Don't go with the first option unless you have 2.5-5 thousand dollars laying around, and Truck A is otherwise in excellent condition and ready to be kept around for many years to come. I would 100% do the second option instead. Not only is it much more budget friendly, it's also creative and cool as heck. 

I’m surprised that Ford hasn’t offered a hybrid variant of the Bronco yet. I’m sure that it will get it eventually but I see Wrangler 4xE hybrids all the time. 

That’s why I was thinking it could be a street legal version of the Le Mans hyper car. Otherwise it seems like a lot of money to be investing into two separate high end sports cars when ford surely has other more important things to be concerned about.

This is why I have so much respect for Farley openly admitting his respect for Chinese affordable EVs. Those cars are gonna be the best affordable EVs currently on sale regardless of if Farley acknowledged them or not. He could either plus his ears and deny Ford needs to improve, or humble himself and take steps to move in the right direction. I'm happy to see he's doing the later. 

They sold 300-420K Ford Escorts in the 1980s, and its primary purpose was to be a CAFE offset to larger cars.    Your missing the whole point-Companies EXIST to generate a profit for their stakeholders, not to be altruistic to the market.   If you have limited resources, why are you going to focus on product that doesn't make money for you just to chase sales targets? Ask GM how well that worked out for them over the past 30 years.     I like EVs but also realize that you have decades of people doing something and asking them to do something different just because is going to run into resistance. I work in the IT industry and I see reactions from people/family to minor changes that cause major reactions that I find incredulous, so I can just imagine how some of these people are reacting to EVs.   Making EVs more affordable or roughly equivalent to their ICE contemporaries will go a long way in helping people change their minds.       

The answer is not "EV mandates" or regulations in general in Planet Europe, Planet America, or Planet Red China

unless one is helping to pay for the other?

The downside of an interconnected global market...

I see you have doubts.    The question is, why don't we have vehicle choice anymore?    20 years ago. You could buy a full-size pickup and a city car from General Motors.    There were buyers for compact cars, and every automaker had an entrant in the compact and midsize sedan market.     Do you genuinely believe that the evolution towards crossovers happened through osmosis and not through a concerted marketing campaign by automakers to sell the most profitable vehicle they could?   People like me who bought a 2012 Focus.  All 300,000 of us didn't just disappear from the marketplace. Essentially, we were forced to buy a different vehicle because it was no longer being produced, primarily because of the automaker's profitability goals, not because of our actual choice.    If the automakers had their way, they would only sell vehicles that generated the most profit. It is not in their interest to sell vehicles that minimize the opportunity for profits. And to this end, they have used public policy and marketing to shape buyer preferences, as well as simply not selling vehicles people want and selling the cars they want people to buy.     

Adam Smith would be rolling over in his grave if he saw the state of our free market.    For the record, the United States developed and pioneered the lithium-ion battery that is driving the electrification of the entire planet.    We invented it!    The federal government of these United States funded that.    On the other hand, the United States economy is built on the petrodollar system, which replaced the gold standard as the backing for the United States currency.  The petrodollar incentivizes policies and investments in fossil fuels and the industry to support the United States dollar's strength.    The idea that the Chinese government subsidizes EVS's success ignores the fact that the United States has invested trillions of dollars in fossil fuel production over the last hundred years. And the main reason EVs are not taken off the market in the United States is marketing by legacy automakers and oil companies that sow doubt in customers' minds about the viability of electrification as a whole.    Fossil fuel producers have funded multiple political campaigns. To continue subsidizing the production of fossil fuels, as well as to reduce environmental permitting requirements, is necessary to continue producing them.    And we are at a point in this country where they have so much control over the regulatory process that we are being left behind in the electrification revolution. Not because we don't have this technology, but because our politics won't allow us to change.    EVS are cheaper to run than gas vehicles. All the world's fastest-growing markets have seen explosive electric vehicle growth, but not here.    There's a reason for that.