Munro is not happy with the Mach-E, back in Tesla fanboy mode

[noname]

I somewhat like his videos, but I agree, most of the time you learn nothing. I do not care if ford spent more money on the parts, I am more curious if what they build is sound and solid.

Sponsored

 

[EVS]

I agree with many of you (but haven't seen the video). Munro came to fame when UBS sued him for releasing his Tesla build quality analysis to the public that UBS paid him for. Since then, he figured he can earn a pretty buck and fame by associating with the Tesla clan and making youtube videos and interviewing Elon Musk and make money trading Tesla shares. Perhaps 90% of his viewers are from the Tesla clan.

He is far from an unbiased authorty in that regard. He is like the auto expert for non-auto people. Just like Elon Musk is the auto-manufacturing genius and full self driving expert for those who don't know much about them. Remember 'Alien Dreadnought' ?

Too many parts is not necessarily bad. For a car company like Ford with so many models over the years, using pre-existing well tested components is much cheaper than buiding a new one-piece component. Componentization is very dominant in the auto industry. Under the hood, most car models share a lot of common components. Besides, cost of replacing the simple small part like a screw can be much lower too.
This can also help with parts supply when a repair is needed. We've all heard about extra long delays in repairing Tesla cars in body shops due to parts shortage.

Perhaps Mr. Munro wants to see this Model Y level of build quality in mache to be satisfied.
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/36274...bled-together-with-home-depot-grade-fake-wood
"Tesla Model Y Owners Find Cooling System Cobbled Together With Home Depot-Grade Fake Wood"

 

[gpgrim]

If Alexander Graham-Bell opened a cell phone today, he'd probably fall on the floor as well, but definitely not an indicator that the phone sucked. Tech evolves, people not so much, and yes, a pretty content free video.

 

[db4z]

The guy vastly oversimplifies things and makes very generalized assumptions. Ford spent years on this car and is already deep into the next gen and don't need a grumpy old man to tell them to use less parts. That's engineering 101. The real story is always a lot more complicated. For example, having multiple separate components can make them cheaper to repair as you don't have to replace an entire complex module for one minor issue. I imagine any tesla that has a giga casting cracked from a minor impact will just have to be totaled.

Using carry over parts also doesn't require new tooling investments (other than for capacity), holds suppliers to low prices that they agreed to years ago, and using a proven part is a no brainer from a quality perspective. Yes, things could be simpler but that requires more investment and brings more risk everytime you design and manufacture a new part and they had enough other new things to get right with this car. And guess what, the auto industry has learned since the 80s how to not make hoses leak.

Of all the things to worry about getting right on this car, I'm ok with having too many hose clamps not being one.

 

[JoeDimwit]

What did he say about why the frunk divider exists? I'm curious, but not curious enough to watch the whole video. Thanks

He claims that in the original design, Ford completely forgot about the need for an emergency release inside the frunk, and so had fo come up with something.

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

He claims that in the original design, Ford completely forgot about the need for an emergency release inside the frunk, and so had fo come up with something.

It would have been easier and more truthful to admit “I have no idea why they did this. What’s the story Ford?” Then move on.

 

[Mirak]

For those who are of the opinion, "That was a great video!" - would you mind letting us know: What exactly did you learn, that you couldn't have figured out by yourself (using "common sense"), if you were standing in front of a torn down MME? They mapped out the coolant flow - great! Now educate me on what each loop does. I don't care if Ford did a crap-ass job on any car - god knows I've dealt with enough transmission issues between the DPS6 and the 6F50, or the shitty aluminum hoods that corrode.

What I want to know from this so-called expert is, how exactly are things bad, and why some compromises might have been made. Not conjecture like, "more parts = more badness", or "Ford is dum hurr durr, should have put more TSLA in their MME".

Well I’m not going to tear my frunk out to look at all this, for starters. He labeled a bunch of components. The “scrap if dropped” thing was pretty funny. Holy hoses. Probably the biggest thing I learned is that there are a handful of posters here who get SUPER offended by anything bordering on Mach E criticism LOL.

 

[JoeDimwit]

It would have been easier and more truthful to admit “I have no idea why they did this. What’s the story Ford?” Then move on.

Exactly.

