Ford Mustang Mach E Leak: Mustang goes Electric

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,579
Probably goes hand in hand with the push to get people on leases. People think they can afford more car that way.
The more crap the higher the margins. It’s that simple. People have been fooled into believing they need anything more than what a sub-$20k car offers already.
 

THRESHIN

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
3,435
Chernobyl’s RBMK reactors also had fatal flaws in their design, which are not present in other reactors. Plus, they went cheap on the containment building, because it was the Soviet Union and they wanted to save money.

it wasn't that they went cheap on the containment building - there was NO containment building! it was basically built in not much more than a warehouse. compare that to the TMI accident, containment works. surprise!
 

NightReaver

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
1,479
But we did go first. We're already pushing the limits of what's possible within reason.
Nope, apparently we have to go beyond reason. The US has to be the ones to sacrifice our economy/industry for the sake of progress. China and the rest of our competitors will totally follow suite afterwards instead of surging ahead while we cripple ourselves.
 

1_rick

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
2,822
Nope, apparently we have to go beyond reason. The US has to be the ones to sacrifice our economy/industry for the sake of progress. China and the rest of our competitors will totally follow suite afterwards instead of surging ahead while we cripple ourselves.
I've got a bridge just upstream of the Three Gorges Dam for anyone who believes that'll happen.

I mean, it's deep underwater, but it's there.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
4,064
15% from the US is nothing if nothing else is done. You have to drop emissions far more drastically to make any dent in the rising temperature. Again, this is not a simple issue.

Further, dropping that 15% number by any decent amount isn’t even possible, as outlined earlier. Unless the plan is no one is allowed to drive a vehicle anymore. Which is what you’d have to do, along with many other things most people would never accept.

The numbers don’t lie. If you believe in global climate change and want to have any significant impact on it, these measures are meaningless. The sooner people accept that, the faster we can start actually fixing things. Until then, it’s political theatre.

By the way, I do take some offense to being called part of the problem. I live in a fairly neutral fashion. I don’t fly anymore. I’m not one of our politicians who fly so often that they’ve likely done more harm then I could do in 10 lifetimes.
Your attitude is part of the problem. People should be encouraged to do what they can, regardless of how big or small the impact is. Something is better than nothing. Do we need to do more than this? Absolutely. But you shouldn't knock something just because the impact is small. Lots of small improvements can add up. Many drops in the bucket can add up.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,579
Your attitude is part of the problem. People should be encouraged to do what they can, regardless of how big or small the impact is. Something is better than nothing. Do we need to do more than this? Absolutely. But you shouldn't knock something just because the impact is small. Lots of small improvements can add up. Many drops in the bucket can add up.
If you've read my post history you'd see I have no problem with EV's, and people doing it. Again, that is not my concern. You can be supportive of technology without being supportive of ass backwards regulations that only hurt people and achieve nothing when it comes to the desired end state.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,520
Further, dropping that 15% number by any decent amount isn’t even possible, as outlined earlier. Unless the plan is no one is allowed to drive a vehicle anymore. Which is what you’d have to do, along with many other things most people would never accept.
I have not followed and read everything, but I think that a bit pessimistic.

American have made some of the biggest cut in emissions by capita among the world in recent year's (I imagine in good part via the natural gaz revolution):

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=US

From 20.42 metric ton by american in 2000 to 15.24 in 2018 with that metric (25% drop or so)

On the energy consumption emissions since the 2007 crash it went really fast:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/

Look at China efficiency gain, since 1990:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD?locations=CN

Your attitude is part of the problem. People should be encouraged to do what they can, regardless of how big or small the impact is. Something is better than nothing. Do we need to do more than this? Absolutely. But you shouldn't knock something just because the impact is small. Lots of small improvements can add up. Many drops in the bucket can add up.
But there is an opportunity cost if people overestimate the value on what they do and distract for more important measure.
 

