They should have given it a different name. It's fine if Ford is making a lumbering behemoth of an electric SUV but why name it after their two door sports car? It's just confusing and dilutes the branding.
I think they tried to leverage the popularity of Mustangs to prop up the new car. Personally, I was very disappointed when I learned it was not, in fact, an electric muscle car.
I have. It was fun to drive, but it most certainly didn't feel like driving my Mustang. I'm no car expert, but it didn't feel as "connected" to the road as the Mustang is, the ride was effortless, and I'm sure very appealing to the average consumer. Not helping was being 10 inches or whatever higher. It felt like what it is, a very sporty SUV.
Even then, I'd probably have bought one if it wasn't for the name, and the friggin screen. It bugs me calling that thing a Mustang. Though, I'm sure it'll sell well, and people like me will just grumble when we see one on the street. And no doubt that stupid screen will start showing up in more cars too.
One of the things I've disliked about teslas is the massive touch screen in the middle, and I'm disappointed to see that this has it too, but in most other ways I find this pretty interesting.
It did things, the UI was spartan, but not confusing. Compared to the Tesla Model 3 I've test driven, the experience there seemed the same to me. Maybe a little better since the control wheel meant some things can be done without touch, and having a secondary driver display in front of me meant less looking to the side. I can't comment on it for long term use, of course. The sales person was confused why I'd want to turn it off, and didn't know if it was possible, though that means, well, nothing. I didn't explore it much, since my gut feel by this point was "no buy", and I didn't feel compelled to talk myself out of that.
I immediately see something like that and have a built in hatred of it. I picked my daily driver partially because I confirmed I could turn off (not just dim) the infotainment screen, and dim most everything else. When I drive, I want to drive, not have a screen blaring at me.
Clearly, based off car design trends, I'm in the minority here.
As far as justifying my "it's not really a Mustang" comment, you just have to... you know... look at it. It's a crossover SUV. SUVs don't drive like sports cars. Higher center of gravity, more suspension travel distance and heavier body which means more body roll. In that sense, the reviews I've read match my expectations because it couldn't have been another way. Instantaneous torque, which is fun, but bland steering and some body roll. So an electric SUV that vaguely resembles a Mustang.
> So an electric SUV that vaguely resembles a Mustang.
I think I have to agree with you here, that's a more accurate description.
I wonder if it'll be like the Toyota Corolla Matrix, as it was known for its first year, subsequently just the Toyota Matrix. (Different story there; it actually was a Corolla body so I could get all sorts of aftermarket suspension parts even for a just-released car...)
Come to think of it, all sorts of brands have launched with a bridge year, haven't they? I won't be surprised if future years of this car are simply known as the Ford Mach-E, but for now they're trading on the cachet of the Mustang brand.
It's not the first time that Ford has sullied the name. I'm sure wikipedia has an article on the Mustang II ("let's make a Mustang out of a Pinto!"). Ford isn't the only guilty one. I remember driving a relatively new Chevy Camaro in the 80s, and I wondered why it was such a dog. That was because Chevy took the 2.5L four-banger out of the Vega and Citation and dropped it into the Camaro.
Mustang was specifically excluded from Ford's announcement of abandoning sedans and other more traditional car-shaped cars. Ford has no plans to stop making Mustang, and they would be crazy to do so.
That announcement excluded the mustang (and one trim of the focus). They will continue building the mustang as a gas-powered sport coupe, but will stop producing Fusion/Taurus/Fiesta.
Mmm, you do realize they’re roughly the same size, though, right? Calling one a “lumbering behemoth” and the other two door sports car (technically true, but you’re saying this for effect, I suspect) is a bit much.
The Mach E is as long and wide as the current Mustang, but the wheelbase of the Mach E is 10" longer (which is a lot), 9" taller (which is a lot), and between 400-1000 lbs heavier (which is a whole lot).
For perspective, dropping the wheelbase, height, and weight of current Mustang by that much puts you in a car roughly the size of a BRZ, but as tall as a first generation Miata.