 

[kltye]

Well I’m not going to tear my frunk out to look at all this, for starters. He labeled a bunch of components. The “scrap if dropped” thing was pretty funny. Holy hoses. Probably the biggest thing I learned is that there are a handful of posters here who get SUPER offended by anything bordering on Mach E criticism LOL.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear - a teardown can be done by anyone who knows how to use a screwdriver, and is willing to possibly damage the car. We don't need an "expert" on anything for that. So yes, teardown = great, as is anything that is plainly visible (and hilarious) in said teardown. (Also, Googling for "scrapped if dropped" brings up results from other FoMoCo cars from a decade ago, and even random people on the internet have offered more of a speculation about why that is)

I don't give a rat's behind about posters who get offended about MME criticism - we're talking about Sandy, and in particular, this video. If he offered even an ounce of reasoning why this is an actual nightmare, I would not part with 50 thousand of my hard-earned dollars. I'd write this video off as useless as well if it was a teardown of a Model Y - and I'm definitely no fan of Tesla, either.

 

[Scarpia]

Probably the biggest thing I learned is that there are a handful of posters here who get SUPER offended by anything bordering on Mach E criticism LOL.

I'm not sure if that's the correct conclusion. I think most people are just reacting to content of the videos.
Ever hear the joke with the punchline "Frog with no legs can't jump"?

 

[jlauro]

He is 100% WRONG about why the divider exists.

Not saying he was 100% right, but he was not 100% wrong either. He said the divider exists so a child can't get in, and I have heard that before not heard any other reason. He may be wrong about the button not being preplanned and order of what came first, and thus who messed up, but not about the reason for the divider.

 

[jlauro]

It would have been easier and more truthful to admit “I have no idea why they did this. What’s the story Ford?” Then move on.

You might want to watch the video because he said that and he stated that is what he heard back when asking and wasn't based on his idea.

BTW: Not saying his videos are great and inaccurate, but the ones I watch he points out good and bad about every company. Plenty of opinions not to agree with, but would hardly call him a Tesla fanboy.

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

You might want to watch the video because he said that and he stated that is what he heard back when asking and wasn't based on his idea.

BTW: Not saying his videos are great and inaccurate, but the ones I watch he points out good and bad about every company. Plenty of opinions not to agree with, but would hardly call him a Tesla fanboy.

I have watched it, the problem is he wouldn’t stop while he was ahead. And he was flat out wrong. Whatever Sandy once had is gone imo. That became painfully obvious in the id.4 review. That was sad. This is just wrong.

 

[Kevin C]

Sandy has lost whatever credibility he once had. He is now just an old, grumpy guy looking for YouTube views. It's sad, really.

 

[noway]

He is probably right about what he is saying, if material cost is the only thing that matter. Ignoring development costs, safety, reliability in certain areas, etc. He is also taking the "manufacturer side", which is intentional, not the consumer side, so this is why repair costs will never matter. This is the "iPhone" way, make it cheap, make it impossible to fix when it means production cost can be cut, when broken buy new stuff. This probably "overall" makes it less likely to fail, but when it fails, it fails hard and expensive. It either fails or it does not, but when it does, it costs a lot, which from a manufacturer point of view is good.

When talking about the cooling system he is probably right in that the Tesla system is better, but that is probably mostly because it has reversible air conditioning/heat pump capability which do change a lot of the design. The Mach-E has to do "whatever it can" to try to get as much heat has possible from everywhere heat is produced to avoid having to heat batteries and cabin with pure electricity. So hoses to and from all components. Ford probably already are developling a "next generation" system doing the same, and making a large effort into the "previous generation" system now, would not make sense if it will be replaced later.

Another thing I find a little bit offending:

Looking at the video from "same" under the bonnet review on the ID-4: (this one I think):


He is going on and on about the bonnet weight and size, as it is the only thing that matter, trying as best as he can to explain that pedestrian safety does not matter and "we don't do that kind of stuff", "we don't run over pedestrians". In europe there is a whole lot of "weight" put into pedestrian crash safety, which might explain why some cars cannot easely have things like electronic bonnet opening and other materials on the parts in pedestrian impact zones (and for this reason we will possibly never see the Cybertruck in europe).

Btw. the Mach-E has a "deployable bonnet", which is supposed to actively raise itself on pedestrian impact, which might/will explain why it has to have a different structure and stronger and larger supports, it has to be stable even when it is not completely lowered. I would suspect the ID-4 has the same thing. The crash safety development from the ENCAP seems to suggest that cars with a low and long bonnet is far worse for pedestrian impact than cars with a high bonnet and steeper bonnet angle (which the deployable bonnet system will further increase), which then also might explain why "all others" seems to not copy the Tesla Model 3 bonnet design.

Sponsored