cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Hagerty
Hagerty Employee

Review: 2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E | Hagerty Media

Let's get this out of the way first: This electric SUV is absolutely a proper Mustang-but it's a Mustang in the "1964 1/2 showroom riot" sense, not the "Mystichrome Terminator/GT500KR/Intercooled SVO" sense. Think for a minute about what the Mustang was on its debut. It was a fancy Falcon, a way for people to buy [...]
https://www.hagerty.com/media/new-car-reviews/review-2021-ford-mustang-mach-e/
234 REPLIES 234
CobraAC
New Driver

What a insult to the Mach heritage. This is just another crossover E-SUV that is trying to play off the Mustang history. What an insult from Ford. Really Ford, a GT.......come on.
TimK
Detailer

It's their company and they can drag down the Mustang brand if they want. I'm out of the new car market with owning a 94 Mark VIII and 2010 F150 along with my 87 C4 and a couple other oldies I'm building that should see me to the day I'm too feeble to safely get behind their steering wheels.
Regarding the zeal to flood our streets with electric cars, I join the chorus of those asking, "where do the get the electricity to charge the batteries?" On December 1st, Elon Musk said we will have to double our electric power output to meet the needs of the proposed electric fleet. And, guess what, all the solar, wind and geothermal, together, will not come anywhere close to accomplishing this meaning new nuclear, coal and natural gas plants the tree huggers hate will need to come on line. So much for the wealth grabbing "Green New Deal" and, so much for their silly zero emissions nonsense that electric cars achieve, they don't, and in fact many have said pollute more given the mining and processing of lithium for batteries, disposal of waste and needed electric generation by power plants. So go ahead EV drivers, be smug, but you're dirtying the air more than today's clean running, gasoline cars.
Announcer
Pit Crew

TimK

You are partly correct, solar and wind and geothermal (there is so little of that in the US is is not worth mentioning) will not be enough by themselves. They can make up a larger portion of the US generating capacity than they do today, but nothing in today's cost efficient technology allows them to be dominant sources. New nuclear would add essentially no pollution, and the newer designs s

Natural gas combined cycle plants are highly efficient inexpensive to build and operate and substantially less polluting than coal in all regards.

As far as pollution from EVs, that ship has sailed. All thoughtful, non-biased studies show that the direct air pollution from ICE combustion plus the air pollution from the production, transportation and refining of gas/diesel and the indirect pollution from ICE vehicle production is substantially greater than the direct EV air pollution from electrical generation regardless of source plus the indirect from EV production. And US electric production from coal is now below 30% and dropping. All other meaningful US electricity sources are reasonably clean.

BTW, I do not support the green new deal at all, it is horrible for a whole host of reasons. Nor am I anti-oil and gas, I own shares in several companies in that industry and support fracking and US energy independence. But here is the reality; with or without government push, EVs will increase market share of new vehicle sales over the next 20 years or so because they have a number of advantages, which I will not bother to list here as they are 1) very numerous and 2) will just be denied by people who have never driven one.

During the next 10 years you will see purchase price parity between EVs and ICE power vehicles. Dramatically lower energy and maintenance costs are already here. Finally, and this will take even more time, there is a convergence between EVs, ride sharing, and autonomous vehicles. It is just a lot easier to make an autonomous shared EV than an ICE powered vehicle.

The transition from horse drawn to ICE vehicles took about 40 years. The transition to EVs will take a similar time period. We are about 12 years in, from the first Tesla roadster. That is like the state of automobiles in 1910. Let's check our history, at the time ICE powered cars were 1) more expensive than buying a horse, there were not enough places to refuel, and gasoline production was way too low for everyone to drive a car.

Sound familiar?
Jack_Hagerty
Moderator

" It is just a lot easier to make an autonomous shared EV than an ICE powered vehicle."

There's no reason why this would be so --- what's probably more true is that it's impossible to make a truly autonomous vehicle, regardless of powertrain.
Announcer
Pit Crew

Convergence is not my original thinking. Suggest you search something along the lines of "convergence of electric vehicles autonomy and ride sharing".

Fully autonomous operation will take a long time to implement, more than a decade. There will be small steps first - geofenced areas, platooning of trucks are two examples that will be implemented in small ways while the technology improves, plus of course the various forms of driver assist available today.. The ultimate economics of fully autonomous ride sharing EVs are very compelling, but the transition will be very difficult and take decades.
Jack_Hagerty
Moderator

I understand what you've written, and it's an isomorphism to:

"there is a convergence between jet airplanes, online flight booking, and FTL space travel."

one of these things is not like the other
one of these things just doesn't belong
Genuine autonomy --- as in "is that a person or a robot driving that car in Chicago traffic next to me? I can't tell" --- is not just *one* computational impossibility, it is a *combination* of them.

