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

[Norm Peterson]

There "assumption" is correct.... EVs can and do perform better than ICE counterparts in most every metric. A enthusiast should be able to recognize that. Now, they don't have the sound of course and that's going to be a personal preference for sure. I will say Norm that you are and most on this forum are the MINORITY when it comes to who auto makers design these cars for. IMO, if it performs, I don't give a sh*t that it doesn't have a sound.

Speaking only for myself, just because I might be in a minority does not make my opinions wrong out of hand. They're just different from the opinions of others.

"Every metric" is going to need more than just saying so.

Sound doesn't matter all that much to me either, though I do want some. And I'm afraid that the whine of an electric motor or faked ICE sound just won't cut it for me.

So do you even bother to do research before formulation such a strong opinion? My 3s curb weight is 3350-3650 depending on where you look. That's the same weight as a EB Mustang and less weight than a GT with a perfect 50/50 distribution and a MUCH lower CG. The taycan does weight 5500lbs but still performs around the track better than much lower weight ICE vehicles. It's not so much about how much weight, it's about how and where it's located in the vehicle....

I probably do more background research before I post than most here. Doesn't mean I'm going to find everything. FWIW, there's nothing inherently "perfect" about a 50/50 weight distribution. No matter how many times you've seen it in magazine print or online text.

I'm sorry to say this but you are already there. Stability control, traction control, advanc track, etc... All do this already. No reason why an EV can't have an off switch for these features just like an ICE vehicle.

I was aiming that comment at the obviously electronically controlled AWD torque distribution. The last thing I'd ever want in a car is yet another computer inserting itself and somebody else's programmed logic between the human's physical controls and their car's tires.

It is my understanding that Tesla did an over-the-air update that eliminated the backdoor method that some had been using to turn stability control off. Not having that ability represents an absolute deal-breaker for me.

FWIW, my '08 only has a rather ineffective traction control (that I still turn off). You need to realize that I'd be just as comfortable driving a car with an original 1st-gen GT350's lack of any "safety suite" as I am driving my '08 GT. It really would not occur to me that I'd be running without somebody else's notion of active safety monitoring the proceedings.

Please do enlighten us on why you think the skateboard architecture isn't suitable for sports cars considering EVERY EV sports car right now (roadster, taycan, EV hypercars) all use this design....

Off the top of my head . . . ground clearance plus battery pack thickness moves floor height up, and from there seat height (H point) and ultimately roofline also go up more than necessary. Most people don't like a low seat height, so there isn't going to be much height to be squeezed out by reducing that. Rollover considerations probably dictate headroom requirements, so there may not be anything there.

And when I mean mid engine styling I mean that the skateboard design allows them to make the vehicle into whatever they want. They don't need to design around an engine and engine compartment anymore.

When styling tries to suggest that something is different from what it really is, it's wrong. If a designer feels that he needs to fool the people he's designing the car for, he's wrong. Deception is misdirection or manipulation with a different name.


Norm

Sponsored

 

[zackmd1]

Cost and desire. Right now would you buy an EV that was slower than an ICE car? You might if it got 500 miles range, but it would be expensive....guessing in the 70-80k range. It was far easier and cheaper to make them fast so that is what they went with. Once EV's catch on and become cheaper to make, you will have the range as that will be what most people want....not speed. No different than what you see with ICE cars today. Few buy the fast inefficient sports cars. The ironic thing is they buy slow inefficient SUV's, but you can haul a lot more crap in them, so it is a compromise I guess.

I'm telling you it just doesn't work that way..... You can't combine a 50kw motor with a 20kw battery pack in a 3000lb car and expect to get 500 miles of range.... Even a 50kw motor with a 50kw battery.... It just doesn't work that way. Now if you can somehow get the car to under 3000lbs (seemingly difficult for even ICE), have a 50kw motor with a 35kw pack, you might manage to make a 200 mile range. What you would have achieved would be making a small, light, and inexpensive (due to the small battery pack size) vehicle which likely will be the model for the sub $30k EVs.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Different cylinders firing on different banks and merging at different times do modify the sound....

