First OTA update coming soon for Mach-E

[Kamuelaflyer]

No need to be rude to @EVBite, fellas.

Yeah. They’ve actually been rather nice to all of us here for quite awhile.

Sponsored

 

[TheSeg]

Are you on twitter? There are some Ford EV people on there like Emma Berg.

And if Ford is lacking we can point it out on here, Twitter, YouTube.

@TheSeg. I know how to brand.

The forums have helped me align and develop my thoughts, which at some point I'll collate.

I haven't thought about doing Twitter threads and @'ing folks as I didn't want to come off as random Internet dude. I do want to help out Ford with my thoughts on my experiences -- I owe a lot of my prosperity to the prosperity Ford gave to my father -- but I want to be more efficient about it.

Or I could be overthinking it and should start threads on Twitter anyway. ??‍

 

[The Electric Duo]

@TheSeg. I know how to brand.

The forums have helped me align and develop my thoughts, which at some point I'll collate.

I haven't thought about doing Twitter threads and @'ing folks as I didn't want to come off as random Internet dude. I do want to help out Ford with my thoughts on my experiences -- I owe a lot of my prosperity to the prosperity Ford gave to my father -- but I want to be more efficient about it.

Or I could be overthinking it and should start threads on Twitter anyway. ??‍

If you do, let us know here. There are a few twitter users here on the forum that could add their two cents.

BTW... Jim Farley is also on Twitter and does respond to quite a few tweets -- mostly when people reply to his posts.

 

[Jimrpa]

I’d look to the FordPass app on the Apple App Store as a model for the amount of detail on the changes that will be incorporated in OTA updates.

 

[EVBite]

In my ideal, I would like a dedicated blog for updates. Something that I add to my RSS reader and link directly. If that site existed, I'll be OK if the in-car UI didn't go into details. "Go online to _ to find out more." would be sufficient. Bonus if a QR code showed up for a direct link.

Every update, no matter how minor, would be a new post with details at or greater than what's displayed in-car. Forbid the phrase "Bug fixes and performance improvements", go in a little more detail on what's been changed. When an update is a "tock" with substantial features, attach a marketing video of the new features, including the full text of updates in the body of the post. For the "ticks" with minor updates, no video is needed but go into detail.

That's how you can maintain marketing bumps for every update. A number of outlets will cover your updates no matter how minor with a simple blog post.

As an example, Bootstrap does a great job.

We've have something basic but similar for Tesla and plan to do the same for the Mach-E.

https://evbite.com/tesla-latest-software-updates/

Attempting to remain both SEO and user friendly is always a challenge. Feedback would be appreciated so we can improve and create prior to Ford's OTA schedule.

 

[efisher]

We’re just trying to spread the word and help sell EVs.

No, you articles are intended to show how Tesla is the best. Just look at how distorted and inaccurate your FORD VS TESLA, MACH-E VS MODEL Y – LET’S COMPARE article is.

 

[EVBite]

No, you articles are intended to show how Tesla is the best. Just look at how distorted and inaccurate your FORD VS TESLA, MACH-E VS MODEL Y – LET’S COMPARE article is.

You found a single unintended inaccuracy in the Model Y LR price and then made up your own facts.

Those prices are excluding delivery fees for both cars. Don’t recite from memory and please fact check yourself. The article literally presses on the fact that the Mach-E is more affordable.

 

[timbop]

You found a single unintended inaccuracy in the Model Y LR price and then made up your own facts.

Those prices are excluding delivery fees for both cars. Don’t recite from memory and please fact check yourself. The article literally presses on the fact that the Mach-E is more affordable.

I actually think your article was extremely fair and well balanced, although I disagree with your conclusions in the "Ford vs Tesla" analysis at the end. I realize you are focusing on the BEV market exclusively, but that section is intended to be an analysis of each companies strengths/futures and that is where I think you are caught up in the Tesla mystique. For example, Tesla is NOT in fact an $800B company - the theoretical market cap is $800B, leading many to conclude that is the company's "worth". A more accurate analysis should be based on revenue figures, which is where your assertion that Tesla has higher profit margins is also flawed - without selling carbon credits Tesla would not even be turning a profit.

