jasaero

Active Member
First Name
Jake
Joined
Sep 2, 2021
Messages
26
Reaction score
21
Location
Texas
Vehicles
2016 Colorado Diesel/2017 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid
Occupation
Engineer
Country flag
Yes, it is worth it and of paramount importance. EV is the way forward and Ford knows that bad optics on anything EV/MME related could sour consumers on Ford EVs, regardless of the reason. Because you know Mustang coupes are going EV before we know it as well.

MME Project Manager, Dave Pericak’s edict to the team was that it has to be a Mustang. A GT doesn’t shit the bed in the 1/4 compared to an Ecoboost, or previously, a V-6. By that rationale it has to be fixed. And I’m sure they’re doing it as we complain non-stop.
The problem when comparing to normal mustang is that it's 1-1.5s faster in 1/4...it's looking like we get that same range in raw time....just all gained early in run and never gets much more speed than the other by the time it's done.
Advertisement

 

Pushrods&Capacitors

Well-Known Member
First Name
Brian
Joined
Jun 24, 2021
Messages
441
Reaction score
927
Location
Round Rock, TX
Vehicles
‘21 4X, ‘14 SS Sedan tuned, ‘17 WRX tuned
Occupation
Analyst
Country flag
Not to keep pouring gas on speculation, but agreed that their lack of promised data (aside from 0-60 #'s) does give them a path w/o a fix. Though i'm a broken record that they do flaunt 480/638 power numbers, which they are limiting 🤞



And begrudgingly, im yet another SS owner :p whos Been running dragys this week in the same spot to these new (to me) data points.... Less relevant since ice and ~500+lbs lighter, but it is one of the better comparable petro cars, and this will fire up P&C to post more cold idle videos :D

SS | ~390RWHP/400RWTQ | UHP A/S Tires | 11.9's on DRs | ~116+ trap on Street tires
Wk Avg 30-50: 1.52
Wk Avg 50-70: 2.09
Wk Avg 0-60: 4.65 (4.25 1ft)

My GTPE arrives tonight so hope to run more data on the same stretch of road soon
We run almost exactly the same it would seem. Great, get that PE and get more confirmation of what we already know. 😉 maybe put up some 3.5s! And, no cold idle vid today but I’ll put up a cool morning 0-60 run on summer tires and TC left on:
8DE34E01-22E5-4343-92DD-6A8B8BA3FC2F.png
 

blue92lx

Well-Known Member
First Name
Adam
Joined
Jun 13, 2021
Messages
556
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Florida
Vehicles
Ford Fusion
Country flag
Not to keep pouring gas on speculation, but agreed that their lack of promised data (aside from 0-60 #'s) does give them a path w/o a fix. Though i'm a broken record that they do flaunt 480/638 power numbers, which they are limiting 🤞



And begrudgingly, im yet another SS owner :p whos Been running dragys this week in the same spot to these new (to me) data points.... Less relevant since ice and ~500+lbs lighter, but it is one of the better comparable petro cars, and this will fire up P&C to post more cold idle videos :D

SS | ~390RWHP/400RWTQ | UHP A/S Tires | 11.9's on DRs | ~116+ trap on Street tires
Wk Avg 30-50: 1.52
Wk Avg 50-70: 2.09
Wk Avg 0-60: 4.65 (4.25 1ft)

My GTPE arrives tonight so hope to run more data on the same stretch of road soon
Be good to see the data, and also that you have it programmed, tested, ready to go, and know with a deep intimacy what we're all yearning for.
 

sotek2345

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tom
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
164
Reaction score
211
Location
Upstate NY
Vehicles
2016 F150, 2019 GT350, Mach-e GT + Lightning order
Occupation
Engineering Manager
Country flag
Technically that could mean almost anything. May just be some upgrade to the cooling regime that allows it to be fed more juice or something and otherwise be mostly the same motor, but with different capacity for cooling. But if the motors are just some general design/winding that is focused more on low rev punch...it may not be something where there is a way to get more at the top end...cooling or no.
Not sure if you are aware, but the GT and GTPEs "upgraded" front motor is just the rear motor. The 4x have a smaller front motor and larger rear. the GT/GTPE get 2 copies of the larger rear.
 

jasaero

Active Member
First Name
Jake
Joined
Sep 2, 2021
Messages
26
Reaction score
21
Location
Texas
Vehicles
2016 Colorado Diesel/2017 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid
Occupation
Engineer
Country flag
Not sure if you are aware, but the GT and GTPEs "upgraded" front motor is just the rear motor. The 4x have a smaller front motor and larger rear. the GT/GTPE get 2 copies of the larger rear.
That's interesting. I guess that is the higher output one, but Sandy Munro HATED that one. That doesn't really mean it's bad or not a great unit for use to go fast...but it really seemed to be more of a hodgepodge design than the front. The Ford gal said they were two different suppliers designing them. But depending on the design constraints Ford gave them wouldn't be surprised if there really is some issue with the general reach of the power band if it's that more hodge podge rear unit on both the front and back.
 

Progress

Member
First Name
Rufus
Joined
Sep 11, 2021
Messages
11
Reaction score
23
Location
San Diego
Vehicles
2013 Venza AWD, Red GTPE on order
Occupation
retired
Country flag
Can someone give me a summary of page 48 to 68?
Seriously, most posters think the MME GTPE times for 0-60 mph and for 1/8 mile are good to very good, but acceleration above 40 mph, 1/4 mile times and trap speed at 1/4 mile are fair to disappointing to unacceptable. The causes could be:
1. Limitation of the permanent magnet motors and the battery combination(worst case scenario)
2. Limitation from the software because:
a) Need to protect the battery
b) Marketing wants to leave room for improvement in other models
c) Software engineers are still working out the best balance of speed vs range
d) Incompetence
Take your pick, but we all hope the answer is 2c!!
 

