"Mustang Mach E" Confirmed, Reservations Begin Immediately After Nov 17 Live-Streamed Reveal

[zackmd1]

It’s been revealed that Jim Farley is the one who pushed Bill Ford into naming the ME a Mustang...

Bill Ford never wanted it to be called a Mustang at all AND the original concept design was not even “Mustang inspired”....

Read:
https://carbuzz.com/news/worlds-most-passionate-ford-mustang-fan-approved-mustang-mach-e-name

That is the impression I got from the "making the mach e" video.... Sad how it seems one executive can destroy an iconic name.

Sponsored

 

[obspsd]

It’s been revealed that Jim Farley is the one who pushed Bill Ford into naming the ME a Mustang...

Bill Ford never wanted it to be called a Mustang at all AND the original concept design was not even “Mustang inspired”....

Read:
https://carbuzz.com/news/worlds-most-passionate-ford-mustang-fan-approved-mustang-mach-e-name

Fire that back stabbing guy!
What a fail!!!!!!!
I get more upset every day about this ever so stupid decision.

 

[obspsd]

Ford, you can’t make me believe that any SUV is a Mustang.

How can you be this dumb???????

 

[nrc]

It’s been revealed that Jim Farley is the one who pushed Bill Ford into naming the ME a Mustang...

Bill Ford never wanted it to be called a Mustang at all AND the original concept design was not even “Mustang inspired”....

Read:
https://carbuzz.com/news/worlds-most-passionate-ford-mustang-fan-approved-mustang-mach-e-name

Fire them all. They created a lame Tesla Model Y wannabe that doesn't stack up to the competition and tried to save it with the Mustang name. Then Musk made them look like fools with the Cybertruck intro.

 

[w3rkn]

I am not saying that was the goal but having a more efficient shape is beneficial to range. For reference, seems like modern trucks have a cd of about .36 (google is our friend) no clue what the cybertruck will be yet. And yes, you will have flow separation around the sharp corners but the question is whether or not that creates more drag than the separation that occurs in just aft of the cab on a traditional truck (where a wedge shape would eliminate such issue).

Nobody is talking about a TRADITIONAL TRUCK.....
This is not the best Elon could've done, he selling a cheap-frill design to cyber kiddies...

 

[zackmd1]

Nobody is talking about a TRADITIONAL TRUCK.....
This is not the best Elon could've done, he selling a cheap-frill design to cyber kiddies...

Apparently it's working. 200k pre orders and counting....

As someone else posted earlier, I don't get the hatred towards Elon Musk. Sure he's an ass, but it's kinda hard to argue that his companies are challenging the status quo in good ways.... (Space, EVs, etc...)

And for reference, I was talking about traditional trucks in how the Cybertruck could potentially be more aerodynamic than a traditional truck due to the wedge shape.....

 

[Falc'man]

I posted a similar message over on the Mach-e forum.

There have been a few new vids released discussing the development of this vehicle.

I think some people are giving this vehicle too much credit in terms of it’s purpose. And in some cases the logic is being reversed.

Ford stated this started as a compliance vehicle. A CUV with the intent to increase electric sales. But the new CEO saw it and knew it would fail. (And it probably would have after seeing the initial design.)

so they were told to scrap it and give it mustang-inspired styling.

then they said to themselves, why not give it the mustang name?

this wasn’t built from the get-go to expand the mustang brand. Nor was the intent to replace the coupe. It was a project on the verge of failure and needed the help of the mustang name to give it a shot to succeed.

this vehicle isn’t going to help the mustang. The mustang is helping this vehicle.

