Ford Introduces Mustang Mach-E Electric Crossover (electrek.co) 194
140Mandak262Jamuna writes: Battery electric vehicle (BEV) fans are all excited about the introduction of an all-electric SUV by Ford. Specs and pricing are very similar to Tesla. Interior also is very similar with a large touchscreen. Elon Musk congratulated Ford on Twitter and Ford returned the compliments. Die-hard Tesla fans are saying Tesla is still better. Other BEV fans are welcoming Ford. I, for one, welcome the more affordable all-electric, non-compliance BEV (Ford's words, not mine). Ford's Mustang Mach-E is expected to achieve between 210 miles and at least 300 miles of range on a full charge, depending on the model. Top performance models will achieve 0 to 60 mph in the mid-three-second range with an estimated 459 horsepower and 612 lb.-ft. of torque.
Unlike Tesla's Model 3 or upcoming Model Y, the Mach-E qualifies for federal tax incentives of up to $7,500. It will range from $43,895 for the base "Select" model to roughly $60,500 for the GT model.
Unlike Tesla's Model 3 or upcoming Model Y, the Mach-E qualifies for federal tax incentives of up to $7,500. It will range from $43,895 for the base "Select" model to roughly $60,500 for the GT model.
Okay. (Score:2, Informative)
Thanks.
Interesting sales boost aspect for new EV's (Score:2)
I was reading some details this morning abut the new Ford EV, one of the articles I thought mentioned a late 2020 launch, with a hope to sell 200k of them by 2021...
That didn't seem very likely to me, but then I realized that any automaker entering the EV market seriously gets an interesting sales boost from the tax rebates that no longer apply to other EV makers. You get a $7k rebate for a new Ford EV, where the Tesla rebate (because they have sold so many cars) is only $3,750, that could well factor in t
Re:Interesting sales boost aspect for new EV's (Score:5, Insightful)
Although the specs are interesting, it stuns me that Ford would take the iconic Mustang, turn it into an SUV (pavement-pounder that it is), and try to push all forces (name recognition, muscle, tax incentives) to one side.... after killing off much of their retail consumer automotive line. This is a big bet, and right behind them is a new push from Germany, Inc., Japan, Inc., and Everyone Else, Inc. as the EV market heats to a boil.
I'd expect them to launch something new, rather than grab the halo from prior generations of Mustangs.... I'm reminded when Jaguar and Porsche came out with SUVs....
Re: Interesting sales boost aspect for new EV's (Score:2)
On the Mustang name... (Score:3, Interesting)
Although the specs are interesting, it stuns me that Ford would take the iconic Mustang, turn it into an SUV
A lot of people seem upset about Ford attaching the Mustang name to this, but performance crossovers are a thing so if they can get really good performance out of it I can see where it might make sense,
I'm not sure why they announced this early though, seems like a while before delivering anything and who knows what Tesla or others might do over that time?
Re: (Score:3)
I'd expect them to launch something new, rather than grab the halo from prior generations of Mustangs.... I'm reminded when Jaguar and Porsche came out with SUVs....
Porsche SUVs sell like proverbial hotcakes. Yeah, they are not sports cars, but they are still among the best of what they are and make for many very happy owners.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't doubt their sales. I don't doubt owner happiness.
In the olden days, brands made highly-confined statements with their "marques". Those with long memories seem to have an intergenerational gap with marketing. This said, the SUV form factor seems like it's apologetic, as in heavy, and not optimized for aerodynamics, rather, it's a platform for lots of entertainment electronics, and other techno-swill (Hunter Thompson is gone, I know).
With higher prices (rebates notwithstanding), all parts of the autom
Re: (Score:2)
No, Porches SUV are not good SUVs. There find SUV looking cars.
" for many very happy owners."
Yes, people who drop a lot of money o the thing tend to love it to the point of delusion.
Literally, to the point of delusion.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Porches SUV are not good SUVs. There find SUV looking cars.
" for many very happy owners."
Yes, people who drop a lot of money o the thing tend to love it to the point of delusion.
Literally, to the point of delusion.
If you want your SUV to drive more like a sports car they work well. If you want your vehicle to actually go off road you buy a Land Rover.
Yes, they are all expensive. The nicest anything will always be.
Re: (Score:2)
SUVs are the modern station wagon. Anyone who thinks that off-road is somehow an inherent requirement fails to understand reality.
