Mach-e unveil

[Pentalab]

And if the new GT500 is 4200 lbs, this thing will be 5500............
Ford is not great with how porky their stuff is.

Latest gasoline Porsche is 5300 lbs, go figure.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Average new car buyer these days is 50+ years old and this is the sort of thing they are buying. Easy entry/egress, high seating, lots of creature comforts. So that's where the market is going unfortunately.

That many people are buying SUVs and CUVs is not the same thing as buying them because they might have the Mustang name pasted on them.

If anything, people buy [ponycar] Mustangs in part because the seating is not high, and I would at least hope that comfort and convenience features are at least a little ways down on the list of priorities. It's sad that from now on we may have to specify ponycar, coupe, or convertible in order to distinguish what we're talking about from the SUV that Ford might prefer us to have in mind.

I also think we are only going in the direction of more and more people viewing a car as an appliance and nothing more. Most new vehicles just seem completely soulless to me.

Yet another reason why this vehicle should not have the 'Mustang' name attached to it.


Norm

 

[JEWC_Motorsports]

Some memes that are popping up.

 

[Dino Dino Bambino]

And if the new GT500 is 4200 lbs, this thing will be 5500............
Ford is not great with how porky their stuff is.

He he. Car manufacturers are merely matching the increased porkiness of their cars with that of the occupants. Our 3500lb S197s are considered featherweight these days.

 

[Pentalab]

And if the new GT500 is 4200 lbs, this thing will be 5500............
Ford is not great with how porky their stuff is.

Fn battery alone weighs 1550 lbs ! The battery IS the floorboard. "weight is way down low....and also a perfect 50-50 front-rear weight distribution". It's gonna be a heavy slug. 99 kwh battery...for 300 mile range. Have fun sucking 10 kw out of a HD 60-70A / 6 gauge / 240 vac circuit all night long.

 

[pwd72s]

When the '19 Bullitt was announced, I read every piece of hype. When the reviews began showing up on youtube and in magazines, I hung on every word, savoring every detail reviewed. All the hype on yet another electric SUV with a Mustang label? Wish they hadn't named it Mustang, wish they'd just shut up with the hype.

But then, I'm just a 76 year old car guy fading into the sunset. A crusty old bastid resisting change if you will. Pretty obvious I'm not the demographic Ford is looking for these days.

This saddens me, but as the younger set says, "it is what it is"...

 

[tjm73]

It's gonna be a heavy slug.

mid 3's to mid 5 second 0-60 times according to reports.

2.3EB Mustang runs that in about 5.3
5.0 GT runs it in about 4 seconds give or take a bit.

Heavy? Yes. Slug? Doesn't like it'll be a slug.

But still NOT a Mustang.

 

[MrAwesome987]

It's going to hurt getting roasted my a fat electric "mustang"... Buy hey, mine cost less!

 

[Norm Peterson]

And if the new GT500 is 4200 lbs, this thing will be 5500............
Ford is not great with how porky their stuff is.

I've seen the number 5000 somewhere, and not as an upper limit.


Norm

 

[JEWC_Motorsports]

mid 3's to mid 5 second 0-60 times according to reports.

2.3EB Mustang runs that in about 5.3
5.0 GT runs it in about 4 seconds give or take a bit.

Heavy? Yes. Slug? Doesn't like it'll be a slug.

But still NOT a Mustang.

6.5 0-60 in the base

 

[Pentalab]

mid 3's to mid 5 second 0-60 times according to reports.

2.3EB Mustang runs that in about 5.3
5.0 GT runs it in about 4 seconds give or take a bit.

Heavy? Yes. Slug? Doesn't like it'll be a slug.

But still NOT a Mustang.

Sri, did not mean to imply it was slow....just heavy. I wonder how it will handle..with the AWD option, like say for auto cross..or a road course..with real tires ? Mid 3's for 0-60 mph is stupid fast. What will it do in the 1/4 mile ? I see no published data.

 

[Norm Peterson]

But then, I'm just a 76 year old car guy fading into the sunset. A crusty old bastid resisting change if you will. Pretty obvious I'm not the demographic Ford is looking for these days.

