EV Problem: Mach-E Piling Up on Dealer Lots

[jpd80]

4 hours ago, Deanh said:

Id still be exceptionally wary of BEVs if I was a manufacturer, cant say I blame Toyota for its "hesitation" for several reasons, primarily sustainable profitability.....and Im not so sure, as stated pandering to Hedge fund managers is such a wise move either ( when did they become experts in the Auto industries? )....so glad ICE isnt going away any time soon....and what if synthetic gas all of a sudden becomes affordable and can be utilized with minimal retrofit to the current ICE crop....I for one do NOT want to be dependent on an electricity supplier for my livelihood, that has the potential for one huge FAIL   

RHD Mach E arrives in Australia in Q4 and I see this is going the same way as the failed RHD Edge went.

After it was cancelled in UK, the RHD diesel Edge was sent to Australia as Endura as edge name was held

by Toyota as an option package.

 

 

[slemke]

15 hours ago, akirby said:

That’s easy to say, but what exactly does Ford need to “revamp” on the Coyote 5.0L?  It seems to be maxed out on technology and power.  It can easily be tweaked here and there and stay perfectly competitive without spending huge bucks and resources.  Remember they just came out with a HO diesel engine for Super Duty.

 

And the only reason for an I6 is if it gives them huge dividends in lower production costs.  From a market perspective it’s just not needed.

 

Not saying they don’t need to make improvements here and there but they don’t really need brand new engines or transmissions.

Well, the fuel economy is abysmal with the Coyote in the Mustang.  It didn’t get the cylinder deactivation that the f150 has.  I know it is aimed at performance, but the dark horse gets hit with an added gas guzzler tax.  Atkinson cycle or variable valve timing that eliminates the throttle like some manufacturers would help.  Biggest gain would be from some sort of electrification.

 

The ecoboost engines are starting to lag the competition.  The standard output hurricane matches/exceeds the 3.0 nano.  The HO version is in a different league.  The 1.5l i3 is nothing to write home about for nvh, output, or fuel economy.  Maybe it will get replaced by a 3 cylinder version of the Mustang’s 2.3L as one of the car magazines alluded to.

 

I never said they needed new engines or transmissions.  They need to keep the current lineup competitive.  Class leading would be better and should be the goal.  If a new engine is needed to consolidate engine families and reduce costs, seems like a win to me.  But, they probably should expand their hybrid and PHEV options or at least fix the supply constraints on the current ones.

 

I wouldn’t call the HO 6.7 diesel new either.  It’s an improvement of the 6.7 that allows for an added premium to be charged.  It fits the sort of improvements I envision across the lineup.  Likewise, the 6.8l gas is a stretch being all new, as it is a shorter stroke 7.3.

[silvrsvt]

7 hours ago, slemke said:

Well, the fuel economy is abysmal with the Coyote in the Mustang.  It didn’t get the cylinder deactivation that the f150 has.  I know it is aimed at performance, but the dark horse gets hit with an added gas guzzler tax.  Atkinson cycle or variable valve timing that eliminates the throttle like some manufacturers would help.  Biggest gain would be from some sort of electrification.

 

The Dark Horse actually gets slightly better MPGs then the GT350 does. The Standard Mustang is within 1 MPG or so of the Camaro...

[rperez817]

9 hours ago, slemke said:

Well, the fuel economy is abysmal with the Coyote in the Mustang.  It didn’t get the cylinder deactivation that the f150 has.  I know it is aimed at performance, but the dark horse gets hit with an added gas guzzler tax.  Atkinson cycle or variable valve timing that eliminates the throttle like some manufacturers would help.  Biggest gain would be from some sort of electrification.

 

Good points slemke. The electrification action that would best is Ford introducing BEV versions of Mustang Coupe and Convertible ASAP. Since the future of the pony car segment is 100% electric vehicles, any engineering resources Ford devotes to ICE powertrains including hybrids for Mustang can turn into opportunity costs that detract from Ford beating GM and Stellantis in the BEV pony car market.

[akirby]

9 hours ago, slemke said:

Well, the fuel economy is abysmal with the Coyote in the Mustang.  It didn’t get the cylinder deactivation that the f150 has.  I know it is aimed at performance, but the dark horse gets hit with an added gas guzzler tax.  Atkinson cycle or variable valve timing that eliminates the throttle like some manufacturers would help.  Biggest gain would be from some sort of electrification.