Ask yourself why the 4.6 4v and other mod motors (5.4-5.8) sound much different than the coyote when they are largely the same....

It's all in that "merging at different times" part. V8 CPC firing orders are all the same once you step away from cylinder numbering.

Displacement matters. I would expect displacement relative to pipe size matters as well.

Just because I've been through this in a little more detail than just talk . . . equally split is best approximated by a really good X-pipe. Does this make sense out of why it sounds different from true duals or a weak-ish H-pipe and how the sound's character would be different?

Norm

 

[Bikeman315]

I'm telling you it just doesn't work that way..... You can't combine a 50kw motor with a 20kw battery pack in a 3000lb car and expect to get 500 miles of range.... Even a 50kw motor with a 50kw battery.... It just doesn't work that way. Now if you can somehow get the car to under 3000lbs (seemingly difficult for even ICE), have a 50kw motor with a 35kw pack, you might manage to make a 200 mile range. What you would have achieved would be making a small, light, and inexpensive (due to the small battery pack size) vehicle which likely will be the model for the sub $30k EVs.

OK, so here are the numbers for my wife's 2018 Escape. both of us are satisfied with tis level of performance as a DD.

2018 Ford Escape

Trim 0-60 times, 1/4 mile
Titanium 4dr Front-wheel Drive
245 Hp, 275 Lb-Ft., 3502 Weight, 22 City / 29 Hwy mpg, 6-spd transmission 7.7 sec, 15.9 @ 83

How do we get 500 miles of range with this level of performance?

 

[IronG]

I'm telling you it just doesn't work that way..... You can't combine a 50kw motor with a 20kw battery pack in a 3000lb car and expect to get 500 miles of range.... Even a 50kw motor with a 50kw battery.... It just doesn't work that way. Now if you can somehow get the car to under 3000lbs (seemingly difficult for even ICE), have a 50kw motor with a 35kw pack, you might manage to make a 200 mile range. What you would have achieved would be making a small, light, and inexpensive (due to the small battery pack size) vehicle which likely will be the model for the sub $30k EVs.

What about multiple smaller motors and use the extra space for battery? You seem to be just looking at it one way. In my line of work, we work the problem as if there are no boundaries including cost.Sure many ideas ultimatelyare not good because of cost, practicality or some other reason, but it provides many more ideas. I have yet to come across a problem that was not solved. This one seems easy, but I think there are outside factors that are holding it back, not just physics. I agree that if you could snap your fingers with nothing else changing other than reduced weight to 1/3 of what it is now, that will help. Since that seems to not be practical (probably safety reasons) other things need to be looked at. As I have mentioned.....cost and desire need to be overcome.

 

[zackmd1]

It's all in that "merging at different times" part. V8 CPC firing orders are all the same once you step away from cylinder numbering.

Displacement matters. I would expect displacement relative to pipe size matters as well.

Just because I've been through this in a little more detail than just talk . . . equally split is best approximated by a really good X-pipe. Does this make sense out of why it sounds different from true duals or a weak-ish H-pipe and how the sound's character would be different?

Norm

We are talking about the same thing...! Haha

My point about firing order is assuming header design and exhaust layout is similar. (Headers to a collector and then collector to bank merge with h or x pipe or y pipe if single exhaust). The 4.6-5.4-5.8l and 5.0l have the same cylinder numbering but different firing orders (the 5.0 uses the flat head firing order). Assuming you have the same or similar header design (no fancy bank to bank piping like 180 headers) a different firing order will cause pulses to merge at different times causing slight differences in sound. IE an LS sounding different than a coyote even though they are both CPC V8s and similar displacement (assuming 5.3 LS to 5.2 Coyote).

 

[zackmd1]

OK, so here are the numbers for my wife's 2018 Escape. both of us are satisfied with tis level of performance as a DD.