Crosshairs

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
25,123
Coal and gas is about 35% efficient which is 10% more efficient than gas engines. 5% of that energy is lost through transmission lines. Oil-fired power plants get 28% efficiency (India) and they burn specifically petroleum, which is closer to gasoline.
Modern gas engines are between 30 and 35% efficient .
Modern diesels are even higher , with some reaching 44% efficiency
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
4,064
Modern gas engines are between 30 and 35% efficient .
Modern diesels are even higher , with some reaching 44% efficiency
One thing I haven't heard is how much gas is used to get the gas to where it is needed. AKA what is the "transmission loss" for gas? You would need to take that into account when comparing efficiency numbers for the entire system for electric vs gas.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,579
One thing I haven't heard is how much gas is used to get the gas to where it is needed. AKA what is the "transmission loss" for gas? You would need to take that into account when comparing efficiency numbers for the entire system for electric vs gas.
It’s a cost, but I doubt it’s awful. On average something like 8500 gallons. Let’s just assume one store of 100 gallons of diesel to deliver the fuel, although on average nationwide I doubt that much is being used. An ass pull average guess would be anywhere from 1-3%. That’s really not awful when you account for the speed at which you can refuel, etc.
 

Armenius

Extremely [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
33,184
No, that wouldn’t be allowed. We need to move it using trucks that burn more of it because we have to make political statements.
Not thinking big enough. Enormous fossil fuel burning trains are the way to do it.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
4,064
Here is a first drive review of the 2022 GT and GT performance models. Note that there is very little difference between the 2021 and 2022 models across all of the Mach-E models (with the 2021 getting some of the new upgrades via software later). I believe that the biggest change is the minor frunk tweak.
 

GreenLaser

n00b
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
57
It's closer to a factor of 10 not 100 (I see 12 for gas and similar for diesel). Do your googles next time.
Ok so if googles says it is 10 to 1 that makes your 1 gallon gas tank car has 80 lbs of batteries. ...you want to make your Ecar go the same distance as a gas car with a 10 gallon tank ....VIOLA ...800 lbs of batteries! That is like driving the car around with 3 other goons in the passenger seats. Is what im saying a precise googlage equation no. But it is not denying the reality of physics.
 
Last edited:

cdabc123

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
3,989
Ok so if googles says it is 10 to 1 that makes your 1 gallon gas tank car has 80 lbs of batteries. ...you want to make your Ecar go the same distance as a gas car with a 10 gallon tank ....VIOLA ...800 lbs of batteries! That is like driving the car around with 3 other goons in the passenger seats. Is what im saying a precise googlage equation no. But it is not denying the reality of physics.
They also dont lose all the energy they use to accelerate. Efficiency for a electric motor is different then gas. Alas, its not as simple at 800lb =10gal

You're inaccurately disputing things that are already known. A tesla battery is 1k+ they put it on a tray near the ground and adjust the handling characteristics to work around that. They don't drive like a mgb. There driving can be comparable to current modern vehicles of similar size.

The fabric of reality and laws of physics are not broken with the concept of an electric car.
 

GreenLaser

n00b
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
57
This is demonstrably false, but even then, this also ignores the reduced maintenance, the lack of oil, the much quieter operation...

Thankfully, your voice doesn't matter. You've already lost this fight. EVs will take over; you'll have no choice but to buy one at a certain point; you'll have to admit you were wrong, and we'll welcome you with open arms when you finally accept real science.
Demonstrably false? ...really please demonstrate we are waiting. How about refuting real points made? I say the economics of hauling around 10 times the weight of fuel in batteries has an actual cost to it. Instead the typical answer is to fall back to the "Settled Science" without even one word to describe what that means. I drive vehicle and typically get well over 200k miles out of them. I had a 68 impala with 350k. my brother had a honda with +400k on it.

Lower maintainance? Please tell all us smelly walmart shoppers how having to spend many THOUSANDS every 8 years on new battery packs is not under the "Maintainance" tab OF YOUR EXCELL SHEET? isnt that about the same money for a new engine? hmmmm again details ETomatons choose to IGNORE.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
4,064
Demonstrably false? ...really please demonstrate we are waiting. How about refuting real points made? I say the economics of hauling around 10 times the weight of fuel in batteries has an actual cost to it. Instead the typical answer is to fall back to the "Settled Science" without even one word to describe what that means. I drive vehicle and typically get well over 200k miles out of them. I had a 68 impala with 350k. my brother had a honda with +400k on it.

Lower maintainance? Please tell all us smelly walmart shoppers how having to spend many THOUSANDS every 8 years on new battery packs is not under the "Maintainance" tab OF YOUR EXCELL SHEET? isnt that about the same money for a new engine? hmmmm again details ETomatons choose to IGNORE.
Where is your evidence that the battery packs need to be changed every 8 years? 300k-500k miles looks to be the estimate. I have seen similar estimates for the Tesla batteries. How many people own cars past 300k miles? Not many.
 

cdabc123

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
3,989
Where is your evidence that the battery packs need to be changed every 8 years? 300k-500k miles looks to be the estimate. I have seen similar estimates for the Tesla batteries. How many people own cars past 300k miles? Not many.
Lipo pack degrade way faster then that. That is exasperated by cold weather, and quick charging cycles.

