Test drove a Mach-E GT today....

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Besides, Volt, Bolt, Ampera, Ampera-e, Electra, and EV1 were already taken.

I think toaster is still available.

Because the Mustang name carries weight with the target EV audience Ford is trying to reach that doesn't really place much importance on the Mustang you're thinking of, which is the GT, Cobra, Shelby, GT350, etc. Those variants came much later than the 1962 Falcon-based secretary's car. If we are to believe the tea leaves and everything eventually goes electric, the Mach-E sets the stage for a BEV Mustang coupe

Might be using the current model to polish and refine the process and get some traction in the market before they release a halo version of their only famous car. They released their GT version last too, so that seems to track with your thinking. Audi did the same with their EV product line, the Etron RS was the last to be released.

[Donatello.]

Originally Posted by HeelToeShift

I have a Mustang Mach-E GT Performance. It's primarily my wife's car since for her driving it makes the most sense. Ordered a Tesla but got so delayed we ended up with the Mach-E. It's an incredible car to drive, and it turns heads as much as my 718 GT4 does and more than my G80 M3 does. The 634 lb ft of torque are a lot of fun and it's really tough to find much that will beat it to around 100 mph. The 12K in tax credits certainly help when it comes to price as they are not cheap by any means. Might look into the iX at some point but very happy and the quality, fit & finish for Ford is quite good.

How's the charging at home going?

[Donatello.]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

This is just a nice wheel upgrade. Stunning when compared to an effing Tesla.

Agree, but the front ends on all these electric cars look like huge rock chip magnets to me

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Donatello.

Agree, but the front ends on all these electric cars look like huge rock chip magnets to me

PPF I'm sure is a $2,400 option...

[HeelToeShift]

Originally Posted by Donatello.

How's the charging at home going?

It's been great. Have a 220 line. During the colder weather we charge maybe 2X per week but in the warm months maybe once every 7-10 days depending on how we are using the car.

[StradaRedlands]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

...snip...

Besides, Volt, Bolt, Ampera, Ampera-e, Electra, and EV1 were already taken.

Ford Galaxi-E!!!!

I'd like them to go back to F names... Fairlane, Fairmont, Focus (even Fiesta).

[billnchristy]

The original idea of the "Mustang" vehicle is nothing like that of the Mach-E,

While I agree, probably not for the same reason. The original Mustang was a cheap ass slow car that was made to look sporty so you didn't have to drive something ugly. A 289 2bbl has the same performance specs as a 2010 Prius and there were even worse options out there in the straight 6.

So yeah, the mach-e isn't cheap or slow and whether it's sporty looking is up to you (I think it is).

You could easily argue that a modern mustang is nothing like the original either. Probably the last one that was is the fox body years.

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by ///MPhatic

True, and stupid IMO. Same with the new Supra, I feel like it should have been 100% JDM like the originals, but it wasn't the smart play.

Companies have no balls these days.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I have to agree with the Supra. Not sure why BMW had to team up with Toyota to find enough amortization of the engineering for the Z4 by spreading the chassis with the Supra. Not sure who designed either of the Z4 and Supra, but Jeeze are both just POU (plain old ugly). I think there is just too much regulation in the car industry regarding design, which must makes a diversified model lineup hideously expensive to carry.

I think it was the other way around. Toyota going after BMW.

The lead guy for the Supra already said if they had designed, tested, and built their own powertrain, instead of the 6 starting in the mid-50s, it would have started $90k+

[///MPhatic]

Originally Posted by OkieSnuffBox

The lead guy for the Supra already said if they had designed, tested, and built their own powertrain, instead of the 6 starting in the mid-50s, it would have started $90k+

Which would have been cheap. I worked for Toyota in 1996 and saw the $65K Supra's going out the door.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by ///MPhatic

Which would have been cheap. I worked for Toyota in 1996 and saw the $65K Supra's going out the door.

This is true, but it wouldn't have been competitive at that price point.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I have to agree with the Supra. Not sure why BMW had to team up with Toyota to find enough amortization of the engineering for the Z4 by spreading the chassis with the Supra.

Because no one buys Z4s. The R&D costs barely justify making it. It's not only BMW's fault for making them be very average for most of their run. The demand for sports cars continues to dry up. People want tanks. I just looked up the numbers for the 911. It appears that the number of units sold in 2022 will be lower than in 2005. A negative growth segment isn't where you want to be, unfortunately.

