Bronco Pickup could kill the Ranger?!?!

[ryanO]

Yes, Ford's second-quarter performance was bolstered by sales of "high-margin off-road vehicles". That is unfortunately a limited market, which is contributing to declining U.S. sales. That coupled with aluminum supply shortages, Ford's costly exit from a battery joint venture, and cancellations of electric vehicle programs have all hurt. Cutting popular high volume, low cost vehicles with smaller profits margins also contributed to the losses, it was not a help. And a smaller profit margin is always better than no profit.

Smaller profit margins are never acceptable and in the business world saying they are better than none will get one fired, rightly so.
Only one thing matters, deliver the profit margins and dollars investors expect. Anything that is performing below expectations or promises must go.
I am in business development for $100M+ infrastructure projects. I recently killed a project that would have delivered 10% GP on a $100M project because my and my company's time is better suited working on a project that delivers our targeted 18% GP on $100M+ opportunities. I'm not interested in trying to make 10% GP.

Sponsored

 

[Texasota]

The Everest would slot in perfectly where the Edge used to be.

Maybe for some but not me. I already have a 2026 Ranger and don’t need another T6.2 based vehicle. I want something with a more compliant and quiet ride with high MPGs. Preferably a hybrid. A new hybrid Edge would be perfect for me.

 

[natkill]

Maybe for some but not me. I already have a 2026 Ranger and don’t need another T6.2 based vehicle. I want something with a more compliant and quiet ride with high MPGs. Preferably a hybrid. A new hybrid Edge would be perfect for me.

For people that lean towards more off-road capable in that size category, the Everest seems great. I could have seen myself going that route if it had been an option, because it would feel like getting something similar to a 4Runner but with Ford pricing rather than paying the Toyota Tax. However, I can't see someone like my mom going for an Everest. She wants what you are looking for: a quiet, smooth ride, decent mpg, with a refined interior. There's definitely a market out there for both and neither is getting what they want right now.

 

[Mystic]

For people that lean towards more off-road capable in that size category, the Everest seems great. I could have seen myself going that route if it had been an option, because it would feel like getting something similar to a 4Runner but with Ford pricing rather than paying the Toyota Tax. However, I can't see someone like my mom going for an Everest. She wants what you are looking for: a quiet, smooth ride, decent mpg, with a refined interior. There's definitely a market out there for both and neither is getting what they want right now.

I'm wondering if we'll see hybrid / PHEV T6.2 vehicles here soon, given Ford's messaging about everything being hybrid by 2030 or whatever it is. The Australian PHEV Ranger has a 2.3L EB under the hood and seems like the best of all worlds in a lot of ways. 35mpg.

 

[Texasota]

I'm wondering if we'll see hybrid / PHEV T6.2 vehicles here soon, given Ford's messaging about everything being hybrid by 2030 or whatever it is. The Australian PHEV Ranger has a 2.3L EB under the hood and seems like the best of all worlds in a lot of ways. 35mpg.

That would be a top choice for me but PHEVs don’t sell very well in North America. I think we might see a Ranger hybrid because the Bronco is getting a hybrid soon. But, I think it is a better bet that we will see a Ranger and Bronco Powerboost hybrids (same hybrid setup as F-150) here in NA.

 

[Alaska_Wolf]

Not if there are higher margin opportunities available. Ford has been replacing low margin commodity products with high margin aspirational products and so far it is proving successful.

Dude, even Ford CEO Jim Farley disagrees with you. And he's the one that 's cut all the small vehicle offerings. The whole premise of the Fathom project is to build smaller, cheaper more competitive priced vehicles faster, and to do away with slower to build higher cost vehicles. "Ford is undoubtedly associated with large vehicles. Take its F-150 or Ranger pickup trucks, for instance, or the oversized Expedition SUV. However, when it comes to electric vehicles (EVs), Ford CEO Jim Farley is flipping the company’s strategy on its head. “We believe smaller, more affordable vehicles are the way to go for EV in volume,” said Farley during the automaker’s second-quarter earnings call." So you are trying to defend a position that even the Ford CEO is trying to get Ford out of? Start reading Ford news reports, podcasts and financial statements. Farley has had the plant building the new Fathom line completely gutted and completed redesigned and retooled. It will no longer use an "assembly line" they're going to an "assembly tree" and are using parts that are cheaper, lighter and faster to assemble. Your high margin aspirational products seem to be on the way out the door. I don't have to agree totally with Farley's assessment, to me killing off all of the smaller, high volume vehicles to produce even more smaller, high volume vehicles seem a bit counterintuitive, but I'm not the CEO. But I've already got my name down for a tour of the completely redesigned Louisville Plant.

 

[mrmike7189]

For people that lean towards more off-road capable in that size category, the Everest seems great. I could have seen myself going that route if it had been an option, because it would feel like getting something similar to a 4Runner but with Ford pricing rather than paying the Toyota Tax. However, I can't see someone like my mom going for an Everest. She wants what you are looking for: a quiet, smooth ride, decent mpg, with a refined interior. There's definitely a market out there for both and neither is getting what they want right now.