Also, Land Rover buyers aren't any more off-road drivers than Porsche SUV customers. Pure posh.
Re: (Score:2)
SUVs are the modern station wagon.
Totally agree. And they sure are popular. The current state of the art in practicality.
Porsche and Land Rover make high end vehicles few of their owners will ever exploit in their respective realms but they know that. Some of them will.
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken by a person who clearly has NO experience with Porsche SUVs.
What's more delusional, someone happy with a purchase regardless of circumstance or someone completely ignorant of the matter speaking like he's an authority?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd expect them to launch something new, rather than grab the halo from prior generations of Mustangs.... I'm reminded when Jaguar and Porsche came out with SUVs....
Porsche SUVs sell like proverbial hotcakes. Yeah, they are not sports cars, but they are still among the best of what they are and make for many very happy owners.
I look at the pics and video of the interior and exterior and I see nothing that looks like an "SUV". Is this thing really an SUV, because someone should let marketing know.
I read the specs of the performance model and I see 430 HP and 0-60 in the mid 3 second range.
Sounds like a Mustang to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I look at the pics and video of the interior and exterior and I see nothing that looks like an "SUV". Is this thing really an SUV, because someone should let marketing know.
I read the specs of the performance model and I see 430 HP and 0-60 in the mid 3 second range.
Sounds like a Mustang to me.
It looks like a Mazda 3 with lots of extra horsepower. I kind of like it.
Re:Interesting sales boost aspect for new EV's (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still pissed that Ford took their most prized performance brand name and slapped it on a glorified electric hatchback, but I guess that I should have expected that.
Ford already discontinued all of their other sedans and coupes, and the Mustang was the only thing that they still sold that looked like a car and wasn't a truck or a weird jellybean shaped SUV/Crossover thing.
Now, it seems that the only reason they kept the Mustang brand alive was to transition it over to a slightly faster weird jellybean sh
Re:Interesting sales boost aspect for new EV's (Score:5, Interesting)
Expect Ford to spin "Mustang" off into its own brand, covering performance cars, and to reserve "Ford" for trucks and vans.
We have a winner (Score:2)
Give that man a fluffy toy. Correct, in my opinion. In the USA Ford will be the brandname for trucks and derivatives (ie BoF SUVs), and Mustang becomes the brand for cars and unibody SUVs. However, where that leaves the Baby Bronco is anybody's guess.
Re: Interesting sales boost aspect for new EV's (Score:2)
Re: Interesting sales boost aspect for new EV's (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, replacing the battery in an EV is a major expense and eventually it will need to be done. One reason it's so expensive is that every manufacturer has its own propriety pack and the designs are changing on a regular basis. As the technology matures, there will be more standardization and hopefully 3rd parties will develop after-market packs that will be much cheaper.
Re: (Score:3)
Still, replacing the battery in an EV is a major expense and eventually it will need to be done. One reason it's so expensive is that every manufacturer has its own propriety pack and the designs are changing on a regular basis. As the technology matures, there will be more standardization and hopefully 3rd parties will develop after-market packs that will be much cheaper.
Dont forget that replacing IC engines are a big expense. I replaced 3 in the 90's and they were 4 grand apiece on average.
Re: (Score:2)
were 4 grand apiece on average.
And that's a good price.
My last reman was 8k before installation.
Re: (Score:2)
Old Leafs were junk EVs even when they were new, though... that's not really a fair comparison. EVs today are made with better chemistries and better battery management systems. The low end should improve faster than the high-end, as not only will the stats-when-new be getting better, but more of said initial capacity will make it to the used market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the question remains, when/if better longevity trickles down to the low end, will the pricing still be low-end? There's not much else in an EV to wear out, so "solved" battery longevity issues might be reflected in significantly higher resale value (good if you're a seller, not so good if you're a buyer trying to score a deal).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You get a $7k rebate
It still rubs me the wrong way that someone who can otherwise afford a brand new vehicle, somehow deserves taxpayer assistance towards the purchase of a more expensive vehicle.
I mean shit, it's like if I called up the EBT office and said "Hey, I can afford food just fine on my income. But I really wanna buy some of that Impossible Burger because it's ostensibly better for the environment, but it's like $9 a pound. Hook me up with some of that sweet, sweet, taxpayer money pls!" They'd laugh at me.