That all seems correct. In my mind, it still roughly the same form factor; e.g. it’d fit in all the same parking garages and spaces. That’s why I’m calling out the “lumbering behemoth” thing. This isn’t an Expedition or something.
Since you’re making references to the agility of the thing (wheelbase and weight), I’d be curious how the Mach E does in the real world, though. (Do people even buy Mustangs with this in mind?)
I agree calling this a Mustang is a little much, but I understand Ford wanting to get some juice behind the launch for their first real go at a BEV. Plus, I think people would have roasted them just as hard if they just called it Mach E (which is a good name) and skipped the Mustang Mach 1 connection.
Ford has so many great nameplates to use for future electric models: Galaxie, Lighting (high spec F-150e perhaps?), Fusion, Orion, Probe, Skyliner, Sunliner, and Starliner. I hope to see many of them on upcoming cars
I think it's likely that there is a play here to create a slightly extended line of Mustang branded vehicles that have a focus on performance. Bronco, Mustang, and F-Series are tentpoles for the Company, and hold huge name recognition. "Mach E" is a qualifier, so future "electric muscle cars" haven't been precluded from production, aside from Ford saying they're all in on crossovers.
We'd consider buying one, we really would. The next vehicle will have to serve as sedan, dog-mobile, and must be BEV (we've already had a Leaf for ten years). But that hideous fucking growth in between the driver and passenger says we're not buying this version. I mean, ignore that it's a touch screen to begin with, but did they have to make it look like they went out of their way to make it look like an afterthought? Like, "oh, shit, we forgot to put an interface on it. Can't we just stick an iPad on a stalk or something?"
> If the debate over “Is this a Mustang?” came down to speed, this might be too fast to call a Mustang. Maybe the Ford GT is a better comparison?
> But to get that fast, you are downshifting, red-lining, and hitting gears jerky and hard in most fast gas-powered cars. It feels and sounds like you are doing real damage to the struggling engine that was not designed to do this often.
As a car enthusiast (and multi-Mustang owner) I feel like this statement really hurts the credibility of the review. The current Mustang GT is brutally fast for a street car and certainly does NOT feel like the engine is struggling or is going to explode at 7600 RPMs. In fact, it feels buttery smooth at all RPMs. With the Performance Package, you can drive these on a racetrack in the desert and you'll run out of gas before the engine breaks a sweat. It's a car designed to handle the idiots who buy them (too bad the idiots who buy them can't handle the car).
That being said, most of the enthusiast reviews of the Mach E have been positive. The major complaints seem to be around the height of the driving position, and the relatively underwhelming handling (0.86g on the skidpad vs 0.95g for the Model 3 Performance, or the 1.0+g of the performance package ICE Mustangs).
This is on my radar due to curiosity, but I think I'll probably end up with a Model 3 Performance due wanting something with handling chops.
Yep, I once saw a souped-up Mustang trounce a Tesla at the drag strip. Granted, very little about the Mustang was stock, but it got me thinking at the time.
I've been eyeballing the Model Y since they started shipping a RWD version (dropping the base price $8000). This is right eye-to-eye with Model Y in terms of features and pricing.
First thing, the range sucks. The range on the Model Y already is borderline for me, dropping another 15 miles off the top is rough.
Next, no option for a tow hitch? I know there are likely after market options, but a factory hitch is usually just a little nicer. The Tesla even has a tow mode where it changes the way the backing cameras and autopilot works to account for the trailer. Not a total deal breaker but I tend to have a bike rack on my hitch all the time.
I can't see why anyone would get the AWD version of this. It's $3000 more and has 20 miles less range.
The only reason the Mustang is interesting at all is because it still qualifies for the $10k government rebates.
The Mustang brand will carry this car through your complaints. So what if the range sucks? It's a "sports" "car"; even with an ICE they had crappy range.
Having a bike rack affixed to your car destroys your aerodynamics, so it's kinda funny that you're complaining about 15 miles when a bike rack probably strips that much from the Model Y.
