Last year for V8 2024 (and Mach-E discussion) via Ford Performance conference call

[Twin Turbo]

Did not read the entire 29 pages () before responding to this, so forgive me if what I say is redundant...



I think they may be talking about a new model to be introduced at the same time the Mach E GT hits the road. I thought this new model was going to be introduced at the same time as Mach E or during the LA Show. It wasn't, so I've shut up discussing it in any detail. Embargo stuff. But the timing fits.

For a car named after the speed of sound, it sure is taking a long time to be revealed

Sponsored

 

[martinjlm]

Ok man you just can't casually drop in and leave that comment and expect to escape without questions.......


WHAT NEW MODEL?!?!?!?!?!? Coupe? Or more Mach E CUV garbage? And please don't say Mach 1.... That's not a new model, just a rebranded bullitt...

I think I can say this much without violating an embargo and then you can draw your own conclusions.

Ford is on record as saying that the hybrid Mustang they promised would be moved out from a 2020 MY launch to a 2021 MY launch. Filter that through some of your other suggestions and see what you come up with.

 

[zackmd1]

I think I can say this much without violating an embargo and then you can draw your own conclusions.

Ford is on record as saying that the hybrid Mustang they promised would be moved out from a 2020 MY launch to a 2021 MY launch. Filter that through some of your other suggestions and see what you come up with.

Hmm.... NY auto show maybe?

 

[martinjlm]

Hmm.... NY auto show maybe?

I'd like to think so, since I'll more than likely be attending press conferences again this year. But then, more and more stuff is being introduced "off-circuit" these days.

 

[Twin Turbo]

NY Auto Show starts just before Mustang's 56th birthday, so a new model would be a good way to celebrate

 

[Gregs24]

Getting back to the V8 discussion, what I find absolutely baffling is that most people fail to understand the fact that even if the North America, western Europe, Australia, Japan, and the rest of the developed world magically switched 100% to EV cars, the demand for gasoline in those areas would drop dramatically, and so would the price. This in turn would make gasoline less expensive in the developing world (most of China, SE Asia, and Africa) and those people will buy it and burn it in their ICE cars.

Switching to all EV cars in the developed world will not prevent the oil from being burned. It will only change the location on the planet where it is burned...!

Sorry for the delayed response but we have a bit of a time difference to contend with !

Your's is a flawed argument that is not backed up by reality. Firstly in many parts of the world fuel price is governed by taxation. In the UK petrol is at £1.30 / litre of which about 50% is tax. Consumption / supply only makes a small difference to price and if supply price drops too much taxation would be used to increase price. This is a clear government policy

Secondly oil prices are set worldwide by a cartel. Supply is managed to maintain price. If demand falls, production is reduced to keep the price up. The reason for this is that oil production is expensive. It depends where in the world and what method is being used for extraction, but if the price drops too far eventually all methods of production become uneconomic. This is why OPEC exists in the first place to manage out market price fluctuations. There will be no cheap oil flooding into any markets as no company can produce oil at a loss for long.

The crucial thing is not to release CO2 into the atmosphere that has been locked up for long periods. Burning wood is only cycling CO2 over periods of 10's of years. Burning coal, oil and gas is releasing CO2 that has been bound up for millions of years. There are no natural phenomena that release anywhere near as much long term stored CO2 as mankind has been doing with fossil fuels.

 

[Gregs24]

What I want is a computer model that can be applied to the past 70+ years of recorded data that agrees with everything that has happened in those 70 years. If global temps went up, went down, approximately how much, and how the changes in temperature link to other information such as CO2 or other gasses % in the atmosphere. If they can't do that, they are just BSing us.

There have been warmer and cooler global temperatures in the past. Scientists freely admit that THEY DON'T KNOW WHY.

So WTF - you're going to spend all this money and take my V8 away and YOU DON'T KNOW?!?!

It's BS. All of it. It's a way to power, control and money. That's all.