The batteries are a degrading item that will need to be replaced on a routine schedule. Look at past gen electric cars and hybrids for evidence of that.
 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
2,971
Lipo pack degrade way faster then that. That is exasperated by cold weather, and quick charging cycles.

The batteries are a degrading item that will need to be replaced on a routine schedule. Look at past gen electric cars and hybrids for evidence of that.

If you watch the video I linked before he goes over battery degradation and replacement in his calculations. You still come out way ahead for the carbon footprint.
 

cdabc123

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
3,989
If you watch the video I linked before he goes over battery degradation and replacement in his calculations. You still come out way ahead for the carbon footprint.
Carbon footprint is useless and I find videos diving into this topic are inherently bias and inaccurate.

Environmental impact of lipo cells is substantial and will remain substantial as it grows.

I only dispute that the cells do degrade significantly over time and there will be a cost and environmental impact to such.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
4,064

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,579
My personal experience with EV's is that their battery life was garbage after 100k miles of normal usage, and it's not like you could just swap in a new engine/transmission and call it a day. Normal to me means the thing doesn't always get charged up to a proper amount, cold winters, etc. The car is basically totaled as there is no real way to replace the battery cells on these EV's.

If the manufacturers could make replacement somewhat more modular/possible without an insurance company totaling the vehicle, i'd be more on board with current EV's. Until then, no way. A full engine swap on my sub-$20k Hyundai costs $5k, including labor. I likely won't have to touch the thing until 200k miles as the more modern hyundai engines are lasting 200k easy as long as you are giving them oil changes. If it grenades before 100k/10 years it's covered under factory warranty anyways. EV? Once that pack goes, that's it. You're done. I can't wrap my head around owning something that I can't keep on the road outside of the warranty period. It just seems so morally wrong, and there's no way it's good for the environment. (Same reason I wouldn't touch a modern supercar, BTW)
 
Last edited:

GreenLaser

n00b
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
57
They also dont lose all the energy they use to accelerate. Efficiency for a electric motor is different then gas. Alas, its not as simple at 800lb =10gal

You're inaccurately disputing things that are already known. A tesla battery is 1k+ they put it on a tray near the ground and adjust the handling characteristics to work around that. They don't drive like a mgb. There driving can be comparable to current modern vehicles of similar size.

The fabric of reality and laws of physics are not broken with the concept of an electric car.
...The physics of batteries and electric motors for the most part are locked inside known physical laws since they were discovered. They found a battery in the desert of ancient Iraq and you know it looked like a ceramic version of a modern D cell. Other than changing the chemistry of a batterry for it a few % more capacity does not change the fact that it still has physical weight and size and cost to produce and use it. storage of energy in electrical form is very inefficient every step of the way both physically and economically. But to average person ...it doesn't smoke, it is really quiet and requires less maintenance. WOW Great Idea!

Gasoline:
Pump goo out of the ground, add some heat and it separates out to component chemicals. Put some in a simple sealed container and safely store it or carry it where you need it and pour it in to a machine that converts it into work. Waste out the exhaust pipe is basically water vapor.

Creating E:
Generators how much to manufacture? powered by what means? Wind, water, sun? how much to make the blades, turbines or panels? do the blades turbines or panels wear out? How much to fix? Does in not register that creating massive amount of machinery to CREATE E energy does not also have massive cost?

Storing E:
Batteries and ...? that's it just batteries, LOTS OF BATTERIES. Cost to produce? Carbon to produce? cost to interconnect and package? Dealing with replacement and waste. Danger of fire even in massive static packs/arrays and not BC a kid is playing with matches nearby.

Using E:
Conductors: LOTS OF CONDUCTORS! (AKA Wires) of copper and other expensive industrial metals. How much to dig up the metals? How much to manufacture a BILLION miles of wire? Electronics, Regulators, charge controllers, AC_DC converters HOW MUCH FOR ALL THIS INFRASTRUCTURE STUFF? JOE figures ~5 trillion ought to cover it. Maybe you'd rather keep your simple gas can?

