"Mustang"Mach-E Efficiency

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trav said:
Ugly a sin, to call this a Mustang is a crime.
Click to expand...

Fronts got that Rianna forehead look - but I like it after the front bumper - calling it mustang is sacrilege.

Bligo can you translate that ?
 
Trav said:
Ugly a sin, to call this a Mustang is a crime.
Click to expand...
It's not a Mustang; it's a small SUV. Pretty lame move by Ford.
Having said that, let's hope it does handle and drive well, like a real 'stang.
If the driving characteristics are not close to or better than the Model Y, only Ford die hards will want one.
And Hertz... Ha!
 
JeffKeryk said:
It's not a Mustang; it's a small SUV. Pretty lame move by Ford.
Having said that, let's hope it does handle and drive well, like a real 'stang.
If the driving characteristics are not close to or better than the Model Y, only Ford die hards will want one.
And Hertz... Ha!
Click to expand...
I honestly cant see anyone buying that in any great numbers, just buy a model 3 if an ev is in the cards.
Ford is heading down the tubes pulling stunts like this ruining an iconic model name IMO. Whats next the Ford Fiesta Grand Marquis edition.
 
Last edited:
Trav said:
I honestly cant see anyone buying that in any great numbers, just buy a model 3 if an ev is in the cards.
Ford is heading down the tubes pulling stunts like this ruining an iconic model name IMO. Whats next the Ford Fiesta Grand Marquis edition.
Click to expand...
The Camaro e28
Pontiac eTO
Plymouth Road Runner Voltage

If they price the Mach-e low, it will sell. Ford may have to absorb the cost in their other cars, like the real Mustang and F Series.
I doubt you will see Ford's profit and loss broke out by model.
But let's give 'em a chance.
 
Trav said:
I honestly cant see anyone buying that in any great numbers, just buy a model 3 if an ev is in the cards.
Ford is heading down the tubes pulling stunts like this ruining an iconic model name IMO. Whats next the Ford Fiesta Grand Marquis edition.
Click to expand...
I think they will do quite well. They will appeal to the anyone but Tesla crowd and also the diehard Ford fans.
I do think it's a mistake to call it a Mustang but I see the reasoning behind it. At least they are still making a correct Mustang with ICE
 
I have no idea why Ford wanted to call this a Mustang. It is going into the history books next to the Pontiac Aztek, IMO, though hopefully they learn something about EVs.

What I dont see is an objective basis of really, truly, what the difference in the engineering design based operational scenario (versus an EPA test) is. Its not as cut and dry as an IC vehicle

What is the true (not derated) size of the battery pack? What is the allowable use of SOC range? What is the actual efficiency of the motors and drives? What level of energy recovery is used? What is the coefficient of drag, and the overall resistance at speed?

Making drives and motors of high efficency isnt really a secret sauce anymore, at least within a fraction of a percent or so. The cells used in a battery are governened by thermodynamics, not by if Ford or Tesla or LG Chem or Panasonic are making them.

The knobs that can be turned includes just how much of the actual SOC is used. Tesla has done how many updates to software and control that increase range? How many have been done by Ford? What is the warranty basis?

If the Model Y is much more slippery in air, the distance may increase. Thats not a powertrain efficiency matter.

Shoppers for a real mustang wont go for this. Theyll buy a camaro or a model 3 if they are infatuated with the EV world. Ive never understood those Porsche SUVs, and I understand this even less.
 
Last edited:
UncleDave said:
Considering the battery capacity and the range figures, it's clear the Ford Mustang Mach-E suffers from poor efficiency. Based on that criterion, Ford's EV is below many of its competitors with a best combined MPGe(miles per gallon equivalent) value of 95. By comparison, the Tesla Model Y Long Range AWD gets 127 MPGe, whereas the leader in this regard, the Model 3Standard Range Plus, scores as high as 141.
Click to expand...

On what basis do we say "suffers from poor efficiency"? Its not an apples to apples objective assessment if its just a ratings matter, without knowing the actual allowable usage of the battery pack.

Would like to know the actual Wh/mile for each, under different speed and heating/cooling conditions; that will determine "efficiency". Range after that may be based upon controls. It is not earth shattering that AWD makes a less efficient drivetrain.

It is curious to me that this would be comparing the mustang to the model y and the model 3. So an suv performance ponycar type thing, versus an suv, versus a small car???
 
JHZR2 said:
On what basis do we say "suffers from poor efficiency"? Its not an apples to apples objective assessment if its just a ratings matter, without knowing the actual allowable usage of the battery pack.

Would like to know the actual Wh/mile for each, under different speed and heating/cooling conditions; that will determine "efficiency". Range after that may be based upon controls. It is not earth shattering that AWD makes a less efficient drivetrain.

It is curious to me that this would be comparing the mustang to the model y and the model 3. So an suv performance ponycar type thing, versus an suv, versus a small car???
Click to expand...

On the basis of its off the shelf EPA rating of 35 in RWD and 37 in AWD KWH per 100 miles vs the AWD Y's 27.

Pretty sure the mach-e has a 100KWH pack (dont know the usability ) and the Y - 75KWH usable.

This " mustang" is an SUV so direct comparison to the model Y and Id4 are appropriate.




ford-mustang-mach-e-epa-ratings-revealed-decent-overall-figures-poor-economy_1.jpg
 
Last edited:
UncleDave said:
On the basis of its off the shelf EPA rating of 35 in RWD and 37 in AWD KWH per 100 miles vs the AWD Y's 27.

Pretty sure the mach-e has a 100KWH pack (dont know the usability ) and the Y - 75KWH usable.

This " mustang" is an SUV so direct comparison to the model Y and Id4 are appropriate.
Click to expand...

To the Y and Id4 perhaps, but model 3 was included in the text I cited.

The thing with 100kWh or 75kWh usable is I dont know how that is defined, and each vendor may change that slightly by controls.

I think that MPGe is essentially kWh/100mi and then correlated to electrons by saying that there is some amount of Wh/gallon of gasoline. But the exact correlation, since the efficiency of conversion from a gallon of gas to a useable Wh of electricity is variable.

Edit: Just did the excel for myself to check numbers.

The kWh/100 miles are the same as the combined MPGe value by a factor of 33.7kWh/gallon of gas. So the picture you showed is just a pure correlation, no funny business with conversion efficiencies or anything like that (granted, its a totally false number as a result)...

Im going to still call it dubious that the Tesla is magically >25% more efficient than the others. HVAC just isnt there, Batteries and power electronics split hairs over single digit percentage points or less. I have to wonder what the Cd is for the tesla versus the others, and if the brake regeneration is much more aggressive on it....
 
Last edited:
I'm all for EV's, but lately I've been craving a big fat American V8 (Camaro LT1). :LOL:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom