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

1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
106 Posts
no. but I would spend $2000 to get 30 more miles range
That is an interesting comment.

Would I spend $6k (3x) to get 90 miles more range? Maybe. Add $6k to the purchase price and have a MME with 360 miles range, not 270? Especially if I could do it without the added weight of a bigger battery? I might.

Like I said, interesting comment.

How does everyone feel about this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
371 Posts
We face a similar question already. Ask buyers of the standard range Mustang Mach-E -- why didn't they choose to pay $5,000 more for 60-70 more miles of range?

While I'd love an extra 30 miles range, I don't feel I'd receive at least $2,000 of benefit from that choice. On longer drives away from home, I'll still need to either rent an Ice-mobile or make a similar number of charging stops. And since I don't do such trips very often, I don't peg the inconvenient, extra charging stops as being worth much monetary value.

And this is while pretending the extra range doesn't cost more in weight/drag, reduced storage volume, CO2, or anything else... When I factor those sorts of things in, it's even less worthwhile to me.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
106 Posts
We face a similar question already. Ask buyers of the standard range Mustang Mach-E -- why didn't they choose to pay $5,000 more for 60-70 more miles of range?

While I'd love an extra 30 miles range, I don't feel I'd receive at least $2,000 of benefit from that choice. On longer drives away from home, I'll still need to either rent an Ice-mobile or make a similar number of charging stops. And since I don't do such trips very often, I don't peg the inconvenient, extra charging stops as being worth much monetary value.

And this is while pretending the extra range doesn't cost more in weight/drag, reduced storage volume, CO2, or anything else... When I factor those sorts of things in, it's even less worthwhile to me.
Fair points.

In this imaginary discussion, let's stipulate that the extra money gives added range by technological innovations alone--higher efficiency drive trains and batteries with the same environmental impact but more capacity--so that the question is not environmental in nature.

Rather, we are trying to determine how much extra range is worth when we start from a base of 270 miles. I am sure that many would say "nothing", but others might want it. I'm just curious.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,223 Posts
the $2,000 speed option most likely comes at a range penalty.

I would rather have a maximum economy mode we can turn on for those extra long trips. Dial the throttle back a bit to maximize range. Flip it back to normal for the everyday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
371 Posts
Starting from a base of 270 miles, I would perhaps pay up to $200 for another 30 miles of range, and I'd probably be a bit irritated about having to make that sort of choice. (So I started to reply that I'd pay nothing for it... but it does have some value.)

If I were instead choosing between 270 miles and 500 miles battery range, with today's charging network but the vehicle itself manages to charge 75% faster at them, and I'm still getting the exact same vehicle dynamics, body/interior design, and environmental impact, then that might be worth spending an extra $4-7k to me. It'd offer me significantly more freedom to see places that aren't along the biggest highways, without having to rent an Icemobile.
 

·
Registered
Reserved First Edition Rapid Red Metallic
Joined
·
725 Posts
the $2,000 speed option most likely comes at a range penalty.

I would rather have a maximum economy mode we can turn on for those extra long trips. Dial the throttle back a bit to maximize range. Flip it back to normal for the everyday.
From the way I read the article this is an OTA update.

Remember during the last hurricane in Florida about 3 years ago: Tesla with OTA update extended the range of the Model S (before the Model 3 and Y) so that owners could get out of Florida. Then later, after the emergency, with again an OTA they reduced the range.

The reduced range in the performance model is the result of bigger wheels and other things, lowered suspension performance tires, etc.. It is the same battery as the long range.

Addition: the difference in range is only 25 miles, 291 vs. 316. I suspect that is due to bigger wheels and performance tires.

I suspect all that Tesla did was change some algorithm and that range remains the same. Of course if you use the extra power, it will drain the battery quicker and range will decrease.

Back to original question: 4.8 is fast enough for me so no I would not pay $2,000 extra but I would seriously consider paying $2000 extra for 60 extra miles, but not 30. A MME with 330 miles for $2000 extra would eliminate "range anxiety" for me!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
585 Posts
That is an interesting comment.

Would I spend $6k (3x) to get 90 miles more range? Maybe. Add $6k to the purchase price and have a MME with 360 miles range, not 270? Especially if I could do it without the added weight of a bigger battery? I might.

Like I said, interesting comment.

How does everyone feel about this?
The hypothetical here is through a software update with the same hardware, so yes with the same sized battery. Essentially I would pay a little more to get 15%-20% better efficiency out of the SR hardware I would already have.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,223 Posts
The hypothetical here is through a software update with the same hardware, so yes with the same sized battery. Essentially I would pay a little more to get 15%-20% better efficiency out of the SR hardware I would already have.
I wouldn’t pay for it. Tweaks for efficiency, horsepower, etc, should be free.
I could see paying a resonable (aka: affordable) one-time fee for features like a sentry mode.
 

·
Premium Member
2018 Fusion Energi Burgundy Velvet Platinum
Joined
·
755 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
To answer the question that I posed on 0 to 60 times, absolutely no. However there have been some interesting posts on the range issue and yes as someone who opted for an extended range RWD MMe because of my drives to my grandkids in Utah 465 miles one way, I would definitely pay to increase the range. How much money for how many miles? Since I-15 is part of the EA I-70 cross country route with charging stations every 70 miles, I would like to make the trip to Utah under varying conditions to see what the real world performance of the MMe is before I could decide on the 'How Much' question.
Back to the speed question, I have ridden in a Tesla Mod S and experienced Ludicrous and while it was a crazy experience it convinced me that I would never buy a BEV (especially used) with an option that seems likely will degrade the batteries quicker.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
That is an interesting comment.

