Mach-E Will Not Migrate to Universal EV Platform

[Snakebitten]

Not sure why the new platform would be designated to one battery chemistry, like LFP. The Mach-E and Lightning had options for 2 different battery chemistries. Besides, battery technology is changing way faster than a platform does.

And while there appears to be a lot of merit to the claim Ford is building this platform with an emphasis on cutting the cost of manufacturing, that shouldn't mean that Ford wouldn't be able to apply those manufacturing efficiencies to build upscale vehicles, if the consumer was deemed to be wanting of them.
Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, Lincoln,......... The upscale version of other vehicles that are built on the same platform? Right?

I don't ever remember the industry being more unpredictable than it is today. But if I was willing to guess, I don't think I would be so sure with my guesses as to declare such limitations of the new UEV platform.

I do wonder what the sales threshold is for keeping Ford producing the Mach-E. If it sold 50,000 per year, would they just keep cranking them out? I mean there theoretically is a threshold, I suppose.

Sponsored

 

[GreaseMonkey]

Well, both high-performance and low-performance vehicles need to be produced at low cost. A modern vehicle platform should have the flexibility to encompass a broad spectrum of performance levels, each produced cost-effectively.

What's still not 100% clear to me is the extent to which high-performance is precluded by the UEV platform. Sure, they need to cut EV costs, everyone does. But does this really mean that they don't even want to try to compete in the high-performance segments? If Ford really is going all in on "cheap and low-performance" rather than "all performance levels at competitive costs", then they are really limiting their future market. Are they that foolish? Maybe they are, but I hope not.

Phil, Ford is highly experienced in conceding complete market segments to its competitors. It probably has the narrowest product offering of the legacy domestics. It’s effectively a truck company. If you listen to Farley carefully, he eludes to this tendency with a high degree of clarity. He’s looking for niche markets (what some call “blue waters”) where he would have no competition. Like the little EV truck. I personally don’t think that it works well in good times. It might work better in bad times because you are highly focused on the 2-3 segments that matter (very large and very small trucks and midsized suvs).

 

[E90alex]

Not sure why the new platform would be designated to one battery chemistry, like LFP. The Mach-E and Lightning had options for 2 different battery chemistries. Besides, battery technology is changing way faster than a platform does.

And while there appears to be a lot of merit to the claim Ford is building this platform with an emphasis on cutting the cost of manufacturing, that shouldn't mean that Ford wouldn't be able to apply those manufacturing efficiencies to build upscale vehicles, if the consumer was deemed to be wanting of them.
Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, Lincoln,......... The upscale version of other vehicles that are built on the same platform? Right?

I don't ever remember the industry being more unpredictable than it is today. But if I was willing to guess, I don't think I would be so sure with my guesses as to declare such limitations of the new UEV platform.

I do wonder what the sales threshold is for keeping Ford producing the Mach-E. If it sold 50,000 per year, would they just keep cranking them out? I mean there theoretically is a threshold, I suppose.

I don’t think there would be any technical limitations that would prevent them from using other battery chemistries, but Ford at the moment doesn’t just seem to have the bandwidth, finances or motivation to expand the new EV platform to other market segments. Especially while under this administration.

They are planning to make their own LFP batteries in house which is a key part in how they will reduce cost. A second battery chemistry would require a new battery partner and separate factory, which introduces more logistics and complexity into production which ultimately increases cost, on top of NMC already inherently costing more than LFP.

Perhaps once they get a couple mainstream/economy focused models up and running on the new platform and there’s a more favorable political environment towards EVs they might expand/evolve the platform to other market segments. But for the near term I wouldn’t expect to see any upmarket or performance variants on the platform.

 

[ChehRob]

The Mustang has been about the most stable platform of any American car. It is 14 inches wider and a little longer, much of that for safety reasons. I doubt they will quit building it. By the early 2030s it will have to have a primo EV.

The Maverick was close to $20,000 at introduction, about $28K now. But higher priced models and features usually hit mid $40Ks.

Variants of that truck will appear after production gets under control. SUVs first, then maybe a van and performance models.

 

[dan_meh]

To the point about battery chemistry (LFP vs NMC) in the UEV platform , Alan Clarke is on record saying that the platform is chemistry agnostic:



Meaning: Ford could absolutely put a higher performance chemistry in UEV, so the battery shouldn’t be the bottleneck for a performance vehicle.

Will they call it a Mach-e? Will it look like it does now? Will the chassis handle high torque output? Dunno. But the battery won’t be the problem, at least it’s not supposed to be the problem.

 

[E90alex]

To the point about battery chemistry (LFP vs NMC) in the UEV platform , Alan Clarke is on record saying that the platform is chemistry agnostic:



Meaning: Ford could absolutely put a higher performance chemistry in UEV, so the battery shouldn’t be the bottleneck for a performance vehicle.

Will they call it a Mach-e? Will it look like it does now? Will the chassis handle high torque output? Dunno. But the battery won’t be the problem, at least it’s not supposed to be the problem.

That’s good to know.

It still seems they’re focusing on the budget end of the market, at least in the beginning. So they could potentially have a faster EV SUV on the platform in the future, but they’re probably moving away from the Mustang name for other reasons. Maybe an electric Escape ST or Edge ST?

 

[NY_Cade69]

They made performance Focus and Escort, didn't mean they were on par with a Mustang.
Whatever the future holds for the Mach-E, Ford should keep the cachet it has already created.

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

They made performance Focus and Escort, didn't mean they were on par with a Mustang.
Whatever the future holds for the Mach-E, Ford should keep the cachet it has already created.

Yes, indeed. Performance is a relative term anyway. My 1973 Pinto did 0 to 60 in 3 days. My next car did 0 to 60 in 2 days. That was a huge performance upgrade!

 

[mdolan92869]

Yes, indeed. Performance is a relative term anyway. My 1973 Pinto did 0 to 60 in 3 days. My next car did 0 to 60 in 2 days. That was a huge performance upgrade!

What? I had a 1973 Pinto too! My next car, after I got a real job after college, was a 1983 Mustang GT. No more 4 cylinder hell for me

Sponsored