Yes but while I'm sure they're profitable and represent the best utilization of C2, I bet those are still nowhere near a 8% margin.

It seems like that's the plan. Ce1 seems to be focused on aspiration, and not just being cheap. If Ford can streamline the cost of that platform, I see it forming the foundation for the return of a lot of vehicle types Ford abandoned.    Some sort of electric escape replacement for instance that's more compelling than the current escape and more profitable. Bringing back a sedan but making it a rwd affordable sporty sedan that aligns with no boring cars, that sort of thing. Maybe an electric version of an edge style of vehicle. 

But that doesn't address the cost issue which people keep want to ignoring and only focus on sales.  They need an exciting design and performance PLUS low cost to be viable.

That would work for most things.

They aren't technically leaving the segment since the Bronco Sport can cover part of it, depending on your viewpoint.    Your argument would hold more water in the case of the Edge though. 

Isn't that what Bronco Sport represents? And Maverick? A unibody crossover + unibody pickup truck combo that shares many components with Escape but isn't "boring"?

Maybe Ford should try making the vehicle into something not "boring" instead of just canceling it.....     I know the factors involved/that lead to it, just seems like it's their own doing.  Instead of trying, they exit the segment.  Hopefully the rumored replacements do well.

Toyota and Honda are the masters of this formula, which came from a review of one of the products you mentioned:   And as akirby mentioned, the brilliant engineering incorporates lean design and manufacturing principles that help manage costs and ensure high quality for these two automakers. Maybe Ford will finally figure out how to do lean manufacturing correctly with the upcoming CE1 products (when I worked at Ford in the 1990s and 2000s, they paid for my external lean six sigma training but when my coworkers and I actually attempted to apply those concepts properly at our plant we were constantly rebuffed by the big shots in Dearborn). But that remains to be seen.   So the bottom line is that Jimbo did the right thing to embrace a no boring products strategy for Ford. As I mentioned in the past, Ford can beat Toyota and Honda in these product categories (there's some overlap of course): Body-on-frame vehicles Pickup trucks and vans Commercial vehicles Bronco (including Bronco Sport) Mustang (including MME) Electric vehicles That's where Ford's focus (pun intended) should be 😊

The way the rear of the cab interacts with the wheel is interesting......look at it compared to Maverick:     That assumes that the area at his shoulder is actually the end of the cabin, of course.   It's also possible that the CE1 truck has aero "buttresses" on the sides, and the bed itself goes further forward inside of the buttresses?     Borg claims that there's a lower panel midgate, and that the glass is fixed (sounds similar to how sedans fold the rear seat down)

You're still not getting it.  Boring but competent can sell well if the price is right.  A decade ago Camrys and Corollas were as boring as you could get but they were selling 400k.  But you need super low costs to make any money and that was never a priority for Ford as sherminator explained.  Having Europe operate like a separate company made it worse.  Ford's mistakes were in the platform development of small and midsized fwd vehicles with terrible cost control.  But given that's where they are then cancelling unprofitable vehicles and replacing them with more profitable ones is a good business decision.