In reply to alfadriver :
Sales seem to be getting there. Over 5100 last month isn't bad and a marked increase over previous months.
In reply to alfadriver :
Sales seem to be getting there. Over 5100 last month isn't bad and a marked increase over previous months.
In reply to Ian F (Forum Supporter) :
Just looked up Mustang sales for 2022- and so far it's just over 18k. Last year, it was 52k, or just about 2x the Mach E, whereas this year, they are pretty darned even.
Sorry, purists, the numbers work out pretty nicely.
I suspect Mach E sales at the moment are limited by supply more than anything else.
I might actually buy one if I needed an SUV right now. That is if it tows the Miata to the track and the back seats fold down for the dogs. The Mustang taillights are cool. I have seen mustang taillights on everything from dune buggies to motorhomes so that isn't a big deal. I was actually hoping they might make a faster Shelby version to go after Porsche Cayenne Turbos. Not just a sticker package.
But we really don't need another SUV right now. We already have a CRV and a Jeep Cherokee XJ. And anything for sale on four wheels right now is stupid expensive.
Keith Tanner said:I suspect Mach E sales at the moment are limited by supply more than anything else.
No, they are limited (stopped) by Ford. Wonder if that will effect future sales. I kid, I kid.
alfadriver said:In reply to Ian F (Forum Supporter) :
Just looked up Mustang sales for 2022- and so far it's just over 18k. Last year, it was 52k, or just about 2x the Mach E, whereas this year, they are pretty darned even.
See what you did there? You called the REAL Mustang by it's name, and the EV by it's moniker. Subconsciously, you have separated it from the Mustang name, by necessity.
In reply to llysgennad :
There's no sub-model for the Mustang car, so referring to one as the Mustang and the other as the Mach-E is really the only way to separate them unless you want to refer to the Mustang Mach-E and that's just long-winded. We refer to vehicles by the minimum amount of their name to distinguish them from others, like referring to a Porsche GT3 instead of a Porsche 911 GT3. Doesn't mean we're separating the GT3 from the 911 name, just that we're all lazy :)
Sales of the Ford Mustang Mach-E Shelby EV GT (or whatever the full name is) aren't actually stopped by Ford. Deliveries are, because they're not allowed to deliver vehicles that are under an active safety recall by federal law. So you can walk in a Ford dealer and buy youself a Mustang Mach-E, you just can't take it home :)
Back to Ford and it's EV history and why they should have this mostly figured out. Ford has built over 10,700 production EVs in the last 24 years, (before the Lightning and MachE) dating back to the days of the GM EV1. If they reached on average 30,000 miles (very conservative guess), that is over 320 MILLION miles of data. I know battery chemistry is changing, hopefully away from Nickel and Cadmium toward more plentiful and cheap materials. Tesla seems to have gotten the memo. Hopefully Ford has.
Why do they need to zap it with dirt-melting 300Kw to charge? Seems like overkill for the sake of overkill. Fast recharge time to compete with ICE convenience is a fantasy that most people would not need for everyday use. The base MachE seems like a very reasonable vehicle, I would put it on my short list if I were shopping today.
Keith Tanner said:In reply to llysgennad :
There's no sub-model for the Mustang car, so referring to one as the Mustang and the other as the Mach-E is really the only way to separate them unless you want to refer to the Mustang Mach-E and that's just long-winded. We refer to vehicles by the minimum amount of their name to distinguish them from others, like referring to a Porsche GT3 instead of a Porsche 911 GT3. Doesn't mean we're separating the GT3 from the 911 name, just that we're all lazy :)
Sales of the Ford Mustang Mach-E Shelby EV GT (or whatever the full name is) aren't actually stopped by Ford. Deliveries are, because they're not allowed to deliver vehicles that are under an active safety recall by federal law. So you can walk in a Ford dealer and buy youself a Mustang Mach-E, you just can't take it home :)
Thanks for proving my point, again.
Yeah, I'll just run right down and buy a car I can't have.
In reply to llysgennad :
Welcome to the current new car market. But when you can have it, someone who wants it more than you do will pay you more for it than you did.
llysgennad said:Back to Ford and it's EV history and why they should have this mostly figured out. Ford has built over 10,700 production EVs in the last 24 years, (before the Lightning and MachE) dating back to the days of the GM EV1. If they reached on average 30,000 miles (very conservative guess), that is over 320 MILLION miles of data. I know battery chemistry is changing, hopefully away from Nickel and Cadmium toward more plentiful and cheap materials. Tesla seems to have gotten the memo. Hopefully Ford has.
Why do they need to zap it with dirt-melting 300Kw to charge? Seems like overkill for the sake of overkill. Fast recharge time to compete with ICE convenience is a fantasy that most people would not need for everyday use. The base MachE seems like a very reasonable vehicle, I would put it on my short list if I were shopping today.
You are unique amongst Americans in thinking that fast recharge is unnecessary, even if you're right that it's not needed for everyday use if you have access to charging at home. At 150-350 kW charging rates, you can legitimately road trip in an EV. At 6.6 kW, you cannot. Even at the fairly common 50 kW level, mid-trip recharging is not terribly plausible.
