My GT Performance Edition (GTPE) first track launch with videos, timeslip! 0-60 in 4.12s, 1/4 mile in 12.657 @ 100.02 mph

[blue92lx]

I don’t have the time to pour back over 661 posts on this thread, but I seem to remember someone going after Frankie about letting his new GTPE sit unclaimed at the dealer, which was not the case (the car hadn’t been processed yet). I don’t think he threw the first e-punch.

That was me, and that was loooonnnnggg after the drama started primarily between Frankie and Pushrods&Capacitors. Even at that time I didn't have the will or effort to try and find Frankie's post about his car arriving because it was that far back, I just remembered him saying his GTPE had arrived and since that moment had multiple times mentioned not knowing if he was going to buy it or not. It wasn't me just creating drama, it literally seemed like his car was ready for pickup and he was just leaving it there reading comments on a forum instead. It turned out it was still under inspection at the time.

Sponsored

 

[pt19713]

Cool… I’m sure $10 k looks good in the rear view mirrors of the Plaid. Looks are subjective, speed isn’t when you run 9’s vs mid 10’s.

Great numbers in some cases? Lol, every performance model run less than 4 sec 0-60, what’s not the case there?

Even the long range 3 and long range Y with the boost run sub 4, let alone the Performance models

 

[pt19713]

I saw this short article from The Drive I thought was interesting and maybe relevant to this discussion:

https://www.thedrive.com/news/42140/ford-was-caught-off-guard-by-mustang-mach-e-gts-popularity

In it, they quote Jim Farley as saying

"We didn’t have the right spec levels, the GT was much more popular than we thought,"

"We couldn’t react. It was like, the marketing team could, but the industrial system that creates the physical product, and the software team—they didn’t like, get the memo of this demand."

There’s a bit more and it’s not the direct response people are hoping for, but it may explain the “product readiness” (or lack, thereof) at this point.

Sounds like a poor excuse. If the product isn't ready, don't let the marketing team promote dates and deliveries until the product is ready. Over promise, under deliver is never good for a company's reputation. Almost like Tesla's full self driving lol

 

[Frankie]

But no one reflects on why the compromise is there.

WRT to the AWD ER, correct me if I'm wrong but it has a different front motor and it max draw is lower by about a 100kw!! which hints at why it can go much longer at max draw. So its not the same vehicle at all. On the GT you get much faster acceleration to 0-60 but then pay for it on the back end. That's just how EV's are.

BTW no need to yell, perfectly capable of reading.

I don't care if it's couldn't, wouldn't, or shouldn't. If Ford is incapable/unwilling to make a vehicle that competes favorably with a MYP on performance metrics then they shouldn't have called it a Mustang GT.

 

[blue92lx]

Reading this thread, all 663 posts, has anyone considered the tricky situation Ford is in. To keep the acceleration going after 6-8 seconds Ford has to worry about if this will damage the Battery. On the Etron, Audi engineers spent years working out the 8 second 100% acceleration window, without damaging the Battery, esp. long term. The maximum they were willing to push the envelope is 8 seconds. And even then it is not regularly available and needs a button push. Its not an accident IMO that that is where the software on the GT is intervening right now. People would be well advised to go read some of the write ups from the Audi engineers on all the things they were worrying about. I can bet you Ford Engineers read all of it.

If the cooling system for the GT battery is the same as the AWD ER how are you going to allow 12+ second acceleration windows without battery damage. The answer is you don't. My 'friends' experience on the ER AWD, going past 110 Mph is that there is a lot more power there that is being software limited. We will have to see if Ford engineers get confident enough to open up the acceleration profile. With this early generation car and all the recent recall activity I very seriously doubt it.

Your GT can be launched again and again and again on the same day, hour, minute with this acceleration profile with Zero limitations for Battery damage. Do folks realize how amazing that is for an EV. The only other car that can do this is the Porsche Taycan which cost $50,000 more!!

The other company allows a certain amount of battery damage from hard acceleration and simply software neuters the folks who use it too much to prevent a drop below 70% degradation. It not a fair comparison at all. The Battery neutering for all the hard acceleration folks for the other company is coming, they just don't know it. In fact they won't even be notified. This is simply not an option for Ford.