If anybo
Re: (Score:3)
That rebate helps if you can afford the current escape hybrid but would like to get the 'mustang' mach E, it would make the prices almost equal. What I don't like is that it is a tax rebate, so you have to make the moolah to sa
Re:Interesting sales boost aspect for new EV's (Score:4, Interesting)
It still rubs me the wrong way that someone who can otherwise afford a brand new vehicle, somehow deserves taxpayer assistance towards the purchase of a more expensive vehicle.
It appears you were moderated down for being politically incorrect. I believe we should all be offended that our tax dollars are going to help people that are fully financially capable of buying an electric vehicle are given money to upgrade to a luxury car. There should not be this subsidy, and especially not for such high priced vehicles.
Maybe, perhaps, if given the right argument then I could be convinced for there to be tax incentives for first time car buyers to get an electric car. People that already have a car would be doing more for the environment by keeping what they have and driving that. This is assuming we need electric car subsidies at all.
I'll hear people complain about the oil subsidies, and how those should stop. I agree. No more energy subsidies. No subsidies for wind, solar, coal, or oil. No subsidies for electric cars. No subsidies for ethanol. Stop the subsidies because I should not be paying taxes for others to make the "correct" choices. You want people to make the "correct" choices on energy? Well, here's an idea, make a good argument.
Just driving an electric car seems to buy people social justice points, there's your incentive right there and this shouldn't have to come with a check from the government. You want cleaner air? And you think ethanol fuel will get that? Okay then, buy ethanol fuel. You want more people to put up solar panels instead of burning natural gas? Then figure out how to make solar power cheaper than natural gas, or lead by example and put solar panels on your roof. Show people you are willing to pay more for your energy because it is cleaner, as there is a lot of influence from social pressures.
No more subsidies.
Re: (Score:2)
Example: Let's say the list price of an EV is $40,000 and the tax incentive is $5,000. The buyer is effectively paying $35,000. Now let's say they trade in the car a couple of years later on the latest and greatest. The dealer now has a used car that theoretically was worth $40,000 when new. But you
Re: (Score:2)
The subsidies help people farther down the car food chain as well.
I don't care, it's still vote buying.
Need more votes in Texas? Talk about wind subsidies. Need more votes in Iowa? Ethanol subsidies. Need more votes out of Michigan? Electric car subsidies. Votes from California? Solar power subsidies.
This is just a bunch of US senators buying votes for their states. These people get in office and then stay there until carried out feet first. They stay there because last year they voted for subsidies, and if their current senator loses the election then their next
Re:Interesting sales boost aspect for new EV's (Score:5, Insightful)
If we're going to agree as a society that wealth redistribution to improve the environment is necessary, it should be directed towards wherever it will provide the best bang for the buck.
I will not agree that wealth redistribution is necessary for anything. People should be able to keep the money they earned. Taking from the wealthy out of some kind of "justice" is just being greedy.
I'll repeat that, wealth redistribution is just greed. This is people wanting what other people have and using the force of government to steal it. They can claim this is for some greater good but it isn't. A world in which the government can just take what is yours because you have "too much" is a path to poverty for everyone.
No, we should not consider wealth redistribution as a means to improve the environment. I don't care how you wrap that up. This is a "watermelon", red socialism wrapped up green environmentalism. If you want people to buy heat pumps instead of resistance heating then make heat pumps cheaper than resistance heat. Any kind of government coercion to impose this choice on people is something that should not be tolerated in a free society. Freedom means people are free to make bad choices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Interesting sales boost aspect for new EV's (Score:5, Informative)
Who do you think enacts these 'wealth redistribution' policies?
Socialists, Marxists, and communists.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder- how much of the total wealth do they have to have before you admit it exists? 98%? 99?
Re: (Score:3)
What I find interesting is the premise that upward wealth redistribution somehow isn't happening, or is, but is OK.
I would agree that there is an "upward wealth redistribution" happening. I will claim that this is "OK". How can I claim that this is "OK"? Because it is voluntary!