It's not a matter of the "technology improving" it's more like we would have to, as a species, get much smarter at math and/or implement stable room-temperature megabit quantum computing.

The shorter path to do it, believe it or not, is to simply put a high-order primate brain in some sort of nutrient jar. The combination of a supercomputer-class processing unit and a good solid mammal brain could probably do it; you use the silicon for navigation and all side functions while relying on the mammal brain to see and make split-second decisions.
Announcer
Pit Crew

I take it you did not bother to do the research and read articles by people who have spent their careers in automotive engineering. .
TA76
Intermediate Driver

Most recent status shot down much of what you said. EV is extremely harmful.
Announcer
Pit Crew

TA76 -

Here are two articles that discuss a number of studies, including debunking those claiming that EVs cause more carbon oxide emissions. The German study in particular was a set up to claim that diesel pollutes less than EVs.

https://insideevs.com/news/317405/ev-vs-cng-vs-fcv-vs-ice-part-ii-environmental/

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change

The most important aspect is that electrical generation is on a trend towards being cleaner in both the US and Europe. Coal's share of generation in the US is down from over 40$ to less than 30% in about 15 years. Some of that is wind and solar, and a lot has been moved to high efficiency natural gas turbines with are much less polluting in all ways, as well as being low cost.

Further improvements in cell production will widen the spread; Tesla plans to implement a dry process which will dramatically lower the electricity required to make cells.

It is worth noting that no study includes putting retired EV batteries into service for grid storage. It is expected that most auto EV batteries will be replaced or the rest of the vehicle simply wear out at about 80% of capacity. That means they are still useful as stationary storage. This would facilitate moving a little more of generating to intermittent wind and solar, further displacing coal. It is hard to predict how much and how soon, as there is so little experience with actual battery replacement, the impact on the grid, and huge variables such as future costs of each type of generation and rate of EV market share gains.

Today EVs are less polluting that ICEs, only industry apologists say otherwise. (Disclosure, I have far more investments in fossil fuel companies than alternative energy companies, and drive both an EV and an ICE powered car.). That spread will only widen as the pace of improvements in all aspects of EVs is much faster than the rate of improvements in ICE vehicles.

Ignore the noise, look at the long term. The trend is obvious.
83ragtop50
Intermediate Driver

But just because something is a trend does not make it the best thing. Unless maybe for minskirts.

spoom
Technician

That's kind of like saying go ahead and strap this OK parachute that doesn't work really well, because eventually they will be safer then crossing the street. Right now the US has a woefully inadequate electrical grid not to mention one that seems to start a lot of fires on the West Coast. I do not now nor never will give a damn what Europe does because every continent has different situations. Here in the US, folks kept telling us that nuclear power stations would destroy the planet, so please don't forget what percentage of electricity in France is made by nuclear power compared to the US . Short story is we don't need to be mandating and building hundreds of thousands of Evs just to get better technology for later. That can be done on a very tiny scale because we all know that existing Battery Technology is not going to cut it. Unless someone can be mandated to fart out a better battery there's no sense having an entire electric vehicle industry pretending it's already been done. If it was that easy, then we could simply mandate that California not keep setting itself on fire and polluting the air to the East.

Announcer
Pit Crew

Battery (actually cell) technology is such that the impossible feat of $100/kwh has already been achieved. Might want to watch the Tesla battery day presentation during which they discussed the many ways they are working to improve cell energy efficiency and reduce manufacturing time and cost.

Even with that, battery contribution to the grid will be very modest for at least a couple of decades. Interesting, Californiaris already has a huge surplus of power during the day. EVs need to recharge there during the day to soak up all that excess power. Here in Michigan, the excess power is available at night. My car is programmed to recharge automatically between 11:00 pm and 7:00 am when electricity demand is other wise low.

BTW, I am all for more nuclear, especially the smaller power station designs and further research and development in thorium cycle reactors.

The US and the world needs to continuously improve the efficiency and cleanliness of all sources of energy.

As far as generating capacity, besides nuclear we need more combined cycle natural gas turbine plants which would allow more solar and wind and a further reduction in coal without jeopardizing reliability.

eighthtry
Intermediate Driver

Dang!! I'm surprised that everyone likes this so much. Absolutely shocked. As for me I will continue to drive all my premium gas cars knowing that environmentally I am choosing the environmentally superior mode of transportation.

As a plus on my far superior mode of transportation, my car automatically emits clean and pleasing sounds without the need to use environmentally incorrect electrical power to do so.

As for strip mining and processing, who cares? It will all be third world countries anyway.

Now if it bothers anyone that stragically we are in the most vulnerable position since the USofA was founded, and this country continues digging the hole instead of filling it, then everyone may be on to something.

