mustang mach e

[George Jung]

*someone* named it SUV of the year; one of many new competitors to Tesla. Eligible for $7500 government kickback, which Tesla no longer qualifies for. With Administration changes and Climate Change suddenly back/active, looks likely there will be a 'push' for more electrics. Anybody looking?

https://www.ford.com/suvs/mach-e/?gnav=header-suvs-vhp

[LeeG]

that’s an SUV?

[George Jung]

Si. Just ain't 'right'- ya'know?

[Hugh MacD]

Hope they didn't use the same platform they used for the Escape. Test drove one and it was one of the scariest, ill handling vehicles I've ever had the misfortune to drive. Could have been just that vehicle, but I kinda doubt it.

[David G]

1. I can't get over the cognitive dissonance. That AIN'T no Mustang... and I therefore can't really see it.

2. Every stinkin' auto reviewer around (excepting Consumer Reports) pays zero attention to the long term. Ford would not be my first choice for a careful, rugged build of newish tech that will last for years. My Toyota Tundra is 15 years old, and will probably be in the family fleet forever. Though I'd trust Ford more than Tesla... which I almost look at as 'disposable'.

3. There are getting to be several alternatives, and the features, performance, etc. are getting better at a rapid rate. I'd be inclined to wait, in general. And THEN pick a reliable brand.

4. And that roofline is most assuredly NOT a SUV. If you want to build a coupe... or a 'fastback'... CALL it that. I want the volume of a real SUV.

[David W Pratt]

Roofline? Why about the ground clearance, or lack of same?

[CWSmith]

*someone* named it SUV of the year; one of many new competitors to Tesla. Eligible for $7500 government kickback, which Tesla no longer qualifies for.

The reason Tesla no longer qualifies is that they have sold more than 200,000 vehicles. It's not a reflection on their technology. It's obviously motivated by corporate profit more than the environment and that stinks.

https://www.cars.com/articles/which-...credit-429824/

[CWSmith]

The reason Tesla no longer qualifies is that they have sold more than 200,000 vehicles. It's not a reflection on their technology. It's obviously motivated by corporate profit more than the environment and that stinks.

https://www.cars.com/articles/which-...credit-429824/

By the way, I did rent a Ford Fusion hybrid and then I bought a Honda hybrid. That might tell you something...

[Joe (SoCal)]

The Ford’s RANGE is circa 2010 level and the reason Tesla leads the pack.

It gets 200 mi on paper, the Tesla model S long range has been getting TWICE that for over a year and keeps getting better.

[Garret]

The Ford’s RANGE is circa 2010 level and the reason Tesla leads the pack.

It gets 200 mi on paper, the Tesla model S long range has been getting TWICE that for over a year and keeps getting better.

Cue a rant from Hugh Coway

[lagspiller]

As I mentioned once in the 'what new' thread, I bought one. There's a long wait, though. Ordered mine in Oct. Won't get here until June.
Got it specifically because it has the range I was waiting to get. 610km is about the best around at this point. Went with the rear wheel drive and 99kW battery. The Tesla Y is supposed to get about the same. Test show the Tesla is closer to the range they set than the Mustang in winter conditions, so far. But there will be tweeking of the programming (by wire) and that will probably improve a bit through the first year of use. Tesla has put more into reducing drag and wins some miles on that. They also win on have a lighter car - by about 200 kg I think.

On the other hand, the quality of the build is reported better in the Mustang. Not surprising, given that Ford has a thousand years experience in building cars. Tesla has a rep for thinner, easily dented body plating, doors that don't, heaters that quit and looooong repair times.

The Mustang doesn't quite match the performance wow of Tesla. Still fast, but the Tesla has more sports car feel at the wheel. The ride is quieter and more comfortable in the Mustang (according to the tests). Seats are flatter than I'm used to in my present BMW, but still give good long-day comfort. And they also give more useful room. The car itself is taller than the Y, but doesn't have much more ground clearance. I have no plans on driving off-road in the Mustang, so that doesn't worry me at all.

According to most all the tests I've read, they class the Mustang more as a cross-over more than a SUV.
I checked Tesla Y and Polestar as the competition to the Mustang. Polestar has also had a lot of reports of problems and little help from the dealers... according to the latest from the consumer protection agency here. Mustang looked like a better package to me, all considered. In addition, it was cheaper. Money that could be put into the B&O music package.... with a soundbar integrated into and running across the entire dash.

Here in Norway, 52% of all new cars sold are electric. Diesel dropped from 70% of the market 10 years ago to about 7%. Petrol is somewhere around 15-20%. The rest are hybrid, I guess.

[LeeG]

sporty wheels

[John Meachen]

I may never see one but it saddens me that they felt the need to use the Mustang name for something so far removed from the original concept.Why not come up with an original name?

[lagspiller]

I may never see one but it saddens me that they felt the need to use the Mustang name for something so far removed from the original concept.Why not come up with an original name?

