Mach-E GT Performance Edition Specs and Looks Revealed. 0-60 in 3.5

[silverelan]

I'm thinking the same thing. That's a tough nut to swallow. For now I'm glad I'm getting the FE, but later next year, my GT order is now questionable. That is if and only if tesla's production quality slackness gets a kick in the right direction. I do much prefer the MEGT overall, but the compromises and extra costs are concerning. Range being foremost. We'll see..

Beyond the 1-second improvement, I am having a hard time understanding the markup of the GT over the Premium AWD ER.

The GT Performance sounds incredibly equipped but the range hit coupled with 45 minute charge to 80% makes it less than competitive as a viable grand touring EV.

Sponsored

 

[Daniel M]

Vroom

can't get that to load.

 

[eager2own]

I’m not sure about all the new gripes. This information is completely consistent with how Ford has described the GT and GTP since last year. The options/standard equipment are the same as are the target acceleration and range. Reading all the comments here you’d think this was new and surprising information.
This information is no different than when I made my reservation.
The big unknown just remains price: price of the optional equipment, including price of the Performance package.

And I get that the GT isn’t for everyone. Some don’t want to pay premium for performance over a premium, particularly if they care more about range. Got it, but others do. That’s why Ford offers GT and non-GT Mustangs in ICE also.
Speaking of ICE Mustangs, Ford also doesn’t include all the premium options on the standard “base” GT. You pay extra for the GT performance but don’t automatically get all the features in the non-GT premium vehicle. That’s so that those who want the performance still have the option of getting a GT fully loaded — or not — depending on their budget and priorities.
Again, no surprises here. The GT doesn’t fit everyone’s priorities... but it shouldn’t have to.

 

[buzznwood]

As-is, the GT is kind of a tough sell against the Model Y Performance when you lay out the specs on paper.

The Model Y Performance has superior performance, greater EPA range, plus much faster charging than the GT/GTP. Plus it has the glass roof. Alternatively, the $50k Y with a $2k acceleration boost is only a half-second off of the GT.

Maybe I should have just converted my Premium order...*sigh*

Agree the paper specs are not competitive in a lot of key areas, hence why until we see the final price it is hard to tell, the GT really needs to start with the premium spec and then add the performance bits, having the glass roof and 360 cameras as optional extras at a 60k price point is poor form.

Initially the model Y performance used to have the free optional performance upgrade to the larger wheels and better brakes etc so you could trade some range for better overall performance, but now that appears to just be the default. So the performance variant really need to keep to a sensible price difference between the base GT and GTP, or the GTP needs to be really special to warrant any significant price increase. Keeping the same steering ratio of the non performance models is not what I expect from a "performance" ford .

I am not jumping ship just yet as I don't need the vehicle until the tail end of next year so a lot will depend on that final final price point (already have to factor in price of a tire change if I decided to go down GTP route as I find Pirelli P Zero utter garbage, terrible wear rate while the performance drops off a cliff long before you are close to the reaching the the wear strips) other wise I will go down the premium route if it that drives well, the GT/GTP has to be a substantial improvement in comparison if the price is to remain unchanged..

 

[VegStang]

The price (assumed) was a bridge too far for me, but it still looks good with that larger second motor in the front and the seats. If the price was lower I'm afraid it would have forced me to wait even longer for the GT, and I'm jonesing for my car already.

 

[ChasingCoral]

235 range would be plenty for me! It's a mean looking MME. I'd love it, but wasn't willing to pay the extra cost or able to wait that much longer to get it.

Ditto on the second and third sentences. My wife wouldn't go for that range for performance trade, though. Now that she's been impressed into the back seat of a E4X, she definitely wouldn't understand a request for an even faster 0-60!

 

[silverelan]

I’m not sure about all the new gripes. This information is completely consistent with how Ford has described the GT and GTP since last year. The options/standard equipment are the same as are the target acceleration and range. Reading all the comments here you’d think this was new and surprising information.
This information is no different than when I made my reservation.
The big unknown just remains price: price of the optional equipment, including price of the Performance package.

And I get that the GT isn’t for everyone. Some don’t want to pay premium for performance over a premium, particularly if they care more about range. Got it, but others do. That’s why Ford offers GT and non-GT Mustangs in ICE also.
Speaking of ICE Mustangs, Ford also doesn’t include all the premium options on the standard “base” GT. You pay extra for the GT performance but don’t automatically get all the features in the non-GT premium vehicle. That’s so that those who want the performance still have the option of getting a GT fully loaded — or not — depending on their budget and priorities.
Again, no surprises here. The GT doesn’t fit everyone’s priorities... but it shouldn’t have to.

I'm with you and I admit I'm griping. The price difference between the Premium and GT is kind of getting to me because we're at a $5k markup, but some noticeable downgrades come with the extra cash.

Hopefully the glass roof and driver prep package are available on the GT at a reasonable price but right now, the Premium AWD ER looks like the better all-around deal with the best balance of included options, range and performance.

 

[eager2own]

I'm with you and I admit I'm griping. The price difference between the Premium and GT is kind of getting to me because we're at a $5k markup, but some noticeable downgrades come with the extra cash.

Hopefully the glass roof and driver prep package are available on the GT at a reasonable price but right now, the Premium AWD ER looks like the better all-around deal with the best balance of included options, range and performance.