So while there are people who are drinking the cool aid and telling mustang fans to “get over it because this is the future of mustang”, I think they don’t realize that the Mach-e is almost entirely banking on the mustang name to succeed and most of this talk about “mustang brand” is corporate-spin that was an after thought.

ford needs this to succeed for the future of ford - not the future of mustang. They are banking on the mustang name which we all helped to support and give it the weight that it currently holds.

ps I like it for what it is - a stylish electric cuv. I think ford would’ve been fine without using the mustang name, tho

You acknowledge that Ford needs this for the future of Ford, but not the future of Mustang, so when Ford go under do you think the Mustang is still going to be made? That is so funny.

This needs the Mustang branding to succeed. Ford didn't just slap a Mustang logo on it - they gave it their best shot and if I were being honest about their execution of it there is very little to complain about, if viewed impartially.

From my perspective it is the right decision. Perhaps for Mustang to remain a coupe is of lesser importance to me than the importance of giving the Ford brand the best shot they can in succeeding in what I consider a pivotal segment. Mache E is not only made in a body style that is most popular and profitable, but it is also Ford's first dedicated EV. The Mustang name is their asset; it is has a rich and popular heritage and they need that right now to push Mach E as best they could. Again, in my view, had they not actually put so much into making it appear, drive, and feel like a Mustang, then, yeah, it's a wasted effort.

 

[Sivi70980]

I was most excited about the Tesla ATV lol

 

[GT Pony]

This needs the Mustang branding to succeed. Ford didn't just slap a Mustang logo on it - they gave it their best shot and if I were being honest about their execution of it there is very little to complain about, if viewed impartially.

I think the Mach E would have done just as well without the "Mustang" label. If Ford's goal is to make the Mach E the "Mustang III" so to speak, and phase out and totally discontinue the Mustang heritage as we know it, then that's something to complain about.

The Mustang II had 99.99999% more Mustang heritage than the Mach E.

 

[Falc'man]

I think the Mach E would have done just as well without the "Mustang" label. If Ford's goal is to make the Mach E the "Mustang III" so to speak, and phase out and totally discontinue the Mustang heritage as we know it, then that's something to complain about.

The Mustang II had 99.99999% more Mustang heritage than the Mach E.

"Heritage" is one thing, branding is another. This is an addition to the Mustang line up as we're all aware. What some here are saying is they personally don't feel that it deserves to be called a Mustang, and that is totally fine to believe/think that (In fact my first observation was how this will cause ripples, rifts, conflicts and so on).

In one way I agree with that line of thought; if we don't look at the larger picture and recognise that the health and survival of the Ford brand is more important than Mustang's heritage, then yes, it shouldn't be called Mustang.

Why do you think Nissan hasn't updated the GTR to R37? It's been around now for how long and all they're offering are what seem to be minor facelifts. This is because they're cutting back on spending. The GTR doesn't have a donor vehicle that generates some sort of backing for the GTR, like the Shelbys have with the volume-selling base Mustangs.

The Mustang itself doesn't appear to be endangered but have a look at the sales trend of this icon and you will realise that something needs to be done. What Ford are doing now with MachE, seeing that its now part of that stable, the profits from it will pay for both itself and it's stablemate's future development.

People from this huge Mustang community that oppose this direction should present an alternative. Saying "but it doesn't need Mustang branding won't make a difference" is like saying you think you have no confidence in the influence of the Mustang brand. Or you're basically saying that this powerful icon should be protected from being used as a mechanism to help the Ford brand.

Get behind Ford if you want Mustang to last.

 

[Sigma6]

I don’t think anyone has to get behind Ford for them to last. If Ford goes belly up like GM once did they’ll be back. There apart of a small group of companies that are too big to fail. I’d be more concerned about ford phasing out the coupe mustang completely. The President of Honda doesn’t believe that electric will ever (least in our time) becoming dominant. And he’s got a point. Too many powerful players within the oil industry would lose billions so that’s not happening. I also am intrigued by Fords and somewhat Chevy ditching your standard sedan line in favor of SUV CUV. While Toyota Nissan Honda Dodge and others are playing that close to the vest.