 

The ecoboost engines are starting to lag the competition.  The standard output hurricane matches/exceeds the 3.0 nano.  The HO version is in a different league.  The 1.5l i3 is nothing to write home about for nvh, output, or fuel economy.  Maybe it will get replaced by a 3 cylinder version of the Mustang’s 2.3L as one of the car magazines alluded to.

 

I never said they needed new engines or transmissions.  They need to keep the current lineup competitive.  Class leading would be better and should be the goal.  If a new engine is needed to consolidate engine families and reduce costs, seems like a win to me.  But, they probably should expand their hybrid and PHEV options or at least fix the supply constraints on the current ones.

 

I wouldn’t call the HO 6.7 diesel new either.  It’s an improvement of the 6.7 that allows for an added premium to be charged.  It fits the sort of improvements I envision across the lineup.  Likewise, the 6.8l gas is a stretch being all new, as it is a shorter stroke 7.3.

Of course they can make improvements here and there but they would gain very little by making a new engine or transmission.

 

As for the hurricane, it seems to be a fuel pig and twice the price of the Explorer ST.  And the hurricane is only 0.2 seconds faster to 60 (5.0 vs 5.2.  And it requires premium fuel.

 

 

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

As for the hurricane, it seems to be a fuel pig and twice the price of the Explorer ST.  And the hurricane is only 0.2 seconds faster to 60 (5.0 vs 5.2.  And it requires premium fuel.

 

Well the Grand Wagoneer is almost 1500+ Pounds more than an Explorer ST.

 

The Grand Cherokee would be a better match.

 

But a closer apples to apples comparison would be the Grand Wagoneer against the Expedition-and the "old" 3.5L in it still get better MPGs, but gives up about 100 HP and 20 ft lbs 

 

 

 

[Deanh]

13 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

What consumers and investors should be "exceptionally wary" of are intransigent, pigheaded automotive industry executives like Akio Toyoda who spread misinformation about BEV. Toyota CEO shows lack of vision, spreads EV misinformation, and spells the end for the automaker | Electrek

 

Toyota's "hesitation" has cost it plenty. Toyota customers in the U.S. are defecting from the brand in droves in favor of automakers that are taking BEV seriously, especially Tesla. In the latest owner loyalty survey by S&P Global, Toyota dropped to #7 among mass market brands. Just a few years ago, they were #2. Toyota Slips in Brand Loyalty Rankings as Customers Turn to Tesla - EVMagz

and thats all to do with them not embracing the BEV electric wet dream ?...absolute bollocks....if Electric  was so "prosperous" explain all the defunct startups....seriously....

Edited July 21, 2023 by Deanh

[akirby]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Well the Grand Wagoneer is almost 1500+ Pounds more than an Explorer ST.

 

The Grand Cherokee would be a better match.

 

But a closer apples to apples comparison would be the Grand Wagoneer against the Expedition-and the "old" 3.5L in it still get better MPGs, but gives up about 100 HP and 20 ft lbs 

 

 

 

I forgot grand Cherokee added a 3rd row.  But it doesn’t use the hurricane (yet) so nothing to compare.

[rmc523]

21 hours ago, Deanh said:

havent noticed anything, but my eyes are peeled..then again its been ignored a bit as Ive been driving this....things unreal...

 

I like the painted flares too, btw.  Looks far more complete than the massive black.....er....."carbonized gray" flares.

[rmc523]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

Of course they can make improvements here and there but they would gain very little by making a new engine or transmission.

 

As for the hurricane, it seems to be a fuel pig and twice the price of the Explorer ST.  And the hurricane is only 0.2 seconds faster to 60 (5.0 vs 5.2.  And it requires premium fuel.

 

 

 

Wouldn't Expedition be a better comparison to Wagoneer?

[akirby]

13 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

Wouldn't Expedition be a better comparison to Wagoneer?

 

 

51 minutes ago, akirby said:

I forgot grand Cherokee added a 3rd row.  But it doesn’t use the hurricane (yet) so nothing to compare.

 

[rmc523]

28 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

 

 

 

Oh, he was referring to the Nano specifically......I was thinking he was just generally comparing to EB engines in particular products.