2018 Ford Escape

Trim 0-60 times, 1/4 mile
Titanium 4dr Front-wheel Drive
245 Hp, 275 Lb-Ft., 3502 Weight, 22 City / 29 Hwy mpg, 6-spd transmission 7.7 sec, 15.9 @ 83

How do we get 500 miles of range with this level of performance?

To achieve that in a similarly sized vehicle (assume drag, etc are comparable) you would likely need around a 120kw ( 120x1.34= 160hp) motor and a 100kw+ battery pack to achieve 500 miles of range. And this is all just based of of currently available vehicles and configuration (no calculations went into this, just guesstimating)

 

[IronG]

OK, so here are the numbers for my wife's 2018 Escape. both of us are satisfied with tis level of performance as a DD.

2018 Ford Escape

Trim 0-60 times, 1/4 mile
Titanium 4dr Front-wheel Drive
245 Hp, 275 Lb-Ft., 3502 Weight, 22 City / 29 Hwy mpg, 6-spd transmission 7.7 sec, 15.9 @ 83

How do we get 500 miles of range with this level of performance?

I am not an EV engineer nor do I want to be, however the first question is what does history tell you? Take a look at similar sized vehicles 30-40 years ago, what were their specs? Then compare and see what is different now. That will give you clues on what to run down. Sure we are talking ICE vs EV, but the basic principles are the same in regards to refining or re-developing what is used today. Too often people disregard the past as unimportant, but in reality, many problems can be solved by using "old" methods. One of my favorites is the scientific method. Many of the original processes are still used today. Just because we are doing something new, does not mean you always throw out the old.

 

[zackmd1]

What about multiple smaller motors and use the extra space for battery? You seem to be just looking at it one way. In my line of work, we work the problem as if there are no boundaries including cost.Sure many ideas ultimatelyare not good because of cost, practicality or some other reason, but it provides many more ideas. I have yet to come across a problem that was not solved. This one seems easy, but I think there are outside factors that are holding it back, not just physics. I agree that if you could snap your fingers with nothing else changing other than reduced weight to 1/3 of what it is now, that will help. Since that seems to not be practical (probably safety reasons) other things need to be looked at. As I have mentioned.....cost and desire need to be overcome.

So range is highly dependent on pack size and energy required to move the vehicle. You could have a dual motor setup in which one motor is geared for low speed while the other is geared for high speed (different gear reduction ratios) and the two would switch depending on conditions. That would be a way to increase range (traditional transmissions have to much loss currently to be an effective substitute for this).

Don't get me wrong, there are multiple ways to increase range of an EV. But alot of those ways draw in cost and complexity. If you can increase range by bumping pack size or reducing losses, that is the path of current least resistance rather than trying to design an efficient EV transmission or something similar.

Also keep in mind that this discussion revolves around current EV tech... There are plenty of technologies in both motor and battery tech coming that could change the path. For instance, there is a new motor design that can change its output and efficiency range with configurable stators (typically stators are fixed in a electric motor) which effectively replicates the benefits of a transmission without the gearing.

 

[bootlegger]

I personally am a big believer in both climate change science (being a scientist) and in the need to make significant changes to save the planet, and ourselves.

But killing the V8 and IC engines in general just to switch to ‘electric’ cars would accomplish little unless the means of generating electricity are changed from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy.

An inconvenient truth is that EVs are only as clean as the energy source used to generate the electricity.

See my post #220 back on page 15.

As others have said, the thing about science and facts are that they’re true whether a person chooses to believe them or not.

I am on board with you there. Long time researcher and engineer here, and I am also pro-nuclear for the reason that it is current viable technology that will meet our energy needs and reduce our carbon footprint. There is a ton of speculation in here in regards to what Ford is going to do. No one knows that for sure, unless they are directly working on development. I work with ford on some 2023 projects, and even I am not sure what the final product will look like.

 

[IronG]

So range is highly dependent on pack size and energy required to move the vehicle. You could have a dual motor setup in which one motor is geared for low speed while the other is geared for high speed (different gear reduction ratios) and the two would switch depending on conditions. That would be a way to increase range (traditional transmissions have to much loss currently to be an effective substitute for this).