Thats why the older crowd will buy Honda Cr-V's and Toyota RAV-4's because ford killed their Edge and Escapes......

 

[Texasota]

Dude, even Ford CEO Jim Farley disagrees with you. And he's the one that 's cut all the small vehicle offerings. The whole premise of the Fathom project is to build smaller, cheaper more competitive priced vehicles faster, and to do away with slower to build higher cost vehicles. "Ford is undoubtedly associated with large vehicles. Take its F-150 or Ranger pickup trucks, for instance, or the oversized Expedition SUV. However, when it comes to electric vehicles (EVs), Ford CEO Jim Farley is flipping the company’s strategy on its head. “We believe smaller, more affordable vehicles are the way to go for EV in volume,” said Farley during the automaker’s second-quarter earnings call." So you are trying to defend a position that even the Ford CEO is trying to get Ford out of? Start reading Ford news reports, podcasts and financial statements. Farley has had the plant building the new Fathom line completely gutted and completed redesigned and retooled. It will no longer use an "assembly line" they're going to an "assembly tree" and are using parts that are cheaper, lighter and faster to assemble. Your high margin aspirational products seem to be on the way out the door. I don't have to agree totally with Farley's assessment, to me killing off all of the smaller, high volume vehicles to produce even more smaller, high volume vehicles seem a bit counterintuitive, but I'm not the CEO. But I've already got my name down for a tour of the completely redesigned Louisville Plant.

Yes, the Fathom is being built on Ford's UEV platform and a new production process that is focused on radical reduction in the cost of this platform. They invested lots of resources on the aero of this new small EV pickup so that they can put a smaller low cost LFP battery in it, a new zonal electrical architecture and uni-castings to radically reduce the number of parts. The Fathom is all about a low cost EV that will result in a high margin vehicle that is profitable for Ford and at the same time affordable to customers. The thing I am dubious about is if customers will embrace the fact that is an EV. The recent track record for EVs in North America has not been good. That is the part I am worried about (not that it is an affordable vehicle).

The Fathom is a great example of what I have been trying to say Ford is doing. Building vehicles that have good profit margins (and that includes ones that are affordable to customers). Commodity products with low profit is what Ford is moving away from.

 

[Texasota]

The leaks we saw last month said that this Bronco truck would be coming (along with a "Maverick Van", which also got announced) and Ford was going to launch a "F-100" truck at the Tennessee Truck Plant that would be closer to a "super duty" ranger.

So far all the leaks seem to be coming true except for the F-100 announcement. Time will tell.

Another piece falling into place:

https://fordauthority.com/2026/08/next-gen-ford-ranger-may-play-starring-role-at-new-assembly-plant/

 

[Alaska_Wolf]

Yes, the Fathom is being built on Ford's UEV platform and a new production process that is focused on radical reduction in the cost of this platform. They invested lots of resources on the aero of this new small EV pickup so that they can put a smaller low cost LFP battery in it. The Fathom is all about a low cost EV that will result in a high margin vehicle that is profitable for Ford and at the same time affordable to customers.

This is exactly what I have been trying to say Ford is doing. Building vehicles that have good profit margins. Commodity products with low profit is what Ford is moving away from.

Its not going to be a high margin vehicle, not at a sub-$30,000 price point. They are just focusing on vehicles that are simpler, faster and cheaper to build and cheaper to sell. Overall, without the R&D costs, and the cost redesigning and rebuilding Louisville, I suspect the margin will be more or less in the same range as the Escape. There are actually some good videos on From the Road that detail how the new assembly process works.

 

[Texasota]

Its not going to be a high margin vehicle, not at a sub-$30,000 price point. They are just focusing on vehicles that are simpler, faster and cheaper to build and cheaper to sell. Overall, without the R&D costs, and the cost redesigning and rebuilding Louisville, I suspect the margin will be more or less in the same range as the Escape. There are actually some good videos on From the Road that detail how the new assembly process works.

I think you are dead wrong. The Fathom's design was all about massively reducing the production costs for the vehicle. The Skunk Works project was created for one reason, so that Ford could be competitive with cheap Chinese EVs. Ford/Farley believe that they must be able to build a profitable EV that can compete with Chinese EVs. If they can't do that, then the future does not look promising. Ford thinks they have achieved that with the UEV platform. The only remaining question is if NA customers will embrace this EV. I hope they do.

I have no idea what the actual cost of building a Fathom is, but if Ford can build one in the $23,000 range, then that is a margin of 30%. That would be very good for Ford.

 

[Mystic]

Its not going to be a high margin vehicle, not at a sub-$30,000 price point. They are just focusing on vehicles that are simpler, faster and cheaper to build and cheaper to sell. Overall, without the R&D costs, and the cost redesigning and rebuilding Louisville, I suspect the margin will be more or less in the same range as the Escape. There are actually some good videos on From the Road that detail how the new assembly process works.