I have an electric bicycle, I would drive and think an ECar is interesting on many levels. But dont lie to yourself or anyone else, this stuff is moving forward for one singular reason that has zero to do with green energy, ...Control. And If you don't get that then bmg and graft your offspring onto the matrix, resume your interactive dream program and find a way to ignore the looming economic tsunami.
 
Last edited:

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,609
Not thinking big enough. Enormous fossil fuel burning trains are the way to do it.

Except trains are diesel-electric and extremely efficient. The most efficient thing around for moving lots of stuff.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,892
I have an electric bicycle, I would drive and think an ECar is interesting on many levels. But dont lie to yourself or anyone else, this stuff is moving forward for one singular reason that has zero to do with green energy, ...Control. And If you don't get that then bmg and graft your offspring onto the matrix, resume your interactive dream program and find a way to ignore the looming economic tsunami.
Oh, this explains so much. You're not interested in actual science (you've made some very flimsy arguments), you're pretending you're a counterculture rebel and are trying to twist the facts to fit your preexisting theory and feel like you're uniquely enlightened.

If there's a cynical angle to take, it's that left-leaning politicians know they'll more reliably secure votes if they make a show of supporting EVs with big targets. But that doesn't change that transitioning to EVs is a good idea, and the sooner we adapt both the market and infrastructure to support EVs, the better.
 
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
858
I really want a EV, preferably a SUV or truck because I'm done dealing with constant fluid changes and filling up on gas on cold or hot days. Especially at my local Costco gas station where the gas lines can be insane.

That being said, the folk that seem most resistant to EVs must be JEEP owners. Which is understandable as JEEP and most of Stellantis's auto brands is really behind in the EV race ;)
 

ND40oz

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
12,715
That being said, the folk that seem most resistant to EVs must be JEEP owners. Which is understandable as JEEP and most of Stellantis's auto brands is really behind in the EV race ;)

Jeep raised the price of the 4xe because it was selling so well.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,347
We can meet or exceed that with improving ICE engine efficiency and adding more hybrid/regeneration systems, I guarantee that.
The problem with this, is corporate lobby and politics. Big pocketed lobbyists will tell politicians (with bags of money) "oh these standards are not realistic please change them!" and/or some oil executives shows up at the Oval office with a blank check stating "Raising the standards too high will cause undue stress to the profit margin of ourselves and our stockholders, how are we supposed to feed our families!" and they know that potentially every 4 years they have a different person and/or party to pander to.

Not getting political here just stating the President at the time of the changes.
Under Obama the CAFE standards were set to raise something like 5% per year, such that we should have CAFE standards of over 40 MPG now and 54 MPG by 2025, Trump however had the value to be frozen in 2020 through 2025 to like 36(?) MPG and it revoked California's exemption which allowed them to demand an standard higher than the federal one. Now you can argue, with someone else, whether or not this is "good" but this nothing new from 1990 to 2009 the standard had no increase, then the next change came at Obama, so lots of Presidents who did nothing except maybe make arguments on why they shouldn't increase.

So all the arguments in favor of what Trump did do so because they stated in order for auto companies to comply with those numbers it would increase the cost of cars to a point that makes them "unaffordable" for the consumer, i.e. exactly the same arguments that are made with electric cars in this thread. Before this when hybrids came out the arguments were that you're adding a significant cost to the car that can't realistically be made back financially in gas savings over a similar sized ICE car i.e. it's always been about the cost never about the benefit. Even with Obama's "unrealistic" numbers it didn't mean that fleet efficiency needed to be 54 MPG as credits could be applied for various fuel saving technology, e.g. engines that save fuel while idling or at low RPM (I think one of Ford's truck engines did this).

So I would argue that no, we can not meet or exceed that with improving ICE engine efficiency if anything because it can all be politically undone or circumvented with "credits" i.e. not really doing anything to make cars substantially more efficient.

Now I would say a better direction to hit this is to attack the exhaust of cars, if they could make a way that completely (or way better than existing technology) scrubs the exhaust then yeah greenhouse gas from transportation is largely gone. However there are a number of issues with this too, first the political ones, even states like California that have higher than national averages still don't really do squat in the grand scheme of things, and most states are like "whatever" when it comes to emissions. Second existing technology to scrub exhaust down involves very precious metals, worried about a lithium shortage? HA! Try palladium! So unless they can figure out a way to completely absorb greenhouse gases without the need for precious metals, because you know those will be stolen from EVERY car if the number of metals increases.