If one pays $50 to fill the tank in their car then that means some rich guys get more money. It also means this person gets to drive their daily commute for the week. The rich guys get richer, but so do the poor guys that bought products from them! Nobody is trading down. Nobody is forced to perform this transaction. Both sides benefit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If one pays $50 to fill the tank in their car then that means some rich guys get more money. It also means this person gets to drive their daily commute for the week. The rich guys get richer, but so do the poor guys that bought products from them! Nobody is trading down. Nobody is forced to perform this transaction.
Dude. Let me stop you right there.
The person buying the gas has no choice. If they don't buy the gas they can't get to work, because there's no public transport. They get fired, and starve and get evicted because there's no safety net. They have to buy the gas.
Now I don't think this is the biggest social injustice ever, but you clearly have no clue what you're ranting about.
Re:Interesting sales boost aspect for new EV's (Score:4, Interesting)
Because it is voluntary!
Come on.
You're right- people always have the choice to starve.
The rich guys get richer, but so do the poor guys that bought products from them!
No- this is an idealized version of commerce that pretends that the cost doesn't inflate to maximize profit- ie, the happy medium where you're gouging the dependent just enough for them to decide not to starve. It also pretends that the market is entirely fair, and that the law of large numbers will save us from the tyrannical pieces of shit who have accumulated the wealth, hereditary or otherwise.
Both sides benefit.
No argument there. But that benefit isn't anything close to equitable, and becomes less so every day.
Government imposed wealth redistribution, in the opposite direction, is in effect punishing those that provided the best products for the lowest price.
You're going to argue that things such as patents, utilities, and other state-granted monopolies aren't government imposed wealth distribution?
is coerced, not voluntary, and benefits only one side of this transaction.
Well, I mean- that's not necessarily true at all. I'm sure not going to argue that it's inherently untrue- but there are many instances where downward wealth distribution- let's call it welfare- benefits both parties. Of course I'd argue it only does so because the end result is *still* to just siphon public monies back into the hands of the rich, with the added benefit of keeping starving people off the street. Either way, both benefit by your above definition of benefit.
There will always be poor people. Taking money from the wealthy to give to the poor doesn't help them, this cost imposed on the wealthy will simply be reflected in the cost of the products and services they offer.
Na. Not if their serfs can't afford it. You are again proposing the world is some kind of system that teeters on the balance of solvency between rich and poor.
The statistics of wealth aggregation make this an absurd claim.
What gives the government the power or authority to declare someone has too much wealth?
Technically speaking? In the U.S.? >50% of both houses of Congress, a President, as long as it's apportioned equally among the states. Otherwise, 66.6% of the House and Senate, or 66.6% of state legislatures.
Was this "upward wealth redistribution" obtained by illegal means?
How is this relevant? Are you implying that downward must be?
If so then then bring up charges and take them to court. If not then this is their lawfully owned property and the government cannot take it
The government has taxation powers. Broad ones in fact.
I think you'll find the Government has the authority to take, or demand you surrender, quite a few things you may decide are your property.
Gold is a good example in this instance, with historical precedent.
This is not only a power not granted to the government, it is explicitly forbidden in the Bill of Rights.
And this is false. Shame on you. You're referring to the due process clause, I assume, which case law has overwhelmingly (and currently, by standing precedent) been interpreted as an analogue for the Magna Carta, in which due process means- "by the law of the land"
Meaning congressional acts that are not deemed unconstitutional are due process.
Those that want to impose a wealth tax in the USA are a bunch of greedy bastards, far worse than any "fat cat capitalist".
Again, where do you draw the line for too far? Once those who have accumulated wealth have relegated us to serfs, unable to do anything but rent?
I'd argue that those who are outwardly against downward wealth re
Re: (Score:2)
If you want people to buy heat pumps instead of resistance heating then make heat pumps cheaper than resistance heat.
As much as I'd personally love a handout for a more efficient heating system, someone who doesn't own a home could make exactly the same argument I made about EVs: "Why do people who are well-off enough to be homeowners get a subsidized heat pump, when I can't even afford a home?"
That's why I'd suggested that if we (democratically) decided that tax money should be spent to subsidize things that improve the environment, it should go toward things that do not discriminate whether you're rich or poor. Swappi
Re: (Score:2)
I notice you left nuclear off your list for 'some reason'.
No nuclear subsidies either. Happy now?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll hear people complain about the oil subsidies, and how those should stop. I agree. No more energy subsidies. No subsidies for wind, solar, coal, or oil. No subsidies for electric cars. No subsidies for ethanol. Stop the subsidies because I should not be paying taxes for others to make the "correct" choices. You want people to make the "correct" choices on energy? Well, here's an idea, make a good argument.