[DeluxeStang]

3 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Good points slemke. The electrification action that would best is Ford introducing BEV versions of Mustang Coupe and Convertible ASAP. Since the future of the pony car segment is 100% electric vehicles, any engineering resources Ford devotes to ICE powertrains including hybrids for Mustang can turn into opportunity costs that detract from Ford beating GM and Stellantis in the BEV pony car market.

The issue is apparently, neither of the upcoming dedicated Ford ev architectures are optimized for low roof vehicles. I've heard some who are more savvy in the engineering department than I say that you could technically shove a bunch of batteries and electric motors under the hood of an s650 and into places like the transmission tunnel, but it would make for a dynamically compromised ev. Which is the last thing you want in a performance car. 

 

It seems like to make a truly great mustang ev, Ford would have to make a ground up performance car ev platform. The issue is that would be super costly, I could only see Ford doing that if they intended to use that platform for multiple low roof performance vehicles to make it worth investing the resources, which is a possibility, but not likely. 

 

Some RWD/AWD platform with high performance motors and advanced solid state batteries that could support things like a mustang ev, maybe the revival of an rs200 to compete with the electric Porsche Cayman, some punched up mustang/Lincoln sedan, and a flagship next gen gt hypercar or something like that. I highly doubt we'll see any of that, but one can dream. 

 

It would be really cool if Ford finished engineering their super flexible truck and crossover platforms. Once those were finished, and the products using them were raking in a ton of cash, they could  make a world beating variable performance car ev platform just for fun. Some platform that allows Ford to reimagine many of their greatest performance car hits as EVs, while using the same platform to keep development costs in check. 

[akirby]

9 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

The issue is apparently, neither of the upcoming dedicated Ford ev architectures are optimized for low roof vehicles.

That makes no sense.  I thought all these EVs were skateboards.

[Deanh]

42 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

The issue is apparently, neither of the upcoming dedicated Ford ev architectures are optimized for low roof vehicles. I've heard some who are more savvy in the engineering department than I say that you could technically shove a bunch of batteries and electric motors under the hood of an s650 and into places like the transmission tunnel, but it would make for a dynamically compromised ev. Which is the last thing you want in a performance car. 

 

It seems like to make a truly great mustang ev, Ford would have to make a ground up performance car ev platform. The issue is that would be super costly, I could only see Ford doing that if they intended to use that platform for multiple low roof performance vehicles to make it worth investing the resources, which is a possibility, but not likely. 

 

Some RWD/AWD platform with high performance motors and advanced solid state batteries that could support things like a mustang ev, maybe the revival of an rs200 to compete with the electric Porsche Cayman, some punched up mustang/Lincoln sedan, and a flagship next gen gt hypercar or something like that. I highly doubt we'll see any of that, but one can dream. 

 

It would be really cool if Ford finished engineering their super flexible truck and crossover platforms. Once those were finished, and the products using them were raking in a ton of cash, they could  make a world beating variable performance car ev platform just for fun. Some platform that allows Ford to reimagine many of their greatest performance car hits as EVs, while using the same platform to keep development costs in check. 

I keep on hearing rumors about a crazy "hybrid " performance Mustang with an ICE but two seperate EV motors in each of the front wheels....sounds interesting...

 

Edited July 21, 2023 by Deanh

[rmc523]

22 minutes ago, Deanh said:

I keep on hearing rumors about a crazy "hybrid " performance Mustang with an ICE but two seoperate EV motors in each of the front wheels....sounds interesting...

 

 

Hasn't that been a rumor for a long time now?

[Deanh]

3 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

Hasn't that been a rumor for a long time now?

I think it started regarding a hyper version of the Focus RS and has now moved to the Mustang....

[DeluxeStang]

50 minutes ago, akirby said:

That makes no sense.  I thought all these EVs were skateboards.

I thought so to but apparently not. I believe some designers/engineers have touched on this before, but for vehicles with very low roofs, having the battery's arranged in almost an upside down T shape is often the best solution. It allows them to use smaller,less bulky batteries that run below the car, and allow them to make up for that loss in battery capacity by placing some battery cells between the occupants along the center line. 