[///MPhatic]

Originally Posted by chris719

Because no one buys Z4s. The R&D costs barely justify making it. It's not only BMW's fault for making them be very average for most of their run. The demand for sports cars continues to dry up. People want tanks. I just looked up the numbers for the 911. It appears that the number of units sold in 2022 will be lower than in 2005. A negative growth segment isn't where you want to be, unfortunately.

All of this is true, it's just unfortunate for the enthusiast. Maybe it'll come back around. I think our only saving grace is that manufacturers still benefit from having halo cars, or they might all be gone by now.

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by ///MPhatic

Which would have been cheap. I worked for Toyota in 1996 and saw the $65K Supra's going out the door.

As Chris mentioned, it's not competitive at that price point. At call it $100k, I'd MUCH rather have a very nicely customized Cayman/Boxster S.

Not to mention, the average enthusiast can't afford a $100k vehicle. I know guys with Supra's that make less than I do and far less than my fiance and I combined.......so the younger guys are willing to eschew financial responsibility to push to the max what they can afford. A $60k car they can, $100k they can't.

[///MPhatic]

Originally Posted by OkieSnuffBox

As Chris mentioned, it's not competitive at that price point. At call it $100k, I'd MUCH rather have a very nicely customized Cayman/Boxster S.

Not to mention, the average enthusiast can't afford a $100k vehicle. I know guys with Supra's that make less than I do and far less than my fiance and I combined.......so the younger guys are willing to eschew financial responsibility to push to the max what they can afford. A $60k car they can, $100k they can't.

I disagree.

They could have done it for the price of a GTR, which would be the main competitor. No AWD, but they could have evolved the engine to support 1200+hp with bolt-ons, but they chose not to.

You're one person...on a BMW board...where most guys are only here transiently because they can't quite afford that Porsche. And if I'm right, you're one of them.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by chris719

Because no one buys Z4s. The R&D costs barely justify making it. It's not only BMW's fault for making them be very average for most of their run. The demand for sports cars continues to dry up. People want tanks. I just looked up the numbers for the 911. It appears that the number of units sold in 2022 will be lower than in 2005. A negative growth segment isn't where you want to be, unfortunately.

I'll have to disagree with you. The Z3 is mostly a cut and rebodied E36. Engine, trans, diff, hubs, suspension, electrical architecture, all straight E36. Same for the E85/86 Z4, mostly E46 architecture and parts. Anyone who owns the M versions I doubt would say the Z's are "average". The E89 kind of went more touring oriented, but as with most BMWs a suspension upgrade changes things. The 911 went up the scale in price tier for more profitability, with the Boxter/Cayman taking the lower price tier sales.

I still don't see why BMW teamed with Toyota on the current generation Z4.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I'll have to disagree with you. The Z3 is mostly a cut and rebodied E36. Engine, trans, diff, hubs, suspension, electrical architecture, all straight E36. Same for the E85/86 Z4, mostly E46 architecture and parts. Anyone who owns the M versions I doubt would say the Z's are "average". The E89 kind of went more touring oriented, but as with most BMWs a suspension upgrade changes things. The 911 went up the scale in price tier for more profitability, with the Boxter/Cayman taking the lower price tier sales.

I still don't see why BMW teamed with Toyota on the current generation Z4.

When I say average, maybe that's harsh but I mean compared to the world of other sports cars. Z4s are probably some of the best BMWs on the whole. They are good cars, but the E85/E86 is the only attempt at being sporty and they are always the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th best car in their category.

I owned what IMO is the best one; the E85 Z4M. I've also driven a Z3 (forget which, non-M), E85 3.0si, and E89 sDrive 30i, although not for long.

The Z4M is the best of that group and probably my favorite BMW of all time, but IMO 75% of the appeal of that car is the S54 with the top down. The gearbox is not good into 2nd and the chassis feels crude where it just plows until it snaps or you learn to kick it early and steer with throttle. I had a 997.1 C2S loaner for a day while I had the Z4M and I was blown away with how much better the Porsche chassis and steering were. Same thing when I test drove a 987.2 Cayman.