I notice you left nuclear off your list for 'some reason'.
Nuclear is simply impossible without huge amounts og Government support. While it's proponents speak of onerous regulations, the industry cannot afford the massive insurance policies that case history shows the costs of, so if one goes kaboom, Government will pick up most of the tab.
In the Lassiez faire sort of environment some people want, things like nuclear power, and most other technological advancements simply wouldn't exist, because who would do it?
Re:Interesting sales boost aspect for new EV's (Score:4, Informative)
The US tax credit system is weird. It's not even really an EV subsidy, in a way... it's more just a general automaker subsidy. Because you get (roughly) the same amount of money (well, your buyers do, but it means you can raise the prices) whether you take 1 year to deliver 200k vehicles or 10. So there's little incentive to rush. The only thing that differentiates automakers' credits is how many cars you make during the phaseout period.
If you're going to do credits, they should be "use it or lose it".
IMHO, I support Norway's system (which we do too), as it's extremely effective, and strikes most people as fairer. Which is: our taxes on vehicles are quite high. 24% VAT here, and then various pollution fees, etc... so a BMW might be 40% or so total taxes. It's always been this way. But EVs have no pollution fees, and they're VAT exempted. This makes for a very compelling case for ownership (combined with our high fuel prices). But it's more palatable to most people because it doesn't feel like "giving people money", rather just "not taking extra money", to encourage them to switch to a cleaner car (which they still have to fully pay for).
It's an incredibly effective policy. Norway is well on the way to a total phaseout of ICE sales by 2025. Our target is 2030, but I hope we move it up. We have a flaw however in that the policy has a phaseout date (which they keep having to extend). Rather, IMHO, if your goal is to totally phase out ICE sales, a phaseout date before the transition is complete is counterproductive. Instead to offset lost tax revenue, the tax on ICEs should just keep rising as you near the phaseout date. Only once increasing ICE taxes can no longer fully offset the revenue losses from exempting EVs should the exemption on EVs start to be phased out.
IMHO. :)
Netherlands has a rather weird system... which leads to ridiculously huge surges in EV buying, followed by huge cliffs, that then ramp back up. The majority of new car sales there are company cars, part of an employee's compensation. An annual tax is leveed on the owners based on the car's value, and it's a huge amount of money. But the tax rate for EVs is way lower. The rate is based on the year that the vehicle was purchased, and sticks with it, so at the end of each year, in advance of the rate going up for subsequent years' vehicles, there's a huge rush to get ahold of in-demand EVs. RIght now, for example, the Netherlands is draining the Model 3 supply for Europe; Tesla is sending them at double the rate of Q3, and even still, new SR+ orders for most of this quarter don't get delivered until February, and now they're starting to push off new LR AWD orders to February, too. Come January, however, Netherlands EV sales will plunge, mainly only to people not getting them as company vehicles (wherein the only real incentive is the Netherlands' high fuel costs). They'll slowly pick back up over the course of next year, and then spike again at the end of the year as everyone tries to buy before the next rate hike.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, I support Norway's system (which we do too), as it's extremely effective, and strikes most people as fairer. Which is: our taxes on vehicles are quite high. 24% VAT here, and then various pollution fees, etc... so a BMW might be 40% or so total taxes. It's always been this way. But EVs have no pollution fees, and they're VAT exempted.
Out of curiosity, how does Norway fund road work? Here in PA, we have a fairly high Gasoline tax (Highest in the USA) to fund road repair, and the state government funds a lot of it. We have a lot of roads mainly because it takes many kilometers to go a few kilometers. due to the topography.
EV's have a tax now since they don't pay Diesel or Gasoline fuel taxes. I don't mind. Unlike the folks that hate any and all taxes, (here after known as freeloaders) you have to pay for things. I've been in some states
Re: (Score:2)
The rebates aren't about rich people "deserving taxpayer assistance". This is your personal problem for failing to understand why these rebates exist.
Yes, of course they'd laugh at you for expecting money to make personal food choices because the government has NOT decided that it's in the public's best interest to encourage EV development.
