This ^
I can't see many current Mustang owners actually buying the Mach E. If anything, I think the older Mustang owners' wives might buy the Mach E or the younger Mustang owners' mothers.
It is not like the battery goes dead after 120k miles... Plenty of data from 8 year old 200k+ Model S units to suggest that their data is correct and the battery will last 300-500k. By last I mean have 75-80% original capacity remaining. So even still if that does not occur, it's not like the car dies but rather range is decreased and possibly power if the battery cannot provide peak voltage.
Finally someone who sees the bigger picture here on these forums!!
Of course there's going to be the people who will buy it regardless. Hell, I'd probably even test drive one just to say I did. The things I'm counting on are new car sales slumping in general, and the EV market being even more niche than the Mustang market already. I don't doubt Ford will sell these, but I also don't think they're going to sell like they would like them to. Couple that with the uproar about the name, and we could see something similar to the 500 --> Taurus rename of the mid 00's.
Ford is on track to sell what 85K Mustangs this year? How many Lithium Mustangs do you think would be sold, 10%, 20%, 30%. And at what price. A car like that would have to pull GT350 type money. So at 30% they are going to sell 25K cars. That's half the number of Mach-E's that can be sold. and that's only the first year. I think we need to give Ford a little more credit. Just because we don't like what they have done doesn't mean that they do not know what they are doing.
Did you watch the "Making the Mustang Mach-E" video? No where in there did they admit that this is what the mustang needs to be to survive. They admitted they had a compliance boring SUV and some executive had the bright idea of making it a mustang. Why they decided to stick with the SUV layout is beyond me. Again, should have made a 2 door coupe EV and they could have even announced plans for the CUV if this whole "brand" thing is a requirement. At least then they showed a commitment to the classic layout and had a true mustang before destroying it with a CUV that oh by the way, only 50k units can be made per year for the foreseeable future... The Mach E would have been FAR better as a 2 door coupe. At least then maybe it would have decent performance numbers since it would have a smaller size and weight.
Listen guys, my crystal ball is no better than yours. Back when I was working at a Fortune 500 manufacturer we had 1, 3, 5, and 10 year plans that were updated regularly. Obviously the 5 and 10 year plans were fairly vague. Will there be a 2029 Mustang 2 door coupe. I have no idea. All i am saying is for right now, today, the Mach-E might be, could be, the savior of our Mustang. If it is, then I'm all for it.> So after that 5 to 10 years ... then what???
Per the incessant barking of eco-alarmists, the earth will end in a massive ecologic calamity and die-off so there won't be an auto industry... And while I might elect to be buried in my S550, we'll all be pushing daisies and won't care.
But more seriously, in 10 years this epic branding screwup will be taught in business schools as the Rubicon moment when Ford managed to go from a tier 1 automaker to 3 separate and no longer consequential companies: The F150 company, the Mustang company, and Ford Credit - a division of Goldman Sachs.
Meanwhile the Corvette will have been converted into a hovercraft with ION drive - a compact nuclear power plant sitting in the mid-engine bay.
Is it hard to imagine this exact Mach E platform but in coupe form? If you can only make 50k units, you are NOT READY to have a mass market EV. No reason why the coupe version of the Mach E could not have better performance numbers (due to size and weight) with the same hardware which should help keep costs within the current range of the Mach E.
EVs as a whole is still less than 3% of all vehicles sold in the US. This number is higher in other countries.
Not at all and I'll bet its going to happen. But this is manufacturing 101 (Not aimed at you Zack, just a general comment) 1st gen. is very expensive, and has limited availability. 2nd gen. will have a noticeable price drop with far more product available. 3rd gen. will be much cheaper and as much product as there is demand. By the way this car isn't coming out for more than a year. things can and will change. That 50K could easily become 100K. I wouldn't harp on production numbers so early in the game.
Mach-E is 1st gen. Model 3 is 3rd gen. (not including the roadster). Not comparable at this time. Apples to apples you have to compare to the "S". Again, forget the 50K. It doesn't mean anything right now. Concentrate on the 85K as it too is inconsequential. Look what happened to the Focus and Fusion, cars that sold way more than the Mustang. Icons have been killed before. Our mustang is not forever.
If the common driver is looking for a long distance driver both of these will be critically important. If that same common person is looking for a daily driver that gets driven 200-300 miles a week even current technology is sufficient.
Yes, but charging technology is getting faster each year for cellphones because they keep upping the wattage. 18 watts is pretty standard these days. A few phones can charge at 25 watts and even 45 watts!
Charging isn't as much of an issue as energy density and longevity of the cells. You can charge quicker and quicker with better stations, but a liquid state battery is still a liquid state battery, no matter how good it is. Solid state batteries are still too cost prohibitive, and have intrinsic problems of their own that would limit their longevity.
