The more important question would be how would a SUV based on Maverick distinguish itself from a Bronco Sport? One way I can figure is that a Maverick SUV would be available as a FWD only variant with hybrid options of course and more room (longer wheelbase) for rear seat passengers. It is going to get muddled if/when Maverick and Bronco Sport move closer to each other stylistically.

This morning's updated gas prices in Hamden, CT 06514 (Greater New Haven) $3.99 Regular (Cash) @ Citgo (Increased $0.20 from $3.79)  

But Ford has positioned the BS as “premium” - the Maverick based SUV was supposed to slot below it, so how would it make sense for a BS truck to slot below the Maverick?

Hey jpd80 my friend, would vehicles that are competitive in Europe and Asia necessarily be competitive in Australia? Or are Australian car buyers a different breed with preferences that diverge from buyers in Europe and Asia?   You know the Australia market as well as anyone here, so your thoughts are appreciated 😊

Yea, outsourcing didn't solve the problem of unnecessary complexity in Ford's engineering and manufacturing processes and in certain respects made it worse.   Radical change is what Ford needs. Sounds like that's finally comin' to fruition thanks to the efforts at the skunkworks and CE1 products.

To be fair here, I think many of the previous C2 and CD4 efforts were way more expensive  to build than previous Mazda based platforms and that was a big surprise to Mulally’s team, they could never get their heads around how efficient Mazda was at designing products and why they should have been kept.

Fusion Sport 2nd gen (2017-2019) requires 150 lb ft.  I think it's the only Fusion that does. I think the 3.0 AWD MKZ which is similar also requires the same 150 but I own the FFS so I'm not 100% sure.

Also - most of these new casting techniques weren't feasible until the last few years.

That's actually a valid point. Why are so many cars in their initial release photos shown from the perspective of an ant, and not at a more realistic eye level? Especially when as you pointed out, a lot of designs look worse from that angle. 

This, there's a way to offer new escape and edge replacements, even sedan and hatchback replacements as well, that makes them more profitable to produce, and aligns with Ford's strategy of no boring cars. There's a way to do an escape size and edge sized crossovers that are bolder, and more desirable than what they replaced. There's a way to do a hatchback with fun, expressive styling.    Yet Farley seems to be incapable of considering this. I give him credit on a lot of things, but I'm expressed my disappointment with Ford just killing off everything that's even vaguely boring instead of try to find ways to make said products more aspirational.    The frustrating thing is Ford seems to want to avoid overly saturated segments, but also go where the most profit is. The issue is the most profitable and lucrative segments of the industry tend to attract the most competition. What Ford really needs is a kickass series of platforms that makes them profitable and sustainable, even in segments where there's a ton of competition, instead of just running from competition once it gets hard. Hopefully CE1 is the answer on that front.