2024 Mach E GT performance upgrade OTA

[HuntingPudel]

so I haven't looked, can you pay the upgrade fee when you order the car? Not that I'm in the market for a 24.

There's a check box to pay the fee when you order the car. There seem to be a bunch of GTs inbound in my area that don't have the $995 option on them. ?‍?

Sponsored

 

[Delsk]

so I haven't looked, can you pay the upgrade fee when you order the car? Not that I'm in the market for a 24.

If it helps…
The salesman I was visiting this past weekend looked on the order screen and said he did not see that option but he spent all of 30 seconds looking at it. He also looked at all of the Mach-Es that were on order/in transit and didn’t see the performance upgrade on any of them.

 

[zvez]

If it helps…
The salesman I was visiting this past weekend looked on the order screen and said he did not see that option but he spent all of 30 seconds looking at it. He also looked at all of the Mach-Es that were on order/in transit and didn’t see the performance upgrade on any of them.

if I were in the market for a new mache I'd much rather pay for this performance upgrade than bluecruise.

 

[FachE]

You can get it from the factory for $995 ($745 w/ wheel upgrade) or purchase later OTA through connected services for $995. I'm just waiting to see it pop up as avaliable in connected services. On FB, some random dude who is a Ford Employee mentioned 7/29 you can grab it. Waiting!

 

[RSF]

I think it might be even more interesting to see someone purchase a '24 GT, _not_ pay for the upgrade, and still try to install it themselves via FDRS (or via ForScan.)

Isn't that stealing?

 

[garyd9]

Isn't that stealing?

yes, it would be. That won't stop people from trying.

 

[Delsk]

I think it might be even more interesting to see someone purchase a '24 GT, _not_ pay for the upgrade, and still try to install it themselves via FDRS (or via ForScan.)

I think this is what the one salesman I mentioned was referring to in my earlier reply when he said I could use a hack to get the upgrade on my car myself but he said doing so would void the vehicle warranty.

 

[avdonr]

Isn't that stealing?

I mean, the hardware is already paid for, it’s in every car from the factory. All you would be doing by paying the $1000 is deploying a software edit (essentially a new ”tune”).

NOT THAT IM ADVISING PEOPLE TO DO THIS but in my opinion if I already paid for the hardware, I should be allowed to use the full capabilities of the hardware. I really don’t like when companies restrict hardware with software and then charge extra to unlock something that it’s already capable of. It’s not like Ford is physically putting in a better motor.

It’s almost akin to the whole BWM fiasco where they charged a software fee to “unlock” heated seats even though the hardware is already in the car. Absolute insanity.

I can see why some people would try to enable it out of spite, especially once outside of warranty.

 

[Delsk]

I mean, the hardware is already paid for, it’s in every car from the factory. All you would be doing by paying the $1000 is deploying a software edit (essentially a new ”tune”).

NOT THAT IM ADVISING PEOPLE TO DO THIS but in my opinion if I already paid for the hardware, I should be allowed to use the full capabilities of the hardware. I really don’t like when companies restrict hardware with software and then charge extra to unlock something that it’s already capable of. It’s not like Ford is physically putting in a better motor.

It’s almost akin to the whole BWM fiasco where they charged a software fee to “unlock” heated seats even though the hardware is already in the car. Absolute insanity.

I can see why some people would try to enable it out of spite, especially once outside of warranty.

As a software developer (not for Ford or even related to the Mach-E at all), I take umbrage at someone saying that they are entitled to the work I do for free simply because they own the hardware that the software is intended for.
Honestly, if this were a thing, then you would also be entitled to any software that is made for your computer (Windows/Mac/Linux) simply because you already own the hardware it's intended for.

 

[HuntingPudel]

I think it might be even more interesting to see someone purchase a '24 GT, _not_ pay for the upgrade, and still try to install it themselves via FDRS (or via ForScan.)

I would think that since it's VIN-driven, Ford's servers could easily filter out VINs that are not paid if using FDRS. Hacking the modules with FORscan for this using a different VIN's images would likely void the car's warranty. ?‍?

