I’m 40k miles in on my Lightning and it’s my favorite vehicle ever. 0-60 in 3.9. Silent running. Huge frunk. Ran a bunch of my house when we lost power. Smoother ride than my parents Lexus. Access to thousands of charging stations. Bluecruise. OTA updates. Practically zero maintenance. Tows like a beast. Best roadtrip vehicle ever. 

This latest article got me thinking about EV driving pleasure.   The only EV I ever drove was an EV1, it scooted up a hill near my old house better than my brother's 1972 Mach 1 (351). Yeah torque! 🙂   Most EV's have lots of weight, but great 0-60 times, so are they Muscle Cars that don't corner or handle so well?   Do additional motors and AWD enhance handling at all?   I want to know your experiences, just curious.            

Apparently, the expy has been cleared to ship, but the navigator is still on hold

We have been down this road before in another guise, five years ago.     Ford Mustang hybrid with V8, AWD, in 2022: Exploring the latest theory Jonathon Ramsey Apr 21, 2020 https://www.autoblog.com/features/ford-mustang-v8-hybrid-awd-powertrain-rumor   Going back to the weight issue.    ICE (2) electric motors in the front 12 inch longer wheelbase Batteries and or capacitor(s)   Let's say the two extremes are:   A: 1.0L Ecoboost range extender (similar to BMW 3i REX) with large/heavy 200 mile battery pack   Z: 3.5L Ecoboost with small/light 20-40 mile battery pack (or just on launch discharge capacitor).   Which A to Z mix would best suit a 4-door Mach-4 buyer?   Something to keep in mind when deciding is the "A" in CdA.    The Mustang based Mach-4 could have higher highway numbers than the normal SUV hybrid because of aerodynamics, a lower "Area".    The longer body Mustang/Mach-4 would have a better fineness ratio and a better coefficient of drag than it's 2-door sibling, so the Cd is better than any Mustang or SUV as well.   What does this mean in the A-Z decision mix?   Conventional thinking says to extend the range of an EV, good aerodynamics are essential.   Convention says to get a heavy mass moving, lots of torque is needed.   Decisions, decisions.   jpd80 mentioned a good historic precedence that should be kept in mind.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Territory_(Australia)     So the question isn't what the Mustang buyer wants, it's what the Mach-4 buyer will be looking for.   And of course there is the physics, always the physics.           

Why?    The F-150 Raptor R is rated at 720/640 and the GTD is 815/664   I don't think Ford would put that much "effort" into renaming an engine with name like Legend with just a software tweak.   I'm guessing it is going to be something different.    I'm guessing it might be a 7.3L with work done with it with 750HP or so

If you really felt that way, you wouldn't be sharing your option about it when ever you can either...

Typically 93 octane fuels don't have ethanol mixed in which will also lower your MPG's.

All ecoboost engines work that way.  They advance the timing (not compression) to take advantage of higher octane then back off if it starts knocking.

I didn't find anything in the owners manual, I bought a paper one online since printed ones don't come with vehicle.  I tried to find it in the online one but but couldn't find any specifics.  I was hoping someone here may know.  

My wife's 2022 Nautilus (22,000 miles 35 months old) gets better fuel economy on 93 VS 87. Not scientific, but she makes about the same 20-22 mile urban trip every day. To grocery stores, library, gym, etc. The dash MPG read out says usually in the 24.2 or so MPG on 93, and 22-23. or so on 87. This is not stop and go driving but does have traffic lights every 1-5 miles. Speed rarely exceeds 45 MPH. And it's been reading this way for past several months since I switched to 93.  And I know this is not a scientific test. And on a recent trip, saw over 30 MPG for whole tank. 34 once with a little tail wind. Now I know 93 octane fuel does not have more energy in it than 87. It has chemicals that reduce it's volatility so as not to knock and preignite. It just allows you to run more compression (direct injection allows this with a cooler charge) and timing. And our cars are tuned to pull timing on 87, and I can tell the slight difference in performance. Is it possible that when the CPU goes a while without detecting a knock, it goes back to a 93 octane tune. It still makes sense economy wise to use 87. 93 gives about 5% better fuel economy, and the fuel costs about 25% more around here. Mostly use Shell. And I doubt if carbon build up is any different on 93 VS 87. But I think 93 sure drives more "lively". For a 4200 LB vehicle, that little Turbo 2.0 has adequate power for a family passenger car. Anyone else notice this?