Don't get me wrong, there are multiple ways to increase range of an EV. But alot of those ways draw in cost and complexity. If you can increase range by bumping pack size or reducing losses, that is the path of current least resistance rather than trying to design an efficient EV transmission or something similar.

Also keep in mind that this discussion revolves around current EV tech... There are plenty of technologies in both motor and battery tech coming that could change the path. For instance, there is a new motor design that can change its output and efficiency range with configurable stators (typically stators are fixed in a electric motor) which effectively replicates the benefits of a transmission without the gearing.

Ok now your firing on all cylinders (see what I did there?). Next time lead with what is possible rather than debunking ideas. I have worked more than 25 years mostly dealing with advanced problem solving and what I have learned and preach to younger folks is look at a problem with what can be done, not what can't. If you start with what can't be done you put yourself in a hole that is hard to get out of.....mainly because it is depressing! Anyway, I have no doubt the goal post will shift from speed to range very soon. That is really where an EV will shine. Leave the speed to the much smaller enthusiasts and give the people what they want....range and faster charging would be nice :-)

 

[shogun32]

How do we get 500 miles of range with this level of performance?

big honking battery. Remember you can NEVER discharge the pack below a certain threshold or you destroy it.

The 'performance gate' is current draw, or more specifically discharge rate of the cell, and heat management.
500 miles of "flooring it" is wildly different than 500 miles "typical driving" with the odd "flooring it" episode.

"typical" equates to some average Amp/hr/mile of discharge specific to vehicle weight and motor draw and it's gearing. I don't know what those figures are for the Escape above if converted to EV (which Ford already has BTW)

Going for big single-charge distance is just mental masturbation. Range sufficient for 200 miles is more than plenty for likely 98% of usage pattern. @martinjlm 's company probably knows. Electrics have the unique ability to be charged at home just by plugging it in. If you don't have that access then getting a charge every 2 or 3 days is not unreasonable. But if you arbitrarily declare that an EV must match range of 1 gas tank, then the range envelope goes to 250-300 miles.

For EV to be successful they must be able to stand on their own - economically be it for the consumer or manufacturer. And the price can not be out of reach of the public which means $25-35,000. Plugs are finally standardized. Battery packs need to be trivially swappable and best if made up of multiple modules which can be hot-plugged at will.

I'm a big fan of hybrids because it erases the range problem entirely. (the ecological justification is utter bunk) If your usage periodically exceeds the built-in batt capacity it's not a problem. If your usage keeps you within the pure electrical range, pat yourself on the head.

The point is to let consumers decide, not have gov't shove only certain "approved solutions" down everyone's throat. Central planning has never worked and boy howdie it's been tried over and over.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Norm....

I agree 100% with what you are saying, but much of what you say is not realistic. You are looking at this from a 12 year old Mustang's perspective. IN 2020, if looking to buy you have to weigh that against the nearly 5klbs Mustang GT, too.

I am looking at this like I would any other comparison between different cars or types of cars. Take the word 'Mustang' out of this entire collection of related discussions and my position would not change one iota. Replace 'Mustang' with 'Camaro' and teleport it over to Camaro6.com and it still wouldn't change other than in specific details.

You need to be able to wrap your mind around the fact that the straight line capabilities of the more powerful EVs really don't mean very much to me. Even strictly within the ICE world, those metrics aren't nearly as attractive to me as they are to most. But they make up 99% of EV claims to performance car status, and do so for the obvious reason of appealing to the widest and least demanding among us. Advertising at its best.

And how that handles compared to any other car, EV or not. Obviously the Mach E weighs 750lbs more? But almost all of that weight is an ultra low center of gravity.

For starters, I don't have any EV CG height numbers. But I can tell you that the importance of CG height gets overrated on message boards, all the way up to just shy of the point where an inside tire lifts clear of flat, level pavement.


Norm

 

[martinjlm]

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

…..

6) Spring 2020 will introduce the new Mustang. - meaning the next facelift??

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.

 

[zackmd1]

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.

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...

Sponsored