Ford Mach-e: Smell the gas!

[Crissa]

And I was referring to the fact that I have the slowest bike Zero has made in the last... Well, since it was made. It's the Leaf of BEV bikes. Capable, but not fancy.

...And yet it beats most bikes 0-30. Instant flick of the wrist makes it awesome.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

Quite seriously, there is a long standing problem in Australia where the young (insert politically correct term for the indigenous people) sniff gasoline to the point of intoxication.

They also like the kerosene vintage and often steal it from airports from planes that tend not to have key lockable fuel caps. Quite sad but such is bush life sometimes for lack of any other activities.

 

[happy intruder]

They might still be people who miss the smell of horse manure'

I say, let's just use cow farts.

 

[JBee]

I say, let's just use cow farts.

Biogas is definitely better than an EV...

 

[ÆCIII]

I know this thread is originally about the smell of gas and something about 'Mach-E'. I first had just a few quick comments in mind (sure), but those comments spawned a few more thoughts about some history of the Mustang brand when thinking of the Mach-E, so I just let my experiences and thoughts run with it. So this one will take about five minutes or so to read. Don't waste your time if not interested.

I also remember liking the smell of gas when I was a kid (but only from a few feet away when my dad happened to stop at the gas station with us in the car). Of course the fumes are still toxic with it just being a matter of degree.

IMO Ford marketing hasn't helped the Mach-E, partially because of them calling it a Mach-E in the first place. I saw one the other day in a parking lot, and it appeared much more 'stubbier' looking from the front, and less refined than I expected, verses the glamor shots of it online. It certainly looked less sporty to me than the model name suggests. The car's basic body to me appears to have been originally designed as something Not related to the Mustang family at all, and those tail lights simply look out of place to me on that car. But that's just my perception of it.

I believe the mentality of attempting to slap a logo and some signatory trim accents on any body to 'make' it a Mustang is a cheap or shallow approach, which also reveals that Ford marketing has shallow perceptions of potential customers too. Ford marketing has done this before, really throwing the Mustang brand and label around sticking it on various kinds of cars.

I mean you had around 1970 some formidable decent 'muscle' car versions of a Mustang Mach I with a 351 cu-in 'Cleveland' or 'Windsor', or Mustang Boss 302s, and models that were decently sporty. Then in 1974 you suddenly had the 'Mustang II' looking totally neutered by comparison, having only a 140 cu-in 98 hp four cylinder engine. Of course it was supposedly for the 'Fuel Shortage Crisis', and here we are today with magnitudes more ICE cars on the road paying several times more for gas on top of it. Some fuel shortage crisis that turned out to be!

See, Ford should've just called that little 'Mustang II' something else, and preserved the dignity and substance of the Mustang brand and heritage on a 'shelf' until times were optimal to use it again in earnest. Because to me, that 1974 'Mustang II' wasn't really a 'Mustang' at all, but rather a 'MINO' (Mustang in Name Only). But who said that a shallow marketing department was ever about substance of model brand focus, or being sincere?

I personally think the Mach-E body has stronger similarities to the late 70s Ford Maverick, largely in part due to the C-Pillar curves and styling, and it's practical spaciousness and utility. Consumer Reports called the Maverick a very reliable car back then (but that was also when Consumer Reports itself was decently 'reliable' and not partially owned by Ford interests either).

I also think the Mach-E dash screen placement is tacky, and that calling a car something that it's inherently (not), only serves to set up interested buyers for a disappointment. I think a brand family (like Mustang) is about style and signature of the whole car shape and design, not only just the tail lights with accents or logos. But Ford Marketing also pimped out the 'Maverick' brand name to a recent smaller truck offering, when they could've named the new truck something else like 'Hunter', 'Thoroughbred', 'Husky', or something not already used. Ford marketing is juggling model brand names around like they just 'don't care'. This time they didn't even care if it went from a car to a truck. They (Ford marketing) probably were saying, "These millennials and gen X-Z buyers probably won't even notice!"

You know, Ford or legacy auto could never get away with just giving a model name an 'Alphabet Letter' or 'Number' like Tesla is able to do. People think of Model-S, Model-3, Model-X, or Model-Y and the substance of each model comes to mind (what else were you thinking?...). But let Ford make a truck and try to call it like, 'Model-K' and see how that alone sustains its sales. Point is Tesla's substance in each model is what people associate with the model designator, after proven reputation quickly and continually becomes what is known about said model.

With Ford and legacy auto, they continually do it backwards, always expecting a brand label to 'hype' perception for model substance to push sales. That's why they always feel they Have to name their car something like "Mach-E", "F-150 Lightning", "Ram Revolution", "Ultium Battery system", etc. All the legacy auto does this, and they always have done it, but I believe part of this they felt necessary for marketing push in their inherent heavy advertising culture and their costly relationships with media for said advertising. I think the advertising notion itself has driven part of this shallow tendency. I also maintain that Tesla is far more secure in their models and brand substance, so they feel no need to hype anything like legacy auto does, just as they see no need for expensive media advertising either. This makes me like Tesla even more.

