Ford Mustang Mach E
 

Ford is totally serious about electric vehicles. Their Mustang Mach E looks to be very impressive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4WrBeHjO9A

75kWh and 99kWh battery packs, RWD or AWD, up to 300 miles range, a frunk, spacious interior, starting price of about $35K after incentives.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news...300-mile-range

https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod...1573851391.jpg

Really better than a Tesla, massive service infrastructure, and a $7500 tax incentive still in place. Now if they would get a super fast charging infrastructure.
Either way competition makes everything better.

My mom used to have a 1971 Mach 1 when we were kids, I wish while using the Mustang brand they could have done a little better retro look although some think those years are a bit homely. That front shape could have worked in a little 1970 style and the rear could have had a bit of 1971. Maybe retro is dead, but it sure helped the 2005 Mustang sales.

And imagine that. No hub motors.

Props Ford for not making a lot of noise, but just quietly developing a bad-ass ev

honestly they soiled the mustang name with this garbage


if you want this garbage fake SUV in the gas version it's sold as the Mazda CX-3

If the top range is 300 miles consuming 99 kWh, that works out to 3 miles per kWh, which is not good.

That means the 75 kWh version has an expected range of 227 miles, or less than Chevy Bolt's 259 mile range on 60 kWh.

Can you elaborate?

I've been in a new CX-3, and it kinda sucks. I've got a CX-5, and it's fine, but I wouldn't buy one with my money.

Mustang has had plenty of poor products in the past, so what is particularly ruinous by offering this?

The thing about brands is that they have to evolve or die. Just think about Buick and how it's only old people that seek out that brand. They are just now releasing commercials with kids feigning interest in them, but it might be too little, too late.

Branding is a balancing act of not offending the existing customers while attracting new ones.

I've got very little opinion on this until I read more about actual delivered examples, or test drive one myself. The basic specs sound good though, especially if they can deliver a base version for ~$35k.

I can't buy a Mustang unless I win the lottery and have money to burn. I can buy this, AWD, 4 doors, room in the back seat. Doesn't really fit under the Mustang name agreed, but Mach E is a great name for it.

it's based off the CX3 mazda quick edit in ms paint
it's obviously a slightly face lifted version of it

https://ecomodder.com/forum/attachme...1&d=1574191361

Even 3 miles per kwh is st least close to reality.
The way ford driving soccer mom's drive on thr higheay better figure closer 2 to 2.5 miles per kwh.
Especially in the winter.

I'm curious what the efficiency of upcoming trucks will be. My WAG was 2 miles per kWh. I'm sure we could just take the horsepower requirements of a standard truck at 60 MPH and extrapolate out the kW required to maintain that speed.

I had a peak of 28.7MPG combined over 212 miles only about 10miles of EV use over the 212miles


that 10 miles includes 8.5 miles of FREE ENERGY! (down hill that was 25mph so we say in EV mode the whole 8.5 miles!)




that is with a v8 6.0L engine the battery only has about 10% of 1.5KWH life left so only 0.15KWh... :eek:

At perfect conversion, you get about 36 kwh in a gallon of gasoline

0.797Kwh per mile assuming 100% efficiency of gas conversion...

well be generous and say 30% as the pulley only drives the water pump has VVt etc... etc..

0.2391KWh per mile


or 4.1 miles per KWh




i think it could get 50mpg in a Prius chassis it's 1/2 the weight and 1/2 the coefficient drag

V8-hybrid in prius = 50mpg



I will be swapping out All the bulbs for LEDS pretty soon i'm sure it will help a bit.. I also thought of doing some inexpensive Aero mods as well

I like the show the math and assumptions approach, but there's zero chance a Tahoe is getting a 4.1 mile per kWh EPA rating. That's what the Model 3 gets.

The Tahoe gets similar fuel economy to half-ton sized trucks, so I would expect them to have similar EV efficiencies.

Considering the very efficient Model 3 gets ~4 miles per kWh, I expect a truck to get about half that, or 2 miles per kWh.

My leaf gets about 140mpg equivalent or 4 miles per kwh during warmer months with out even trying. Normally I get 4.5 to 4.7 miles per kwh with out the trailer.
Best case scenario a pickup gets about half the fuel economy of a non hybrid economy car.
So figure 70mpge or about 2 miles per kwh.