Just because you don't know why it is happening doesn't mean it isn't happening.

CO2 levels are higher now than at any time in the last 650,000 years and have doubled since the industrial revolution started. We can calculate the amount of CO2 produced by human activities (burning of fossil fuels) of which half is still in the atmosphere - the rest having been taken up by plants and the oceans. Not only that the CO2 in the atmosphere can be chemically analysed to determine it's source and the output from burning of fossil fuels and deforestation match the changing CO2 analysis. CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas (together with Methane and NOx compounds also produced when burning fuels which are even more potent greenhouse gases) and their effect on warming the globe is undisputed.

Global warming shoves a load of extra energy into the atmosphere which has dramatic effects on climate and weather patterns, some places get drier, some wetter and extremes more extreme. Places that could sustain farming no longer can for various reasons.

This is not BS. A lot is understood - more in a historical nature because they have the data to prove experimental results. Predicting the future is far less easy but broad brush strokes are possible.

If CO2 output continues as is (or even increases) global atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise - FACT

If global atmospheric CO2 rises the greenhouse effect it has will happen - FACT

The problem comes with some of the potential catastrophic effects that this could cause other than just the globe getting warmer. Ice melting releases long term stored CO2, warmer oceans release more CO2, more wildfires in drier areas release more CO2 - this is why the CO2 release could increase more rapidly in the future. Ocean warming and changes in ocean currents such as the gulf stream could wreak massive climactic changes.

Fortunately most people in the world now understand this and are starting to do something about it. Those who don't like the changes will be forced to follow by law or financial penalty, which is the way the world works. I'm no eco warrior or global activist and love driving my V8, but I'm making the most of it because I know it will not be around for much longer. The world will move on with or without you, and I've always preferred to be a leader rather than follower.

 

[Weather Man]

You literally have no F*cking idea how these climate models and mathematical models work do you? It absolutely does not mean the science is false. It means they missed a variable or overestimated the strength of another.... Does not change the underlying trend and sources. BUT... this is not the thread for this discussion. Back on topic.

It is absolutely amazing to me how people on this forum seem so willing to believe BS sources, deny basic numbers, believe they know more then those that study these topics for a living, simply because they do not like the outcome....

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/08/sc...meteorology-caught-erasing-cold-temperatures/

 

[zackmd1]

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/08/sc...meteorology-caught-erasing-cold-temperatures/

Political paranoia for the win! It's easy to explain everything away and justify your beliefs when it's all just a conspiracy...

 

[Ace]

Sorry Ace, but this comment is 100% untrue. Now one at Ford said the customer doesn't like it. It's actually the opposite. That's why they used the Mustang name in the first place.

Dude, I just quoted what the topic opener posted

 

[Weather Man]

The Aussies are pikers compared to NASA.

 

[svttim]

Unfortunately the reliable source was not reliable. A lot of the comments were not made by the Ford Rep but others on the phone call. Certain comments were not put into perspective. Its unfortunate this has gone sideways a bit

 

[Ericc B]

Unfortunately the reliable source was not reliable. A lot of the comments were not made by the Ford Rep but others on the phone call. Certain comments were not put into perspective. Its unfortunate this has gone sideways a bit

That fits quite well with the whole Mustang brand laying on its ass currently with that Mach-E naming fail.

 

[FL METH MAN]

And these companies in the middle east are not as short sighted as people over here seem to be.... They are actively developing new sides of their businesses in green energy, whether it be acquiring other "green" companies or actively developing green tech. Most see the writing on the wall and are preparing for that future.

MB plans on going full EV in the 10 years. Fuck, it's over boys.

 

[Bikeman315]

Dude, I just quoted what the topic opener posted

Got it Ace, my bad. I thought the "customer" was us, current Mustang owners. Had to go back 400+ posts to realize OP post was talking about the Mach-E customer. Well who cares about them anyway?

Sponsored