In fact, Tesla's best ever sales last year are a tenth of what Ford's where, although Ford's number includes zero BEV's so I'll grant the argument that Tesla's lead is in fact 500,000 to 0. However, in 2021 (Ford's first year selling a true BEV) they will sell all 50,000 2021 MY Mach E's, which is a tenth of Tesla's 2020 sales. Considering it took Tesla 12 years to reach that plateau, 10% isn't a bad start. What is unknown is how Ford will do in year 2.

As a matter of perspective, Tesla sold their millionth vehicle ever after 12 years in 2020. Ford sells almost that many F-150's every year.

 

[Jimrpa]

Determining the “value” of a company is always a tricky proposition (hence very wealthy advisory companies and investment bankers). Clearly, the market cap of Tesla bears no relationship to shareholder equity (or even just cash on hand + capital assets). Discussions of Tesla’s “value” or “worth” are meaningless because they always devolve into pro/con Elon Musk arguments.

 

[EVBite]

I actually think your article was extremely fair and well balanced, although I disagree with your conclusions in the "Ford vs Tesla" analysis at the end. I realize you are focusing on the BEV market exclusively, but that section is intended to be an analysis of each companies strengths/futures and that is where I think you are caught up in the Tesla mystique. For example, Tesla is NOT in fact an $800B company - the theoretical market cap is $800B, leading many to conclude that is the company's "worth". A more accurate analysis should be based on revenue figures, which is where your assertion that Tesla has higher profit margins is also flawed - without selling carbon credits Tesla would not even be turning a profit.

In fact, Tesla's best ever sales last year are a tenth of what Ford's where, although Ford's number includes zero BEV's so I'll grant the argument that Tesla's lead is in fact 500,000 to 0. However, in 2021 (Ford's first year selling a true BEV) they will sell all 50,000 2021 MY Mach E's, which is a tenth of Tesla's 2020 sales. Considering it took Tesla 12 years to reach that plateau, 10% isn't a bad start. What is unknown is how Ford will do in year 2.

As a matter of perspective, Tesla sold their millionth vehicle ever after 12 years in 2020. Ford sells almost that many F-150's every year.

Thanks for the honest feedback, Tim. While current revenue would push ford drastically ahead, I believe market cap or enterprise value for both companies are based on their future outlook. I do however believe Ford is highly overlooked and undervalued given this push towards EV's, tech, and autonomous driving. Tesla's vehicle margins are distinct from their quarterly profit. The fact that they're investing into a new factory just about every quarter drastically cuts into their overall profit but vehicle margins remain the same. That being said, we are auto journalists, not financial advisors.

We do lean towards focusing on BEVs as we believe they're the future. Tesla's YOY delivery growth is taking sales away from somewhere. With regulations in place and consumer optimism towards EV's growing, it's truly a race between legacy automakers and Tesla's growth. Until others have an abundance of GOOD EV's, Tesla will continue to grow in sales while others very gradually decline. Personally I don't believe Tesla can reach some of the numbers being estimated before plateauing but that doesn't mean Ford and others can expect to sell the same amount of ICE's in 2030 as they presently are. We will simply have to wait and see what the next couple of years bring.

 

[timbop]

Thanks for the honest feedback, Tim. While current revenue would push ford drastically ahead, I believe market cap or enterprise value for both companies are based on their future outlook. I do however believe Ford is highly overlooked and undervalued given this push towards EV's, tech, and autonomous driving. Tesla's vehicle margins are distinct from their quarterly profit. The fact that they're investing into a new factory just about every quarter drastically cuts into their overall profit but vehicle margins remain the same. That being said, we are auto journalists, not financial advisors.

We do lean towards focusing on BEVs as we believe they're the future. Tesla's YOY delivery growth is taking sales away from somewhere. With regulations in place and consumer optimism towards EV's growing, it's truly a race between legacy automakers and Tesla's growth. Until others have an abundance of GOOD EV's, Tesla will continue to grow in sales while others very gradually decline. Personally I don't believe Tesla can reach some of the numbers being estimated before plateauing but that doesn't mean Ford and others can expect to sell the same amount of ICE's in 2030 as they presently are. We will simply have to wait and see what the next couple of years bring.