100% conversion never works out it's not a perpetual motion machine



32.78kwh for E10 gas



realistically you can only get 10.1kwh out of a single gallon of gas 33%(some newer engines are upwards of 40% )
10.1KWh ÷ 28.7 miles=
0.352KWh/mile


40-45.45MPG would be the actual so basically you have what amounts 3 gallons of gas equivalent , using the efficiency percentage of an ICE engine...

Just to be clear I was speculating electric economy of an electric pickup not actual gasoline burning pickups fuel economy.
Plus only getting the equivalent of 40mpg would be catastrophically bad for an electric pickup that wasn't towing something big, thats barely over 1mile per kwh.

People keep saying that it would have sold with any name, even DonkE, so why call it this, when Ford will still sell gas Mustangs that do not look like they need an intervention:

https://ecomodder.com/forum/attachme...1&d=1574225760

I wasn't a fan of the looks when I first saw it, but it's growing on me. I prefer the silver grille of the GT to the body color one on the other trims. Looks much better than the Model Y.

I think efficiency will be a little better than it looks just comparing range to the battery capacities they've announced. The quoted battery kwh is probably the actual full capacity of the pack with the usable capacity being 80-95% of actual. It would be silly to list a usable capacity of 99kwh when 100kwh is such a nice round number. ;)

I can't help but see this with most new vehicles. The new American dream, perhaps?

It suits many Americans.

a better question is why is everyone using the 100% conversion of gas I guess it's the same people who think solar roadways is a great product .. or can pull water out of the air into a water bottle

using 100% conversion rate is claiming it's equal to 3 gallons of gas

=300 miles but in reality it's 10 gallons of gas as noted by the CX-3 which is = to the mustang version..



also btw the part were it says "Fossil Fuel Free" is a joke it should just say powered by Fossil Fuel Coal,CNG and nuclear ( are types of fossil fuels)




so unless your generating the power from wind or solar on site to the "electric car" you are still generating emissions.. that will never be off set..


unless you live near a hydro power plant it's not fossil free or negative offset

What else should be used to approximate the energy economy of electric vehicles?
All the mpge does is show how inefficient regular gas burners are.
The only people who still think solar road ways are a good idea are the people trying to sell them. I have always antagonized them, even when they were brand new and hadn't been tested.

I know there is nothing fossil fuel free about electric cars. When you remind people of this over on the Nissan leaf forum they get all bent out of shape.
People here are not that delusional.
I know my leaf gets about 2 miles to a pound of coal.
Wind or solar power on the gird is only there because it rides on the backs of stable, reliable, controlable fossil fuel, fissile fuel power and some times hydro power.
Solar power tends to be more predictable, is easier to control than wind and comes on line and produces peak power when demand tends to peak.

The CX-3 is a small crossover (168.3" long/69.6" wide/60.7" tall, 101.2" wheelbase, 12.4 cubic feet of luggage space behind the rear seats) on a 5-year-old platform with a torsion beam rear suspension. The Mach E is a large crossover (186" long/74" wide/63" tall on a 117" wheelbase, 29 cubic feet of cargo space with the seats up) with a battery in the floorpan, axle motors, and an independent rear suspension. They aren't even close to the same car.

Also, reading through Ford's press package--the Mach E has 18" front discs in its lowest trim, and 19" discs all around in the GT. The one specification none of their materials list is weight, but it must be heeeeavy.

How heavy can it be? I only gained 400 lbs on the ranger, mostly due to the 468 lb battery pack.

So if you aren't using 150 pounds of steel to protect/mount the pack, another 100 to water cool it, you end up slightly heavier even on a bigger capacity pack

What's an equivalent Ford SUV weigh nowadays?

It is far easier to control emissions and more thermally efficient to generate power with turbines rather than in the individual vehicles. That is the main benefit of electric power. Given the efficiency of power transmission, it is largely irrelevant how far the charging point is from the location of the generation.

Off topic a bit but here is my idea. Build electric cars with a sturdy front and rear steel plate of specific size shape and height. Then the cars could chain together on the highway using electromagnets to attach each car front and rear to the next. Also use the automation and let them talk to each other about intention, what exit they want, overall destination, emergency braking, etc. You could even add "freeway tugs" basically a big diesel tow rig that could pull a whole chain of maybe 20 or more cars and let the electric cars use zero battery until they were at their exit point.

