Ford Mustang Mach-E

Car/truck/automotive news and discussion
Post Reply
kevm14
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Ford Mustang Mach-E

Post by kevm14 »

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/ford-mustang-mach-e/

OK I have a real problem with the branding and marketing here. Like a big problem. At least with the Blazer, GM is like "it's inspired by a Camaro but it is clearly not a Camaro." Also, from an overall product perspective, there is precedent for a mid-size 4 door family utility vehicle named "Blazer" (like from 1991 to 2009 if you include the Trailblazer in the final years). This "Mustang" is just too much of a stretch. Which leads me to my point.

I think my biggest problem is that it exposes the cynical, calculating business plan. All companies have business plans (well, good ones do) so that part is normal. But I'm not supposed to read so clearly into the plan with a product. And yet, as they have been improving the Mustang (which is good), and doing GT this and Shelby that, now they're like..."OK, we have reached peak Mustang, time to pluck that name and do an electric crossover." I'm also bothered because non-car people are going to be like "wow, it's basically as fast as a GT500 from 0-60!" Because 0-60 is THE way you measure vehicle performance /sarcasm. They even have a "GT" trim. I just cannot handle this at all. Not because I'm some anti-EV luddite but because it is such an obvious, calculating and cynical marketing job. And I may have to hear about it all through the holidays as non-car people and casual car people try to start conversations about it....ugh.

I dunno, if you weren't excited about the Model Y, I don't know why this would do anything. Also like with the Model 3, the base models are a far, far cry from the top models in performance.

None of this has anything to do with the product itself but I am very annoyed with the marketing here. If it is, in fact, a good product, then it should be able to stand on its own without such a ridiculous marketing over-reach. Do they trust in the product, or not?
kevm14
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Ford Mustang Mach-E

Post by kevm14 »

Here's a link from an actual car publication:
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a2981 ... otos-info/

On the other hand, this is probably a better move than what GM has done with the Bolt, which may be a technically decent offering but is such an uninspired (almost nerdy) package. It's also more affordable than what Ford is offering here (and in a different class).

I will concede a little if it is actually built on the same platform. I don't see how it could be though.

Further irritation extends from the 0-60 on the performance/high trim models. The 0-60 actually has a lot in common with current Mustang offerings, so I am preparing to deal with that argument, as well.
kevm14
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Ford Mustang Mach-E

Post by kevm14 »

OK but the Mustang II was a horrible footnote in Mustang history.
Should you be upset? If you're deeply conservative in the traditional sense of the word, oh my, yes! The Mach-E is no more a Mustang than my Chrysler! And get off my lawn while you're at it. However, as Ford not so loudly brought up, this is the second time it's expanded the Mustang family. Anyone remember the Mustang II? Full disclosure, we do; it was our 1974 Car of the Year. Meaning, there's precedence for this move.
OK but the Panamera is stupid and also possibly the least reliable car in the industry...
There are millions of Mustang fans out there—why not leverage their love of the model and make something way cooler than a dorky compliance car? Do you think the front-engine Porsche Panamera looks just like the rear-engine 911 by accident? No way, dude. All Porsches must answer to the 911 and, at the same time, milk that same 911 for any and all credibility and sex appeal. Looks like the same will be true for Ford and the Mustang. I call that smart.
kevm14
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Ford Mustang Mach-E

Post by kevm14 »

From a strategy standpoint this is interesting because Ford didn't blow all of their federal tax credits yet.
Pricing? Nothing official yet, but a starting point around $45,000 is a good guess, and Ford indicated that unlike Tesla and General Motors, Dearborn still has lots of those lovely $7,500 federal tax credits left.
bill25
Posts: 2583
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:20 pm

Re: Ford Mustang Mach-E

Post by bill25 »

More garbage about this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/pl ... spartanntp

I still think that if these 2 companies wanted to make a cool electric SUV/Crossover they already had brand name recognition they could use: the Bronco and Blazer. Ultimate fail if the Corvette or Camaro names get ruined with this stupidity.
kevm14
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Ford Mustang Mach-E

Post by kevm14 »

I agree. It's a cynical move that screams "this product isn't good enough to stand on its own."
kevm14
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Ford Mustang Mach-E

Post by kevm14 »

https://www.motortrend.com/news/ford-mu ... E99C6CA988
There comes a certain set of expectations when an automaker labels a vehicle an SUV. I've heard plenty of talk about whether Ford's new battery-powered Mustang Mach-E SUV deserves its pony car moniker, but what about the three-letter acronym that tells us how we're supposed to categorize the thing?