Would I spend $6k (3x) to get 90 miles more range? Maybe. Add $6k to the purchase price and have a MME with 360 miles range, not 270? Especially if I could do it without the added weight of a bigger battery? I might.

Like I said, interesting comment.

How does everyone feel about this?
I would not spend $2k for a half second. The performance is good enough and personally, I don't need bragging rights. If i wanted to go 0-60 in under 3sec, then I should be willing to pay for it.... for say the GT Performance trim.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,223 Posts
I completely agree, the 0-60 time is plenty fast for most people. The more range the better for everyone.
To me, the car is expensive enough.

Paying for additional range after-the-fact sets a dangerous precedent where automakers will intentionally hold back range just to bleed their customers at a later date.

I could see paying for the advanced hands-free driving features, new functions entirely like sentry mode, entertainment options, etc.

But pay to unlock range and speed? These should be free tweaks. I’m already dishing out an extra $7,700 at purchase time for the extended battery and second motor. To ask for another $2,000 to give us what is already there is highway robbery.
 

·
Registered
Reserved First Edition Rapid Red Metallic
Joined
·
725 Posts
To me, the car is expensive enough.

Paying for additional range after-the-fact sets a dangerous precedent where automakers will intentionally hold back range just to bleed their customers at a later date.

I could see paying for the advanced hands-free driving features, new functions entirely like sentry mode, entertainment options, etc.

But pay to unlock range and speed? These should be free tweaks. I’m already dishing out an extra $7,700 at purchase time for the extended battery and second motor. To ask for another $2,000 to give us what is already there is highway robbery.

I agree: if it is already there why not include it?

What Tesla does, while not criminal, it is nevertheless unconscionable at least in my opinion.

All that performance and I suspect range is already there. No change in the hardware - just an adjustment in an algorithm.

I guess this what to expect when a technology/battery company builds a car!

Maybe the old days when you could not adjust steering, suspension, shift points by changing a setting on the screen in your car were better? Probably not, but expect this to continue.

Who even knows if the same battery size is used in both the MME SR and LR: With the LR Ford may just activate addition battery cells. Might be cheaper to have one battery rather than two and limit the range electronically.

Only way to truly find out is to check the weight of SR vs. LR: if they are pretty much the same, then we know: same battery but computer limited.

How would that be for a "kick in the as*"

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
585 Posts
Might be cheaper to have one battery rather than two and limit the range electronically.
Since the "holy grail" of battery cost is $100/kwhr, we have to assume Ford's costs for that extra 24 kwh are at least $125/kwh. That means Ford would be eating $3000 in every SR car, in the hopes that they might get it back later? I don't think that would be very wise on their part. It would also be obvious if they only offered the upgrade on SR cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
I'm already not paying $5,000 for an extra 60 miles of range, so I wouldn't pay $2,000 for 30 more miles. 210 miles is perfect for this "Commuter" car. Long trips will be in another vehicle.

Although I do wish the Mach-e did 0-60 in 4.3 like the upgraded Model Y, so I'd be willing to put extra money to that because all my Mustang friends hate the Mach-e and I'd love to shut them up at a stop light
 

·
Registered
2016 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid
Joined
·
127 Posts
The price of adding range seems trivial compared to the overall cost of the vehicle. My second-most visited destination city is 320 miles away. Having enough range to reach that city before making a charging stop would be a convenience worth paying for in my case. I'd say a lot depends on how you will be using the vehicle. If inter-city travel is your main activity, extra range is probably not a priority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
I agree: if it is already there why not include it?

What Tesla does, while not criminal, it is nevertheless unconscionable at least in my opinion.

All that performance and I suspect range is already there. No change in the hardware - just an adjustment in an algorithm.

I guess this what to expect when a technology/battery company builds a car!

Maybe the old days when you could not adjust steering, suspension, shift points by changing a setting on the screen in your car were better? Probably not, but expect this to continue.

Who even knows if the same battery size is used in both the MME SR and LR: With the LR Ford may just activate addition battery cells. Might be cheaper to have one battery rather than two and limit the range electronically.

Only way to truly find out is to check the weight of SR vs. LR: if they are pretty much the same, then we know: same battery but computer limited.

How would that be for a "kick in the as*"

.
This has been standard practice in technology for decades. IBM was famous for selling computers with an option of either 16k or 32k. All of the computers were shipped with 32 k. The difference was a switch in the operating system that prevented access to the additional 16k unless you paid for it. They also sold card readers that had two models one faster than the other. The only difference between them was a small hardware break on the slower one. If you paid to upgrade your slower model an engineer would come to your site and remove the brake.
 

·
Registered
Reserved First Edition Rapid Red Metallic
Joined
·
725 Posts
This has been standard practice in technology for decades. IBM was famous for selling computers with an option of either 16k or 32k. All of the computers were shipped with 32 k. The difference was a switch in the operating system that prevented access to the additional 16k unless you paid for it. They also sold card readers that had two models one faster than the other. The only difference between them was a small hardware break on the slower one. If you paid to upgrade your slower model an engineer would come to your site and remove the brake.

As I posted that is what you would expect when a technology/battery company builds a car.
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top