Ford Mach E prototype spotted for the first time

[Administrator]

Mach E digital preview -- https://www.macheforum.com/threads/our-mach-e-digital-preview.22/

Sponsored

 

[Hack]

Interesting info about the Ford “Icon vehicles” in this article too:

https://www.thedetroitbureau.com/20...or-mustang-inspired-suv-as-it-leans-on-icons/

“For example, he’s working on programs that ensure that manual transmissions remain available in Ford’s iconic vehicles now and in the future.”

Manual transmission hype?

Dave Pericak in charge of Bronco - I would take that as good news.

 

[Stampede.Offroad]

Dave Pericak in charge of Bronco - I would take that as good news.

Well, he's in charge of EPLM for the Icon Group.

EPLM is just a management system philosophy that Ford theoretically uses for everything, and the Icon Group does 'brand management' for a few 'passion product' models like Mustang and Bronco.

 

[Bronco II]

Don't worry, I'm sure they will just bump up some more taxes like licensing.

I can see them putting user taxes on public charging stations

 

[Jake_zx2]

I do have to say, I'm pretty glad that the Mach E design is actually turning out to be more "Mustang-inspired" than "Mustang-based"... it almost looks like a slightly more aggressive Edge. Even the "tri-bar" taillights aren't carbon copies of the Mustang style, which makes me happy

if they could put a pin in this by not putting ANY mustang logos on the car and just leaving it as their "sporty SUV", then that would keep the Mustang owners happy. Kinda how Chevy did with the Blazer... they messed that up by calling it "blazer", but as far as it being their "Camaro-based SUV", they knocked it out of the park for being relatively sporty for a crossover while not being too close to the Camaro

 

[BroncoBuyer]

Kinda how Chevy did with the Blazer... they messed that up by calling it "blazer", but as far as it being their "Camaro-based SUV", they knocked it out of the park for being relatively sporty for a crossover while not being too close to the Camaro

The only way the new Blazer could be considered “knocked out of the park” is if it was called $hit on a stick..

 

[Jake_zx2]

The only way the new Blazer could be considered “knocked out of the park” is if it was called $hit on a stick..

As I alluded to in my original post, this train of thought is simply because you think of it as a “blazer”, which is why I said they messed up calling it that. But as a sporty Camaro-based crossover, they did about as good of a job as anyone COULD do on a “sports crossover”, and Car and Driver seems to concur;
“At the test track, the Chevy's athleticism was unquestioned: Its 6.3-second dash to 60 mph was 0.5 second quicker than the Edge's, and it stopped from 70 mph in a solid 165 feet—18 feet shorter than the Edge—thanks to its larger 265/45R-21 all-season tires (versus the Ford's 245/50R-20s). It also stuck to the skidpad with a stout 0.87 g of grip, up from the Ford's so-so 0.83 g. The lighter, more powerful, quicker, and stickier Blazer simply outshines the more comfort-focused Edge at the track.”

Do I think a “sports crossover” is a stupid idea? Absolutely. Would I buy it? Absolutely not. But did Chevy nail their target and are there people who certainly will buy it? Absolutely

 

[BroncoBuyer]

As I alluded to in my original post, this train of thought is simply because you think of it as a “blazer”, which is why I said they messed up calling it that. But as a sporty Camaro-based crossover, they did about as good of a job as anyone COULD do on a “sports crossover”, and Car and Driver seems to concur;
“At the test track, the Chevy's athleticism was unquestioned: Its 6.3-second dash to 60 mph was 0.5 second quicker than the Edge's, and it stopped from 70 mph in a solid 165 feet—18 feet shorter than the Edge—thanks to its larger 265/45R-21 all-season tires (versus the Ford's 245/50R-20s). It also stuck to the skidpad with a stout 0.87 g of grip, up from the Ford's so-so 0.83 g. The lighter, more powerful, quicker, and stickier Blazer simply outshines the more comfort-focused Edge at the track.”

Do I think a “sports crossover” is a stupid idea? Absolutely. Would I buy it? Absolutely not. But did Chevy nail their target and are there people who certainly will buy it? Absolutely

They didn’t even compare the same cars.
The Edge has a V6 2.7 Ecoboost that hauls all your groceries AND your kids to 60 mph in LESS than 6 seconds.

The Chevrolet's standard, 193-hp naturally aspirated 2.5-liter inline-four is a bit weak next to the Ford's turbocharged 2.0-liter engine—good for 250 horses and 275 lb-ft of torque. (We opted for the Blazer's optional 308-hp 3.6-liter V-6, which is better suited to moving two-plus tons of SUV than the base engine.)

