Rick73

A single charge is implied, though like you say we will have to wait for confirmation. Some have estimated (speculated?) a target of just under 2 kWh per mile, which seems reasonable to me. Energy consumption per mile roughly 8 times higher than Tesla 3 or new S (+/- 0.25 kWh per mile) seems consistent with fuel consumption between similar vehicles.

Tips seem targeted at F-150 Lightning customers, yet content is appropriate for any electric vehicle. Timing is also interesting because customers should have already been aware of winter’s affect, or been told prior to purchase, not reminded afterwards. It almost seems like negative marketing, as if Ford is intentionally trying to reduce demand.

Great point. The original Mustang 200 base engine was also used in many other vehicles which helped with cost. I was wondering more about a naturally-aspirated base engine rather than a smaller EcoBoost, but I suppose that was already tried with NA V6 which was later replaced by 2.3L EB if I recall correctly.

My first car, which I purchased while in high school, was a used 1965 Mustang fastback with 225 HP 289. In addition to tires not having much grip, weight distribution was not ideal. Back then heads, intake, and even the transmission were cast iron, so heavier than modern engines of similar design; though not by much. As pointed out by ZanatWork above, a huge difference was also Net versus Gross horsepower. The 302 2-barrel dropped from 210 to 140 HP overnight a few model years later, so my 225 HP was probably closer to 150 HP by present ratings. I also got to frequently drive a 1967 Mustang with 200 cubic inch straight six with 120 gross HP, and while it had much less power than mine, it wasn’t that noticeable in normal traffic or while cruising on the highway. I would guess 0-60 time around 10 seconds which kept up with traffic easily, and would do 80 MPH all day on long trips. I don’t know what Mustang buyers today want, but wonder if a base engine with less than EcoBoost +/- 300 HP would appeal to some. It is hard to imagine every buyer wants or needs 5-second 0-60. Granted, Mustang sales are a small fraction of what they once were, so maybe demand is much more focused on performance.

Did they mention payload, or battery capacity required for 500-mile range? Years ago speculation was as high as 800 kWh.

So true, particularly when compared to first big block Mustang which ran low 15s if I recall correctly. What has changed considerably though is that back in 1967, regular Mustangs could be purchased with a base 200 cubic inch six as base engine, three 289 cubic inch engines with different power, and the 390 big block. The current 2.3L EB is so powerful that there doesn’t seem to be an engine choice comparable to the early 200 I-6 for buyers mostly interested in style and economy. I expect Ford marketing must have concluded there isn’t enough demand for an economy-minded Mustang.

Haven’t some competitors introduce or are in process of introducing inline sixes, which are generally smoother than 4 cylinder engines? I don’t know if the I-6s are base or optional, since the turbo variants have much more power than one would expect for a base engine. I saw a report suggesting Mazda may offer a naturally aspirated I-6 in Europe, but don’t know if it will make US market.

Order of magnitude? To me that usually means 10 times more efficient, but can’t imagine that’s what you mean in the context of my comment. Again, my statement is based on charging BEVs with fossil fuels, most likely natural gas, prior to grid achieving near 100% renewable. In California, their goal is 50% by 2035 if I read correctly, which means incremental loads will be met by fossil-fuel power generation. Charging BEVs at night (or day for that matter) with lower-cost electricity will result in more NG generators operating to meet that load. Renewables in 2035 can be used up for non-transportation needs regardless of what is done with electrification of transportation, at least the greatest part. Older power plants are less efficient and need to be decommissioned as soon as practical, but even newest which are more efficient than latest auto engines are not nearly an order of magnitude better. If we use fuel heat value (as EPA does for MPGe), we would be lucky to get 2 times the efficiency (and it is likely less than that). So what really happens when 1/3 to 1/2 of energy in fuel gets to home BEV charger? What does that do to its EPA MPGe number in the real world as it relates to producing GHGs? I like concept of BEVs, but feel we would accomplish more by focusing on updating the grid first and reducing loads rather than adding loads that will extend the life of worst power plants. Above example shows what I’m referring to. A large inefficient BEV charged with fossil fuels is worse than efficient hybrid. For time being conservation is better. All this assumes California grid. In much of US where older coal plants are still in operation, adding any loads from transportation is hard to conceive. Are we much better than what China is doing in adding coal plants to power BEVs? From my perspective it seems about the same.