I think my two things about this are:

1) Like others have said, so what's up with the slow 50-70mph then?
1a) And like it's been mentioned 500 times here too, why is the AWD version getting higher top speeds in the 1/4? That to me is the biggest thing that says something is wrong, but also should be able to be fixed.

2) How much damage are Tesla's really getting if they have it opened up past 8 seconds? I mean they've been running it this way for a long time and apparently the batteries are still ready to go without losing a lot of functionality or charge capabilities. I'll always give it to Tesla on their tech and efficiency, there's a reason their Marshmallow turtle faced looking Model Y can do the 1/4 mile as fast as it does. If they aren't limiting the run to 8 seconds on the battery, why does everyone else need to do that? Also, they seem to not limit the acceleration nearly as much on lower SOC's either. Playing it safe is good, but people also want to feel the full force of the EV they got and not be limited by it.

 

[Brofessional]

But no one reflects on why the compromise is there.

WRT to the AWD ER, correct me if I'm wrong but it has a different front motor and it max draw is lower by about a 100kw!! which hints at why it can go much longer at max draw. So its not the same vehicle at all. On the GT you get much faster acceleration to 0-60 but then pay for it on the back end. That's just how EV's are.

BTW no need to yell, perfectly capable of reading.

Is that seriously the hill your staking your claim on? That FMC engineers are so incompetent that they not only failed to design an EV that’s competitive, but that in order to make an attempt at competing (while still losing to a MYP at 60 mph) they made a conscious decision to release a vehicle that shits the bed at upper highway speeds? FMC? The one that’s been building cars for 100 years?

I hope for their sake you’re wrong. They would have been MUCH better off losing to the Y performance (as they already are), emphasizing how much better the vehicle was than a Tesla, and maybe then being forthcoming with sacrifices on the top end with only the performance edition in order to actually hit 3.5s 0-60.

If this truly was a “decision” to draw so much early that they have to throttle at legal speeds to protect the battery, I think some people need to be encouraged to search for work elsewhere. Come to think of it, this might actually be why Dickson was made chief engineer in April if they were aware of this early on. So maybe you’re right after all.

 

[Frankie]

Reading this thread, all 663 posts, has anyone considered the tricky situation Ford is in. To keep the acceleration going after 6-8 seconds Ford has to worry about if this will damage the Battery. On the Etron, Audi engineers spent years working out the 8 second 100% acceleration window, without damaging the Battery, esp. long term. The maximum they were willing to push the envelope is 8 seconds. And even then it is not regularly available and needs a button push. Its not an accident IMO that that is where the software on the GT is intervening right now. People would be well advised to go read some of the write ups from the Audi engineers on all the things they were worrying about. I can bet you Ford Engineers read all of it.

If the cooling system for the GT battery is the same as the AWD ER how are you going to allow 12+ second acceleration windows without battery damage. The answer is you don't. My 'friends' experience on the ER AWD, going past 110 Mph is that there is a lot more power there that is being software limited. We will have to see if Ford engineers get confident enough to open up the acceleration profile. With this early generation car and all the recent recall activity I very seriously doubt it.

Your GT can be launched again and again and again on the same day, hour, minute with this acceleration profile with Zero limitations for Battery damage. Do folks realize how amazing that is for an EV. The only other car that can do this is the Porsche Taycan which cost $50,000 more!!

The other company allows a certain amount of battery damage from hard acceleration and simply software neuters the folks who use it too much to prevent a drop below 70% degradation. It not a fair comparison at all. The Battery neutering for all the hard acceleration folks for the other company is coming, they just don't know it. In fact they won't even be notified. This is simply not an option for Ford.

This can't be true. The Ford ball washers in this thread have been telling us "It'll trap 112, the OP just lifted before the traps" then "It'll trap 112, the OP was just at 72%" and then "It'll trap 112, he just wasn't in track mode" and then "it'll run 112, just wait for Ford to release a patch" and then "well even if it doesn't run 112, at least it's fast until high 80s."

Are you telling us that all these things were not true?