The other companies with pony cars are working on putting an electric out, like Ford.
Another thing about names.... the car has no name what so ever anywhere on or in it. Just the Mustang emblem. Ford is not mentioned.
I guess that is meant to really rub it in.

[CWSmith]

It gets 200 mi on paper, the Tesla model S long range has been getting TWICE that for over a year and keeps getting better.

I wish I could, but $69k is a bit too steep for me.

[J.Madison]

Why no door handles? I want to be able to actually get in the thing if it has a dead battery.

[lagspiller]

I looked up the claim of "double the milage" for the Tesla.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/model-s-l...ectric-vehicle
According to Tesla, the Tesla S long range gets 402 miles. The Mustang long range is rated 380 miles by the same rating standard.

[Joe (SoCal)]

I wish I could, but $69k is a bit too steep for me.

Lets do a little EV math

The Mustang is MSRP: From $42,895

The Model 3 base still has longer range and it's $37,000 when you add back all the incentive and silly Tesla math
Model 3 Long range $45,000
Model 3 Performance is $55,000 and now we are getting up there but still cheeper than a BMW 3 series


Oh and then there is a gas, oil, etc savings.

[phiil]

As long as we continue to drive whatever is cheapest to drive, we are screwed. And as long as we insist on dragging 4000 pounds of machinery with us wherever we go, we are screwed. If we bite the bullet and accept driving much smaller vehicles, and paying the extra money that’s required to make them truly efficient, we may survive.
Just replacing two tons of ICE vehicle with two tons of EV does not make much difference.

[Art Haberland]

I agree that if they had just called it the "Mach E" no feathers would have been ruffled. It's like the last Pontiac GTO, based on the Holden. It was a decent car, but too many people could not get over it being called a "GTO"

[Joe (SoCal)]

I looked up the claim of "double the milage" for the Tesla.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/model-s-l...ectric-vehicle
According to Tesla, the Tesla S long range gets 402 miles. The Mustang long range is rated 380 miles by the same rating standard.

Ummmmm try 520+ MPC

Attachment 77665

Real world world testing puts the Mustang at just over 200 miles. Kinda like my Jeep is supposed to get 28 MPG and I get about 20ish.

[Jim Bow]

I want the Tesla powered VW bus that Willie Nelson is giving away.

[LeeG]

As long as we continue to drive whatever is cheapest to drive, we are screwed. And as long as we insist on dragging 4000 pounds of machinery with us wherever we go, we are screwed. If we bite the bullet and accept driving much smaller vehicles, and paying the extra money that’s required to make them truly efficient, we may survive.
Just replacing two tons of ICE vehicle with two tons of EV does not make much difference.

You got that right. The biggest difference for reducing green house gases is less to no personal auto use. The problem isn’t technological, it’s behavior. Sure a 2025 vehicle will be more efficient than a 2005 vehicle but if fuel costs the same or in the case of EVs, less, then driving more is just as affordable. Pricing fuel higher will do more to reduce ghg than a bunch of $40k-$80k electric vehicles. Don’t get me wrong, EVs have a place, especially in high air pollution areas but EV sports cars are not solving anything except giving auto manufacturers a high end sports car to compliment their high end pick ups.

[John B]

Ford do some weird things from time to time, like stealing Aston Martin's grille for a few years.. what? No we didn't , what?
Calling that a Mustang?
Weird.

[lagspiller]

Ummmmm try 520+ MPC

Attachment 77665

Real world world testing puts the Mustang at just over 200 miles. Kinda like my Jeep is supposed to get 28 MPG and I get about 20ish.

Attachment no work.
I've seen no real world tests that give Tesla S that milage. I rather believe the Tesla site's own claim of 402 and the many tests I have read before choosing which vehicle to buy.
379 miles WLTP on dry roads and warmer weather. About 50 miles less in the road test in slush&snow seems to be the general result. Also seen results of testing averaged out in kWh pr km. The WLTP rate of 0.165kWh pr km is measured at 23 degrees C. That increased by a couple hundredths in -4 on snowy roads. WLTP gives a slight advantage to Tesla in effective use of the available, but not much.

This site matches pretty much with the consensus for testing in Europe, using the more precise WLTP standard....
Tesla S long range.... 379 miles WLTP
https://evcompare.io/cars/tesla/tesl...-s-long-range/

But we'll see when the cars begin to arrive and people start reporting their experiences.

