Agreed, Texasorta hit the target better than I did. Consider this, - Mid sized Truck sales are modest - Slightly larger Tacoma sales are x2 and x3 better than Colorado twins  and Ranger  - F150/1500 trucks is where sales numbers peak - SD/2500 up trucks is approx half of F150/1500 truck sales The sweet spot that Ford is after is somewhere between Tacoma and F150, thinking size and capabilities. If Ford gets this right, its competitors will be scrambling for years trying to catch up by reinventing their products but simply looking like copy cars. Off topic, Im wondering if the above then allows Ford to use lighter F150 frame as a new F200 just above the 8,500 lb CAFE cut off for an efficient 7.3 tow vehicle that adds more profit without having to worry about fleet economy.. (probably a whole other thread)

Yes it should take some share from Tacoma but I think this will be a much different truck.

But given that Tacoma currently has the largest market share it will steal sales from Toyota if Ford achieves that flexibility and lower cost. I hope it steals lots of Tacoma market share.

I don't think they're targeting Tacoma at all.  I think they're targeting flexibility and lower cost which will drive volume and profitability.  

Which vehicle is Ford targeting…. Tacoma leads in sales by a long way, imagine what Ford is willing to do to go after all of those buyers - a truck that’s slightly bigger?    

ZF is a pioneer in these wired systems:   https://www.zf.com/mobile/en/technologies/by_wire/by_wire.html   Going down this road would result in the elimination of considerable hydraulic and mechanical components.

I believe NG F150 is fall 2028 release as 2029 model. So before the “F 100” and Bronco truck come out. 

I remember the brake by wire, but forgot about the steer by wire one.....     Perhaps I'm connecting unrelated dots, but.........that rumor could actually support the idea of some sort of modified body-on-frame/giga-casting combo, as they'd theoretically be able to assemble the entire front compartment (with dash attached like the Fathom approach as one piece, then merge it with the cab, then drop it all onto the frame similar to now.   So instead of having the 3 section giga-cast approach of Fathom (front with dash, rear with motor, center passenger cell with seats all put together), it'd still be 3 sections, but different: 1) front end with dash 2) passenger cell with seats/interior in place 2b) those two are merged 3) assembled bed added behind the cab 4) dropped onto frame (preassembled with powertrain etc. like current methods)     It'd allow some of the assembly efficiencies/less strain on workers with the tired and true bof approach

I seem to recall articles for some time talking about a roughly 50/50 split, but that more recently it's skewed more hybrid?  I could be wrong on that.     That's why I've been saying to not set the expectation bar too high on design (and therefore sales), as this thing has to in a way both thread a needle customer wise, and appeal to a broader audience to succeed.  It'll have to appeal to a picky EV crowd for features, range, etc, while also broadly appealing to enough ICE/hybrid buyers to get them to switch.   I also think it helps that Maverick is already around, as it's a proof of concept of at least the sizing and capabilities of the vehicle.  Customers like the smaller size, but also based on reports, only do mild truck activities like throw some mulch in the bed on a Home Depot run, with largely limited towing.....doesn't mean it won't tow, but if you really want to tow, you go up to Ranger or beyond.  But as you point out, Maverick also benefits from "trucky" styling, whereas the Fathom is more aero-first design.  Who knows, maybe it'll look different than we're thinking, but we'll see.......I'm picturing a modern take of the '97-03 aero F-150 look.     Well, we don't have any official numbers yet, so the jury is still out whether it'd be able to do what you want.

This is often attributed to driver error, stuck shoe, carpet, etc.   A branch of this topic is 'tin whiskers' which is partly a false meme.   The following is neither.   An Unintended Accel occured on my 'essentially new' 250 SD while just beginning to accelerate in reverse while backing up a slight hill to a parking spot, and just as the 'auto brake on a hill' (whatever the proper term is) had just released. The vehicle was backing and just started to break over the incline toward level ground, the engine surged unexpectedly, had not done so in the past, just as I'd begun to depress the accelerator pedal. The accel was greater than the accel I'd given it  or, an unexpected delay in that acceleration.   IOW, the 'hold on the hill', vehicle load and accel pedal input changed about the same time.   The vehicle has not done so in other driving modes of situations. When manuvering like this, I keep my left foot hovering just above the brake pedal just in case...   There was no loss of vehicle control that caused any risk.