You're not alone.


I showed my 44 y/o daughter a picture of the Mach E yesterday. Turns out she was already aware of it, and her expression was one of disgust.


Norm

 

[tjm73]

6.5 0-60 in the base

I read mid 5's but mid 6's are believable.

Sri, did not mean to imply it was slow....just heavy. I wonder how it will handle..with the AWD option, like say for auto cross..or a road course..with real tires ? Mid 3's for 0-60 mph is stupid fast. What will it do in the 1/4 mile ? I see no published data.

I've only read "claims of" kinds of numbers. Batteries are heavy.

I'm intrigued. I'll not be buying one and I'll never accept it as a Mustang, but it is interesting. Kind of like the 2.3 EB, which I do accept as being a Mustang. I won't buy one, but they are interesting.

 

[Norm Peterson]

mid 3's to mid 5 second 0-60 times according to reports.

2.3EB Mustang runs that in about 5.3
5.0 GT runs it in about 4 seconds give or take a bit.

Heavy? Yes. Slug? Doesn't like it'll be a slug.

But still NOT a Mustang.

All this single-minded emphasis that mfrs are giving to low speed acceleration feels a lot like a magician's misdirection to me. Distract me with something that sounds good while you're hiding whatever you've got going on in the background that you want to keep to yourself.

Throw enough power at it and even a cement truck could run to 60 in the fives.


Norm

 

[tjm73]

All this single-minded emphasis that mfrs are giving to low speed acceleration feels a lot like a magician's misdirection to me. Distract me with something that sounds good while you're hiding whatever you've got going on in the background that you want to keep to yourself.

Throw enough power at it and even a cement truck could run to 60 in the fives.


Norm

I totally agree. The driving dynamic is a lot more than a quick 0-60 time. I've started looking at road tests and saw (I think) Motor Trend or Car and Driver has started doing testing for 5-60 mph times. Some cars have very different results for such a small change. One car I saw had a full second difference between 0-60 and 5-60. But even that is now suspect in my mind.

0-60 has gotten so silly it holds little real value anymore. An interesting factoid, but not much more.

In fact, I am become disenfranchised from a number of testing metrics as of late. Particularly horsepower. I've really come to start thinking of horsepower as marketing bullshit.

 

[06 T-RED S/C GT]

Here's another outrageous name for the Mach-E. Pegasus

 

[Pentalab]

All this single-minded emphasis that mfrs are giving to low speed acceleration feels a lot like a magician's misdirection to me. Distract me with something that sounds good while you're hiding whatever you've got going on in the background that you want to keep to yourself.

Throw enough power at it and even a cement truck could run to 60 in the fives.


Norm

And how long will the cement truck take....to get from 60 mph....to 0 mph ??

I just can't fathom a 5000+ lb car, with oem skinny tires, having a 'good' 60-0 time...... or 100-40, 80-50, etc, etc. Does the regenerative braking kick in ? ....or friction brakes...or both ? Does the car do a... 'nose dive' ?

 

[MasterofDisaster]

Obese & fugly. Any reason they couldn't call it an Edge?

 

[tjm73]

Curious...what is the Karen's joke? I guess I'm not hip enough to know it. Can someone enlighten me?

 

[Norm Peterson]

And how long will the cement truck take....to get from 60 mph....to 0 mph ??

Kind of the unspoken point I was making . . . ​

I just can't fathom a 5000+ lb car, with oem skinny tires, having a 'good' 60-0 time...... or 100-40, 80-50, etc, etc. Does the regenerative braking kick in ? ....or friction brakes...or both ? Does the car do a... 'nose dive' ?

As far as I know, regenerative braking is always present. How much and how fast any of the braking energy during harder stops is handed off to friction brakes has to involve computers and (I suspect) complex interaction with the ABS system.

'Nose dive' still has to happen - it's strictly a consequence of forward load transfer due to deceleration, acting through suspensions that visibly compress or extend under such load transfers. Subject to side view geometric "anti" effects.


Norm