Do you think it’s likely that the 5 second acceleration limit will change?

[Mach1E]

I have never experienced what you’re describing in my GT and I’ve punched the car many, many times while driving over 75. The outcome is 100 mph plus is rapid succession.

?
Get behind the steering wheel of ANY other vehicle than does 0-60 around 3.5, then punch those cars at 75 mph and report back.

Your definition of “rapid succession” will be redefined.

Out of curiosity, have you owned any other fast cars to compare to? It may be hard to know what’s missing if this is your first “fast” car.

Our acceleration at 30 mph is amazing. At 75 mph? Words like “adequate” come to mind. And that’s not a compliment.

Sponsored

 

[BigMach-E]

I once owned a MB S500. Not what most people think of as a “fast” car, due to it being a luxury boat. Hit a 0-60 in 5.8 seconds. After that, it would probably equal the GTPE 60-100 in 8.9 seconds. Now, that is a 20 year old non-performance ICE land yacht. It’s a shame.

 

[Bueller]

The condescending, all-knowing replies and responses by wannabe race car drivers is humorous. You can’t or won’t answer even a basic question.

But, I’ll answer yours, Mach1E. This is my third EV. I’ve also owned a Volt and a Bolt. Impressive? No. I’ve also owned 5s, 7s, an SS Montecarlo, SS Impala, 914, CTS and a host of other cars, trucks, forklifts, tractors, ATVs and boats. You should see my lawnmower.

And of all the cars I’ve owned, my GT is far and away my favorite. Nothing else comes close.

But the biggest distinction between me and some of you is how we drive. By any definition, I am a fast driver. If you’re regularly encountering this 5 second problem on public roads, then, plainly said, you’re a reckless driver. And, you’re in the tiny minority of Mach E owners.

Don’t like your MachE? Sell it. That’s what I would do. Simple.

 

[Just Lurking]

But the biggest distinction between me and some of you is how we drive. By any definition, I am a fast driver. If you’re regularly encountering this 5 second problem on public roads, then, plainly said, you’re a reckless driver. And, you’re in the tiny minority of Mach E owners.

I'm not sure I've ever hit the 5-second limit, as the conditions don't allow for that where I live. I used to live in a hilly / mountainous region, and there were highways there (on a straight yet reasonably steep incline) where I could probably floor the accelerator for 5 seconds and still be below the speed limit in a MME GT.

So I probably would have experienced and very occasionally find the 5-second limit annoying if I still lived there, but I think there are bigger issues with GT performance. The things that annoy me most about the MME GT are the awful (for a "performance" car) top-end acceleration, and how power seems to drop off a cliff the moment charge gets below 80%. Also how power drops in anything other than the mildest temperatures.

 

[BigMach-E]

I'm not sure I've ever hit the 5-second limit, as the conditions don't allow for that where I live. I used to live in a hilly / mountainous region, and there were highways there (on a straight yet reasonably steep incline) where I could probably floor the accelerator for 5 seconds and still be below the speed limit in a MME GT.

So I probably would have experienced and very occasionally find the 5-second limit annoying if I still lived there, but I think there are bigger issues with GT performance. The things that annoy me most about the MME GT are the awful (for a "performance" car) top-end acceleration, and how power seems to drop off a cliff the moment charge gets below 80%. Also how power drops in anything other than the mildest temperatures.

The awful top end acceleration IS the 5 second limiter. You have experienced it. What I mean by this is that if you are coasting at 65, you mash the pedal, you will get 2-3 seconds tops full power. And that’s at above an 80 percent charge, in a mild temp. The limiter is rather capricious.

 

[Mach1E]

The condescending, all-knowing replies and responses by wannabe race car drivers is humorous. You can’t or won’t answer even a basic question.

But, I’ll answer yours, Mach1E. This is my third EV. I’ve also owned a Volt and a Bolt. Impressive? No. I’ve also owned 5s, 7s, an SS Montecarlo, SS Impala, 914, CTS and a host of other cars, trucks, forklifts, tractors, ATVs and boats. You should see my lawnmower.

And of all the cars I’ve owned, my GT is far and away my favorite. Nothing else comes close.