If you think government subsidies are better spent helping people buy more ICE vehicles, contact your representative...and good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
The rebates aren't about rich people "deserving taxpayer assistance". This is your personal problem for failing to understand why these rebates exist.
I know why they exist. This is vote buying.
Re: (Score:2)
Those of concerned about carbon emissions are more likely to receive this benefit, and more likely to vote for the people who champion the benefit regardless of it I suspect your real beef with it, is that you're ideologically against any kind of limitation, or subsidized reduction of carbon emissions that doesn't involve nuclear power.
In fact, I'd venture to guess that you're the kind of ideological gas bag that would proclaim subsidies the best thing since sliced b
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't bother me because the reduced emissions benefit everybody equally, not the owner in particular.
I would be just as happy (more happy) with a wide-ranging carbon tax.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see and understand your reasoning. However there are people who just don't care for EV or hybrid and think it's all a scam, and others who are looking at every dollar and claim that EV is an artificially high price. So the tax rebate does get a lot of people to switch while simultaneously providing an incentive for the auto makers. Of course, for the high end vehicles where you have to have a lot of money anyway it's a bit absurd to be giving extra rebates. But if someone is buying a mid-range veh
Re: (Score:2)
I can see and understand your reasoning. However there are people who just don't care for EV or hybrid and think it's all a scam, and others who are looking at every dollar and claim that EV is an artificially high price.
So do they have plans for when we reach the point that Petrofuels start getting really high? Unless they believe in abiotic oil or that their god will somehow provide, it isn't going to last forever.
We really don't want a 1970's OPEC caused recession again.
That's the really strange thing. The amount a lot of these folk pay for Fuel is outrageous. I pull to the Pump in my Jeep, anf fill it for 30 dollars from empty, then travel 350 plus miles. Meanwhile the PC truck that pulled out before me just put a
Re: (Score:2)
I can agree there. I think some people complain that the cost of EVs or plug in hybrids are too high, but are quite happy with giant pickups used for commuting, SUVs for the somene without kids, etc.
If someone really is concerned about the cost of a vehicle, there are plenty of very tiny autos that get great mileage (maybe get a few snickers in some regions).
Re: Interesting sales boost aspect for new EV's (Score:2)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Like this?
That program chewed through $3 billion in a couple months.
Trump wants to cut the EV rebates to save $2.5 billion over a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
The mistake you make, Ford is most definitely not competing against Tesla, the idea is silly at this stage. Make no mistake ford is compete against Fossil Fuel vehicles with this mustang. Tesla is a tiny segment of the market it would be stupid to compete against them for that tiny market share, the big market area is still fossil fuellers by far and that is what Ford is directly targeting, keeping a more fossil fueller look, than an electric look.
To be honest that disappearing bonnet is annoying as to dri
Re: (Score:2)
quick automated battery swaps, used empty for used full, for the user pay extra for a one minute vehicle recharge
I would love to see a battery swap station that can replace a battery in a minute. I think you severely underestimate the complexity of such an operation.
Battery swapping is a bad idea. It makes it much harder to design a car with a removable battery, meaning you'd have to compromise in other areas such as vehicle mass. Also, it requires that every car uses a compatible battery, which makes it hard to design a system that will work both for compact cars as well as big SUVs, minivans, or pickup trucks. It al
Re: (Score:2)
The 200k is not quite right. They expect to hit their 200k tax credit phaseout limit, but they're already partway there, having been selling low-volume EVs and PHEVs for years.
The car is an interesting Model 3/Y-mimic (kind of flattering to see companies like Ford and Geely (I'm sorry, "Volvo" ;) ) copy so much ;) ). Smaller than Model Y, but bigger than Model 3 - closer to the former, but not enough to able to support a small third row of seats. Price to performance ratios decent but somewhat lacklustr
Re: (Score:2)
Unless all the years of stoking range anxiety comes back to bite them in their rear, their charging network is pathetic compared to Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
And 200K is the magic number. Once you sell that many of a model then the tax rebates dry up the following quarter.
Re: (Score:2)
The rebate is badly structured. It punishes the pioneers who take the risk and rewards the laggards.
They hit it with a freaking ugly stick (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there some unwritten rule in the auto industry that when you take an existing car and create an electric version, you have to uglify it?
The front is just terrible; they took the iconic Mustang grill and replaced it with a flat painted oval... thing.