 

[avdonr]

As a software developer (not for Ford or even related to the Mach-E at all), I take umbrage at someone saying that they are entitled to the work I do for free simply because they own the hardware that the software is intended for.
Honestly, if this were a thing, then you would also be entitled to any software that is made for your computer (Windows/Mac/Linux) simply because you already own the hardware it's intended for.

I’m also a software engineer, and I would generally agree. However, most engineers at Ford are salaried and they are being paid for their development work as part of their salary. The money from this performance upgrade is not going directly to the engineers, rather its a profit for the company. Conversely, if nobody bought the performance upgrade, the developers would not get a cut to their salary. It’s just part of their job.

Difference with embedded software that controls the motors on your vehicle is that its something that is included in the vehicle price (or historically always has been), and is a necessity for the vehicle to even function. I think it’s bad practice and a slippery slope for companies (not just auto) to start charging for software unlocks like this. Like I mentioned above, we’ve already seen the extreme BMW went to.

I could see myself paying a software fee if the “performance tune” that gets applied was something unique that was being constantly tweaked and updated over time to further push the capabilities of the motor (similar to the Bluecruise service). From what we are seeing and being told, it’s a one time config deployment.

 

[VaporTrails]

I mean, the hardware is already paid for, it’s in every car from the factory. All you would be doing by paying the $1000 is deploying a software edit (essentially a new ”tune”).

NOT THAT IM ADVISING PEOPLE TO DO THIS but in my opinion if I already paid for the hardware, I should be allowed to use the full capabilities of the hardware. I really don’t like when companies restrict hardware with software and then charge extra to unlock something that it’s already capable of. It’s not like Ford is physically putting in a better motor.

It’s almost akin to the whole BWM fiasco where they charged a software fee to “unlock” heated seats even though the hardware is already in the car. Absolute insanity.

I can see why some people would try to enable it out of spite, especially once outside of warranty.

I see two costs Ford has here. Engineering costs and Warranty uplift. I agree the hardware is already there, but this is like the Fisker? 500 full-throttle launch limitation. At some point they have to warrant the additional wear and tear. There will always be Pirates, Matey. That is on them.

 

[electric-in-the-desert]

I’m also a software engineer, and I would generally agree. However, most engineers at Ford are salaried and they are being paid for their development work as part of their salary. The money from this performance upgrade is not going directly to the engineers, rather its a profit for the company. Conversely, if nobody bought the performance upgrade, the developers would not get a cut to their salary. It’s just part of their job.

Difference with embedded software that controls the motors on your vehicle is that its something that is included in the vehicle price (or historically always has been), and is a necessity for the vehicle to even function. I think it’s bad practice and a slippery slope for companies (not just auto) to start charging for software unlocks like this. Like I mentioned above, we’ve already seen the extreme BMW went to.

I could see myself paying a software fee if the “performance tune” that gets applied was something unique that was being constantly tweaked and updated over time to further push the capabilities of the motor (similar to the Bluecruise service). From what we are seeing and being told, it’s a one time config deployment.

You’re paying a one-time fee for the R&D associated with that OTA which is likely not trivial (ironically due to hardware limitations of the MachE around thermal/power management and sensing). Also warranty costs as another commenter pointed out. Ford assumes not all GT buyers will want this option, so they let customers choose if they want the extra power and warranty coverage.

I would absolutely have an issue with it if it was a performance “subscription”. Granted I have a 23 though, so this will likely never impact me

 

[avdonr]

I see two costs Ford has here. Engineering costs and Warranty uplift. I agree the hardware is already there, but this is like the Fisker? 500 full-throttle launch limitation. At some point they have to warrant the additional wear and tear. There will always be Pirates, Matey. That is on them.

Yeah, you have a point with warranty and I’m not sure if there’s an elegant way to go about it except for doing some sort of in depth costs analysis.

 

[avdonr]

You’re paying a one-time fee for the R&D associated with that OTA which is likely not trivial (ironically due to hardware limitations of the MachE around thermal/power management and sensing). Also warranty costs as another commenter pointed out. Ford assumes not all GT buyers will want this so they let customers choose if they want the extra power and warranty coverage.

I would have an issue with it if it was a performance “subscription”. Granted, I have a 23 though, so this will likely never impact me

Yes, a one time fee is more reasonable for sure. I would have more of a problem with it if it was a subscription and I feel like a lot more people would as well.

Sponsored