Mustang Mach E price drops for all models but GT

[FordBuyer]

6 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

Good point - don't have to think of such things in S FL.

I live in a golf cart community and chose gas cart over electric because of range. I had an electric cart for awhile and was lucky to get 60 mile range and last 20 miles was on reduced power. Gas gives me over 200 miles and maximum power up hills to the last drop. Also noticed electric range dropped in January on colder days.

 

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

 

Thank you FordBuyer sir! Grabber Blue is the color. My wife, who will be the primary driver of the Mach-E when we get it, absolutely loves that color. ?

 

Here's a photo of Mach-E in Grabber Blue.

Great choice!! Love that color.

[akirby]

Why would you ever need to drive more than 60 miles a day in a golf cart?!?

[rmc523]

24 minutes ago, akirby said:

Why would you ever need to drive more than 60 miles a day in a golf cart?!?

 

Clearly you haven't played golf!

 

[FordBuyer]

29 minutes ago, akirby said:

Why would you ever need to drive more than 60 miles a day in a golf cart?!?

The golf cart community I live in is about 25 miles long and 10 miles wide and all of it is golf cart accessible. Like I said, the last 20 miles or so of a FULL charge is at reduced power.

 

Florida is mostly flat, but there are hilly areas and reduced power batteries don't like the grades. Also, if you do multiple trips, you will not always be operating on full charge. EZ GO started selling lithium carts last year, but range is the same. But batteries are smaller, lighter, and charge much faster with no maintenance as in water fill.

 

Lead acid batteries cost about $800 to replace every 3 years and lithium $3600 every 8 years. It costs me about $10 to fill 5 gallon gas cart and $100/year to maintain it mechanically. 

[FordBuyer]

20 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

Clearly you haven't played golf!

 

LOL!! 

[Gurgeh]

4 hours ago, rmc523 said:

Another factor is that some people also don't have the ability to install a charger - I have a buddy that lives in a condo, and while an EV would be perfect for him (he barely drives because of proximity to his work), his condo is an older building, with no charging ability.

 

This is my situation exactly. I live in a condo that has no ability to charge overnight, so while an EV would suit my driving style quite well it is a non-starter. The only other pause I have is that I have taken 3 road trips in the last couple of years. One from DC to Denver, which required 3 very long driving days each way. Having to stop to charge along the way might have been just enough to push those driving days to longer than I would like. Plus, where I ended up had no home charging ability so all the running around I did the week I was in Colorado would have been complicated. Similar issue on a smaller scale on the trips I took from DC to northern NJ and DC to the southern tip of the Delmarva Peninsula.

 

When I move in the next couple of years I'll be sure it is to someplace that makes EV ownership a possibility, and then review the situation.

[rmc523]

34 minutes ago, Gurgeh said:

 

This is my situation exactly. I live in a condo that has no ability to charge overnight, so while an EV would suit my driving style quite well it is a non-starter. The only other pause I have is that I have taken 3 road trips in the last couple of years. One from DC to Denver, which required 3 very long driving days each way. Having to stop to charge along the way might have been just enough to push those driving days to longer than I would like. Plus, where I ended up had no home charging ability so all the running around I did the week I was in Colorado would have been complicated. Similar issue on a smaller scale on the trips I took from DC to northern NJ and DC to the southern tip of the Delmarva Peninsula.

 

When I move in the next couple of years I'll be sure it is to someplace that makes EV ownership a possibility, and then review the situation.

 

And I suppose the argument can be made that for those few road trips you (in the general sense) take, a ICE rental could be used, but that's also another expense tacked onto the trip.  Bottom line is, BEVs aren't ready for prime time for most buyers yet.  I'm sure they'll get there as tech improves, but not yet.

[Gurgeh]

4 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

And I suppose the argument can be made that for those few road trips you (in the general sense) take, a ICE rental could be used, but that's also another expense tacked onto the trip.  Bottom line is, BEVs aren't ready for prime time for most buyers yet.  I'm sure they'll get there as tech improves, but not yet.

True, but I'm a Lincoln owner (before that Audi and Infiniti) and long road trips is where I get to most enjoy luxury car features, comfort, and drivability -- even though such trips typically only come once or twice a year. 

[rmc523]

17 minutes ago, Gurgeh said:

True, but I'm a Lincoln owner (before that Audi and Infiniti) and long road trips is where I get to most enjoy luxury car features, comfort, and drivability -- even though such trips typically only come once or twice a year. 

 

Oh I agree - you don't get to enjoy your vehicle (or the features you pay for on it) on that trip if you rent one.  Just pointing out the non-ideal alternative.

[bzcat]

4 hours ago, Gurgeh said:

True, but I'm a Lincoln owner (before that Audi and Infiniti) and long road trips is where I get to most enjoy luxury car features, comfort, and drivability -- even though such trips typically only come once or twice a year. 

 

But I think that is exactly the crux of edge use case vs. 99% that people are somehow using to disqualify EVs. Not saying you specifically... just that some people use this type of reasoning to argue EV will never see wide adoption because once a year, you may want to drive more than 300 miles a day. 

