silvrsvt Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2020/11/02/ford-mustang-mach-e-electric-suv/6083883002/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 I get that Bill Ford loved the Mach E so much that he didn't want to give it back but Ford has made more than three hundred pre-production Mach Es this year. Why they wanted that particular one back is beyond me..... 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted November 4, 2020 Share Posted November 4, 2020 3 hours ago, jpd80 said: I get that Bill Ford loved the Mach E so much that he didn't want to give it back but Ford has made more than three hundred pre-production Mach Es this year. Why they wanted that particular one back is beyond me..... Makes for good marketing ?♂️ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerSooner Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 The lead-in photo of the light blue Mach E with the more traditional-looking "grille" is a huge improvement on the appearance of this electric vehicle. I hadn't seen this version before. It makes the Mach E more resemble an Edge--itself one of the more attractive CUVs, in my humble opinion. The big blank "plug" I have usually seen on the front of the Mach E's is very off-putting to me. In fact, it's what I've disliked about almost all electric cars to date: designers just don't seem to have figured out yet what to do with the front of the vehicles. The Model Y, for instance, looks like it has an awkward overbite. The front of the Model X looks like a group project at school where the kids responsible for the lower part never turned in their work. The Model S kind of avoids the big, blank space by making the nose more wedge-shaped. But, to be clear, the "plug" on the front of the Mach E is most definitely not the answer to the styling question. Besides, can you imagine what that big, flat, painted surface is going to look like after 10,000 miles? Just the road debris and bugs alone will make it look like swiss cheese. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 3 hours ago, BoomerSooner said: The lead-in photo of the light blue Mach E with the more traditional-looking "grille" is a huge improvement on the appearance of this electric vehicle. I hadn't seen this version before. It makes the Mach E more resemble an Edge--itself one of the more attractive CUVs, in my humble opinion. The big blank "plug" I have usually seen on the front of the Mach E's is very off-putting to me. In fact, it's what I've disliked about almost all electric cars to date: designers just don't seem to have figured out yet what to do with the front of the vehicles. The Model Y, for instance, looks like it has an awkward overbite. The front of the Model X looks like a group project at school where the kids responsible for the lower part never turned in their work. The Model S kind of avoids the big, blank space by making the nose more wedge-shaped. But, to be clear, the "plug" on the front of the Mach E is most definitely not the answer to the styling question. Besides, can you imagine what that big, flat, painted surface is going to look like after 10,000 miles? Just the road debris and bugs alone will make it look like swiss cheese. The one with the fake grille is the GT model, all others get the “slit” surround/grille-less fascia that you don’t like. I also agree that I like the GT’s “grille” fascia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomcat68 Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 On 11/3/2020 at 4:26 PM, jpd80 said: I get that Bill Ford loved the Mach E so much that he didn't want to give it back but Ford has made more than three hundred pre-production Mach Es this year. Why they wanted that particular one back is beyond me..... An engineer left his resume in the back seat... ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 Someone found some of the EPA numbers for the Mach-E. If they’re true they’re disappointing. 300 miles is a good number to shoot for. I was ok with 270 as a penalty for AWD. The EPA number for long range AWD appears to be 250, which stinks if true. It’s not enough to make me cancel, but if Broncos were easy to come by I’d probably consider it more seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, sullynd said: Someone found some of the EPA numbers for the Mach-E. If they’re true they’re disappointing. 300 miles is a good number to shoot for. I was ok with 270 as a penalty for AWD. The EPA number for long range AWD appears to be 250, which stinks if true. It’s not enough to make me cancel, but if Broncos were easy to come by I’d probably consider it more seriously. Maybe you’re not the only one having second thoughts, I can imagine quite a few other reservation holders changing their mind after seeing Bronco.....but it is quite a long queue. Ford doesn’t seem to be saying much about Mach E, we should know soon enough. Edited November 10, 2020 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 I still want the Mach-E over the Bronco (the Bronco will probably be the eventual replacement to our Edge), but the range, if accurate is disappointing and will get them bad press. here’s the forum post: https://www.macheforum.com/site/threads/mileage-for-extended-range-mach-e-models-revealed-in-epa-emissions-certifications.1961/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 19 hours ago, sullynd said: Someone found some of the EPA numbers for the Mach-E. If they’re true they’re disappointing. 300 miles is a good number to shoot for. I was ok with 270 as a penalty for AWD. The EPA number for long range AWD appears to be 250, which stinks if true. It’s not enough to make me cancel, but if Broncos were easy to come by I’d probably consider it more seriously. So it's 250 vs. 270 for AWD and 288 vs 300 for RWD? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 15 hours ago, jpd80 said: Maybe you’re not the only one having second thoughts, I can imagine quite a few other reservation holders changing their mind after seeing Bronco.....but it is quite a long queue. Ford doesn’t seem to be saying much about Mach E, we should know soon enough. Mike Levine said it would be later this month 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 10, 2020 Author Share Posted November 10, 2020 is this going to be like the Tacyan with its ranges being lower in EPA testing vs Real World use? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 Range equals "fuel" storage ability...will the aftermarket come up with bigger battery packs not just for Mach E, but for all EV's similar to how the aftermarket makes bigger fuel tanks for ICE powered cars and trucks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 11, 2020 Author Share Posted November 11, 2020 39 minutes ago, twintornados said: Range equals "fuel" storage ability...will the aftermarket come up with bigger battery packs not just for Mach E, but for all EV's similar to how the aftermarket makes bigger fuel tanks for ICE powered cars and trucks? The only way that will happen is if you fit the more energy in the same footprint. Your still beholden to the physical footprint of the battery area like you would be with a fuel tank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slemke Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 5 minutes ago, silvrsvt said: The only way that will happen is if you fit the more energy in the same footprint. Your still beholden to the physical footprint of the battery area like you would be with a fuel tank. Or find creative locations to put additional batteries. I’m somewhat surprised that Ford didn’t put the hybrid battery behind the seat in the F150 like the old in cab fuel tanks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.