AWD is great for racing, perfectly inline with the mustang brand. And again, who cares about range for a sports car.
I was looking at it as a crossover SUV, not as a sports car.
If you want to look at it as a performance vehicle, it's a pretty sad offering for a EV. The Model Y Long Range completely crushes it in terms of performance and Range.
But since you don't care about utility, you'd probably go for the Model 3 where the performance differences are even greater.
The Mustang's performance numbers might look interesting for an ICE vehicle, but they are purely middle of the pack for an EV. Calling the Mustang EV a sports car is like calling a 70s Pinto with a 6 banger a performance car.
EDIT: FWIW, I've had a hitch rack on my car for the past 9 years, I'm quite aware of the impact it has on range.
The Mustang is a middle-of-the-pack sports car, it's perfectly on brand for the Mach-E to be middle of the pack.
There's a great scene in the recent Ford V Ferrari, where Christian Bale's character Ken Miles goes off on a Ford exec for making a crappy car. The clip is on youtube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFX_Oc5fAM
It's not middle of the pack for a sports car. Middle of the pack for any EV. It's competitive speed wise with only the slowest base Teslas. It's slower than the mid-range Cybertruck will be.
I guess they can brag about being faster than the Nissan Leaf!
It'll be interest to see how it compares to Tesla wrt repairability and availability of OEM parts. At least with the pricing of the body and paint shops by me, that could save you more than $3k over the life of the car
Sure, we have winter here. I get why you would want AWD, I want AWD for exactly that reason.
I wouldn't want the Mustang's AWD version because it has even worse range than the already mediocre range the base model has. For comparison, the Model 3 Long Range (their base AWD model) has 115 miles more range and is faster.
If you like camping or going on adventures outdoors, that's a pretty big deal.
42 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 119 ms ] threadEven then, I'd probably have bought one if it wasn't for the name, and the friggin screen. It bugs me calling that thing a Mustang. Though, I'm sure it'll sell well, and people like me will just grumble when we see one on the street. And no doubt that stupid screen will start showing up in more cars too.
One of the things I've disliked about teslas is the massive touch screen in the middle, and I'm disappointed to see that this has it too, but in most other ways I find this pretty interesting.
It did things, the UI was spartan, but not confusing. Compared to the Tesla Model 3 I've test driven, the experience there seemed the same to me. Maybe a little better since the control wheel meant some things can be done without touch, and having a secondary driver display in front of me meant less looking to the side. I can't comment on it for long term use, of course. The sales person was confused why I'd want to turn it off, and didn't know if it was possible, though that means, well, nothing. I didn't explore it much, since my gut feel by this point was "no buy", and I didn't feel compelled to talk myself out of that.
I immediately see something like that and have a built in hatred of it. I picked my daily driver partially because I confirmed I could turn off (not just dim) the infotainment screen, and dim most everything else. When I drive, I want to drive, not have a screen blaring at me.
Clearly, based off car design trends, I'm in the minority here.
As far as justifying my "it's not really a Mustang" comment, you just have to... you know... look at it. It's a crossover SUV. SUVs don't drive like sports cars. Higher center of gravity, more suspension travel distance and heavier body which means more body roll. In that sense, the reviews I've read match my expectations because it couldn't have been another way. Instantaneous torque, which is fun, but bland steering and some body roll. So an electric SUV that vaguely resembles a Mustang.
I think I have to agree with you here, that's a more accurate description.
I wonder if it'll be like the Toyota Corolla Matrix, as it was known for its first year, subsequently just the Toyota Matrix. (Different story there; it actually was a Corolla body so I could get all sorts of aftermarket suspension parts even for a just-released car...)
Come to think of it, all sorts of brands have launched with a bridge year, haven't they? I won't be surprised if future years of this car are simply known as the Ford Mach-E, but for now they're trading on the cachet of the Mustang brand.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/25/17282562/ford-focus-musta...