 

[GT Pony]

... if we don't look at the larger picture and recognise that the health and survival of the Ford brand is more important than Mustang's heritage, then yes, it shouldn't be called Mustang.

If a Ford vehicle is successful, regardless of what it's called, it will ensure survival of the Ford brand. If this new Ford EV is designed well, performs well and is a good value for the money, then it's going to sell and be popular. It doesn't need to be "branded" as a "Mustang", because it's not a Mustang - Ford is trying to change what a Mustang has been defined as for 55 years. That would be like GM coming out with a 4 door SUV and calling it a "Corvette E-Quinox".

Why do you think Nissan hasn't updated the GTR to R37? It's been around now for how long and all they're offering are what seem to be minor facelifts.

Maybe Nissan should come out with a "GTR Rogue E" and use the same exact GTR badges, etc on it.

The Mustang itself doesn't appear to be endangered but have a look at the sales trend of this icon and you will realise that something needs to be done.

Maybe Ford should instead make a 7th Gen Mustang with a hybrid and/or full EV model in the Mustang line-up, while retaining an IC engine model. Then they could have an electrified Mustang and a separate unrelated full EV SUV line under the name "Mach E". Not try to put the Mach E into the Mustsng line. Doubt a full electric "Corvette E-Quinix" would go over well in the Corvette community.

 

[shogun32]

Too many powerful players within the oil industry would lose billions so that’s not happening.

I've been waiting for my residual check from the CEO of Exxon rewarding me for burning hydrocarbons and keeping his drillers, geologists, engineers, and refineries making so much money he doesn't know what to do with it all. When did it go in the mail?

Hydrocarbons are used widely because they are by far the most convenient and inexpensive way to generate energy for a bunch of use cases. Behind every unit of GDP is a unit of energy. All those tree-hugging solar panels would be up the creek without the massive hydrocarbon footprint used to make them.

Yes, I hope we massively expand our nuclear footprint be it breeders or Thorium, and start using our incredible coal resources to gassify/liquefy it.

 

[martinjlm]

.....
Maybe Ford should instead make a 7th Gen Mustang with a hybrid and/or full EV model in the Mustang line-up, while retaining an IC engine model. Then they could have an electrified Mustang and a separate full EV SUV line by simply the name ?Mach E". Not try to put the Mach E into the Mustsng line. Doubt a full electric "Corvette E-Quinix" would go over well in the Corvette community.

What makes you think they won’t? This actually all makes sense if you look at it from a portfolio management perspective.

Ford wants to expand the Mustang portfolio:
Evidence? They said it. So, if they intend to expand the Mustang portfolio that means adding something that does not exist today.

Options for Ford to expand Mustang portfolio:

• Add a sedan. Something to compete with M3 (not M4) and M5. Maybe even Panamera or S7
• Add a performance hybrid coupe
• Add a performance EV coupe
• Add an ICE performance CUV to compete with Macan, Trackhawk, AMG GLA45, X3M
• Add a performance EV CUV

Selecting amongst the options
Sedans are a dying breed, luxury, performance, or otherwise. A few will be able to maintain a decent amount of volume, but there is little or no incentive to bring in a new one.

Performance hybrid coupe makes sense and is probably coming. Evidence? Ford has stated they will produce one. But in the short term, there is very little space in the portfolio for that. EBHP—>GT—>Bullitt—
>GT350–>GT500. Where does it fit? Trying to shoehorn it between any of these makes little sense until one of them <cough> Bullitt <cough> goes away. You’d be trying to sell a high cost / low margin vehicle side-by-side with an existing moderate cost / decent profit vehicle. That would be intentionally losing money.

A performance EV coupe makes sense long term, but in the short term, would Ford intentionally set up customers to compare between a just updated $65k GT350, a $75 - 100k GT500, and a [pick a number over $80k] performance EV coupe? No. If (when) a performance EV coupe appears, it will be after GT350 / GT500 have run their course. Food for thought....Ford has indicated that there may be a Shelby Mustang EV at some point. What they did not say was that the potential Shelby would definitely be a CUV. It could be a coupe. That appears after the current GT350 / GT500 are retired.