Then what does this do for Ford? If it has the same margins as the Escape, and if we assume they sell at the same volume (they won't) then net-net this would do nothing for Ford.

If margins decrease, by definition you have to do more volume to make the same money.

If they are simpler and able to be built more quickly, out of fewer parts, this would almost guarantee an increase in margins, which is the whole point of the UEV experiment - to make cheap volume sellers feasible again.

You're talking past the other guy. Farley's UEV strategy specifically relates to EVs (per your own post), not ICE. They can't run this skunkworks strategy for ICE, so existing high margin Raptors, etc make sense for Ford alongside this new EV push.

 

[Alaska_Wolf]

I think you are dead wrong. The Fathom's design was all about massively reducing the production costs for the vehicle. The Skunk Works project was created for one reason, so that Ford could be competitive with cheap Chinese EVs. Ford/Farley believe that they must be able to build a profitable EV that can compete with Chinese EVs. If they can't do that, then the future does not look promising. Ford thinks they have achieved that with the UEV platform. The only remaining question is if NA customers will embrace this EV. I hope they do.

I have no idea what the actual cost of building a Fathom is, but if Ford can build one in the $23,000 range, then that is a margin of 30%. That would be very good for Ford.

I don't think I'm wrong, and I don't think you are wrong. Its a much more complex issue than most people would realize. We are not competing with corporations as much as we are competing with a complete industrial ecosystem, an ecosystem resulting from 20-year master plans by the Chinese government. Ford has taken the first steps, which means they may still have a chance to survive; for those that haven't started yet, they may already be down in the 4th quarter an not even know it yet. Ford is still a Buy, the rest I've already dumped.

 

[Texasota]

Farley's UEV strategy specifically relates to EVs (per your own post), not ICE. They can't run this skunkworks strategy for ICE, so existing high margin Raptors, etc make sense for Ford alongside this new EV push.

Mostly agree, but I think we will see important UEV technologies incorporated into future ICE production.

For example, the zonal electric architecture will for sure be quickly incorporated into many future platforms. This saves a lot in wiring , but also significantly reduces the number of chips and modules that will be needed in the vehicle. Ford CEO Jim Farley noted that a single vehicle typically includes about 150 separate modules controlling various functions like steering, braking, and power trains.

According to Gemini:

• traditional models, like a Ford Focus, use roughly 300 semiconductor chips
• Advanced electric models, like the Mustang Mach-E, utilize close to 3,000 semiconductor chips to manage complex battery systems, touchscreens, and connected features.
• Ford’s zonal architecture condenses dozens of decentralized supplier controlled units down to just 4 to 6 localized central processors, effectively eliminating over 140 individual electronic modules.

Then there is the uni-castings cost savings which hopefully can be incorporated into ICE vehicles. From Gemini:

• Parts Eliminated: Over 146 smaller front and rear structural parts.

• Parts Remaining: 2 single-piece aluminum castings.

• Manufacturing Impact: Results in a 66% reduction in welds and a 25% reduction in fasteners.

• Weight Savings: The castings are 27% lighter than comparable assemblies.

I have no idea what the cost savings for ICE will be, but it sounds like big opportunities. I think it might be why the new future SUV being built in Hermosillo by Ford will supposedly have a $25,000 starting price:

https://fordauthority.com/2026/08/2...r-on-track-for-2029-debut-amid-ongoing-pivot/

 

[Alaska_Wolf]

Then what does this do for Ford? If it has the same margins as the Escape, and if we assume they sell at the same volume (they won't) then net-net this would do nothing for Ford.

If margins decrease, by definition you have to do more volume to make the same money.

If they are simpler and able to be built more quickly, out of fewer parts, this would almost guarantee an increase in margins, which is the whole point of the UEV experiment - to make cheap volume sellers feasible again.

You're talking past the other guy. Farley's UEV strategy specifically relates to EVs (per your own post), not ICE. They can't run this skunkworks strategy for ICE, so existing high margin Raptors, etc make sense for Ford alongside this new EV push.

"We are just in love with these monster vehicles,” Ford’s CEO said at the Aspen Ideas Festival. “I love them too,” he acknowledged they are a major issue due to their weight. Ford’s CEO added, “We have to start to get back in love with smaller vehicles. It’s super important for our society and for EV adoption." "Ford must build EVs profitably in the next five years as leading Chinese automakers like BYD expand into new global markets."

I honestly don't understand why people can't Fathom (pun intended) that since Farley is saying Ford is going to have to get away from big trucks, like Raptors, to survive, they can't seen to get that I think by getting rid of the smaller, easier to build, faster to produce vehicles first wasn't necessarily the correct choice? The message Farley is sending is that China has taken the upper hand in vehicle production globally; they are producing cheaper, safer and better vehicles, and they are producing them faster. The way the Big 3 has done business for decades is no longer a viable strategy against China, if our companies can't, or won't, start to fundamentally change, then its game over. Ford under Farley has taken the first step, which is more than the others have done. The Fathom is a the first step of many that will need to be taken for Ford's future and the potential future of auto production in this country.

Sponsored