Honestly, I think legacy auto's overhyping of model names is emotionally immature. Rivian doesn't waste a lot of time trying to hype with model names either, with 'R1T', 'R1S', etc. While I'm not super crazy about their (front end) style, at least they keep their model names simple like Tesla does, and let the owner/driving experience 'do the talking'. Then Lucid calls theirs 'Air'. It's pretty hot in Saudi Arabia. We can have a chuckle or two with that one.

-ÆCIII

 

[Crissa]

Then Lucid calls theirs 'Air'. It's pretty hot in Saudi Arabia. We can have a chuckle or two with that one.

Lucid is was founded in California, about fifty miles south of Fremont. Their headquarters are now just a couple miles from the Fremont facility.

-Crissa

 

[ÆCIII]

Lucid is was founded in California, about fifty miles south of Fremont. Their headquarters are now just a couple miles from the Fremont facility.

-Crissa

But nearly two/thirds of Lucid Motors is still owned by Saudi Arabia.

Saudi PIF Maintains Its Gigantic Stake in Lucid Group in a Major Sign of Confidence (wccftech.com)

 

[Sirfun]

But nearly two/thirds of Lucid Motors is still owned by Saudi Arabia.

Saudi PIF Maintains Its Gigantic Stake in Lucid Group in a Major Sign of Confidence (wccftech.com)

Isn't that the same entity that Elon wanted to team up with when he announced Tesla was going private a few years ago?

 

[Crissa]

Isn't that the same entity that Elon wanted to team up with when he announced Tesla was going private a few years ago?

Yep.

It proves the money was there.

-Crissa

 

[Sirfun]

Yep.

It proves the money was there.

-Crissa

Yes, I always felt like the money was there, but man am I glad that Tesla didn't get bought by the those folks.
I don't see why Elon would even consider it. Crazy stories lately, about them trying to buy Tiger for 1 billion.

 

[Cybr on]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/10/for...sover-awards-could-help-it-take-on-tesla.html

Really? I’m not so sure about this. My take with the Mach-e , is that it’s no where near Tesla’s abilities and yet what’s this? Fake news? Trying to pump up sales for the Mach-e?

 

[happy intruder]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/10/for...sover-awards-could-help-it-take-on-tesla.html

Really? I’m not so sure about this. My take with the Mach-e , is that it’s no where near Tesla’s abilities and yet what’s this? Fake news? Trying to pump up sales for the Mach-e?

anything from NBC or CNBC should tell us something

 

[Cybr on]

anything from NBC or CNBC should tell us something

Soooooo true!!!!!!

 

[firsttruck]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/10/for...sover-awards-could-help-it-take-on-tesla.html

Really? I’m not so sure about this. My take with the Mach-e , is that it’s no where near Tesla’s abilities and yet what’s this? Fake news? Trying to pump up sales for the Mach-e?

No, the media is not trying to pump sales of Mach-e. Legacy auto OEMs including Ford do not want to sell any more EVs than minimum required by the government. Ford is losing money on every EV it makes. Ford makes a few EVs to get regultory credits so it does not get fined for selling 99.9% ICE vehicles where it temporally is still making huge profits.

The corrupt mainstream media is helping Ford to pump Ford's stock price not the actual EVs.

 

[ÆCIII]

I'm still believing the so called 'Mach-E' was given it's model name well after the design stages had started.

In other words, I don't think the Ford team sat down and said let's design an electric car that will be overflowing with the shape and style of true Mustang heritage and a deserving example for the Mach series badge.

I look at a 'Mach-E' and cannot ever conceive it was designed as a model brand focused product. What I see instead is a car that was jointly designed by many contributors, with Ford marketing attempting to brand this product late in the design phase. The litmus test for me is - what kind of car might one guess it is, if the taillights were different and the horse logo were missing? Or to put it another way, if the taillights and horse logo were missing would one immediately say " ... that car looks like a Mustang missing it's taillights"? - I strongly think not. I could be wrong, but this is the way the car appears to me as a departure from traditional Mustang Mach badged car designs.

This doesn't mean it's unappealing or doesn't have some strong points or positive points of ownership, but I don't think it's a car truly consistent with the Mustang or Mach series cars. Putting that aside, I don't care for how the hood remains high forward of the windshield, then unnaturally curves downward in the front third of the hood and fenders, as I think this is a design that reduces visibility. I also don't like they way Ford integrated the screen in the dash, as it looks tacky to me. That's just my perception, but of course some will buy it.

I'll just never buy a car that has a portion of the purchase going toward the main stream media for advertising, instead of to more innovation or a better car, because as Tesla has proven with quality innovative cars, MSM advertising is totally unnecessary.

- ÆCIII