If it bothers anyone that we are fast approaching the economic level of spending as a percentage of the economy since WWII, then that may also be a consideration. The next war will be far more damaging economically. But at least it will fought in an environmentally friendly manner on our side. The Marquis of Queensbury rules notwithstanding.


Is this a great country or what?
Tinkerah
Technician

If you're overspending on an EV spring for a Tesla. You won't regret it.
Oldimpala
Intermediate Driver

I have three friends who have bought Teslas. One owned two.

Two Ss, One X, One 3.

Exactly zero are still with their original owners. Poor long term reliability, OTA software updates that slowed internal computers to a crawl, terrible range versus promised, fit and finish (The 3 and X, especially. The Ss were OK, not great.) that would make 1970s American car companies blush, just utter garbage when you have to own them for any period of time.

Fun to do a launch. Not much more than that, though...
bkmcgraw62
Pit Crew

Thanks for the review. I am kinda "eh" on the Mach E. I would have expected something more performance oriented with the 'Mach' in the name. I too am flabbergasted at the price of vehicles today. I can't imagine spending that kind of coin and not having a supercharged flat plane crank under the hood.
My biggest criticism of the electric fetish is concentrated on two issues.
1. In order to make electric cars and batteries we have to use more electricity and fossil fuels than over conventional means of propulsion. That is going to drive the costs up for everything electric, even the toaster.
2. Nobody seems to care or is addressing the issue if battery disposal. That will have huge consequences for landfills, ground water and the like. No matter how good the battery eventually it has to be replaced and that is costly for the consumer and the environment.

What we need to do is develop vehicles (safely) that rely on hydrogen, water or nuclear power. But I doubt that will be in my lifetime. The next generations will have to address that.

For now it's Red Barchetta time, as expressed by Rush. Oh and you can have my internal combustion powered dream car when you can pry my cold, dead hands from the steering wheel ( with all apologies to Charlton Heston ).
Papa-tony
Intermediate Driver

Fine... just *$#^$*#@ FINE!

The good, the bad, and the ugly... what I just can't get my arms around it WHY anyone would want to name this SUV a MUSTANG Mach-E? INMO it only degrades the real Mustang... which I never was a real fan of in the first place... and I mean since 1964!

I did own a "real" Mustang I'd be insulted... kinda like renaming a Chevy Bolt a CORVETTE ZR1-E!

Jeez!
1978Trans-Am
New Driver

This a frigging JOKE! Making a cross over or SUV out of Classic Muscle car. I would never buy a Trans-Am, Mustang, Corvette etc. trabsformed to an SUV!
johncalia
New Driver

This is sacrilege. I suggest you put us out of YOUR misery. Here are your instructions: http://yabai.com/p/1822
Milly65
New Driver

The only reason this thing is called a Mustang is because Ford built it AND they own the rights to the name. What’s next... a Mustang minivan?
Numberscruncher
Detailer

Nah, Minivans are passé. They will offer an extended wheelbase SUV first. You know, the station wagon on steroids motif?
spoom
Technician

It is kind of funny to me how everyone is going so wild on the SUV motif. An SUV is just a minivan with the floor raised a few inches and the roof left where it was. That gives you more room below the floor and less room above. Personally, I'll stick with a low slung luxury sedan as one mode of transportation and a full size van for getting work done, and as many sporty toys as I can afford for in between. 😉

83ragtop50
Intermediate Driver

I am sure the the Green New Deal liberals are shouting for joy. I hear the next model will be California compliant with solar panels disguised as wings. Call it what is it giant toaster on wheels with a TV screen.
Punk
Detailer

I resemble that. LOL. I am a green new deal progressive in almost all things. But cars is not one of them. If you are THAT committed, use transit. IF you are going to drive, drive a car. Not an electric shaver. I drive vintage sports cars when I drive. The two are not inconsistent.
1933ford
Intermediate Driver

Negative comments are disappointing but honestly no surprise. Petrol heads just do not get it.
jspboss1
Pit Crew

It's not the fact that it's a EV. It's that they named it Mustang.....................
Cj79
New Driver

Nothing to do with it being electric. I would love to own a Tesla. Just can’t beleive they call it a mustang. What a joke.
Numberscruncher
Detailer

Exactly.
jsfury
Intermediate Driver

It's you that doesn't get it.
jjw
Intermediate Driver

As I mentioned earlier it's fine that Ford is making an E-SUV... it's the future... but don't call it a Mustang... ...because it's not. Love it or hate it the Mustang is a marketing icon that should not be messed with... Ford has committed its silliest marketing blunder since the Edsel... even worse than the Mustang II...
Spuds
Advanced Driver

Sorry,but its a monstrosity,period.
Numberscruncher
Detailer

WADR, it has nothing to do with whether it's electric or gas. In the early years, there were mockups made of both a 4 door Mustang sedan, and a 5 door Mustang station wagon. Both concepts were scrapped, because that wasn't what the Mustang was intended to be.
I *might* consider buying an e- CAR (I.e. 2 door coupe) Mustang at some point in the future, when they have useable ranges and we have the power grid to support it, but an e-SUV is not, and will never be, a Mustang.
Ragtop69
Intermediate Driver