Then in the next paragraph they are basically saying they had to use a downgraded base 4 cylinder 2.0 Edge to comparatively compete with the top of the line V6 RS Blazer.

(The Blue Oval also offers the Ford Performance–tuned Edge ST—$43,450 to start—with a 335-hp twin-turbo V-6, but the 2.0-liter model pairs more sensibly with the Blazer V-6.)

If doing a track test with the blazers heavy hitter Performance focused RS model, you can’t take Fords middle weight mall crawler Titanium model out there.

 

[Jake_zx2]

They didn’t even compare the same cars.
The Edge has a V6 2.7 Ecoboost that hauls all your groceries AND your kids to 60 mph in LESS than 6 seconds.

The Chevrolet's standard, 193-hp naturally aspirated 2.5-liter inline-four is a bit weak next to the Ford's turbocharged 2.0-liter engine—good for 250 horses and 275 lb-ft of torque. (We opted for the Blazer's optional 308-hp 3.6-liter V-6, which is better suited to moving two-plus tons of SUV than the base engine.)

Then in the next paragraph they are basically saying they had to use a downgraded base 4 cylinder 2.0 Edge to comparatively compete with the top of the line V6 RS Blazer.

(The Blue Oval also offers the Ford Performance–tuned Edge ST—$43,450 to start—with a 335-hp twin-turbo V-6, but the 2.0-liter model pairs more sensibly with the Blazer V-6.)

If doing a track test with the blazers heavy hitter Performance focused RS model, you can’t take Fords middle weight mall crawler Titanium model out there just to keep it interesting.

Look, I'm not trying to get into a dick measuring contest of "BUT BUT BUT FORD HAS A BETTUR SPORTS CROSSOVER" because frankly, I couldn't give less of a fuck

All I'm saying is the reviews on the Blazer are generally good for what it's intended to be. GM built it to be a competitive and fun crossover relative to the other crossovers on the market at the time, and they did an excellent job of doing just that considering I have yet to see a review that reflects poorly upon it, or describes it as "shit on a stick", as you proclaim

 

[BroncoBuyer]

Look, I'm not trying to get into a dick measuring contest

Sheeew! Good thing..
My last measurement was by a girlfriend in high school over 30 years ago, that’s the only number I want to remember.

 

[BHShaman]

Which why the US should adopt a Mileage Tax and not a gas tax.
You have to register your vehicle every year (already a fact in most states) and you have your start of year and end of year mileage and are taxed on that. That way it does not matter if you drive a lifted HUMMER or a Volt. You pay for your usage.

 

[Stampede.Offroad]

Which why the US should adopt a Mileage Tax and not a gas tax.
You have to register your vehicle every year (already a fact in most states) and you have your start of year and end of year mileage and are taxed on that.

While this seems like a reasonable adaptation, the following part does not.

That way it does not matter if you drive a lifted HUMMER or a Volt. You pay for your usage.

Mass makes a difference in the amount of wear done to the road. This is one way electrics are likely to create more waste, especially if that road is still asphalt or similar naughty material.

 

[BroncoMike]

Some states tax on the basis of vehicle weight (not sure which measurement of weight). In terms of "fairness", I guess a combination of weight and miles driven would be the best calculation for a user fee. Governments anticipated the avoidance of fuel taxes by EVs long ago, and there has been a lot of discussion on how to replace that revenue.

Not that I'm a huge fan of use taxes. One of the things taxpayers do is promote commerce through the provision of infrastructure so that individuals and entities can succeed. My counter to the "you didn't build that bridge" theory is "no - everyone built it, and everyone benefits from it". I can see additional fees for additional wear and tear, and on the flip side, reduced fees for less than average weight/use. But there should be a base level of funding that comes from other sources, as everyone - not just the users - benefit from the infrastructure for commerce.

 

[Carolina Jim]

apportion some of the income taxes collected to road building and maintainence. That way, everyone, including those without cars, are paying for the benefit a public road system provides.

just remember...only @half the population pays ANY income tax. Personally I'd rather replace it all with a VAT

 

[OX1]

Oil Subsidies outstrip Electric Vehicle Subsidies by Billions.
Internet search is your friend.

No doubt, you should use it. 80% of TOTAL US energy consumption is oil/gas/coal, so
what a surprise they get the most subsidies too.

Not sure what that has to do with a state road tax, used to fix state roads, which electrics don't pay
(and still don't pay even sales tax at this point).

I wasn't against it in the beginning, to get the industry off the ground, but we are well past that now.

Sponsored