just put in my reservation.
Oh those are good too.
The hardware specs are intriguing, I’ll give it that, but naming it “mustang” is problematic, the Mustang is supposed to be a 2 door sports coupe, not a crossover/SUV
the lazy interior design of “glue an iPad to the dashboard” is lazy and ugly, if you’re going to have a flat panel display, integrate it into the center stack like the Model S
Having an entire touchscreen interface with no physical buttons or switchgear is also a bad idea, it’ll encourage distracted driving, yes yes I know, bring up the subject of “self driving”, it doesn’t matter, you should be able to operate cockpit gear with tactile muscle memory and not take your eyes off the road
And it’s still too bloody expensive…
Other than that, I think it’s an interesting concept, just name it something different, what’s next, Ford will release a tiny subcompact electric city car and call it the F-150?.. 
In 1965, a mustang would set you back $2427. That was a base mustang, 200 cubic inch motor, three speed.
In 1965, a kid working part time after school and on weekends would be making $1.50/hour.
So that’s 1618 hours of work, gross salary. Let’s say the kid worked part time after school for 4 hours, 4 evenings a week, plus 8 hours on Saturday (most stores did not open on Sundays in 1965). That’s 24 hours a week “after school”. Quite a lot.
At that rate, it would take the kid 67 weeks of saving, assuming he bought nothing, and had no deductions from his pay.
Boomers have hazy memories.
Very cool, jz! Keep us posted on how it goes! It’s funny, I look at the discussions here and all I can think of is this… Intermeccanica.
Forget Mach-E. Let’s cal it the "Stang Wagon!
This is not “lazy”, this is driven by human factors engineering. Any touchscreen that actually is supposed to present usable, time critical information needs to be in good reach of the driver, and take up as much of the driver’s field of view as practical (without obstructing sight lines to the road, or to other critical displays or controls).
This generally means pushing the screen towards the driver. Sure, you can integrate it with the center stack, but without compromising human factors this means that the stack needs to grow out towards the screen, so all you’re really doing is adding a whole bunch of shrouding and plastic bezels, making it look like a 90’s era drop down CRT for the in-flight movie.
From Ford’s Mach-E configuration tool, the top of the line model will have a 98.8 kW (sic) battery and a range of 270 miles. That is 366 watts per mile. Although it is smaller and lighter, my model 3 gets 240 miles on a 50 kWh battery or 208 watts per mile. So clearly they are putting performance over efficiency.
Putting a 100 kWh battery into a $60k vehicle is impressive.
Congratulations, it is a very exciting car. I waited 887 days for my Model 3. I hope your wait is much, much shorter.
Why oh why do so few get this right… kWh, dammit.
The Nissan Leaf page makes the opposite mistake:
40 kWh BATTERY 80% CHARGE: 50 kWh DC QUICK CHARGE
No, that’s a 40 kWh battery and a 50 kW quick charge.
Ruh-roh, Scooby 
(that’s 366 watt-hours per mile)
The Mach-E is still doing better than its non-Tesla competition. Both the Jaguar I-Pace and Audi e-tron are around 450 W-h/mi.
Only the Hyundai IONIQ seems to really match the Model 3’s efficiency, though it’s doing so with a much smallre pack size.
Dammit
I’ve figured it out. It’s almost what I described here. The charging page says this:
And also:
So, the 300 mile config only. 10-80% charge corresponds to 70%*300 mi = 210 miles in 45 minutes. 210 * 10 min / 45 min = 46.7 mi, or ~47 mi in 10 min.
It’s not a full-cycle average, then, but an average across the 10-80% charge range. Since I doubt the charge rate is constant in that range there must be a higher peak value.
If we assume 329 Wh/mi (98.8 kWh pack, 300 mi range), then at 150 kW we get a 456 mi/h peak, or 76 mi per 10 min. That’s roughly Model 3 charge rates on the V2 Superchargers, so not bad. The 150 kW (vs. 120 kW on Superchargers) makes up for some of the efficiency difference.
these already are on the road (in heavily disguised form) so the estimated availability dates should be fairly accurate. Barring anything unforeseen, mind.
Which model did you go with? Their configuration site seems to be a bit screwy. They list the California RT.1 Edition as having a 210 mile range with the 98.8 kWh battery pack. The same power train in the Premium model gets 300 miles.
I am planning on switching to a Model Y in 2022, but I will definitely take a look at this vehicle.
Point taken but I maintain that back then a kid living at home, working a part time job, paying no room and board (which was my situation in high school) could eventually buy a Mustang. Maybe a little financing from mom and dad or a bank. I knew a guy in high school that worked at a gas station/repair shop after school and on weekends (granted, he was probably making more than minimum) worked full time in the summer and shortly after graduation bought a new Corvette.
When I was working full time (lots of overtime too) in a factory during the summer my last two years of high school I did save almost every dime I made. Hadn’t cultivated any vices at that point and my dad, a banker, was so happy I was saving so much he never charged me anything to live at home. I bought my own beater car and a nice stereo.
My inflation calculator shows $2427 in 1965 would be $19675 now. Granted, there’s a lot of expensive stuff on vehicles today and there’s no new equivalent to a bare bones Mustang now. My hazy boomer memory is that there were a lot of kids driving nice cars in high school and they weren’t all bought by mom and dad.
I’m assuming it’s going to be in 2021 Management Lease Program, so I’m counting on it to replace the 2020 Explorer that still hasn’t arrived.
Looks like late 2020 availability. Any thoughts on RWD vs AWD? I had a Mustang one winter, and it did perfectly fine, even including saving my life during some unexpected black ice conditions on SB 275 near DTW.
I can’t tell you (or anyone) how excited I am for this. Names be damned; this is going to be an awesome vehicle.
I went with RWD for maximum range. I can spring for a set of winter tires. plus unlike the S550, the CX727 has the power pack in the rear right above the drive axle. I figure winter tires plus the fine-grained traction control you can do with electric drive means winter driving will be no problem. I know I despise the TCS in my Ranger.