Back on topic of why $50,000+ vehicles are not viable, IMO there are probably many reasons, but the two that I see as most important are high costs, which is most obvious, but also that most-expensive vehicles tend to also be the largest and therefore do not address the original goal of reducing greenhouse gases to the same degree as smaller and more energy efficient vehicles.  I recall Farley stating during an interview a while back that we needed to change the way Americans view transportation in order to make it more efficient, and I completely agree.   Lowering costs not only makes BEV ownership more likely but probably makes those vehicles more efficient at same time, providing even greater benefits.  I was recently reminded while reading Renault Twingo specs that size and mass have direct impact on energy requirements and emissions.  At only 2,600 pounds it achieves approximately 6 miles per kWh in “City” driving during mild weather, when large EVs weighing close to 8,000 pounds or more have difficult time getting 2 miles per kWh.  There must be a viable BEV between these two extremes.  I hope Farley and Ford can bring in new electric vehicles closer to 3,000 pounds so they actually accomplish a significant reduction in GHGs.  If 8,000+ pounds they might as well not bother.

With due respect, how can we know that what Ford is doing now wasn’t their backup plan all along?  Or second backup plan?  That’s not to say they haven’t made many mistakes and or that even if they made backup plans that they weren’t ill conceived.  I just can’t imagine a corporation as large as Ford would bet the entire farm on electrification without at least considering a safety net.  The fact that they are still profitable today means they did a few things right.  I give credit for that. 👍   IIRC at least two major changes have occurred since Ford and other manufacturers committed to invest heavily on electrification.  One was buyers slowing the adoption rate considerably, in part because BEV economics were tough to justify.  EV costs remain high, operating costs are higher than originally thought, depreciation is higher than other options, and the economy lost steam.  All these things make buyers question spending more for a BEV when they can make do with an ICEV or HEV at lower cost.  The second big change was a new administration that turned the industry on its head by reversing or eliminating some regulations and mandates.   In my opinion manufacturers probably don’t know what will happen after the midterms or under next administration so they are likely working on various plans to cover different scenarios.  I don’t think that all the announced delays until 2027 and 2028 are a coincidence.  In some cases manufacturers are buying time to avoid investing more capital until there is greater clarity and predictability.  My 2 cents….    

I agree there, I think some companies can be so blinded by the idea, and the excitement of going all in with a certain direction that they don't stop to think what would happen if things didn't work out as they planned. 

You cannot drive/use your truck without a hitch? Buyer beware of what?? Have the repairs finished then order up an aftermarket hitch....no problem at all....   https://www.etrailer.com/Trailer-HItch/Ford/Ranger/2024/DT35PR.html

And the reason Ford delayed T3 for three years is because smaller batteries in CE1 add up to more profitable enterprise. The fact that Ford spent billions on T3 and is prepared to delay for three years is an indication of just how big of a money pit it is on both costs and lack of sufficient buyers, the business case collapsed the day that Lightning reservations evaporated and production can’t even fill REVC, BOC production plant not needed for years, Big black economic hole for now.

where I think they failed is jumping all in without even thinking of a potential backup plan if market conditions or government policies change. Doesn’t necessarily mean money needs to be spent on that backup plan. 

Yea, exactly. The head honcho said many times that Ford’s model e division is a like a startup business. With a scrappy startup attitude, it can and should solve the big battery cost issue, and can and should stay in the full sized truck EV market.

Even though it's not currently profitable, I believe Ford should stay in the full sized truck EV market. Backing out of that and ceding buyers to to other full-sized EVs is a decision that would bite Ford in the ass long term imo. The focus should be on CE1, but t3 still sounds like a promising product Ford shouldn't just walk away from it.

It's up in the air. At first we thought it was maverick sized, then we thought it was ranger sized. Now it's back to thinking it's maverick sized. At least that's what I saw with a quote from dealers who saw it at an event.    My guess is slightly larger than a maverick, still considerably smaller than a ranger. Maybe it's maverick sized but thanks to ev packaging advantages has a bed and cab size comparable to mid-sized trucks. 

Ok?  You questioned whether the article is accurate regarding Lariat pricing.  It is (and AWD is standard on Lariat).   So yes, the price has been reduced significantly on Lariat 2.0L EB trim for 2026.