no, you said Farley’s hands are on the tailgate.  Ok, Sure.   But you then say Field’s hands are pointing toward the back of the vehicle…..which they’re not pointing at Farley, which you said is the back of the car….therefore they’re pointing forward toward the cab, or at best the other side of the car

Notice on the Chinese Nautilus, the door handles are flush with the door, while the NA one has it along the belt line.  Supposedly China is doing away with the electronic, flush kinda of door handles but maybe on this picture it's not detailed enough to see.

I agree with you and truly believe that would’ve been a great plan. I always felt that all ford had to do was remake the edge and make it hybrid as they did with the nautilus and go with that but C2 would’ve been great. I was shocked in regards to the Super Duty announcement when it happened. Oakville will NEVER be the lead plant and is the third option behind Kentucky and Ohio.  Anyways I’m glad to be going back to my job soon as it’s been two long years. I just hope ford gets it right with whatever forthcoming decisions they make overall for future products.

So I agree, Ford's vehicle prices have kept pace with inflation and cost of living increases. But those increases have been absurd relative to national average salary increases, especially in recent decades.    While Ford can't influence broad economic trends, I believe they can improve their cost efficiency and pass some of those saving onto customers at a time when affordability is a big issue with a lot of people, even with enthusiasts products. 

https://www.torquenews.com/1/so-i-think-ford-mustang-feels-its-trying-be-retro-throwback-and-100k-performance-car-same-time

I've often said the issue isn't necessarily that cars are bad value, it's that nation wide looking at averages, a lot of wages haven't kept up with inflation and the cost of living. There's obviously not really anything Ford could do about that. But they can find ways to make things even more cost efficient than they currently are to make their vehicle prices more enticing.    They can throw up their hands and give up, or they can take what they learned from their skunkworks team and use it to strengthen the rest of their model range and make it more appealing. With affordability now creeping to the top of people's minds again, Ford finding ways to reduce costs in ways that didn't destroy profitability would give them a significant competitive advantage.

But offering multiple models off the same platform, like a mustang sedan, should increase volume substantially and reduce overall costs. 

Well I paid $29K for my 2006 Mustang GT that had everything but an automatic and the Shaker 1000 in it   Today a Mustang GT starts at $46 or $51K for the premium GT   That 29K in 2006 is worth almost $48K these days   Another example-my 1998 Mustang GT was 20K and in 2006 it was almost 25K according to the CPI caculator.   I'm not sure how Ford or anyone else is going to be able to get pricing down to what people "think" it should be at when EVERYTHING else has gone up in price. I know my salary has just about doubled since 2006 also and its gone up about 4X since 1997

Historically, when Mustang volume goes down, especially GTs, the V8 model prices go up.

It's a long shot, but just imagine if Ford develops some sort of sporty unibody platform not just for the coupe, and a mustang sedan, but that could also if it was flexible enough, be used for something like the gas powered 2 row mustang crossover we've heard about. Maybe the platform could even be used for other specialty products like a halo cobra model or something. Using the platform for 3-4 vehicles instead of just one.    Then factor in improved efficiencies inspired by the skunkworks team. Between improved engineering and design methods, and much better platform optimization and cost sharing, I could see a future where a mustang gt maybe gets back into the 40s again instead of being 50, 60, 70 grand.