Ultimately if you get to the point where you're hoping someone will invent something to fix the problem instead of doing something to fix the problem with what already exists you're pretty much fucked. "Fuck it I'm not cutting back on my consumption, someone some day will invent something to fix it" and congratulations you see where we are at now with that mindset.
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
3,055
The problem with this, is corporate lobby and politics. Big pocketed lobbyists will tell politicians (with bags of money) "oh these standards are not realistic please change them!" and/or some oil executives shows up at the Oval office with a blank check stating "Raising the standards too high will cause undue stress to the profit margin of ourselves and our stockholders, how are we supposed to feed our families!" and they know that potentially every 4 years they have a different person and/or party to pander to.

Not getting political here just stating the President at the time of the changes.
Under Obama the CAFE standards were set to raise something like 5% per year, such that we should have CAFE standards of over 40 MPG now and 54 MPG by 2025, Trump however had the value to be frozen in 2020 through 2025 to like 36(?) MPG and it revoked California's exemption which allowed them to demand an standard higher than the federal one. Now you can argue, with someone else, whether or not this is "good" but this nothing new from 1990 to 2009 the standard had no increase, then the next change came at Obama, so lots of Presidents who did nothing except maybe make arguments on why they shouldn't increase.

So all the arguments in favor of what Trump did do so because they stated in order for auto companies to comply with those numbers it would increase the cost of cars to a point that makes them "unaffordable" for the consumer, i.e. exactly the same arguments that are made with electric cars in this thread. Before this when hybrids came out the arguments were that you're adding a significant cost to the car that can't realistically be made back financially in gas savings over a similar sized ICE car i.e. it's always been about the cost never about the benefit. Even with Obama's "unrealistic" numbers it didn't mean that fleet efficiency needed to be 54 MPG as credits could be applied for various fuel saving technology, e.g. engines that save fuel while idling or at low RPM (I think one of Ford's truck engines did this).

So I would argue that no, we can not meet or exceed that with improving ICE engine efficiency if anything because it can all be politically undone or circumvented with "credits" i.e. not really doing anything to make cars substantially more efficient.

Now I would say a better direction to hit this is to attack the exhaust of cars, if they could make a way that completely (or way better than existing technology) scrubs the exhaust then yeah greenhouse gas from transportation is largely gone. However there are a number of issues with this too, first the political ones, even states like California that have higher than national averages still don't really do squat in the grand scheme of things, and most states are like "whatever" when it comes to emissions. Second existing technology to scrub exhaust down involves very precious metals, worried about a lithium shortage? HA! Try palladium! So unless they can figure out a way to completely absorb greenhouse gases without the need for precious metals, because you know those will be stolen from EVERY car if the number of metals increases.

Ultimately if you get to the point where you're hoping someone will invent something to fix the problem instead of doing something to fix the problem with what already exists you're pretty much fucked. "Fuck it I'm not cutting back on my consumption, someone some day will invent something to fix it" and congratulations you see where we are at now with that mindset.

There is a way to scrub all the pollution out of vehicle exhaust and still use ICE engines, just need to run on Hydrogen. It is the easiest and cheapest way to switch over to clean burning, but the infrastructure has to be built. Vehicle cost would likely remain unchanged as the removal of emissions equipment would likely offset the cost of conversion.
 
Last edited:

ND40oz

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
12,715
No doubt, because it's a JEEP. However... the 4xe is a PHEV and not a BEV which matters a lot in the EV race.

It makes little sense to have a BEV Wrangler right now because their range issues, especially off of the pavement. The newly released Wagoneers and GCs are getting 4xe variants as well though.
 

clockdogg

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
1,175
There is a way to scrub all the pollution out of vehicle exhaust and still use ICE engines, just need to run on Hydrogen. It is the easiest and cheapest way to switch over to clean burning, but the infrastructure has to be built. Vehicle cost would likely remain unchanged as the removal of emissions equipment would likely offset the cost of conversion.
Hydrogen is great if you don't have to store it - the best exhaust gas scrubbing / mobile eco-farming technology has already been tried and tested.
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
18,805
I saw one of these on the road a few days ago and.. oof. I'm all for the proliferation of electric vehicles, and I'd like to see American car companies succeed and thrive in this space. But WTF, Ford?

I don't even know what to compare it to, it looked like a plastic car. It didn't ooze cool - the kind where it would hit you immediately before you even know or recognize the brand. It had none of that. I hope I'm just the asshole that lacks taste and everyone else likes it and buys it.
Nope you're not. The vehichle is a complete pile of shit.
 
Top