 

[guyofthesky]

I don’t have the time to pour back over 661 posts on this thread, but I seem to remember someone going after Frankie about letting his new GTPE sit unclaimed at the dealer, which was not the case (the car hadn’t been processed yet). I don’t think he threw the first e-punch.

Don’t bite on the easy bait, folks. People like to vent their aggression on a convenient, anonymous platform. Folks like Frankie are in a very tough spot - he has to decide *now* whether or not to accept the car in its current form. Many of us have the luxury of watching to see how this plays out before we have to pull the trigger. Having waited as long as he has, it has to be crushing for this to happen just as he was to buy the car.

I think we’re mostly aligned on the opinion that in its current form, the GT is disappointing, but we’re all hoping there is a solution. If it can live up to our expectations, it will be a *great* alternative to the Y. It would be great if Ford would weigh in at some point…

I am not ready to say the GT is disappointing. I want to drive it first before I decide. fwiw

 

[Frankie]

Why would I buy this Ford when I can buy a MYP and get all the performance the Ford is missing and then, apparently, get a new battery courtesy of the 8 year battery warranty?

 

[MrClean]

Reading this thread, all 663 posts, has anyone considered the tricky situation Ford is in. To keep the acceleration going after 6-8 seconds Ford has to worry about if this will damage the Battery. On the Etron, Audi engineers spent years working out the 8 second 100% acceleration window, without damaging the Battery, esp. long term. The maximum they were willing to push the envelope is 8 seconds. And even then it is not regularly available and needs a button push. Its not an accident IMO that that is where the software on the GT is intervening right now. People would be well advised to go read some of the write ups from the Audi engineers on all the things they were worrying about. I can bet you Ford Engineers read all of it.

If the cooling system for the GT battery is the same as the AWD ER how are you going to allow 12+ second acceleration windows without battery damage. The answer is you don't. My 'friends' experience on the ER AWD, going past 110 Mph is that there is a lot more power there that is being software limited. We will have to see if Ford engineers get confident enough to open up the acceleration profile. With this early generation car and all the recent recall activity I very seriously doubt it.

Your GT can be launched again and again and again on the same day, hour, minute with this acceleration profile with Zero limitations for Battery damage. Do folks realize how amazing that is for an EV. The only other car that can do this is the Porsche Taycan which cost $50,000 more!!

The other company allows a certain amount of battery damage from hard acceleration and simply software neuters the folks who use it too much to prevent a drop below 70% degradation. It not a fair comparison at all. The Battery neutering for all the hard acceleration folks for the other company is coming, they just don't know it. In fact they won't even be notified. This is simply not an option for Ford.

This is all very useful information. Did Ford just choose to figure out how the fast the car would be going after 8 seconds of WOT and choose to arbitrarily govern everything from that speed onward? I'm not going to floor it every time I come to a stop. What if my acceleration up to that point was "normal" (like an on-ramp with traffic), and the guy in front of me hits the end of the ramp going 50 and traffic is bearing down on us? It would be nice to be able to move over one lane and punch it without worrying about the oncoming traffic obliterating the rear of my car. I guess I should be happy it's not a Pinto.

 

[guyofthesky]

Reading this thread, all 663 posts, has anyone considered the tricky situation Ford is in. To keep the acceleration going after 6-8 seconds Ford has to worry about if this will damage the Battery. On the Etron, Audi engineers spent years working out the 8 second 100% acceleration window, without damaging the Battery, esp. long term. The maximum they were willing to push the envelope is 8 seconds. And even then it is not regularly available and needs a button push. Its not an accident IMO that that is where the software on the GT is intervening right now. People would be well advised to go read some of the write ups from the Audi engineers on all the things they were worrying about. I can bet you Ford Engineers read all of it.

If the cooling system for the GT battery is the same as the AWD ER how are you going to allow 12+ second acceleration windows without battery damage. The answer is you don't. My 'friends' experience on the ER AWD, going past 110 Mph is that there is a lot more power there that is being software limited. We will have to see if Ford engineers get confident enough to open up the acceleration profile. With this early generation car and all the recent recall activity I very seriously doubt it.

