Mach-E Forum | Ford Mustang Mach-E Forum and News banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
While I think Ford also needs to make a truer SUV BEV (like an Edge or Explorer), the Mach-e looks good in the combo they created. My main wish is that they'd just raised the whole vehicle up to sit 2-3" higher, giving it more ground clearance, higher seating, and a taller profile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
While I think Ford also needs to make a truer SUV BEV (like an Edge or Explorer), the Mach-e looks good in the combo they created. My main wish is that they'd just raised the whole vehicle up to sit 2-3" higher, giving it more ground clearance, higher seating, and a taller profile.
That would result in a considerable hit on range especially at freeway speeds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JTK44

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
While I think Ford also needs to make a truer SUV BEV (like an Edge or Explorer), the Mach-e looks good in the combo they created. My main wish is that they'd just raised the whole vehicle up to sit 2-3" higher, giving it more ground clearance, higher seating, and a taller profile.
That would make it less of a Mustang and more of an SUV on handling. The center of gravity would be too high. Given that they wanted to emulate the handling of a Mustang, I think Team Edison did just fine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
While I think Ford also needs to make a truer SUV BEV (like an Edge or Explorer), the Mach-e looks good in the combo they created. My main wish is that they'd just raised the whole vehicle up to sit 2-3" higher, giving it more ground clearance, higher seating, and a taller profile.
They still have a sizable investment in Rivian. The R1S could be the basis for a lower market Explorer sized SUV. I have said this here before... once the accountants realize the significant reduction in development costs with BEVs, it'll be tough for design and development to get funding for ICE vehicles. I don't want to oversimplify and say that it's a matter of bolting on a different body on a skateboard platform but really investments in battery + power train technology is very scale-able in BEVs.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,148 Posts
Mustang seems to be Ford’s performance Icon brand, i just don’t see a huge amount if variants with the name.

Its more believable that Fords main brand will get a Full EV SUV first, most likely calling upon the Explorer and Escape names.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
Mustang seems to be Ford’s performance Icon brand, i just don’t see a huge amount if variants with the name.

Its more believable that Fords main brand will get a Full EV SUV first, most likely calling upon the Explorer and Escape names.
The 5th generation Explorer had been getting long in to tooth (~9 years) prior to the refresh last year. Aside from the mid cycle refresh, I think this is it for ICE Explorers.

While I am lusting after the new Bronco, a more sensible next vehicle for me is something I can use for a week long ski trips to Vermont from the Hudson Valley. An Explorer sized SUV with ~400+ mile range will fit the bill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
While I am lusting after the new Bronco, a more sensible next vehicle for me is something I can use for a week long ski trips to Vermont from the Hudson Valley. An Explorer sized SUV with ~400+ mile range will fit the bill.
That's gonna be tough in a BEV until much higher density batteries come along. A vehicle that size is a lot heavier, which would probably require something like 130 kWh of (current generation) batteries just to reach 300 mile range. But of course that big of a battery pack adds more weight in itself, requiring more kWh. It's a tricky spiral to balance. Although future batteries should be able to get there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
That's gonna be tough in a BEV until much higher density batteries come along. A vehicle that size is a lot heavier, which would probably require something like 130 kWh of (current generation) batteries just to reach 300 mile range. But of course that big of a battery pack adds more weight in itself, requiring more kWh. It's a tricky spiral to balance. Although future batteries should be able to get there.

Rivian R1S UP TO 400+ MILES
Boston to NYC and back.

We'll see if they deliver. Next year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
562 Posts
IMO it is far more likely for us to see a BEV sedan/coupe with the mustang logo than a true SUV. Hopefully a convertible coupe, but that is probably a pipe dream.
 

·
Registered
MME First Edition Rapid Red
Joined
·
205 Posts
I think they did fine too. This is the right vehicle at the right time. I’m sure more SUV’s are in the pipeline as others have said. I like the MME just as it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
Yep. By loading it up with a whopping 180 kWh battery pack. Heavy and expensive.

The other problem with doing that is charging it.
It's as expensive as any luxury SUV and at 5,842lbs, it ain't that much heavier than my Durango R/T. Bit certainly moves faster. Time to get to full charge could be an issue for some folks but not for me. If they deliver, the 400mile full size SUV will be here next year.

It will be a while before the BEVs get the range good enough for the Audi TDI guys.

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Spark EV 2016
Joined
·
37 Posts
While I think Ford also needs to make a truer SUV BEV (like an Edge or Explorer), the Mach-e looks good in the combo they created. My main wish is that they'd just raised the whole vehicle up to sit 2-3" higher, giving it more ground clearance, higher seating, and a taller profile.
Do you know how high off the ground the front seats are? This is a key factor for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Do you know how high off the ground the front seats are? This is a key factor for me.
Not for sure, but my best estimate is 22".

Vehicle height is 63", and front headroom (glass roof versions) is 40.5". Figure maybe 0.5" for glass thickness, and that should theoretically put driver seat height at 22".
 

·
Registered
Spark EV 2016
Joined
·
37 Posts
Not for sure, but my best estimate is 22".

Vehicle height is 63", and front headroom (glass roof versions) is 40.5". Figure maybe 0.5" for glass thickness, and that should theoretically put driver seat height at 22".
I'm wondering if the 63" max height is at the antenna over the rear seats. That would make the height over the front seats lower.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
I'm wondering if the 63" max height is at the antenna over the rear seats. That would make the height over the front seats lower.
I don't think so. Here's a picture of one next to the Model Y, which is slightly taller at 63.9". Appears to match up to the actual roof height, not the antenna.

Also, a side view of the Mach-e shows the peak roof height pretty much right over the driver's head, so should mean that's a fair representation. I've asked this same question of some of the people that have had the great fortune to actually sit in one, and even those over 6' tall have said they didn't find they had to "crawl down" in/out of the vehicle (my main concern).

 

·
Registered
Spark EV 2016
Joined
·
37 Posts
I don't think so. Here's a picture of one next to the Model Y, which is slightly taller at 63.9". Appears to match up to the actual roof height, not the antenna.

Also, a side view of the Mach-e shows the peak roof height pretty much right over the driver's head, so should mean that's a fair representation. I've asked this same question of some of the people that have had the great fortune to actually sit in one, and even those over 6' tall have said they didn't find they had to "crawl down" in/out of the vehicle (my main concern).

Both vehicles have very similar heights, ride heights and front headroom. So the front seats should have similar ground heights. I know the Model Y seats are boosted up by about 4 inches compared to the Model 3, which make them much easier to get into. Is that good enough? It could be.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top