Oh absolutely past value doesn't necessarily translate into future value, and indeed BEV sales are cannibalizing the ICE market. However, the principal that past performance does not correlate to future performance applies to Tesla as much as it applies to Ford. As a matter of history, the first to market often gets eclipsed by those who don't live on the aptly named bleeding edge. While Apple is now a behemoth, in the personal computer space they were on the edge of oblivion when Microsoft bailed them out in the 90's. Commodore was the first truly affordable home computer ($299), and they simply faded into oblivion when PC's hit reasonable prices. Compaq, RCA, and scores of other once proud companies are now nothing more than a label. Blackberry was absolutely dominant in the smartphone field until a rejuvenated Apple destroyed them with the iPhone. Subsequently, android has usurped the iPhone's dominance.

I think there is no question Tesla remains a strong player for decades at least, garnering a nice chunk of the auto market. But the real numbers game is manufacturing capacity. It's one thing to ship 500,000 cars a year, it is quite another to sell 5 million, or >20 million as the Tesla market cap speculation suggests. Their 4 plants stacked up against the hundreds of legacy manufacturer plants puts Tesla in a position of playing catchup in order to deliver those millions of cars. Clearly Ford is hamstrung with battery availability, but the chemistry and form factor of batteries will be very different in 5 years, and probably different once again in 10 years.

When it comes to manufacturing capacity the real threat is China: the fact that so many Chinese companies are starting off the same as everyone else in the new design realm of BEVs means the weaker legacy car manufacturers will not survive, and probably not even some of the larger healthier ones. Certainly the Chinese government is aware of this, which is why it is investing heavily in the BEV space. That is also why it is so crucial that governments in the rest of the world need to shake off the anchor of the fossil fuel industry before China dominates yet another industry.

Always in motion is the future, but there is too much money and too many players to assume one can rule them all.

*I hope I get extra credit for working 2 franchises into one sentence

 

[efisher]

You found a single unintended inaccuracy in the Model Y LR price and then made up your own facts.

Those prices are excluding delivery fees for both cars. Don’t recite from memory and please fact check yourself. The article literally presses on the fact that the Mach-E is more affordable.

First, I do not agree that there is just "One unintended inaccuracy". While your listing of the Model Y price was blatantly wrong, all your other price comparisons consistently include the delivery charge ($1,100) for the Mach-E and omit the $1,200 delivery charge for the Tesla.

Second, when comparing the charge rate between the Tesla and the Mach-E, you only cite the lower spec version on the much less expensive Mach-E select instead of the much more powerful charger on the comparably priced Premium model.

Third, the feature comparison between the two vehicles seems to be deliberately constructed to give unfair advantage to the Tesla by omitting features included in the Mach-E that are not available on the Model Y. Mach-E Features not on the comparison include:

• Dashboard display
• Apple CarPlay and Android Auto
• Wireless Apple CarPlay & Android Auto
• 360 cameras
• Acoustic glass
• 10 color options vs. 5 for Tesla
• Rear wiper/washer
• Heated steering wheel
• Blind spot indicator with the warning indicator in the mirrors
• The frunk drain plug
• Ambient lighting effects
• Larger battery

Fourth, (This is a bit more subtle.) When listing the model specs for comparison, on the Tesla the order is Performance, Long Range, and Standard Range. For the Mach-E, you use the opposite order, Select, Premium, and GT, (omitting the California Rt 1 altogether). This leads the reader to compare the highest spec Tesla against the lowest spec Mach-E.

Fifth, blind assertion that the Model Y offers better range than the Mach-E. Your sole reliance on EPA range is too simplistic to be useful and plays into Tesla's manipulation of the numbers. While the Mach-E does have a lower range estimate using the EPA standard, it has a far greater range than the Model Y using the WLTP standard that they use in Europe. Considering the recent real-world Mach-E range reports, we might assume that while the EPA estimate vastly overestimate the actual range of the Model Y, while the Mach-E's range is much closer to the EPA estimates, and could very well exceed the that of the Model Y.

 

[DBC]

Tesla's vehicle margins are distinct from their quarterly profit. The fact that they're investing into a new factory just about every quarter drastically cuts into their overall profit but vehicle margins remain the same. That being said, we are auto journalists, not financial advisors.

We do lean towards focusing on BEVs as we believe they're the future. Tesla's YOY delivery growth is taking sales away from somewhere.