The back is even worse; they got rid of the nice sweeping lines of the Mustang and made it look more like an SUV-ish thing.
What the hell, Ford? I bet if they made an electric Mustang with these same specs they'd sell quite a few of them. The market is hungry for electric vehicles with aggressive, sporty styling that have good range and performance.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think they're trying to appeal to Mustang buyers, which are few in number. I think they're trying to appeal to buyers of boring crossovers, trying to make it "cool" by attaching the Mustang name to it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not 100% on board with the idea of a Mustang CUV but it does combine two things that Ford has done a decent job with, - at least in terms of reputation. And by calling it a Mustang you'll get more people to test drive it than otherwise would. I'm pretty convinced that test driving an E
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there some unwritten rule in the auto industry that when you take an existing car and create an electric version, you have to uglify it?
That does seem to be the case.
I remember way back when Tesla was just started by well-heeled SV entrepreneurs their stated motivation is that they liked what little EV products existed, but they couldn't understand why they were always designed to look like the people driving them were being punished for having an EV. That was the wording I recall.
So they wanted to have a good-looking EV to drive, and started with a modded Lotus body and that was the initial Tesla roadster.
But the pattern is establi
Re: (Score:2)
When you no longer have the vroom of an internal combustion engine, suddenly aerodynamics become a more noticeable source of noise when at highway speeds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Old fart angry about change; leaves to shake fist at cloud" news at 11.
Are you unaware of the history of the Mustang?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm neither old or angry about change. I've definitely never shaken my fist at a cloud.
I'm also stupidly knowledgeable about the model.
I agree with him. They should have made an Electric mustang, not a CUV. Not that the CUV isn't cool in its own right.
Out of curiosity, what is it about the Mustang's history do you think makes it a good candidate name for a CUV?
I mean- I'll give you the Mustang
Re: (Score:2)
This looks more like the ford escort from the 90's than a mustang. I think they are just slapping the mustang name on this hideous beast to try to get some attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there some unwritten rule in the auto industry that when you take an existing car and create an electric version, you have to uglify it?
No, but there is no way to make an SUV that looks good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They hit it with a freaking ugly stick (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a feeling that when hyper-aerodynamic EVs start creeping their way into the industry, 90's styling will come back into vogue. You know, that time when every car looked like an egg with wheels. It sucks, but... whatever.
What really concerns me, though, is this trend to replace all the interior controls with a touchscreen. Ergonomically, that's a total disaster, but it appears to be the only interface "cool" enough for the electric revolution. I do NOT want to drive a tablet with wheels!
Re: (Score:2)
The front is just terrible; they took the iconic Mustang grill and replaced it with a flat painted oval... thing.
It's been worse. When steam ships first came out, they replaced the iconic masts and sails with dirty smoke ... things.
Good. (Score:2)
I don't care who makes them but we need more BEVs and fewer ICE vehicles. Frankly, if we started taxing pollution (as we should have when the EPA was started) then there would be little excuse for people to buy ICE vehicles. People whine "but it's expensive," as if it should be their right to destroy the ecosystem to save a buck.
I'm really tired of the excuses because it's past time we move to all BEVs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
What Ecosystem are you most concerned about that ICE vehicles are destroying?
The way I see it here, it's not ICE vehicles, but basically modern living that is destroying the environment. However, MOST of the most egregious environmental damage being done is located where there are actually very few vehicles of any type and outside most of the industrialized areas.
Here in the USA where we have huge numbers of these things, the environment has been drastically IMPROVED over the last 30 years. Specially air quality is WAY up. We have scads of these things rolling around, but things are very much better than what's happening in other countries.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't care who makes them but we need more BEVs and fewer ICE vehicles.
There is nothing inherently "bad" about the internal combustion engine. In fact for many use cases the only option is the internal combustion engine. A battery electric ship will not be bringing cargo over the ocean any time soon. Same for transoceanic aircraft. Large off road vehicles used for agriculture, mining, and construction won't be powered by batteries any time soon either. They need a lot of power but still light enough that they can carry heavy loads while not sinking in the mud. The weight
Re: (Score:2)
They'll whine that they need more money for their burger flipping job, and you end up paying more for your burger.
No problem. I can afford it.
Hopefully it'll price burger joints out of the budgets of those who are struggling financially, and they'll find shit to eat that won't end up costing me a far larger fortune in health premiums later on in our lives.