But the biggest distinction between me and some of you is how we drive. By any definition, I am a fast driver. If you’re regularly encountering this 5 second problem on public roads, then, plainly said, you’re a reckless driver. And, you’re in the tiny minority of Mach E owners.

Don’t like your MachE? Sell it. That’s what I would do. Simple.

Which questions of yours remain unanswered?

Your list of car’s definitely explains why you don’t see an issue with the 75 mph plus acceleration.

But consider that to be a good thing. It’s good to be satisfied with the car you have.

In response to your last (also condescending) reply, no, that’s not the solution.

I love 90% of this car. The other 10% are the buggy software and the 5 sec limit. Those aren’t enough for me to want to sell, but it doesn’t keep me from wanting a fix for those two things.

If the only solution to a complaint about a car was to sell it, we would all be walking to work.

We can agree on one thing though, it’s also the favorite daily driver car I’ve owned. (I consider my 69 Mach 1 to be in a separate category).

 

[BigMach-E]

Which questions of yours remain unanswered?

Your list of car’s definitely explains why you don’t see an issue with the 75 mph plus acceleration.

But consider that to be a good thing. It’s good to be satisfied with the car you have.

In response to your last (also condescending) reply, no, that’s not the solution.

I love 90% of this car. The other 10% are the buggy software and the 5 sec limit. Those aren’t enough for me to want to sell, but it doesn’t keep me from wanting a fix for those two things.

If the only solution to a complaint about a car was to sell it, we would all be walking to work.

We can agree on one thing though, it’s also the favorite daily driver car I’ve owned. (I consider my 69 Mach 1 to be in a separate category).

Honestly? And I know we aren’t really responding to each other’s statements at this point, but I’m rather in agreement with pretty much everything you said here.

I absolutely loooove 90 percent of the car. It’s quick (under the right circumstances, and for a very limited duration) it’s quiet, it’s powerful, it’s economical on fuel (only because of the type), it’s good looking, it’s comfortable (except for the non adjustable headrests kinda kill my neck).

The 10 percent that I absolutely lothe though are the HVJB failure issue (which I hope isn’t a recurring thing, with the new designed part), the hard limiter, which is only slightly conditional, and the buggy software. Unfortunately, the software is a big part of the car. Ford really does seem to be improving the software though, slower than most would like.

I will reiterate though, it’s not enough to make me sell the car, but it sure as hell is enough to make me say “second and last Ford purchase, including any subscriptions” if they don’t sort this out for existing owners.

And to me, and maybe I don’t know anything about the reasons why the 5 second limitation is in place, other than it’s a thermal mitigation strategy. But, I think that the video demonstration of a “1000 amp hot knife” is ridiculous, because that’s a “circuit” that has no egress of the amperage, it demonstrates nothing.

I think Ford Engineering went way too heavy handed towards protection components, and I don’t think a hardware alteration is needed to give us 8-9 seconds of full power. I think it’s just software, and I also think that Ford Engineering might not have the software simulation capability to test the components to determine if there is a point that fails after changing the parameters to allow 8-9 seconds of full power.

They have first step of real world physical testing for this sort of thing. This may be why it’s taking this long to answer. But saying “ah, we will get it right next time, the next time we design a car” if a Kia and a Volvo straight romps on the Ford (which is the case right now, and I can’t believe I’m saying it), isn’t the answer.

Get an upgrade path, Ford, for existing GTPE owners, or many who this was their first Ford, and were looking for modern performance, this will be their last.

We were willing to deal with the fiasco that you put under specified HVJBs in the cars that you knew couldn’t handle the load that the batteries put out. We aren’t going to deal with you turning your backs on the owners who were expecting performance and didn’t get it.

 

[Mach1E]

I'll just say that Ford is considering increasing the performance of current GT/GTPE vehicles at a cost. What that entails, and if it includes more than 5 seconds ... to be continued at a later date.

I’m just bringing this post back up since it’s buried 5 pages ago.

It would solve the whole issue.

Honestly? And I know we aren’t really responding to each other’s statements at this point, but I’m rather in agreement with pretty much everything you said here.

I absolutely loooove 90 percent of the car. It’s quick (under the right circumstances, and for a very limited duration) it’s quiet, it’s powerful, it’s economical on fuel (only because of the type), it’s good looking, it’s comfortable (except for the non adjustable headrests kinda kill my neck).

