It could have been but apparently it wasn't.  My guess is they were trying to limit development costs and were therefore stuck with compromised proportions or other components rather than a true clean sheet design.  And by that point it wasn't worth fixing.   In hindsight it should have been a C2 hybrid from the start.

I own a 2020 Escape 2.0 EB Titanium.  I also occasionally drive a similar model year Escape fleet vehicle.  My Titanium has a much nicer and quieter interior.   But on topic, for me personally, not going electric.  Just doesn't have the range to satisfy me.  If I had to replace mine today, I'd either get a Maverick hybrid AWD Lariat, or a Toyota RAV4.  Although I have thought about getting a lower end Chinese Nautilus too.

Given how volatile Rivian stock is, In expecting it to drop this week as we near their quarterly earnings, it almost always does. But after that, I'm buying in an holding until the r2 release in June. I genuinely believe this company is setting itself up to be successful long term.    They're doing everything right Tesla did, with the added benefits of having a more enticing design language, avoiding all the controversy, and receiving billions in funding from external sources like Amazon and VW. I wouldn't be surprised if the share price was $50 a share in a few years time. 

Why aren't you complaining that Rivian is forcing their customers to buy a truck and SUV? 

The problem was that there were already camouflaged vehicle spyshots, it was cancelled so late in the process My beef was it was separate development to Explorer instead of a close derivative developed at the same time.   back Chanel says problem with Proportions affecting the aesthetics in vehicle clinics. Convenient excuse if say, a two row Explorer could be used instead to replace some Edge sales… Whatever, the CD4 Edge was extended until another plan was drafted for Oakville LOL, then that  vehicle plan was scrapped too…and now the plan is SD F Series

Sometimes you have to lose money on a vehicle program in the short term to stay an option for the market long term. Not everything is as simple as profit/loss. IF you're exiting a segment like compact and subcompact cars, then it makes sense to just punt entirely. IF you want to participate long term then it has to be an option to float a short term loss for long term gains. 

I remember when that was reported. Seemed like BS (and I don’t mean Bronco Sport) to me. No reason why a well proportioned Edge couldn’t be developed on CD6. 

Yeah pretty much, it felt like vehicles built in silos instead of what the platform could achieve with scales of economy. A lot of the financing decisions are made on business case of individual vehicle types instead of a more cohesive approach to what becomes derivatives or close cousins…   Thank you for that summary, exactly what I was thinking and akirby is right, Jim Farley was there and responsible, the warning signs were there.   I guess Farley was so onboard with BEVs that Ford overcommitted before confirming just how many buyers were out there. I think that’s where building up hybrids,, PHEV/EREVs is important in growing customer trust and familiarity…the steps Ford dismissed as over complications…

I like how the R1 (T and S) look.  I'm liking how this R2 looks as well.  I hope the product does well for them.   Sure the front end is odd, but I'm used to it at this point.