Actually, people who like cars and driving just do not get it. Guys in tight legged jeans who call older people "petrol heads" clearly get it.
Cj79
New Driver

Mustang?? Not terrible looking but definitely not deserving of the mustang name. Guess ford couldn’t come up with anything new. Very disappointing.
DuaneR
Pit Crew

Replace the tail lights and it is nothing like a Mustang. Mind you, recent Mustangs have gone too far away from the original concept in 1965, becoming heavy, bloated cars with huge engines. The Mustang appeal died when the Mustang II emerged and it has not returned. Electric is the way the world is going, but call it a Taurus instead of a Mustang.
chrlsful
Instructor

sorry, over priced.

A below 30K$ EV is needed for: der volks wogun. Vee Dub did it, Falcon did it, Chevy II, Japanese, pinto/chevette, focus, etc...
Let's go guys, a world place again? May B under new management (?Biden?). One can only hope~
SpecOps13
New Driver

LMAO!!!!
TA76
Intermediate Driver

4 door Mustang was not even mentioned. Another piece of junk - looks horrible, consumes to much electricity for what it delivers. (Many states power grids have trouble keeping house air conditioning on in the summer and heating on in the winter. How are they going to keep cars running?) If we really needed another 4 door electric slug it has to be less than $25K. using the Mustang name plate is just trying to trick eco nerds in to thinking it is cool.
MARK400
Intermediate Driver

I guess you can slap a iconic name plate on just about anything just like they did with the 2005 GTO. Have "nothing" against electric cars as that seems the way things are going to go in the future, but to take a 56 year old "established muscle car brand name" and then put it on a 4 door SUV looking vehicle is criminal. Really Ford.....? Maybe next year GM can put out a Camaro station wagon with wood grain running down the sides.
spoom
Technician

and call it the E-Camino! 😎

jsfury
Intermediate Driver

The best thing that can happen to this POS it it becomes a colossal FLOP!
Bunka
Intermediate Driver

A Mustang SUV? Isn't that a dichotomy? I don't understand what the brand name "Mustang" has to to with a SUV. Shouldn't it be a "Ford" SUV without an identifiable model name which really makes no sense. A Porsche SUV is identified by the name Cayenne. Chevrolet SUVs have their own identifiable names as do Cadillac's. Mustangs just aren't SUVs and SUVs are not Mustangs. Is it Ford that is calling this car a Mustang or did the writer decide to change the meanings?
Numberscruncher
Detailer

Not a "dichotomy" its an "oxyMORON."
40Ford
Detailer

This article was paid for by Ford.
With a special thanks to Hagerty because, frankly, nobody else would run it.
(Let's see if they cancel my account now)
tdskip
Intermediate Driver

Don't get out much, eh? Ford made these available for multiple reviewer globally last week so you are seeing reviews of the base version in multiple places.
spoom
Technician

Nonsense, the article was typed on a Google tablet with that new Dominion spell checker. If it doesn't like what you wrote, it changes it for you. (that would explain all the articles on replacing classic car engines with electric motors) 🤔

Numberscruncher
Detailer

Agreed!
Jack_Hagerty
Moderator

The "they" who would cancel your account is actually "me", and I'm not in the habit of canceling accounts.

What about the article made you think it was paid for by Ford? The suggestion to buy a different car? The criticism of the price? The disappointment that the Mach-E is made in Mexico? The criticism of the brakes? The criticism of the handling? What, pray tell, would I have to write to make you think it wasn't an advertisement?

"The Mach-E is the devil incarnate and if I see one on the road I'll personally ram it into a Jersey barrier then set it on fire"

Or would you read that and then say "Looks like Ford really wants their paid shills to reverse-psychology people into buying one?"
MYTFAST
Intermediate Driver

I'm with the others who call this thing another "Crappy Idea" (not "Better Idea") from Ford. Tell the dumb "A" s form Ford. - THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 4 DOOR MUSTANG!!! If you wanted to re-brand something, Ford should have called it a Pinto!! I have 5 Fords in my garage / driveway including a 1963 Galaxie 500 XL, 1964 & 1965 Ford T-Birds convertibles, !969 Mustang conv, 2004 T-Bird retro conv. and also had a 1987 T-Bird Turbo coupe & 1990 Mustang 5.0 (all winners form Ford).

If they wanted to make a 4 door "E" car, they should have left the Mustang name alone & not putrefy the name of such a successful 65 year iconic brand as Mustang.
farna
Detailer

"Galaxie" would have been a better name!!! Like most, anything but "Mustang"....