Jump to content
Unclenard

"Mustang" Mach-E

Recommended Posts

So Ford has announced their electric Mustang inspired SUV.  But I think they went a step too far in using the Mustang name for it.  I understand what I think is the reasoning for it.  Using a name that people are familiar with and associate with an "affordable", sporty car.  Anyways, I wanted to post videos and information and see what others think of it.  Let the fun begin....

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deja Vu...its 1989 all over again...instead of the flavor of the month being FWD, this time its EVs and crossovers. The fact is that according to what people actually BUY 98% choose NOT to buy an electric vehicle...no one wants one...these numbers have not changed in years and I doubt they will. If Ford wants to sell an electric crossover that is a blatant Tesla rip-off down to its door handles, hideous dash with the $125 tablet glued to it...more power to them, hope they sell a million of the things...but I would never buy one...and to tack on the Mustang and Mach name to it is just a disgrace. Its like Porsche calling its new EV a Turbo...I think Ford should resurrect the Probe name from 1989 for this same train wreck all over again. Mustang owners buy MUSTANGS, not crossover EVs.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deja Vu...its 1989 all over again...instead of the flavor of the month being FWD, this time its EVs and crossovers. The fact is that according to what people actually BUY 98% choose NOT to buy an electric vehicle...no one wants one...these numbers have not changed in years and I doubt they will. If Ford wants to sell an electric crossover that is a blatant Tesla rip-off down to its door handles, hideous dash with the $125 tablet glued to it...more power to them, hope they sell a million of the things...but I would never buy one...and to tack on the Mustang and Mach name to it is just a disgrace. Its like Porsche calling its new EV a Turbo...I think Ford should resurrect the Probe name from 1989 for this same train wreck all over again. Mustang owners buy MUSTANGS, not crossover EVs.


It is..... weird. But electric is the future. I think this is them trying to get ahead of that. Or, at least on that.

The only thing that makes sense to me is they wanted to shake it up to the point where you just have to accept it, or buy a Camaro if you object. I feel like they are banking on the vast majority of car owners not to actually care or be offended, and the they will take a loss of some die hards in the name of potential future sales. Who knows, weird play for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

 


It is..... weird. But electric is the future. I think this is them trying to get ahead of that. Or, at least on that.

The only thing that makes sense to me is they wanted to shake it up to the point where you just have to accept it, or buy a Camaro if you object. I feel like they are banking on the vast majority of car owners not to actually care or be offended, and the they will take a loss of some die hards in the name of potential future sales. Who knows, weird play for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I agree. I don't think it's a bad move for Ford to make an electric crossover, but to use the mustang name? That's where I get lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually like the vehicle they made.  I would have been alright with them calling it the Mach-E.  If I was to get one I would want to take off the Mustang badges though.  I read another rumor that they will probably produce a Shelby version too.  I guess they are going all in on it.  People are talking about how Chevrolet should make the Corvette a sub-brand now too.  I even saw a rendering of what a Corvette crossover could look like.

I wonder if there is any possibility of "tuning" the computer via the OBD port or not.  One video I watch a Ford employee was talking about the possibility of trying out new features for free with the over the air capabilities and then being able to buy them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2019 at 1:13 PM, LIGISTX said:

 


It is..... weird. But electric is the future. I think this is them trying to get ahead of that. Or, at least on that.

The only thing that makes sense to me is they wanted to shake it up to the point where you just have to accept it, or buy a Camaro if you object. I feel like they are banking on the vast majority of car owners not to actually care or be offended, and the they will take a loss of some die hards in the name of potential future sales. Who knows, weird play for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree. Everyone THINKS electric is the future...and maybe it is...but not yet and probably not for another 30 years at least. Look at the recent CA wildfires where PG&E cut off power to millions as a precautionary measure...what if all you owned was an EV and had an emergency you needed to get somewhere? Well, you are just SOL unless you happen to have a solar powered house(Not solar panels that are connected to the grid like a lot of people have, but a true solar self-sufficient system like I grew up with as a kid...I had no running water or grid electricity...only solar...solar is very limited in what it can run unless you have a $30,000+ system...and even with out solar system we always had a generator for an emercency backup). Again...the fact is only 2% of people actually bought EVs the past 5 years running....many people TALK about how they would like an EV, but they don't actually buy them. You know what other vehicles only sold 2% last year? Manual tranmissions....what are automakers doing there? They are moving AWAY from manual transmissions because of low demand...but they are moving TOWARD EVs despite low demand? No...its ridiculous, the laws of physics havent changed since 1910...gasoline still has more specific energy per gram than batteries do...and until that changes, I don't see much jump in demand for EVs.

That being said, dont get me wrong...I like EVs and have been a fan of them for decades(a 2nd vehicle than is an EV would make a perfect commuter car)...but I can very well recognize a niche market when I see one...Tesla depends on the luxury segment and even then, the company STILL can't turn a profit. A couple of years ago, the CEO of Chrsyler-Fiat begged people not to buy the Fiat 500-E because the company lost money on each one they made...the big automakers are using EVs and hybrids to raise their average fleet MPG to meet stricter emissions standards...if they can sell them to people who think they are "green" more power to them, but its a niche market.