 

While EVs don't have to worry about packaging an interior to fit around things like a transmission tunnel, those battery packs are thick, especially with their protective casings. That usually means the floor of the vehicle has to be raised, and everything along with it for packaging purposes. So the roofs are higher, which would look really goofy on a mustang. We don't really notice it on electric crossovers, trucks, or vans, because they're already high roof vehicles. It's not a massive change, but even raising the roof on a mustang by as little as 2-3 inches would really mess up the proportions. You can't get away with it as easily. 

 

This probably won't be as much of an issue with future, smaller batteries, but it's been a problem for awhile. As mentioned, I know many low slung EVs, like Rimac, use that T shape to get around that. But doing that would require some pretty extensive engineering work. 

[Harley Lover]

Porsche Taycan chassis image: 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

 

Hasn't that been a rumor for a long time now?

At least a few years now.

Edited July 21, 2023 by akirby

[Deanh]

18 minutes ago, akirby said:

At least a few years now.

yep...then it kinda went away only to re-surface....so, might actually be some truth to it...

[tbone]

On 7/21/2023 at 11:33 AM, rmc523 said:

 

I like the painted flares too, btw.  Looks far more complete than the massive black.....er....."carbonized gray" flares.

Me too, I’m waiting in line for my painter to paint the flare and rear bumper on my Raptor.  It looks cleaner to me as I’m a fan of monotone. 

[jpd80]

On 7/22/2023 at 4:57 AM, DeluxeStang said:

I thought so to but apparently not. I believe some designers/engineers have touched on this before, but for vehicles with very low roofs, having the battery's arranged in almost an upside down T shape is often the best solution. It allows them to use smaller,less bulky batteries that run below the car, and allow them to make up for that loss in battery capacity by placing some battery cells between the occupants along the center line. 

 

While EVs don't have to worry about packaging an interior to fit around things like a transmission tunnel, those battery packs are thick, especially with their protective casings. That usually means the floor of the vehicle has to be raised, and everything along with it for packaging purposes. So the roofs are higher, which would look really goofy on a mustang. We don't really notice it on electric crossovers, trucks, or vans, because they're already high roof vehicles. It's not a massive change, but even raising the roof on a mustang by as little as 2-3 inches would really mess up the proportions. You can't get away with it as easily. 

 

This probably won't be as much of an issue with future, smaller batteries, but it's been a problem for awhile. As mentioned, I know many low slung EVs, like Rimac, use that T shape to get around that. But doing that would require some pretty extensive engineering work. 

Funny how Tesla 3 doesn’t need any of that and seems quite low slung……

Just saying that Ford could do worse than look at what Tesla did with the 3

five years ago and start there with the rest of the clueless..

 

The T battery is part of the reason of what actually destroyed the usability of Chevrolet Volt,

I don’t think that is something GM or it’s competitors are actively pursuing..

Edited July 22, 2023 by jpd80

[DeluxeStang]

4 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Funny how Tesla 3 doesn’t need any of that and seems quite low slung……

Just saying that Ford could do worse than look at what Tesla did with the 3

five years ago and start there with the rest of the clueless..

 

The T battery is part of the reason of what actually destroyed the usability of Chevrolet Volt,

I don’t think that is something GM or it’s competitors are actively pursuing..

Relatively low slung being the operative description. It's 1-3 inches taller, not a massive difference, but it doesn't take a lot to throw the proportions of a car off. We're speaking in terms of hypotheticals of course, but it doesn't appear as though Ford's ev architectures are as thinned down or flexible as Tesla's platforms. 

 

I really hope they nail it with their next gen EV platforms. They really need a super flexible architecture that can accommodate everything from a fiesta sized ev, to an expedition, and everything in between. 

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Relatively low slung being the operative description. It's 1-3 inches taller, not a massive difference, but it doesn't take a lot to throw the proportions of a car off. We're speaking in terms of hypotheticals of course, but it doesn't appear as though Ford's ev architectures are as thinned down or flexible as Tesla's platforms. 

The ground clearance on a Tesla 3 is 5.5 inches, I think that’s right in the ball park for a Mustang 

 

2 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

 

I really hope they nail it with their next gen EV platforms. They really need a super flexible architecture that can accommodate everything from a fiesta sized ev, to an expedition, and everything in between. 

I dunno if Ford is thinking that way with BEV Mustang coupe yet, I suspect that it will play to its strengths and run long with the ICE coupe as long as possible, so figure on six to eight years……other vehicles are higher priority at the moment.