Thinking that this is aimed at the likes of Maverick buyers, people who don’t need BOF  like Ranger and more usable space in back for people who want more than a Utility.   The thing Ford must not do is over hype this and retry to be all things to all buyers. Its a great package but don’t spoil it by giving buyers false /misleading impressions.

I think we can know. Colorado and ranger don’t even offer a longer option. Frontier and Tacoma do, but I’d guess their sales are so low that no one would even notice. The most popular f150 comes with the shortest bed.   Now with that said, long bed trucks look ridiculous IMO and they can be harder to maneuver. This mid gate solves those problems so that’s a plus. However, I think ford should keep these new EVs as simple as possible for a few reasons: 1. Lower price will attract more customers 2. Ford has a problem with quality and recalls so the less places for failure, the better. 3. If these EVs are being built on some new assembly line, then I would think you’d want to make it as simple as possible to ensure everything runs smoothly.  

What I really like about the patent drawings above is that it shows the entire midgate effectively being relocated (at least in function) to the B pillar.  Functionally this means truck can be used like a single cab with very long bed.  Unlike Chevy’s design, the partition should provide much better air conditioning, heat, and a level of security for passengers and personal belongings.  Should help a lot with noise and weather protection also.  Much depends on how well the new bulkhead at B pillar is sealed.   Below are pictures of Chevy with it open just at bottom and also with the entire rear wall/gate folded flat; which adds just over 3-feet of length according to video.  As can be seen the driver and passenger are exposed to cargo area and there’s minimal protection between cabin and cargo in bed, or from weather.  I haven’t seen the patent but expect that if executed well the Ford design will have a lot of fans, including me. 😀         P.S. — IMO Maverick’s bed length’s affect on sales is an unknowable variable that can be assumed or estimated, but unless buyers previously had a choice, we don’t know how great sales could have been.  Granted market research can sometimes predict preferences but other times they are completely wrong because what people say and what they actually end up buying may be very different.  I’m no expert on this subject but know that my 6-ft Ranger bed was often a little short for my needs.  Much less than 6-feet and I would not have purchased my Ranger years ago.  I know 4~5 foot bed lengths work for many, but what we can’t know is how many additional truck buyers a 6-foot-plus bed may attract even if required once in a blue moon. 🌖   

It still gets back to the same old problem, besides a body and chassis rails, everything else really has to be industry standard equipment that Ford would have to buy in and add mark up on.   By the time Ford does that, they are simply supplying a “me too” generic truck that competes with all the other established truck brands…..where’s the compelling business case for that besides a few avid heavy truck fans wanting Ford to spend the money and find out?   Sorry if this sounds ill informed but I think it’s how Ford sees class 8 in a nutshell and they don’t like their odds of success when they can look elsewhere and get an easier return on on the same investment funding.

It sounds cool, but as the Maverick has shown, the bed size doesn’t really seem to matter. People who buy small trucks aren’t buying them to move big things. If you are trying to build an affordable EV, there’s no need to have features like this that increase cost when the customers would have been perfectly happy without it. There’s probably a reason GM is the only brand that offers midgates (that I know of). 

Investors? Investors should not be running a company. Every time Ford sold off a division like Philco, Farm Tractor, class 8, the stock price went down!

The bed extending into rear-seat space, with or without relocating rear window, definitely solves the problem of 4-door compact trucks having a bed that is too short to be useful for many hauling applications.  Other trucks have similar concepts, but this looks even more promising to me.  Hope it works great.

Further to this..I just checked Autocar.com   Great website and I never knew they now offered a class 7 cab over.  No clue who builds the cab but will be a market for it for sure.  Once again 6.7 Cummins power.

From the Detroit News, via Bloomberg:   https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/ford/2025/10/31/ford-to-invest-370-million-in-india-defying-trumps-local-push/87006923007/  

yes Autocar is still around.  we have a dealer here in Mass,  I think they are probably on the very high end price wise.  They have been building the cab over for quite a few years with refuse their primary market. Can't say I see a lot of the new conventional but they are selling. I have a sales sheet from the early 80's...and if I put my Mack and Ford prejudices aside, I have to say those A-Cars back then were probably the best. The fact that there are quite a few still in service-tandem and triaxle dumps- in this area is testimony to that.