 

We are already at will soon approach manufacturing cost  parity (or marginal costs parity) between EV and ICE vehicles (several OEM have said that is the case) - meaning the cost of manufacturing a Mach E is not appreciably different than of an Edge. The cost difference right now is in development and production ramp up but those are largely a sunk costs. What this means is that the next generation of EVs due out around 2026-27 will not have that kind of high capital upfront investment the current generation of EV had to endure. It implies the next gen Mach E will cost the same or less to develop as next gen Explorer (assuming there is one). 

 

By the middle to late 2020s, EV will routinely cost same or less than ICE to consumers, and their significant lower operating costs will become more apparent to even skeptics once we are past the hockey stick part of the adoption curve. 

Edited October 2, 2020 by bzcat

[CurtisH]

20 minutes ago, bzcat said:

 

But I think that is exactly the crux of edge use case vs. 99% that people are somehow using to disqualify EVs. Not saying you specifically... just that some people use this type of reasoning to argue EV will never see wide adoption because once a year, you may want to drive more than 300 miles a day. 

If I was replacing my Mustang in the next year, I would consider a BEV if there was something on the market that I wanted.  I don’t think I’ve ever put more than 240 miles on it in a day.   And that was only once or twice.  Usually, it won’t see more than 130 miles in a day.  The Mach E is the only BEV on the market that I would be interested in, but I’m not sure it could get me out of a real Mustang.  However, I’m not replacing my Mustang for another 8-10 years.  
 

We are replacing our Edge within the year.  I won’t consider a BEV to replace it.  That is the vehicle we use for vacations.  Sometimes, our destination is a somewhat “out of the way” location.  I’m not interested in arranging my travel plans around charging stations.  Ten years from now, I don’t expect to have any reservations about a BEV for our travel vehicle.  I do think a lot of people feel like I do.  

[silvrsvt]

2 minutes ago, CurtisH said:

If I was replacing my Mustang in the next year, I would consider a BEV if there was something on the market that I wanted.  I don’t think I’ve ever put more than 240 miles on it in a day.   And that was only once or twice.  Usually, it won’t see more than 130 miles in a day.  The Mach E is the only BEV on the market that I would be interested in, but I’m not sure it could get me out of a real Mustang.  However, I’m not replacing my Mustang for another 8-10 years.  
 

We are replacing our Edge within the year.  I won’t consider a BEV to replace it.  That is the vehicle we use for vacations.  Sometimes, our destination is a somewhat “out of the way” location.  I’m not interested in arranging my travel plans around charging stations.  Ten years from now, I don’t expect to have any reservations about a BEV for our travel vehicle.  I do think a lot of people feel like I do.  

 

Your more or less hitting the nail on the head with this-

 

a BEV-given that it can get at least 200-250 miles in any weather conditions-should be fine for 90% of people every day driving-to and from work. 

 

But given that limitation-it doesn't make sense as your Edge replacement.

 

Which brings me to this point-People when they are buying vehicles, are going for the best overall "swiss army" knife that is called an CUV or to a lesser extent a Pickup truck. The pickup is hurt by MPGs more then the CUV when it comes to certain people, but if someone is paying 40K+ on a pickup, they should be able to afford the gas, or I'd at least hope they would be. 

 

Getting a BEV (with the limitations above) is like picking a sedan over a CUV sort of. 

 

Unless they start approaching a range of 300+ miles without any major battery issues in colder weather or there are robust charging options all over the place (like 80% fill within 10-15 minutes or fully charged in 30-45 minutes), that is going to impact their penetration in the market. 

[mackinaw]

33 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

Unless they start approaching a range of 300+ miles without any major battery issues in colder weather or there are robust charging options all over the place (like 80% fill within 10-15 minutes or fully charged in 30-45 minutes), that is going to impact their penetration in the market. 

 

Very well said.  

[T-dubz]

What ever happened to fuel cell vehicles? Refueling is similar to a gas vehicle so there wouldn’t be range anxiety or long waits to charge. I’d be interested in that if it could be made affordable.

[sullynd]

In the last month I’ve done two roadtrips, 750 miles each way (1500 round trip), in one day (one way), for work. I could have done it in my own vehicle, but did a rental. (Work). Even when doing a long drive for pleasure I’ll usually do a rental. They’re cheap, and it’s not worth putting wear and tear on my vehicles. 
 

My MACH-E will handle almost all my needs, I’ll have the Edge if remote charging is not convenient enough, and for longer drives I’d do a rental anyway. 

Edited October 2, 2020 by sullynd

[silvrsvt]

Speaking of the challenges all automakers are facing, Honda is pulling out of F1 after next year to improve focus on BEVs

 

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.breaking-honda-to-leave-f1-at-the-end-of-2021.3nsZ7zzaokaze5Sjc4V6s0.html

[akirby]

9 hours ago, T-dubz said:

What ever happened to fuel cell vehicles? Refueling is similar to a gas vehicle so there wouldn’t be range anxiety or long waits to charge. I’d be interested in that if it could be made affordable.

I think the refueling infrastructure is too expensive.