And don’t get me wrong. Ford is on the edge of pricing this out of reasonable competitiveness. If the performance package and other options that are standard on competitors (such as pano roof) do price this above the MY Performance even after tax credits, it’ll be a tough pill to swallow.
There are a number of reasons why I prefer the MME over the MY (and I won’t repeat what has been covered in many other threads, to include service, quality, aesthetics, etc) but, if Ford’s performance halo BEV can’t match the MY in performance and price despite not coming out until a full year and a half later, it will be disappointing.

 

[Davedough]

I admittedly reserved late. As in, October 12th of this year for the GT. When I launched the website, it only had a GT option listed and it said on their website 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. I'm a performance minded person. It didn't have an asterisk saying, "with optional performance package". I reserved based on the 3.5 0-60 time. 3.8, although only .3 seconds, is slower and not what I was expecting. I currently drive a 4 second car (heavily modified, but still). I wanted something faster.

I know that ICE GT's have the "base" and performance options and have for years, but the reservation site didn't allude to any of that, even up until at least 2 months ago. Now I'm just going to have to wait and see what the Performance Pack pricing is, but if its 10k like I saw someone else reference, that puts the faster GT out of my comfort zone. I can afford it, I just don't want to at that price. So yes, its a new gripe, but I feel justified for it personally.

 

[agoldman]

griping is a forum pastime . . yeah I think a wait and see approach is in order here for me. I was kind of hoping they would find some range before final. I'd gladly pay extra for that. By the time these are actually built, there will be other model year '22 options to compete with, so we'll see. I am liking that orangish color more and more though for the GT..

 

[eager2own]

I admittedly reserved late. As in, October 12th of this year for the GT. When I launched the website, it only had a GT option listed and it said on their website 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. I'm a performance minded person. It didn't have an asterisk saying, "with optional performance package". I reserved based on the 3.5 0-60 time. 3.8, although only .3 seconds, is slower and not what I was expecting. I currently drive a 4 second car (heavily modified, but still). I wanted something faster.

I know that ICE GT's have the "base" and performance options and have for years, but the reservation site didn't allude to any of that, even up until at least 2 months ago. Now I'm just going to have to wait and see what the Performance Pack pricing is, but if its 10k like I saw someone else reference, that puts the faster GT out of my comfort zone. I can afford it, I just don't want to at that price. So yes, its a new gripe, but I feel justified for it personally.

I don’t recall the 3.5 target ever being listed without a footnote “GT with options” although I agree that I think only the latest version clarified that options means a Performance package.
By the way, I think the reference to $10k price differential mentioned by others is comparing the GT to non-GT models. Otherwise I don’t know where that figure would come from. $70+ for the vehicle with performance and other “standard” options would be a non-starter for me.
I’m already having trouble justifying $65k when for $10k more I can do the Rivian with 0-60 in 3.0 secs., 11,000 lbs towing, 300-mile range and completely loaded with pano roof, heated AND ventilated front AND rear seats, their Driver+ at no additional cost, air ride adjustable with 6.5 inches in range, etc.... I’d previously favored the MME because it came out first, but even that is now gone with the Rivian starting deliveries in June and the GT sliding to late summer (if not further back still).

 

[Davedough]

I don’t recall the 3.5 target ever being listed without a footnote “GT with options” although I agree that I think only the latest version clarified that options means a Performance package.
By the way, I think the reference to $10k price differential mentioned by others is comparing the GT to non-GT models. Otherwise I don’t know where that figure would come from. $70+ for the vehicle with performance and other “standard” options would be a non-starter for me.
I’m already having trouble justifying $65k when for $10k more I can do the Rivian with 0-60 in 3.0 secs., 11,000 lbs towing, 300-mile range and completely loaded with pano roof, heated AND ventilated front AND rear seats, their Driver+ at no additional cost, air ride adjustable with 6.5 inches in range, etc.... I’d previously favored the MME because it came out first, but even that is now gone with the Rivian starting deliveries in June and the GT sliding to late summer (if not further back still).

I couldn't agree with this more. I REALLY wanted a Rivian, but its starting price is what made me stop looking at it. If this price gets out of hand, then I might as well start entertaining the Rivian again. Thankfully I'm in no rush for the new car and I can wait either way. I guess we all just have to wait and see when more info becomes available

 

[agoldman]

Truth is, that if this GT Perf could muster 270-300 range, I'd spec every last option and order one up and pay whatever premium Ford would set. Trouble is, that ain't the case.

 

[agoldman]

I couldn't agree with this more. I REALLY wanted a Rivian, but its starting price is what made me stop looking at it. If this price gets out of hand, then I might as well start entertaining the Rivian again. Thankfully I'm in no rush for the new car and I can wait either way. I guess we all just have to wait and see when more info becomes available

yeah, but ouch on the config... and that's not even the top model.
Est. price
$83,500

 

[eager2own]

yeah, but ouch on the config... and that's not even the top model.
Est. price
$83,500

You can get the R1T like I described before for $75k (or $76,500 as I’ve configured my reservation). That includes the performance and standard equipment I described.
Of course, you can configure it to $83,500 if you throw everything and the kitchen sink in (literally, if you’re adding the optional field kitchen to get to that number).

Sponsored