As far as BMW and Toyota, I don't think BMW teamed up with Toyota at all really. Pretty sure the relationship was closer to BMW receiving a check from Toyota for the rights to sell a Z4 coupe as a Supra. Without that money and Supra name to move units, who knows if the Z4 gets axed or not. The 911 moved up in price, but I'm pretty confident if you look at industry numbers as a whole you will see declining sports car sales.

[aktif8]

Originally Posted by hihowareyougood

From what I gather, most people who buy these kinds of cars don't get tired of the acceleration, especially if that's all they've known. It's convenient and effortless to utilize that power from a stoplight or freeway onramp for a quick rush, and then back to the speed limit for the rest of the commute. After all, that's what made AMG so exciting - the early AMGs since the 90s were boats, but fast for their time and very fun on highway runs.

Well... I can chime in here. I had an I-pace for a while. 512 lb/ft was fun for the first few weeks, then the novelty wore off, and it became a mildly sporty yet porky uv. I dumped it 11 months in when I realized I was bored to tears of it, and a 90k car engendering abject apathy is no bueno for me. It was cool to own an ev for a while, but by and large, they are appliances with one trick. No regrets here. Paying for gas is worth it.

[Bc2005]

If you think having a Mustang EV is bad, how about GM’s decision to make the Corvette a brand/product line. Based on the articles, starting in 2025 there will be a Corvette EV, a 4 door sedan, and an SUV. But it will have the “essence of Corvette”.

Wonder what a Z71 or AT4 Corvette will look like?

[SoCal_NSX]

Originally Posted by Bc2005

If you think having a Mustang EV is bad, how about GM’s decision to make the Corvette a brand/product line. Based on the articles, starting in 2025 there will be a Corvette EV, a 4 door sedan, and an SUV. But it will have the “essence of Corvette”.

Wonder what a Z71 or AT4 Corvette will look like?

here you go

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Bc2005

If you think having a Mustang EV is bad, how about GM’s decision to make the Corvette a brand/product line. Based on the articles, starting in 2025 there will be a Corvette EV, a 4 door sedan, and an SUV. But it will have the “essence of Corvette”.

Wonder what a Z71 or AT4 Corvette will look like?

Sorta like this?

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by chris719

When I say average, maybe that's harsh but I mean compared to the world of other sports cars. Z4s are probably some of the best BMWs on the whole. They are good cars, but the E85/E86 is the only attempt at being sporty and they are always the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th best car in their category.

I owned what IMO is the best one; the E85 Z4M. I've also driven a Z3 (forget which, non-M), E85 3.0si, and E89 sDrive 30i, although not for long.

The Z4M is the best of that group and probably my favorite BMW of all time, but IMO 75% of the appeal of that car is the S54 with the top down. The gearbox is not good into 2nd and the chassis feels crude where it just plows until it snaps or you learn to kick it early and steer with throttle. I had a 997.1 C2S loaner for a day while I had the Z4M and I was blown away with how much better the Porsche chassis and steering were. Same thing when I test drove a 987.2 Cayman.

As far as BMW and Toyota, I don't think BMW teamed up with Toyota at all really. Pretty sure the relationship was closer to BMW receiving a check from Toyota for the rights to sell a Z4 coupe as a Supra. Without that money and Supra name to move units, who knows if the Z4 gets axed or not. The 911 moved up in price, but I'm pretty confident if you look at industry numbers as a whole you will see declining sports car sales.

Sportscar ownership is greatly tied to the economy. Look at the sportscar ownership data overlaid on economic data and it is clear disposable income is the driving force behind 2-seat coupe and convertible sales of such cars as the 911, Boxer/Cayman, Z4, Miata, etc. Like I said earlier, the modern day costs to be compliant with motor vehicle regulations across the world make it quite hard to build a business case for low-volume models, yet Mazda and GM seem to find a way to do it. That's the sad part. The industry should lobby to change the regulations and allow production of unique low-volume models. It sucks for the industry and enthusiast.

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by ///MPhatic

I disagree.

They could have done it for the price of a GTR, which would be the main competitor. No AWD, but they could have evolved the engine to support 1200+hp with bolt-ons, but they chose not to.

You're one person...on a BMW board...where most guys are only here transiently because they can't quite afford that Porsche. And if I'm right, you're one of them.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, the amount of people who can afford a $100k car, or saying the Toyota executive was lying about the cost? For reference, a 2023 GT-R starts at $114k.

Nope, I can't afford Boxster S optioned the way I would want it.