Accepting that you are neither a financial advisor nor a business journalist, there are several inaccuracies in just these two paragraphs. Vehicle margins are not distinct from quarterly profits, they are totally related. Tesla vehicle margins have not remained the same, they dropped significantly from 2019 to 2020 as operating margin fell from 9.2% to 5.4%. And the fact that Tesla is investing in new factories and so forth is simply what every other auto maker does -- this is why the automotive industry is capital intensive. Finally where Tesla sales growth is coming from is not a mystery. it is coming from Tesla entering new markets, in particular Europe and China. (Tesla doesn't break out sales by region but the data from Cross-Sell suggests its US growth is flat, with the Model Y cannabalizing sales of the Model 3.)

The claims of bias may simply be the result of your not being a very good journalist. For example your comparisons are hopelessly confused. Tesla had two versions of the Model Y. Now it has three. Ford has seven versions of the Mach-E. This means that you have to understand the products sufficiently well to make comparisons. The obvious comparison are the MY RWD to the Mach-E Route 1, the MY AWD to the Mach-E AWD EX, and the MY Performance to the Mach-E GT. Other comparisons make no sense, and you make some of those comparisons. When you make the obvious comparisons, other than range, the specs are more or less identical, as are the features.

That brings us to range. At this point in time no journalist discussing the range of Tesla's vehicles can avoid the elephant in the room, namely, that Tesla games this number. Pretty much everyone knows this. The most famous example fo this might be the Car and Driver test which found the range of the Model S Performance was only 10 miles more than the Porsche Taycan's when the EPA numbers showed a 150 mile difference. That's hardly an outlier. Here is what Edmunds said when comparing the ranges of the Model Y and the Mach-E:

However, Edmunds conducts its own real-world range testing on EVs and has found that Teslas, in most cases, don’t achieve their range estimates. For example, a 2020 Model Y Performance that Edmunds tested had an EPA-estimated range of 291 miles but Edmunds managed only 263 miles.

Ford’s Mustang Mach-E’s EPA estimates range from 211 miles to 300 miles. Edmunds’ real-world range test of an all-wheel-drive Mach-E, with an EPA-estimated range of 270 miles, resulted in an impressive 304 miles.

The fact you totally ignore the well known anomaly of Tesla's EPA range might cause some to claim you are biased. But, like I said, it may simply be that at present you're not very good at what you do.

 

[EVBite]

While your listing of the Model Y price was blatantly wrong, all your other price comparisons consistently include the delivery charge ($1,100) for the Mach-E and omit the $1,200 delivery charge for the Tesla.

This is inaccurate. Those prices are excluding the delivery fees for both vehicles. It should however be noted that Tesla's delivery fees are $100 more.

You seem to be caught on the image rather than the article itself. That "vs" comparison is showcasing the most affordable model of each. The image below that shows charging rates compared at different comparable trim levels. As for features, sure, that image could have been expanded but it's impossible to fit the entirety of this comparison into a singular image. In that regards, there were omissions from both ends. The images are eye candy, it's not meant to make up for the 3,500+ words on the page. The content itself doesn't dive into features, although it probably should have and I will look into having it updated soon.

In regards to the second image structure, we received the opposite complaint a few months back and shifted to that new order pushing out from the center. It seems neither will make 100% of people happy and I don't have a large enough sample size to say which is best overall.

In regards to EPA numbers, those are official. If the claim that Tesla games the system are true, Ford could have done the same. We will forever use official stats over single source user generated data. While the EPA range numbers aren't perfect, it's what we have. If Ford tested themselves and gave us an official number from their tests, we would have included that like we have with Porsche in prior content.

 

[EVBite]

The claims of bias may simply be the result of your not being a very good journalist. For example your comparisons are hopelessly confused. Tesla had two versions of the Model Y. Now it has three. Ford has seven versions of the Mach-E. This means that you have to understand the products sufficiently well to make comparisons. The obvious comparison are the MY RWD to the Mach-E Route 1, the MY AWD to the Mach-E AWD EX, and the MY Performance to the Mach-E GT. Other comparisons make no sense, and you make some of those comparisons. When you make the obvious comparisons, other than range, the specs are more or less identical, as are the features.

We came to the decision of which cars to compare in that image as a group. I feel base vs base, premium awd vs premium awd, and performance vs performance is more than fair.

Sponsored