Your GT can be launched again and again and again on the same day, hour, minute with this acceleration profile with Zero limitations for Battery damage. Do folks realize how amazing that is for an EV. The only other car that can do this is the Porsche Taycan which cost $50,000 more!!

The other company allows a certain amount of battery damage from hard acceleration and simply software neuters the folks who use it too much to prevent a drop below 70% degradation. It not a fair comparison at all. The Battery neutering for all the hard acceleration folks for the other company is coming, they just don't know it. In fact they won't even be notified. This is simply not an option for Ford.

Very interesting. Do you have a link to the Audi write ups?

 

[guyofthesky]

I think my two things about this are:

1) Like others have said, so what's up with the slow 50-70mph then?
1a) And like it's been mentioned 500 times here too, why is the AWD version getting higher top speeds in the 1/4? That to me is the biggest thing that says something is wrong, but also should be able to be fixed.

2) How much damage are Tesla's really getting if they have it opened up past 8 seconds? I mean they've been running it this way for a long time and apparently the batteries are still ready to go without losing a lot of functionality or charge capabilities. I'll always give it to Tesla on their tech and efficiency, there's a reason their Marshmallow turtle faced looking Model Y can do the 1/4 mile as fast as it does. If they aren't limiting the run to 8 seconds on the battery, why does everyone else need to do that? Also, they seem to not limit the acceleration nearly as much on lower SOC's either. Playing it safe is good, but people also want to feel the full force of the EV they got and not be limited by it.

These are fair questions. It is similar to the greatly reduced charging rates on DCFC above 80% (and even below that number).

No one wants to ruin their battery, but the history of millions of EVs and many product years has generally shown that Li batteries are more robust than everyone predicted. (The Bolt debacle is a known manufacturing mistake, not overuse/misuse.)

Most of us won't run the car full blast very often and many never will. Just like we won't normally charge past 80% on a DCFC. But if we want to do either of things now and again, on our expensive car, there ought to be a way to let us do it, even if the number of times that we can do it are somehow software limited.

 

[Brofessional]

I saw this short article from The Drive I thought was interesting and maybe relevant to this discussion:

https://www.thedrive.com/news/42140/ford-was-caught-off-guard-by-mustang-mach-e-gts-popularity

In it, they quote Jim Farley as saying

"We didn’t have the right spec levels, the GT was much more popular than we thought,"

"We couldn’t react. It was like, the marketing team could, but the industrial system that creates the physical product, and the software team—they didn’t like, get the memo of this demand."

There’s a bit more and it’s not the direct response people are hoping for, but it may explain the “product readiness” (or lack, thereof) at this point.

OMG.

If this is truly how this all went down, then this is just so ridiculous on so many levels.

A company making cars for 100 years didn’t anticipate that a small SUV (highest volume segment) with an advertised 0-60 of under 4 seconds, around $50k after tax incentives, with lower running costs than any similar combustion driven car, that never has to visit a gas station, would be in high demand? WTF?

And then they allowed the marketing team to just run with some made up (apparently) numbers?

 

[guyofthesky]

Why would I buy this Ford when I can buy a MYP and get all the performance the Ford is missing and then, apparently, get a new battery courtesy of the 8 year battery warranty?

If performance is paramount, the Tesla is probably a good choice. Some people really don't want that brand, for reasons other than performance.

They are both good cars, I think.

 

[Scooby24]

OMG.

If this is truly how this all went down, then this is just so ridiculous on so many levels.

A company making cars for 100 years didn’t anticipate that a small SUV (highest volume segment) with an advertised 0-60 of under 4 seconds, around $50k after tax incentives, with lower running costs than any similar combustion driven car, that never has to visit a gas station, would be in high demand? WTF?

And then they allowed the marketing team to just run with some made up (apparently) numbers?

They didn't know the demographic likely. I assume they went after the demo that would be shared with Tesla where there's a larger/different demographic that would consider a Ford but not a Tesla. Plus if they paid any attention to the online presence, the oil/gas lobby has a ton of die hards that are very, very vocal and might drown out the actual demand.

Sponsored