That was a pretty good deal for Shelby American. I wish ford could have come up with a better name though. Dark horse is fine for a mid level mustang like a Bullitt. I think Mach 1 would have been better to use on the darkhorse sc. I also think the logo looks a bit like an angry kangaroo instead of a horse😆

Obviously, it has to be as capable.  If there's anything Ford knows how to build, it's trucks.

Just on the topic of differentiation and truck models, there was an old patent image lurking on another site for a truck design that was super, super cab forward, like Ford's version of the Canoo truck.    Something with these proportions could have like a ranger sized cab, and a f-150 sized bed, in a footprint the size of a maverick. I could see something like this being a hit for commercial fleets, but might be too polarizing for traditional consumers. 

Ford's already doin' it 😎

Perhaps, but one of the issues is whether the truck is like Ford's take on a Ridgeline with a larger unibody design, or a bronco truck, is that neither of the existing models like that on the market sell very well. The Ridgeline moved about 40,000 units last year, and the gladiator did about 55,000, those numbers are pretty poor for a truck.    I just have concerns that there isn't enough demand for a high end bronco truck or a Ridgeline style rival from Ford to fill an entire plant. I believe we agree that if Ford undercut the price of the Ridgeline, their truck would be more successful than the Ridgeline, but I don't know if it would necessarily sell well even if it sold better. I just feel like once you start dealing with the more traditional truck buyers, they're less willing to buy a unibody truck because it's "Not a real truck" to them. I just don't know how Ford overcomes that perception issue to appeal to traditionalists like ranger and Tacoma owners. 

I guess as long as it's as capable.   I guess it's just a risk going to a drastically different construction method, where other countries might prefer the more traditional BOF construction.

I don't see how they can really divide up the truck any more then it is outside of going smaller then the Maverick.   The Ranger is the F-series ROW, so that is the max size product outside of a couple of countries.

Why not?  First, it will be in the US, then things will spread around the globe as they perfect the process.  It won't be instant, and I imagine the Ranger will hang around as-is for years in other countries as it spreads.

As long as it has the same capabilities, that's fine.   However, my question is not understanding how you're going from literal global volume of a product and platform, back to regionalized approach with a US-only product if they go the giga-cast route.  I question whether the ROW will like this approach to replace Ranger globally with this method?  That's my hang up here.   EDIT: Remember too, I think they've also said it's a new nameplate, so that would throw out the theory of it replacing global Ranger.

Who says it has to be BOF or a typical ladder frame?  You guys aren't thinking outside the box.  Your kidding yourself if you think the skunkworks was ONLY about BEVs.  It's about an entirely new way of building vehicles.  That's why it's such a huge deal.  If Ford makes this work, it's going to revolutionize the way they build vehicles, and should allow much better profit margins.  (and hopefully lower costs for consumers).   My money is on the TTP mid-sized truck (aka Ranger replacement) being a giga-casted uni-body style vehicle without a traditional ladder frame.  It will have AT LEAST as much capability as the Ranger.   EDIT: Read this: https://leandesign.com/cybertruck-body-structure-comparison/   I'm not saying it's going to be identical to the CT, but it gives an idea of what's possible when you think outside the box.  I think something similar is what is happening with the Ranger replacement.