Imitation is a form of flattery (Score:2)
Yeah, the Tesla influence is strong in this one. But, well, imitation is a form of flattery I guess.
I have the model Y in mind for my next car but the Mach-E is the first Full Electric that I honestly think that it look better than a Tesla. I'm a tech guy that always loved muscle car but this, this is like a dream come true.
Now, let's see if the execution hold up.
Re: (Score:3)
Only real hit I see to it is that terrible efficiency and charge rate. 47 miles in 10 minutes on 150kW? It sounds like a joke. And on Electrify America and its ridiculous prices. That's 282mph peak charge rate. Model Y RWD 0-60% is about 720 mph on a V3 Supercharger and about 1000 mph peak. Even a V2 just crushes that rate (peak ~580mph, no taper until nearly 50%). I don't know what Ford was thinking.
Everything else is quite decent, at least vs. the EVs of today (we're comparing a vehicle that won't b
Re: (Score:3)
Looks like a Mazda now (Score:2)
Except worse, because it used to be a Mustang. Geez, Ford. Just call it something else.
210 miles? (Score:2)
American Car Makers don't understand change in market, news at 11.
Re: (Score:2)
Just buy the one that gets at least 300 miles, you have the choice, and you've got the cash, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm (Score:2)
It is nice to finally see some competition! And, thankfully, they put an actual display where the dash is supposed to be (unlike the Model 3, which makes it a total non-option for many). But I have to ask: Why the horrible, grafted-on tablet thing in the center? It is so ugly and out-of-place, exactly like on the Model 3. It is too bad that if they are going to copy something, they didn't look more closely at the S (with its nice dashboard and well-integrated "tablet" in the center area) instead of the
Re: (Score:2)
The reason that these tablets stick out is to make them easier to reach from a comfortable sitting position, to have them near your right hand (LHD) / left hand (RHD) when driving.
Ford has a lot of dealerships but not a lot of EV technicians. But hopefully they'll fix that. The greater bulk of EVs they sell, the better they'll get at EV service. Dealerships generally aren't too fond of EVs, however.
I'm not sure why people think the lack of a dash display behind the wheel is bad. You get used to the posit
Re: (Score:2)
>"I'm not sure why people think the lack of a dash display behind the wheel is bad. "
1) That is where the dash has been for all our lives, and generations before.
2) It is a logical place to look and with the most ease and least amount of distraction and effort and delay, maximizing safety.
>"You get used to the positioning of the speedometer within a matter of minutes of driving the Model 3, and then you never have it blocked by the wheel or your hands."
I doubt I would ever get used to (or at least hap
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt I would ever get used to (or at least happy with) looking that far to the right to check something that needs to be looked at frequently.
I would rather they design a system that doesn't require such frequent checking. Why can't the car track the speed for me ? Give a little tactile feedback on the accelerator when you're crossing speed limit (that will change automatically based on user preference and map location), for instance.
Great idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Pick a number (Score:2)
Nothing wrong with the vehicle (Score:4, Insightful)
The only problem is that they are using the Mustang name instead of giving it its own name. Its NOT a Mustang and they shouldn't be using the Mustang name.
An all-electric Mustang would probably be popular. But this isn't one.
This is great for the EV community (Score:2)
Some people stay loyal to their ICE brands forever. Now maybe some Ford loyalists will get a Ford EV.
Thanks Taxpayers! (Score:2)
Thanks taxpayers for helping me buy a new Mustang! You guys are awesome.
Next you can help me get a new E-Corvette
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you don't understand the word? Let me help:
: to lead to or make known by a formal act, announcement, or recommendation: such as
a: to cause to be acquainted
b:
c: to bring (someone, such as an actor or singer) before the public for the first time
d: to present or announce formally or officially or by an official reading
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know, I think they'll sell plenty.
Re Ford's business.... have you ever looked at their numbers? Their net income (profit) almost exactly matches the amount of money their lending unit returns. Basically, they make cars at breakeven in order to earn money lending to people to buy them. ;) Ford has a monstrous amount of debt as they've become so reliant on their lending unit; their debt-to-EBITDA and debt-to-equity ratios are both awful.
Re: (Score:2)
The Probe was a near-miss. The real stab was the Pinto-like Mustang II.