The 10 percent that I absolutely lothe though are the HVJB failure issue (which I hope isn’t a recurring thing, with the new designed part), the hard limiter, which is only slightly conditional, and the buggy software. Unfortunately, the software is a big part of the car. Ford really does seem to be improving the software though, slower than most would like.

I will reiterate though, it’s not enough to make me sell the car, but it sure as hell is enough to make me say “second and last Ford purchase, including any subscriptions” if they don’t sort this out for existing owners.

And to me, and maybe I don’t know anything about the reasons why the 5 second limitation is in place, other than it’s a thermal mitigation strategy. But, I think that the video demonstration of a “1000 amp hot knife” is ridiculous, because that’s a “circuit” that has no egress of the amperage, it demonstrates nothing.

I think Ford Engineering went way too heavy handed towards protection components, and I don’t think a hardware alteration is needed to give us 8-9 seconds of full power. I think it’s just software, and I also think that Ford Engineering might not have the software simulation capability to test the components to determine if there is a point that fails after changing the parameters to allow 8-9 seconds of full power.

They have first step of real world physical testing for this sort of thing. This may be why it’s taking this long to answer. But saying “ah, we will get it right next time, the next time we design a car” if a Kia and a Volvo straight romps on the Ford (which is the case right now, and I can’t believe I’m saying it), isn’t the answer.

Get an upgrade path, Ford, for existing GTPE owners, or many who this was their first Ford, and were looking for modern performance, this will be their last.

We were willing to deal with the fiasco that you put under specified HVJBs in the cars that you knew couldn’t handle the load that the batteries put out. We aren’t going to deal with you turning your backs on the owners who were expecting performance and didn’t get it.

Totally agree.

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

Again, the 5 second limit and HVJB issues are totally unrelated.

The limit came waaaaaaaaaay before Ford knew about the HVJB issue.

Yup. The only connection between the GTs notorious 5-second limit and the HVBJB are that they’re both related to the battery in some manner. Furthermore, the forum complaints about the 5-second limit predate the HVBJB failures and those complaints.

This is not to imply that the complaints about the 5-second limit are not understandable — they are. Unfortunately though, a limit appears to be necessary in this version of the GT. It’ll be “interesting“ to see how (or if) Ford addresses the underlying cause in Gen-2 Mach-e GTs.

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

The problem is we seem to have gotten a 5 ton limit sticker randomly put on our bridge with no clue what the safe limit really is.

This is how we know ..

 

[Mach1E]

This is how we know ..

Love that you got the reference!

I figured Calvin & Hobbes from 30 years ago would have been too obscure.

 

[BigMach-E]

Love that you got the reference!

I figured Calvin & Hobbes from 30 years ago would have been too obscure.

Ooof, I love Calvin & Hobbes, and you just made me feel really old!

 

[AKgrampy]

Yup. The only connection between the GTs notorious 5-second limit and the HVBJB are that they’re both related to the battery in some manner. Furthermore, the forum complaints about the 5-second limit predate the HVBJB failures and those complaints.

This is not to imply that the complaints about the 5-second limit are not understandable — they are. Unfortunately though, a limit appears to be necessary in this version of the GT. It’ll be “interesting“ to see how (or if) Ford addresses the underlying cause in Gen-2 Mach-e GTs.

I do not want to belabor my point but all the power from the battery and to battery flow through the HVBJB. I am confident there is more too the 5 sec limit than just the HVBJB but I have seen the ratings of the contactors of the HVBJB and they are not rated for continuous full power output of the battery. My point has been we all know for a fact that even with the 5 second limit some HVBJB’s with manufacturing tolerance issues were failing due to overheating. Monitoring by a forum member identified that most of the failures occurred during high speeds and acceleration. So the 5 sec limit could also have been meant to protect the HVBJB along with other components. We know for a fact the contacts fused under current loads. My guess, and I may be in la la land, is that if the 5 sec limit was lifted you would once again see HVBJB failures.

 

[leeman]

It doesn’t bother me too much, and I totally understand that there are a lot of factors at play. However, the unnamed T company could and did unlock performance on some of their vehicles after purchase as a cynical money grab. I know some folks (like me in the past) tend to drive a car until it costs more to upkeep then to buy another. Do you think Ford might leave the money on the table for people who won’t buy another in the short term, but would be willing to part with 1-2k to have Ford unlock the limiter?