 

You want to talk about clean fuels? How about Hydrogen combustion engines?(not fuel cell). Any internal combustion engine can burn hydrogen instead of gasoline with a different air-fuel ratio(naturally aspirated combustion engines at least...boosted ones require direct injection). The problem is hydrogen storage...conventional hydrogen tanks are essentially bombs...big and...explosive, but...there are metal-hydride tanks...hydrides absorb and release hydrogen gas quickly, making them ideal for fuel storage for hydrogen gas....they exist today, right now...as does the rest of hydrogen combustion technology...unfortunately due to a lack of development, metal hydride tanks remain expensive....but even as expensive as they are, they are no more expensive than a lithium ion battery pack. The only by-product of burning hydrogen is water...so tell me...why do people think EVs are a better option than hydrogen gas? Neither type of vehicle has infrastructure worth a damn...but at least hydrogen you can refuel just as fast or faster than gasoline....not to mention....with a metal hydride tank, some injectors, and a different ECU, you could retrofit ANY GASOLINE VEHICLE to run on Hydrogen(well, technically....not legally since the EPA does not allow you currently to retrofit other fuels like LPG or whatever for use in a gasoline engine....but there are no technical problems doing so). The other advantage to hydrogen is Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles....for those who want EV torque....one fuel could fuel 2 different types of vehicles...it is plainly a far superior choice to EVs....but there is no "Tesla" out there with a cult-of-personality leader pushing hydrogen combustion, and very little push for hydrogen fuel-cells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Unclenard said:

I actually like the vehicle they made.  I would have been alright with them calling it the Mach-E.  If I was to get one I would want to take off the Mustang badges though.  I read another rumor that they will probably produce a Shelby version too.  I guess they are going all in on it.  People are talking about how Chevrolet should make the Corvette a sub-brand now too.  I even saw a rendering of what a Corvette crossover could look like.

I wonder if there is any possibility of "tuning" the computer via the OBD port or not.  One video I watch a Ford employee was talking about the possibility of trying out new features for free with the over the air capabilities and then being able to buy them.

I have no problem with them calling in the Mach-E...or even a "Shelby" model(Shelby put his name on quite a few turbo-Dodges and even a Dodge pickup truck in the 80s)...but I agree, get rid of the Mustang name. I don't mind the vehicle itself...I wouldn't buy it, but then, I would never buy an SUV or crossover anyway, its not the EV factor that would prevent me...its the vehicle type, to me SUVs are worthless...they don't commute as good as a car, they dont haul people as well as a minivan, and they dont move things as well as a truck....I would rather own three vehicles that are good at what they do than one that isnt good at anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, wicked93gs said:

I disagree. Everyone THINKS electric is the future...and maybe it is...but not yet and probably not for another 30 years at least. Look at the recent CA wildfires where PG&E cut off power to millions as a precautionary measure...what if all you owned was an EV and had an emergency you needed to get somewhere? Well, you are just SOL unless you happen to have a solar powered house(Not solar panels that are connected to the grid like a lot of people have, but a true solar self-sufficient system like I grew up with as a kid...I had no running water or grid electricity...only solar...solar is very limited in what it can run unless you have a $30,000+ system...and even with out solar system we always had a generator for an emercency backup). Again...the fact is only 2% of people actually bought EVs the past 5 years running....many people TALK about how they would like an EV, but they don't actually buy them. You know what other vehicles only sold 2% last year? Manual tranmissions....what are automakers doing there? They are moving AWAY from manual transmissions because of low demand...but they are moving TOWARD EVs despite low demand? No...its ridiculous, the laws of physics havent changed since 1910...gasoline still has more specific energy per gram than batteries do...and until that changes, I don't see much jump in demand for EVs.

That being said, dont get me wrong...I like EVs and have been a fan of them for decades(a 2nd vehicle than is an EV would make a perfect commuter car)...but I can very well recognize a niche market when I see one...Tesla depends on the luxury segment and even then, the company STILL can't turn a profit. A couple of years ago, the CEO of Chrsyler-Fiat begged people not to buy the Fiat 500-E because the company lost money on each one they made...the big automakers are using EVs and hybrids to raise their average fleet MPG to meet stricter emissions standards...if they can sell them to people who think they are "green" more power to them, but its a niche market.

 

You want to talk about clean fuels? How about Hydrogen combustion engines?(not fuel cell). Any internal combustion engine can burn hydrogen instead of gasoline with a different air-fuel ratio(naturally aspirated combustion engines at least...boosted ones require direct injection). The problem is hydrogen storage...conventional hydrogen tanks are essentially bombs...big and...explosive, but...there are metal-hydride tanks...hydrides absorb and release hydrogen gas quickly, making them ideal for fuel storage for hydrogen gas....they exist today, right now...as does the rest of hydrogen combustion technology...unfortunately due to a lack of development, metal hydride tanks remain expensive....but even as expensive as they are, they are no more expensive than a lithium ion battery pack. The only by-product of burning hydrogen is water...so tell me...why do people think EVs are a better option than hydrogen gas? Neither type of vehicle has infrastructure worth a damn...but at least hydrogen you can refuel just as fast or faster than gasoline....not to mention....with a metal hydride tank, some injectors, and a different ECU, you could retrofit ANY GASOLINE VEHICLE to run on Hydrogen(well, technically....not legally since the EPA does not allow you currently to retrofit other fuels like LPG or whatever for use in a gasoline engine....but there are no technical problems doing so). The other advantage to hydrogen is Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles....for those who want EV torque....one fuel could fuel 2 different types of vehicles...it is plainly a far superior choice to EVs....but there is no "Tesla" out there with a cult-of-personality leader pushing hydrogen combustion, and very little push for hydrogen fuel-cells.

Here's a pretty good video showing the efficiencies of each type of car. 

It's based on a 10 page research paper but the video is easier to consume. According to the video electric still releases less emissions than hydrogen fuel cell cars. Also another problem with hydrogen is the type used is not very common so you'd need to use energy to make that compound which is retroactive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.