[Todd D]

I probably won't ever buy an electric vehicle since I am 69 years old and currently have two vehicles that I expect to last at least 15 years more. I doubt I will be vehicle shopping when I am 84 and my wife is 91. However, if I was in the market for an EV, I would be looking for a car with normal performance and a real world range in the 200-250 mile range after sitting outside overnight at 0 F. I also don't want a car with a movie theater sized screen in the middle of the dash. The 5" screen in my RAM is too big already. Note that normal performance means reasonable acceleration. I see no need for huge acceleration. My RAM 1500 can supposedly do 0 to 60 mph in 6.5 seconds. I will never use/need that much acceleration at least in part because I have not had the vehicle over 55 mph in the two years I have owned it. Frankly I think they should current limit EVs so they can't go 0-60 in under 10 seconds. Big acceleration is wasteful of energy. I also agree that cars need to be smaller for routine use. Lighter cars consume less energy per unit distance.

I admit to driving a 5,300 lb truck, but I only have that vehicle because I need a truck to move snow in the Winter and a heavier vehicle moves snow better than a light one. I also own a wooden boat and I need the truck to haul boat lumber (can you fit ten 5/4x6 planks that are 18' long into a Tesla alphabet car?). Had there been an electric truck that would accept my plow and plow 18" of snow for two hours after sitting outside overnight in sub zero temps (without being plugged in) at a cost comparable to what I paid for the Ram, I would have considered it assuming it didn't look like that Tesla thing.

[Paul Pless]

4. And that roofline is most assuredly NOT a SUV. If you want to build a coupe... or a 'fastback'... CALL it that. I want the volume of a real SUV.

mercedes, fiat, porsche, honda, toyota, audi, subaru, jaguar all disagree with you

[Paul Pless]

2. Every stinkin' auto reviewer around (excepting Consumer Reports) pays zero attention to the long term.

fundamentally untrue, expand your bubble david

[Joe (SoCal)]

Attachment no work.
I've seen no real world tests that give Tesla S that milage. I rather believe the Tesla site's own claim of 402 and the many tests I have read before choosing which vehicle to buy.
379 miles WLTP on dry roads and warmer weather. About 50 miles less in the road test in slush&snow seems to be the general result. Also seen results of testing averaged out in kWh pr km. The WLTP rate of 0.165kWh pr km is measured at 23 degrees C. That increased by a couple hundredths in -4 on snowy roads. WLTP gives a slight advantage to Tesla in effective use of the available, but not much.

This site matches pretty much with the consensus for testing in Europe, using the more precise WLTP standard....
Tesla S long range.... 379 miles WLTP
https://evcompare.io/cars/tesla/tesl...-s-long-range/

But we'll see when the cars begin to arrive and people start reporting their experiences.

This work ?


Screen Shot 2021-01-20 at 2.48.52 PM.jpg

[Paul Pless]

jesus christ joe, go buy yourself a tesla, no more excuses about the jeep lease, yada yada yada
you can afford an extra car payment for a few months
just do it

[Paul Pless]

it's time

[George Jung]

Wow. Less than 2.0 seconds? My neck hurts!

[Art Haberland]

Ford do some weird things from time to time, like stealing Aston Martin's grille for a few years.. what? No we didn't , what?
Calling that a Mustang?
Weird.

Or look at the profile of their SUVs and compare them to the Range Rover. They stole that rear window/C Pillar thing too.

[Art Haberland]

I probably won't ever buy an electric vehicle since I am 69 years old and currently have two vehicles that I expect to last at least 15 years more. I doubt I will be vehicle shopping when I am 84 and my wife is 91. However, if I was in the market for an EV, I would be looking for a car with normal performance and a real world range in the 200-250 mile range after sitting outside overnight at 0 F. I also don't want a car with a movie theater sized screen in the middle of the dash. The 5" screen in my RAM is too big already. Note that normal performance means reasonable acceleration. I see no need for huge acceleration. My RAM 1500 can supposedly do 0 to 60 mph in 6.5 seconds. I will never use/need that much acceleration at least in part because I have not had the vehicle over 55 mph in the two years I have owned it. Frankly I think they should current limit EVs so they can't go 0-60 in under 10 seconds. Big acceleration is wasteful of energy. I also agree that cars need to be smaller for routine use. Lighter cars consume less energy per unit distance.

I admit to driving a 5,300 lb truck, but I only have that vehicle because I need a truck to move snow in the Winter and a heavier vehicle moves snow better than a light one. I also own a wooden boat and I need the truck to haul boat lumber (can you fit ten 5/4x6 planks that are 18' long into a Tesla alphabet car?). Had there been an electric truck that would accept my plow and plow 18" of snow for two hours after sitting outside overnight in sub zero temps (without being plugged in) at a cost comparable to what I paid for the Ram, I would have considered it assuming it didn't look like that Tesla thing.

Should we get off your lawn?

[George Jung]

Step back a bit. The 'takeaway' - IMO - is that, after a surge and what I saw as a regression, it seems we're heading into 'full steam ahead'. Charging stations are rare in these parts. I'm betting that's about to change. And this administration is likely to encourage 'green'. I can't wait. And... AFA autos/transport - all appearances are, we're going to have lots of choices.

Isn't that what we want?