Do you think that either this community or some outside enterprise will come up with a “fix”? I personally am leaving my car bone stock while it is still under warranty, and possibly forever.

I know that the limiter is in place for battery longevity, braking performance, thermal management and to prevent HVJB welds, and so I wouldn’t ever consider aftermarket, but I feel some would. Thoughts?

There are a bunch of smart folks here who know how to code, know their in’s and outs of FORSCAN and FDRS. The limiter is likely software based, correct? Is there any real hardware component to it?

I don't think this will ever change because the source they got the battery pack from probably limits it I've heard conflicting stories on this issue one is that Ford does not put enough sensors in their system to properly monitor heat in so they're always conservative I've also heard that the manufacturer put this limit on it to maintain the warranty of the battery. It would be hopeful that they wouldn't have this limit Tesla solve this problem by providing more sensors to manage heat enter in managing the cooling system better. This gives a much higher speed along with the extra gear and probably extra mileage as well but that's what you get when you have an end insulation my Tesla versus forward by parts from existing sources

 

[buzznwood]

This part of your comment I don’t understand.

In terms of braking and handling, it IS top of the class. Not just in terms of BEVs, but All SUVs (as of 2021 when it came out).

In fact in 2021, there was only 1 single SUV on the planet that beat our .99 G on the skidpad-

The Lamborghini URUS.

Source-
https://www.edmunds.com/amp/car-news/track-tested-2022-ford-mustang-mach-e-gt.html

And give us the same tires we might even beat it!
https://www.motortrend.com/features/best-handling-suvs-and-crossovers/amp/

“Sorting our database for model years 2018 to now, only 14 out of 231 SUVs we've tested are capable of cornering at 0.90 g's or more (0.6 percent).”


Best-Handling SUVs By Maximum Grip

Vehicle	Lateral g
Lamborghini Urus	1.01
Porsche Cayenne Turbo	0.98
Mercedes-AMG GLC 63S 4Matic+ Coupe	0.96
BMW X3 M Competition	0.95
Porsche Cayenne	0.95
Porsche Macan S	0.94
BMW X2 xDrive28i	0.94
Mercedes-AMG GLE 63S 4Matic+	0.93
Alfa Romeo Stelvio Q4 (Quadrifoglio)	0.93
Bentley Bentayga Speed	0.93
Jaguar I-Pace EV400 First Edition	0.93
Volvo XC60 Polestar	0.92
BMW X2 xDrive 28i	0.92
Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk	0.9

There is a lot more to handling than just a lateral g value on a skid pad which is easy to increase with some sticky tires. All that test shows is the absolute grip that the fitted tires can offer on the particular surface the test took place.

The car rotates poorly with a wayward back end compounded by slow steering. Yes the GTPE handles better than the standard premium AWD I have driven but not that much better. There is a reason they do poorly in the moose test.

Enable unbridled extended which reduces the power and gives you 40/60 front rear spilt power split, with less traction control interference and disables regen. Then go for a spirited drive down your favorite twisty canyon road to see what it really handles and brakes like it is no ballerina. It behaves like what it is a very heavy bus while the best performance Fords are playful while feeling like they pivot around the center of the car next to the driver.

There is not a lot that can be done about the weight as this is an issue for all BEV but Ford have some very talented chassis engineers, I doubt any of them have been anywhere near this unless the remit was to make it handle like a standard mustang GT leaving cars and coffee rather than what it should have been a AWD GT PP2.

My gut feeling is that while the mustangification allowed them to offer a GT trim it was probably expected to be sold in very limited numbers compared to the other trims so it has been the classic age old Ford problem of the engineers having to make do improving what they could rather than what they needed as the bean counters allowed little in the way of changes hence neutered straight line performance and minimal changes beyond the cosmetic as when it comes to the performance trim most performance Fords typically have a laundry list of suspension changes beyond the base model than just some different dampers and spring / roll bar stiffness. .

IMO adaptive suspension is a must for a BEV so I am pleased that the GTPE trim at least allowed them to offer magneride as an option but disappointed that they couldn't do more on the performance aspect.

Sponsored