A performance EV CUV is actually the safe play for now. It sits in what we in the portfolio planning profession call “white space”. Meaning, if you draw up all the various types of vehicles currently available on a sheet of paper based on expected customer wants and needs, the part of the paper that has little or no entrants pencilled in is white space. Back when everybody had a cell phone and a laptop, Apple dropped the iPad into the white space.

Fast forward to 2030. Ford’s “Mustang portfolio” could look like this:

• EcoBoost
• 5.0L GT
• 5.0L Hybrid Mach I (yeah, I said it)
• Mach E CUV
• Mach E GT CUV
• Shelby GT500 EV Coupe

That’s my crystal ball.

 

[BuckeyeBOSS]

What makes you think they won’t? This actually all makes sense if you look at it from a portfolio management perspective.

Ford wants to expand the Mustang portfolio:
Evidence? They said it. So, if they intend to expand the Mustang portfolio that means adding something that does not exist today.

Options for Ford to expand Mustang portfolio:

• Add a sedan. Something to compete with M3 (not M4) and M5. Maybe even Panamera or S7
• Add a performance hybrid coupe
• Add a performance EV coupe
• Add an ICE performance CUV to compete with Macan, Trackhawk, AMG GLA45, X3M
• Add a performance EV CUV

Selecting amongst the options
Sedans are a dying breed, luxury, performance, or otherwise. A few will be able to maintain a decent amount of volume, but there is little or no incentive to bring in a new one.

Performance hybrid coupe makes sense and is probably coming. Evidence? Ford has stated they will produce one. But in the short term, there is very little space in the portfolio for that. EBHP—>GT—>Bullitt—
>GT350–>GT500. Where does it fit? Trying to shoehorn it between any of these makes little sense until one of them <cough> Bullitt <cough> goes away. You’d be trying to sell a high cost / low margin vehicle side-by-side with an existing moderate cost / decent profit vehicle. That would be intentionally losing money.

A performance EV coupe makes sense long term, but in the short term, would Ford intentionally set up customers to compare between a just updated $65k GT350, a $75 - 100k GT500, and a [pick a number over $80k] performance EV coupe? No. If (when) a performance EV coupe appears, it will be after GT350 / GT500 have run their course. Food for thought....Ford has indicated that there may be a Shelby Mustang EV at some point. What they did not say was that the potential Shelby would definitely be a CUV. It could be a coupe. That appears after the current GT350 / GT500 are retired.

A performance EV CUV is actually the safe play for now. It sits in what we in the portfolio planning profession call “white space”. Meaning, if you draw up all the various types of vehicles currently available on a sheet of paper based on expected customer wants and needs, the part of the paper that has little or no entrants pencilled in is white space. Back when everybody had a cell phone and a laptop, Apple dropped the iPad into the white space.

Fast forward to 2030. Ford’s “Mustang portfolio” could look like this:

• EcoBoost
• 5.0L GT
• 5.0L Hybrid Mach I (yeah, I said it)
• Mach E CUV
• Mach E GT CUV
• Shelby GT500 EV Coupe

That’s my crystal ball.

Jim, I'm curious what your research may indicate about Millennial car buying habits, both current and future? If you don't mind sharing, as I imagine it's a big industry topic. I have seen articles that state that the 3 most Millennial owned models are the Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, and Honda Civic, ironically, all sedans. Do you think Millennials would rather have CUV's as a whole, but sedans are just the cheap used cars at the moment and they buy them b/c of price? Will Millennials be able to afford and can they be convinced to spend $40k+ on brand new cars (especially "American" cars) in the near future, as it seems their generation is buried in school debt and more frugal with certain purchases (like cars)? Curious of your insights. Thanks.

Sponsored