It is funny that that was my reaction as well, but with exception study was backwards looking when convenient and forward looking also when convenient. My objection was they selected the most energy efficient BEV at the time (Tesla 3) for future estimates, and compared to backwards looking historical ICE data which included gas guzzlers. That approach is biased in my opinion. Estimates based on comparables, like Tesla 3 versus similar-size hybrids, is better but would yield different results. Present-day hybrids already achieve twice the fuel economy of what was used in study if I recall correctly (in mid 20s). Regarding California power generation goals, it seems very optimistic to me. Regardless, even if they can achieve 100% by 2045, their plans are not necessarily applicable to other parts of country. In the north, for example, peak solar in winter doesn’t produce nearly as much as in summer, while residential heating is more demanding than air conditioning in summer. Also, details like heat pumps may not be as effective as in California, so heat may require much less efficient resistance heat. I like BEVs a lot and don’t doubt California has good intentions. However, they are not the center of the universe nor should they be seen as a role model for every other state in my opinion.

That they are not comparable was the point. As I understand it, in a few years Californians will be able to buy and drive a Cybertruck (or similar) but won’t be allowed to buy a new HEV Prius (or similar). Obviously these vehicles are not the same and have very different capabilities, but policy does not prevent anyone from buying energy inefficient BEVs and use them to drive to store or their kids to school.

Depending on which vehicles are being compared, I’m not sure I agree with significant energy cost savings, or that coal-fueled BEVs will reduce GHGs. I recall a study from years ago that compared Tesla 3 to average ICE on the road, and even with that much bias, powering Tesla with older coal plants was detrimental. Obviously, BEV GHGs are much lower when grid is green, but on margin that is not reality for at least the next decade. To make matters more complicated, if ICE is a compact hybrid car with over 50 MPG economy, and BEV is a heavy Tesla Cybertruck or similar inefficient BEV used for personal transportation, then charging the Cybertruck with coal is worse than putting gas in compact hybrid. Just saying that not only is subject complicated, but unfair to some buyers as well.

Article states or implies most BEVs are being charged at night when power is cheaper; but this is also when incremental power comes from fossil fuels. That being the case, how much is actually being accomplished towards reducing CO2? Also, if BEVs are charged with fossil fuels at night, why bother using them to meet peak-demand power instead of just adding more peak generation capacity? If or when the grid is 100% renewable (they estimate 2045), then cars as storage makes some sense to me, but only to a limited amount in areas like California where peak power demand due to air conditioning is during or close to solar production hours.

Yes, reports indicate in Europe it will be offered only as PHEV, so they will skip the lower-cost HEV there. Toyota site states it will have over 50% greater EV range than previous, and since battery is listed at 13.6 kWh, it may get close to 50 miles. PHEV performance is higher too so a win-win except for higher cost. Do not know what price premium for plug-in will be but it may be worth it over standard Prius in US. https://insideevs.com/news/621989/2023-toyota-prius-unveiled-europe-as-plug-in-hybrid-only/

I’m not aware of many practical BEVs with starting price as low as the previous Prius (starting mid $20s), so comparing options for most people with limited budgets may not be straight forward. In any case, Toyota’s premise that there is presently a need for hybrids begs the question of just how efficient does a hybrid need to be before it is as green or greener than some BEVs? Is a wasteful and inefficient BEV actually greener than an efficient hybrid? Some seem more interested in eliminating all ICE as quickly as possible on principle than reducing CO2.

At around 6 minutes in video you can see how tight a 6’-2” man fits in both headroom and legroom; though average people and children should be fine.