In reply to John Welsh :
Yep, we were on the way to buy a new Explorer a couple of weeks ago, it sold before we could get there.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Thanks, I like to think so! But really, you have documented fairly extensively that it is not necessary to have instant recharge. I would quote all the times you've said it but that would take all day
It's a definite dividing line between EVs in my mind. Anything with a ~50 kW cap is effectively confined to local use, and that works for a lot of people all the time and just about everybody most of the time. But if you want to go on a road trip, you need that fast charge capability. You just don't need it every day.
Keith Tanner said:You are unique amongst Americans in thinking that fast recharge is unnecessary, even if you're right that it's not needed for everyday use if you have access to charging at home. At 150-350 kWh charging rates, you can legitimately road trip in an EV. At 6.6 kWh, you cannot. Even at the fairly common 50 kWh level, mid-trip recharging is not terribly plausible.
I think you meant kW, not kWh. One is a rate, the other is a quantity.
alfadriver said:"Mustang" sells. That's the simple truth.
Taking off my Mustang ball cap...I really don't think the name has anything to do with it's sales. By most accounts I've read, it's an impressive vehicle. And people seem to want electric vehicles. What else could explain Tesla's success selling cars of questionable quality with terrible after-sale support? Ford decided an electric SUV would be the best move, and they were right about that.
They could have called it the Doberman and it still would have sold. Right product, right time.
The funny thing is that back in 1964 they couldn't sell the Mustang as a Mustang in Germany because Krupp made a big ugly diesel truck called a Mustang and had the rights to use the name. Ford called the car a T-5 instead. I'm sure this old Mustang Diesel Truck was more un-Mustang than the Mach-E.
maschinenbau said:Keith Tanner said:You are unique amongst Americans in thinking that fast recharge is unnecessary, even if you're right that it's not needed for everyday use if you have access to charging at home. At 150-350 kWh charging rates, you can legitimately road trip in an EV. At 6.6 kWh, you cannot. Even at the fairly common 50 kWh level, mid-trip recharging is not terribly plausible.
I think you meant kW, not kWh. One is a rate, the other is a quantity.
My bad, you're right. I'll fix the original post.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
I'd rather have the Krupp! And I don't mean that specifically as a slight to any of the other Mustangs...
Jesse Ransom said:In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
I'd rather have the Krupp! And I don't mean that specifically as a slight to any of the other Mustangs...
I don't think you will find one of those anywhere in the US. If you import one it would be one of a kind.
It would make an interesting motor home project. Especially if you tow a Mustang race car with it. 
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
I'm chuckling at the idea that you could legitimately have an automatic Ford T5 in Germany. Try selling one of those in the US, it'll mess with people's heads.
In reply to llysgennad :
The holy grail for EV's is to charge the car as fast as you fill a tank of gas. Which, in my calculations, is impossible on many levels. Whether you agree with it or not does not matter- if you REALLY want EV's for the masses- you have to appeal to everyone, including ones who don't have a way to charge overnight. People have learned to live around that, sure. But as you widen the market, the tighter the constraints will end up being.
You can do the math, and calculate how many MW flow at 10gal/min, and then correct that for the common 3:1 efficiency change- so for an EV, just need the equivalent of 3 gal/min. Gas is roughly 42MJ/kg.
I think the market will realize (eventually) that there's a "fast enough" charging speed. 200 miles of range in 15 minutes works as well as 200 miles in 5 minutes, practically speaking. The most popular EV on the market is already pretty much at the former speed, depending on a few external factors.
The "can't charge at home" crowd will likely charge while they're doing something else like shopping, so you can get away with a slower charge rate because you actually don't want to have to run back out to the car after 15 minutes but would prefer it takes an hour. That's why urban charging stations often have slower chargers in the 50-75 kW range, which also means they can charge more cars at a time for a given power supply.
But as we build hungrier EVs, that "fast enough" will have to be faster - the Hummer is really inefficient, so the difference between charging time and refueling time will be exaggerated. Efficiency may become important again, not because of the cost of fuel but because a more efficient vehicle will be easier to live with if you have to charge on the road.
ddavidv said:alfadriver said:"Mustang" sells. That's the simple truth.
Taking off my Mustang ball cap...I really don't think the name has anything to do with it's sales. By most accounts I've read, it's an impressive vehicle. And people seem to want electric vehicles. What else could explain Tesla's success selling cars of questionable quality with terrible after-sale support? Ford decided an electric SUV would be the best move, and they were right about that.
They could have called it the Doberman and it still would have sold. Right product, right time.
Maybe, maybe not. You think it has no matter, I think it gives instant name recognition and some excitement. Given how awesome cars were given crappy names and then struggled- I think some name recognition and excitement are a big deal.
And it appears to me that Mustang sales have not taken a hit- so purists like you are not buying cars anyway. And with Mach E sales increasing- it's all a good thing.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
To do what you suggest, shopping places will need a lot of chargers for all the cars people should be buying. Like most of the spots in a mall. The slower the charger, the more you will need, as the more people will be waiting to do the same thing.
Things need to be scaled up 10x to cover a decent part of the current car market, and 20x to cover half the car market- and the system will have to increase at that amount every year for decades as the market fills up with EVs.
Batteries are already super expensive, and charging is already not fast enough- so for real EV's- efficiency is the key thing. 100mpge needs to be more like 150-200 when this goes for the entire market.
You'll need to log in to post.