Just for instance a drive I make a few times a year Spokane WA to Seattle. There must be thousands of cars every hour doing the almost exact same drive. Pod them up into 20 car groups every 2 mins pulled by a tug that gets 10 mpg. 275 miles so 27.5 gallons of diesel or 1.38 gallons for each car to go 275 miles (200 mpg), but they arrive in Seattle or Spokane with a full battery remaining. The pollution out on the windy plains of Washington has far less impact than in the metro areas and then people would be less apprehensive of electric cars and limited ranges or recharge locations and time.

I think that idea will first be implemented with autonomous tractor/trailers. They will platoon to save fuel economy by closely following each other. That will then be adopted by passenger vehicles. Who knows if we ever go the final step and physically connect. I kinda doubt it since you can get most of the benefit of improved aerodynamics by a close follow, and there's little to be gained by putting the tow on 1 vehicle instead of distributing over many vehicles when they are all electric.

By utilizing a close draft, perhaps EV range would be doubled.

Over the road trains huh?

Daimler has put platooning development on hold. It works on the test track but not on real highways where cars cut through the platoon and break the chain. The trucks have to brake then accelerate to hook up again. Then another car breaks the chain, etc, etc....

Yeah, I guess you can't have 1/4 mile of unbroken platoon since cars need gaps to exit the freeway. Might work if the "slow lane" was the far left. Maybe that's my million dollar idea for the day. Slow lanes to the left so truckers don't have to contend with idiots entering and exiting freeways... now to solve the slowing before the exit and acceleration onto the freeway problem... tomorrow's million dollar idea I'm sure.

How about slow vehicles crossing six lanes of faster traffic?

That's why you physically connect the cars and then run them at full speed limit in the left or middle lanes. They can break off or add more but other cars maneuver around them. 20 cars and a tug would be about 360 feet which would be similar to 2 or 3 semis traveling together.

Getting twice the range on an electric car is good, but using none of it for a little bit of diesel is even better.

When you physically connect the vehicles they legally become one vehicle that exceeds legal length limits.

Given the fact that trying to get the NHTSA to update headlight and mirror requirements has been a decades of banging one’s head against a brick wall I’m not hopeful for a change to length limits.

Still not sold on the connection part, but having them travel fast in the left lane seems like an easier problem to solve than my dumb idea. Not contending with trucks for on/off ramp exchanges would reduce a lot of accidents and smooth the merging process.

It wouldn't matter that the trucks are traveling fast from an efficiency perspective because the aero benefits would largely offset that, plus having faster turnaround is efficient and would reduce shipping costs.

How about only using semis to and from the train depot?

It would require clarification but from what I read on the Interstate highway system at least, there is no overall length limit. With 20 cars and a tug you would be over the weight limit which makes less sense as it is carried by at least 84 tires over a large area. Scaling down the trains to 12 cars and a tug should be under 80,000 pounds and the overall length would be more manageable. The economy would suffer though.
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/sw/overview/index.htm

All states allow double trailers, 13 allow triple trailers. Zero States allow more than 3 trailers behind the tow vehicles. For triples some states limit the overall length to 105 ft

I believe all states allow for 3 trucks to be decked behind the mule but I’m not positive

So it's a states thing not an NHTSA thing.
I think states could and would move faster on such a thing. Just like autonomous driving, and this would certainly require autonomous driving as well.

HEY i have a better idea Why not build tracks and just have them drive on the tracks instead of having 18wheelers on the road to begin with.

problem solved sure you will be able to to have them physically able to connect multiple of them you can have 3-5 engines pulling 1-2 miles worth of trailers..


you can have it powered by overhead electrical lines as well

Ford divested from Mazda between 2008 and 2010. They no longer share technology or platforms. Mazda is tied up with Toyota at the moment.

I've thought of this same idea myself. In addition, you could have a positive and negative side on the front and rear connections of each car. That way, a current could be provided by the tug to charge the cars why they are being towed, or the cars in the chain could share electricity as needed. But all this would require a high level automation or AI to make this work. I wouldn't trust the average driver, to connect and disconnect from a road train...