The now-ubiquitous term stands for sport utility vehicle. When I see those letters attached to a car, I expect that car to clear taller obstacles, hold more of my stuff, and haul a heavier trailer than a similarly sized and powered sedan or wagon. We know as well as anyone that search volume for "electric SUVs" is a magnitude larger than it is for "electric crossovers," but words still have meaning. Right?
No, words do not always have meaning. The word "SUV" really no longer has meaning. If you asked them what something is, they'd say "and what would the cool thing be if it was that?" And if the answer is "an SUV," then they'd be like "what a coincidence, this is an SUV." That's pretty much truth in marketing right there.

All that said, it is plainly obvious that the Mach-E is an electric crossover. How is that not obvious? I guess the point stands but shame on someone who is surprised or disappointed at anything written in this article.

On the other hand...maybe I should actually finish the article. And I quote:
Ground Clearance
So how about the Mach-E? In terms of ground clearance, standard Mach-E models have 5.7 inches between their lowest point and the ground, but the high-performance Mach-E GT has just 5.3 inches. To put that in context, a Mustang GT (the two-door sports car with a big V-8 up front) has 5.7 inches of ground clearance—almost half an inch more than its battery-powered SUV-labeled big brother. Call me old-fashioned, but that's absurd.
If we compare the Mach-E to Ford's more conventional gas-powered SUVs, it makes sense to look at the dimensionally similar Ford Edge. Standard Edge models have 8.0 inches of ground clearance, and the sport-tuned Edge ST—similar in ethos to the Mach-E GT—has 8.2 inches. The Mach-E is much closer in ride height to the U.K.-spec Ford Focus wagon, which has between 4.5 and 5.3 inches of clearance.

(If you were wondering, Tesla's recently unveiled Cybertruck has up to 16 inches of ground clearance.)
Alright, that is a bit absurd, because even crossovers have anywhere from a little to a lot more ground clearance than a traditional sedan or wagon.

This is a fair point, too, because I guess people do this thing where they see a body shape and infer all kinds of stuff without looking at specifications (which drives me CRAZY):
Comparing cargo capacity, the Mach-E is once again much closer to Ford's station wagon than to its similarly sized SUV. The Mach-E has 29.0 cubic feet behind the second row or 59.6 cubes with the seats folded down. Because it doesn't have an engine up front, there's also a front trunk between the front wheels with another 4.8 cubic feet of space.

Although it's labeled an SUV, the Mach-E doesn't have much of an advantage over that Focus wagon in terms of stuff space. The wagon has 21.5 cubic feet of cargo volume behind the rear seats or 58.4 with everything folded flat—only 6.0 cubic feet less than the Mach-E if you include its frunk.

Against the Edge, though, the Mach-E doesn't compare so favorably. The Edge boasts 39.2 cubes behind the second row or an impressive 73.4 cubic feet of cargo volume with its seats folded flat. Those figures each show advantages of more than 10 cubic feet over the Mach-E.
Ha.
So which is the bigger stretch, calling the Mach-E a Mustang or calling it an SUV? If you're asking me, it's the latter. Don't get me wrong, I like the Mach-E. It's one of very few Ford products I'm excited about right now. It'll likely make a great daily driver, winter warrior, grocery getter, and maybe even a canyon carver.

My back-seat impressions of the driving experience are optimistic about this car performing like a Mustang should. Just don't try to fool yourself into thinking it's any kind of workhorse.
So it's like a tall, ugly electric Mustang GT with the utility of a Focus wagon? I mean....I guess that's something? And don't get ME wrong, I am not excited about this vehicle.
bill25
Posts: 2583
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:20 pm

Re: Ford Mustang Mach-E

Post by bill25 »

What a marketing thing this whole vehicle is.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enthusi ... spartanntp

Didn't Honda do this with the Ridgeline and nobody cared? All I see in this article is people scratching the paint on the bumper and front quarters.
kevm14
Posts: 15200
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Ford Mustang Mach-E

Post by kevm14 »

This is mostly just regular advertising but I noticed the diversity of the people in the ad immediately. I mean people make fun of the Chevrolet commercials, too...
Post Reply