A quick look at Ford Website suggests that that price is based on entry-level variant with smaller battery and much less than 300 miles of range.  Doesn’t sound like it meets Sherminator98’s criteria, but if I’m overlooking details please let me know.  While on Ford site it seemed that “well equipped” Mach Es easily exceed $50k.   I don’t care to argue the point because I don’t have a dog in this fight, and it doesn’t affect me directly anyway.  Regardless, what’s more important is that Ford is likely losing money on Mach E sales at the entry-level prices, and if they increase price to make them profitable, sales would decrease further.  No doubt Ford can make it a great value by subsidizing costs, but that’s not a longterm solution.  Maybe things will turn around soon, who knows?  

Ford knows exactly what CE1 brings to the table and can apply that to T3 which is what they said they’re doing.  It would be stupid not to do that considering the potential cost savings and considering the potential with current technology is very limited as we’ve seen with Mach e and Lightning.   We’re not talking about some unknown future thing.

any info about the 2026 Navigator OG?

I think Ford is doing exactly what you are suggesting. They are adapting and bringing forward impressive new technology with CE1. CE1 may actually make money for the company and result in a product that customers will embrace. That has not been true for the F-150 lightning.

IMO the best strategy is to invest in a modular platform that can be BEV, EREV and HEV vehicles (Honda, GM) and build factories that can adapt to changes (Honda) in the Market/political environment, not to double down on segregation of Platforms, Technology, and manufacturing.   

My problem with this line of thinking is that there will always be a better technology in the future, but that technology doesn't guarantee lower cost. Ford literally spent a decade delaying and postponing future products, preparing for a recession that never came, and is still paying the price for that.  Focusing on the fundamentals while being willing to adapt to new technologies is the Way to go. Even EV-hating Toyota didn't give up after the 1st-gen BZ4x; they kept making improvements and investing in technology, turning the BZ into a decent EV. Cancelling the F-150 EV is a classic Ford move that prioritizes short-term convenience over long-term uncertainty. The corporate dysfunction within Ford incentivizes short-term thinking, which encourages managers to push risk onto other departments and future products and investments. Why solve a problem now, when you can fix it with the next model or investment (I.E. Powershift)

First choice:   Second choice:    Third choice:

But by then it will be using new batteries and presumably all of the things that make CE1 so much cheaper.  I still think they need a midsized electric truck in between Ranger and f150.   Smaller makes it cheaper with more range and fits better in garages all of which should yield more volume than lightning.    My two neighbors that own lightnings would have bought a smaller version if it was available.

Could be, but I don’t think it will be a large truck. As JPD has pointed out, Ford hasn’t been able to profitably make vehicles with the large batteries that big pickups require. Plus the question of demand, which will be exacerbated by the end of the government subsidies. 

That wasn’t the question.  The assertion was every mfr is dumping EVs.  Obviously untrue