For perspective, dropping the wheelbase, height, and weight of current Mustang by that much puts you in a car roughly the size of a BRZ, but as tall as a first generation Miata.
Since you’re making references to the agility of the thing (wheelbase and weight), I’d be curious how the Mach E does in the real world, though. (Do people even buy Mustangs with this in mind?)
Also, it weighed about 1000 pounds less the current ICE Mustang.
Ford has so many great nameplates to use for future electric models: Galaxie, Lighting (high spec F-150e perhaps?), Fusion, Orion, Probe, Skyliner, Sunliner, and Starliner. I hope to see many of them on upcoming cars
As a former Mustang owner I'm not a huge fan of this branding, but that said... it sure as hell can't get worse than this!
https://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2012/10/02-ug...
You can learn more by watching this Webex with the design team: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UABOgZR1txY
tl;dw: he likes it a lot.
> But to get that fast, you are downshifting, red-lining, and hitting gears jerky and hard in most fast gas-powered cars. It feels and sounds like you are doing real damage to the struggling engine that was not designed to do this often.
As a car enthusiast (and multi-Mustang owner) I feel like this statement really hurts the credibility of the review. The current Mustang GT is brutally fast for a street car and certainly does NOT feel like the engine is struggling or is going to explode at 7600 RPMs. In fact, it feels buttery smooth at all RPMs. With the Performance Package, you can drive these on a racetrack in the desert and you'll run out of gas before the engine breaks a sweat. It's a car designed to handle the idiots who buy them (too bad the idiots who buy them can't handle the car).
That being said, most of the enthusiast reviews of the Mach E have been positive. The major complaints seem to be around the height of the driving position, and the relatively underwhelming handling (0.86g on the skidpad vs 0.95g for the Model 3 Performance, or the 1.0+g of the performance package ICE Mustangs).
This is on my radar due to curiosity, but I think I'll probably end up with a Model 3 Performance due wanting something with handling chops.
First thing, the range sucks. The range on the Model Y already is borderline for me, dropping another 15 miles off the top is rough.
Next, no option for a tow hitch? I know there are likely after market options, but a factory hitch is usually just a little nicer. The Tesla even has a tow mode where it changes the way the backing cameras and autopilot works to account for the trailer. Not a total deal breaker but I tend to have a bike rack on my hitch all the time.
I can't see why anyone would get the AWD version of this. It's $3000 more and has 20 miles less range.
The only reason the Mustang is interesting at all is because it still qualifies for the $10k government rebates.
Having a bike rack affixed to your car destroys your aerodynamics, so it's kinda funny that you're complaining about 15 miles when a bike rack probably strips that much from the Model Y.
AWD is great for racing, perfectly inline with the mustang brand. And again, who cares about range for a sports car.
If you want to look at it as a performance vehicle, it's a pretty sad offering for a EV. The Model Y Long Range completely crushes it in terms of performance and Range.
But since you don't care about utility, you'd probably go for the Model 3 where the performance differences are even greater.
The Mustang's performance numbers might look interesting for an ICE vehicle, but they are purely middle of the pack for an EV. Calling the Mustang EV a sports car is like calling a 70s Pinto with a 6 banger a performance car.
EDIT: FWIW, I've had a hitch rack on my car for the past 9 years, I'm quite aware of the impact it has on range.
There's a great scene in the recent Ford V Ferrari, where Christian Bale's character Ken Miles goes off on a Ford exec for making a crappy car. The clip is on youtube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFX_Oc5fAM
It's not middle of the pack for a sports car. Middle of the pack for any EV. It's competitive speed wise with only the slowest base Teslas. It's slower than the mid-range Cybertruck will be.
I guess they can brag about being faster than the Nissan Leaf!
I wouldn't want the Mustang's AWD version because it has even worse range than the already mediocre range the base model has. For comparison, the Model 3 Long Range (their base AWD model) has 115 miles more range and is faster.
If you like camping or going on adventures outdoors, that's a pretty big deal.