 (hybrids or PHEV) Bronco Sport  Maverick  Explorer Sport  (next gen Territory) Transit Connect  Corsair Nautilus   CD6.2 (hybrids or PHEV) Explorer Aviator   UEV (EV) Escape EV (compact CUV EV) Maverick EV Mach E (midsize CUV EV) Explorer EV (large CUV EV) Fusion (sedan EV) Corsair EV (compact CUV EV) Nautilus EV (midsize CUV EV) Aviator EV (large CUV EV)   S650.2 (hybrid) Mustang coupe Mustang convertible Mustang 4 door   T6.3 (hybrids or EV) Bronco 2 door Bronco 4 door Bronco EV Ranger Everest Continental (that's the name I would use for Lincoln T6)   T3 (ICE, hybrids, and PHEV) F-Series Expedition Navigator   Transit (ICE and EV)   E-Series and stripped chassis (dinosaur tears)

I would agree that Ford needs to work on its product cadence and keeping it more consistent.

Ford really should invest in a new gen CD6 Explorer. I know the current one still sells well but it is pretty old. Since it came out, Hyundai has introduced 2 generations of Palisade/Telluride and they are chipping away Explorer's lead in the segment.    Reminds me when 1st gen CD2 Escape was the top seller in the segment but Honda and Toyota basically introduced 3 gens of new CR-V and RVA4 while Ford gave Escape a 0.5 gen makeover (the 2nd gen was basically a deep refresh/mid cycle update of 1st gen). Even GM was able to churn out 2 new gen of Equinox in the same period. Escape just steadily lost ground year after year.

I agree that that seems like the most likely and "cheapest" way to do it, and that's what I've been saying since the rumors started - it gives Mustang more scale and more Flat Rock product.   But we can still speculate on what would better "future proof" the plan by creating/using a single platform for 5+ vehicles.  Plus the Mustang CUV also throws a wrench into that idea (though it is plausible the 4-door just uses S650, while the CUV uses CD6).   I still think that the CE1 model is something different, or I guess it too could be branded as Mustang, but I fear some name dilution if you have 87 Mustang ____ products

4 door Mustang exists for one reason only: to keep production volume at Flat Rock above some kind of breakeven point that only Ford's accountants know. Farley's interest here is to keep the 2 door Mustang alive for heritage and marketing reasons (it's one of his 4 core family of nameplates: F-Series, Transit, Bronco, Mustang) and the 4 door will add enough volume to keep building the car at Flat Rock. So 4 door Mustang will be ICE (although likely hybrid) and related to S650 or some kind of evolution of S650. There is no other business case for it otherwise.    A UEV sedan is plenty plausible as well (and Ford may very well do it) but it doesn't do anything to save Flat Rock and the 2 door Mustang. The whole point is to get more volume out of Flat Rock (which can only make sedans not CUV) and get more mileage out of S650. 

2026 U.S. Electric Vehicle Experience (EVX) Ownership Study | JD Power    

I can see the logic in that, especially if they’re serious about tying racing tech back to road cars. The question is whether Ford wants another ultra-low volume halo like GTD, or something that actually builds broader brand value. Either way, a hybrid V8 Ford GT tied directly to a Le Mans effort would be one heck of a statement.

while it might not be a direct descendant of the DEW98, I'm sure the engineering that was done for it, influenced what they did with the S197   https://majorworld.com/why-the-2005-mustang-used-the-d2c-platform-instead-of-dew98/