Interesting.  Your post was so out of context that it made little sense due to midsize reference, so made me curious.  Tried opening link and it took me to a different page than what I copied.  I’ll see if I can find later, if for no other reason than to learn how things can go wrong. 😑    Anyway, the page I had been reading showed 3-row SUVs in different sizes, prices, and with different powertrain types.  The recap that opens now is a fraction of entire list which was extensive.  I suppose if Stellantis doesn’t have to invest much to create this new RAM SUV there isn’t much downside or risk, but I can’t see them selling that many given vast competition including from their own brands.

No argument..I didn't say they weren't.  What I've been trying to say is class 6 and 7 is a key class in the "commercial" market.  Much lesser numbers than 5 on down but again, in recent years Paccar, Freightliner, and now Mack have moved into it.  Doesn't that say something??

Correction..the "new 650/750" was originally built in Mexico at ..?Escobedo?? The Blue Diamond era came about in 2004.

That was more of a political article than one that was informative about the decision/details of producing the engine there. 

Its going to be Ram version of the Wagoneer...not midsize SUV

It’s such a crowded space already that it makes me wonder if they will follow through.   https://www.caranddriver.com/rankings/best-suvs/3-row

...or a Dodge.

Reality is that patent is almost certainly not vehicle model specific.  It’s likely generic.  We shouldn’t assume it’s meant only for new BEV truck just because truck looks different on drawings.  Again, I haven’t read patent but seriously doubt it applies solely to CE1 pickup.  Ford may not even use this design at all, but who knows, could just as easily use it on existing models in the future.  Granted, it’s probably limited to unitized designs since body-on-frame may be next to impossible to make work.   Also, the midgate/bulkhead design doesn’t have to roll out in first model year.  If it’s an option then Ford could concentrate on building simpler and cheaper trucks initially and then expand offerings in a few years.  On the other hand Ford could use design on CE1 as standard from onset but that would compound risks significantly IMO.  Just saying we shouldn’t read too much into a patent application.

Huh?  Transit and F150/250/350/450/550 are much bigger in commercial sales.

I get where you're coming from, this is a relatively expensive and complex thing to include in a vehicle that's meant to be all about low cost and simplicity. But a thought occured to me, no doubt Ford is targeting both commerical and retail buyers with this vehicle. A lot of those commerical buyers and some retail buyers really want that additional bed storage, to the point of asking for 2 door, long bed trucks.    But by offering a design like this, Ford could create something that offers both the benefits of 4 door crew cabs, and long bed 2 door trucks. Something that allows you to carry people in the backseat for when you want, and significantly improving cargo space when you need to, all in one vehicle, the best of both worlds.    That could pay dividends in the future. Instead of needing to produce a 2 and 4 door cab, with carrying wheelbases and bed lengths, you just make one configuration, like the maverick has now. Saving a lot of money with reduced tooling, manufacturing, and engineering costs, while also creating a more flexible product that's better for the consumer.