Frankie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2019
Messages
268
Reaction score
433
Location
Nevada
Vehicles
2012 Mustang
Country flag
"speed vs range" makes no sense whatsoever, the car doesn't use more electricity at a steady state 70 mph just because the motors are limited to 300 hp at full throttle instead of 550 hp.

Do people think that how many MPG you get at the drag strip is a big concern to Ford and their customers?
 

buzznwood

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
608
Reaction score
641
Location
california
Vehicles
focus st & GTPE
Country flag
That's interesting. I guess that is the higher output one, but Sandy Munro HATED that one. That doesn't really mean it's bad or not a great unit for use to go fast...but it really seemed to be more of a hodgepodge design than the front. The Ford gal said they were two different suppliers designing them. But depending on the design constraints Ford gave them wouldn't be surprised if there really is some issue with the general reach of the power band if it's that more hodge podge rear unit on both the front and back.
The only reason Munro didn't like the rear was due to the the assembly or rather the way they thought it was complex to assemble, yet somehow despite all the supposed complexity it was sitting assembled without issue to be tore down.

Munro blows hot and cold in contradictory fashion all the time with a large dose of 'I don't understand' followed by complaints about fastners that everything really needs to be take with large pinch of salt.

If both motors where allowed to run full combined power the GTPE would have 562hp, as it stands both motors are only allowed to the run the combined maximum torque of 634lbs for a moment before everything gets dialed back down, due to 'reasons' which are very unlikely to be related to a hodge podge front & rear motors.
 

jasaero

Active Member
First Name
Jake
Joined
Sep 2, 2021
Messages
26
Reaction score
21
Location
Texas
Vehicles
2016 Colorado Diesel/2017 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid
Occupation
Engineer
Country flag
The only reason Munro didn't like the rear was due to the the assembly or rather the way they thought it was complex to assemble, yet somehow despite all the supposed complexity it was sitting assembled without issue to be tore down.

Munro blows hot and cold in contradictory fashion all the time with a large dose of 'I don't understand' followed by complaints about fastners that everything really needs to be take with large pinch of salt.

If both motors where allowed to run full combined power the GTPE would have 562hp, as it stands both motors are only allowed to the run the combined maximum torque of 634lbs for a moment before everything gets dialed back down, due to 'reasons' which are very unlikely to be related to a hodge podge front & rear motors.
Haha... I agree to a degree on Sandy skeptical view you have. But he does make very good points from a wholistic design philosophy standpoint usually... Even if his design agendas seem a bit cost/reliability focused and serviceability and such getting less attention since it's often a weight and cost adder. But generally that rear drive unit seemed to have some design choices that really were a bit off overall. I'm sure it's a good enough unit... Just wouldn't be surprised if it's not quite what Ford really had hoped for from the supplier for the higher output unit.
 

jasaero

Active Member
First Name
Jake
Joined
Sep 2, 2021
Messages
26
Reaction score
21
Location
Texas
Vehicles
2016 Colorado Diesel/2017 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid
Occupation
Engineer
Country flag
Seriously, most posters think the MME GTPE times for 0-60 mph and for 1/8 mile are good to very good, but acceleration above 40 mph, 1/4 mile times and trap speed at 1/4 mile are fair to disappointing to unacceptable. The causes could be:
1. Limitation of the permanent magnet motors and the battery combination(worst case scenario)
2. Limitation from the software because:
a) Need to protect the battery
b) Marketing wants to leave room for improvement in other models
c) Software engineers are still working out the best balance of speed vs range
d) Incompetence
Take your pick, but we all hope the answer is 2c!!
2c is most unlikely. 2a is much more likely.

I actually suspect the weird not at all tied to Temps funky canned charge profile is for similar reasons, but will be updated later as they get better data on deg with this sorta keep the charge rate constant early in deployment thing and will later move to a more temp based profile that can hold higher charge rates longer based on other parameters and a more dynamic rates.

Generally though don't know why it would be risky at all to not at least allow on full 1/4 run with full draw the motor is designed for. Can't heat battery or do much different to battery at that power draw for 5 seconds vs 13 when it can do similar pretty close to each other for the 5 second power pull it seems.

It just generally seems like it could be part of this Motors behavior and it got them similar enough 1/4 times to ecoboost and GT in a bigger EV SUV.... While wiping floor with the sports car brother off the line.
 

Sitdown

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
78
Reaction score
123
Location
Chicago-ish
Vehicles
17 Raptor | 15 SS | 86 SVO | 65 R Resto | 21 GTPE
Country flag

Griddlez

Well-Known Member
First Name
Griddlez
Joined
Feb 18, 2021
Messages
112
Reaction score
162
Location
Illinois
Vehicles
2021 Mustang Mach-E
Country flag
From that article...

" The fact that the lower-end Premium AWD models are able to trap higher speeds than the Mach-E GTs hint that there may be more performance left on the table. The Drive has contacted Ford regarding this debate and will update in due course. "

Yep - hopefully they hear something and share it! Glad bigger name places are taking notice and asking the same questions everyone else here has.
 

blue92lx

Well-Known Member
First Name
Adam
Joined
Jun 13, 2021
Messages
556
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Florida
Vehicles
Ford Fusion
Country flag
Also curious that now it's out with TheDrive how long will other publications sit on it and not try to get the scoop for their subscribers. This could be a really good push for results since each publication won't want to be beaten to the punch, and now the next push is who's going to get the first answer from Ford?
 
Advertisement

 
Advertisement
Top