[atomcat68]

37 minutes ago, akirby said:

I think the refueling infrastructure is too expensive.

And with today technology it takes more energy to make and store the liquid hydrogen than the hydrogen is worth. Really the only practical use for hydrogen fuel is in space missions.

[akirby]

17 minutes ago, atomcat68 said:

And with today technology it takes more energy to make and store the liquid hydrogen than the hydrogen is worth. Really the only practical use for hydrogen fuel is in space missions.

 

It's also dangerous.  Did you know that just 2 inches of dihydrogen monoxide can kill you?   And it's everywhere!

[atomcat68]

4 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

It's also dangerous.  Did you know that just 2 inches of dihydrogen monoxide can kill you?   And it's everywhere!

I remember there was a whole SNL skit on that in the 70's.

[rperez817]

11 hours ago, T-dubz said:

What ever happened to fuel cell vehicles? 

 

For passenger cars and light trucks, it's a fool's errand (fool cells). Too little fueling infrastructure currently, too many technical issues with building out that infrastructure. Fuel cells may be more practical in commercial and military vehicle applications though.

 

Nonetheless, some Japanese and South Korean automakers especially Toyota and Hyundai continue doing R&D on fuel cell passenger cars and light trucks. Toyota expects to release the production version of 2nd generation Mirai FCEV next year.

 

[bzcat]

I wouldn't drive an EV across the country just like I wouldn't ride my bicycle across the country... it's not designed to do that and there is no reason why you should. I mean you can... but it's not a logical use for that vehicle. 

 

As for fuel cells, the reality is the only efficient source of hydrogen now is to make it from natural gas. So you are not reducing the reliance on fossil fuel. It doesn't do anything to combat climate change. Until we figure out nuclear fusion, this is not going to change. Chemistry and fundamental physics cannot be changed. So once you understand this limitation, you can see that instead of making hydrogen from natural gas, you are better off just burning the natural gas (at a power plant for example). It's far more efficient use of that gas. On top of basic chemistry, we also have an infrastructure problem. Hydrogen requires all new fueling and transportation networks that no one wants to pay for. You cannot use existing oil and gas pipeline and tankers and to keep hydrogen in a liquid form, requires refrigeration from end to end, which use up huge amounts of electricity and space. The more you think about it, the more crazy it gets. It's really strange that there are still people out there thinking this is a feasible mass scale solution to our transportation needs in the 2nd half of 21st century.

 

Hydrogen will have a limited role in some transportation network... for example, at a cargo container port where there is space to store the hydrogen and the cost of a local refueling network is not cost prohibitive. Some container ships will probably be fuel cell powered as it is only only reliable zero emission power in the middle of the ocean (well, next to wind power but good luck using a giant sail to move a container ship ? ) And the trucks that service the container port can use the local hydrogen network for short haul (e.g. from the port to the train yard). But I think it is science fiction stuff to think that average family vehicle will have hydrogen fuel cell when it is so much easier to just plug it into the electric grid. 

Edited October 2, 2020 by bzcat

[jpd80]

20 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

But I think that is exactly the crux of edge use case vs. 99% that people are somehow using to disqualify EVs. Not saying you specifically... just that some people use this type of reasoning to argue EV will never see wide adoption because once a year, you may want to drive more than 300 miles a day. 

 

We are already at will soon approach manufacturing cost  parity (or marginal costs parity) between EV and ICE vehicles (several OEM have said that is the case) - meaning the cost of manufacturing a Mach E is not appreciably different than of an Edge. The cost difference right now is in development and production ramp up but those are largely a sunk costs. What this means is that the next generation of EVs due out around 2026-27 will not have that kind of high capital upfront investment the current generation of EV had to endure. It implies the next gen Mach E will cost the same or less to develop as next gen Explorer (assuming there is one). 

 

By the middle to late 2020s, EV will routinely cost same or less than ICE to consumers, and their significant lower operating costs will become more apparent to even skeptics once we are past the hockey stick part of the adoption curve. 

I have a feeling that we're being softened up for even higher prices with vehicles

once BEVs become more mainstream. Most manufacturers now see BEVs as 

an opportunity to cash in by making them desirable premium models. I didn't

see that changing in the future, we will all be paying more.

 

The mid-sized BEVs that  Ford is developing won't be using any of MME's motors, drives or batteries,

everything changes with the learnings from the past four years, time  and technology moves on. 

Edited October 2, 2020 by jpd80

[akirby]

51 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Most manufacturers now see BEVs as an opportunity to cash in by making them desirable premium models.

I don’t think that’s true.  I think the costs are still just too high to make a decent profit at lower price points.  Remember there are only one or two vehicles to share costs.

[FordBuyer]

12 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

Speaking of the challenges all automakers are facing, Honda is pulling out of F1 after next year to improve focus on BEVs

 

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.breaking-honda-to-leave-f1-at-the-end-of-2021.3nsZ7zzaokaze5Sjc4V6s0.html

F1 is unwatchable. Every week Lewis Hamilton goes into turn ONE with the lead and race is over. He can have degrading tires with 5 laps to go and still wins easily. F1 has to figure out a way of making races competitive. There is no drama.