Skip to content(if available)orjump to list(if available)

Ford's electric Mach-E outsold the gas-powered Mustang in 2024

thot_experiment

The gas car is an impractical vanity car, the electric one is a small SUV. Why is this comparison interesting?

jader201

I’m rooting for EV’s over ICE cars all the way (I own one), but I agree — I always found it a bit weird/misleading that the Mach-E carries the “Mustang” name, when they have so little in common.

I feel like it’s just marketing to the “cool” demographic, similar to how Tesla is (or at least used to be) a big status symbol.

These two cars are targeting a completely different demographic and should not be compared/considered in competition.

> Who said Ford’s electric crossover SUV wasn’t a real Mustang? The Mach-E outsold the gas-powered Ford Mustang for the first time last year as one of the top-selling EVs in the US.

Just because the vehicle carries the name and outsold the original Mustang still does not make it a “real Mustang”.

Again, I’m glad it’s selling well (and also glad it’s selling better than the Mustang). I just don’t think the two vehicles can be compared.

dotancohen

Real Mustang owner here, at least if you consider the '69 Mustang and the '72 Mustang to be Real Mustangs. I don't have them anymore, but they are forever burned in my driving habits.

What makes a Real Mustang? Head-turning looks? Acceleration? The Mach-E has both in spades. It's a new implementation of the Mustang formula, but it works. It out-Mustangs any parameter that a Real Mustang owner will tell you is the essence of his beloved pony car.

kllrnohj

> What makes a Real Mustang?

A RWD coupe that'll spin out and crash trying to show off leaving a cars & coffee.

bluedino

It's not an inexpensive RWD car with a V8, for the most part.

It's an SUV that can't out-run a Tesla. It's barely faster than the 4-cylinder Mustang

(Except for the most recent model (2024) that you can finally get a performance add-on with ($995). The previous model only lets you accelerate for about five seconds under full power)

sneak

In my view, one of the critical components of these sort of golden-age low cost sports/muscle cars is hackability/repairability.

Nobody makes cars like that anymore. Even the ICE Mustang is a computer on wheels that requires professional dealer-provided software tools to work on. The concept of muscle cars accessible to the everyman for tinkering/souping up is basically dead now.

pg5

It's interesting because the EV was made fun of relentlessly when it came out, with Ford fans saying that it would be a flop.

Also, I'm biased, but I have to disagree with the "impractical vanity car" part. The current Mustang coupe is super fun to drive and affordable - the trunk is huge and it is quite comfortable for two people (even 3). The coyote v8 is a marvel of engineering - 460 HP with instant torque, but you can get 29 MPG with it on the highway (if you drive calmly). The turbo 4 is even more efficient.

To get anything comparable from European or Japanese coupes, you have to pay twice as much.

I apologize for the rambling.

pclmulqdq

In other words, the big story here is the decline of the mustang as a status symbol, not the rise of the Mach E (or electric vehicles in general).

nytesky

Pony cars have been dying for decades.

GenZ isnt interested in learning to drive AT ALL. I’m sure most young adults are most interested in a comfortable spacious box with lots of screens. Hence all cars tending towards SUVs.

Teslas are famous for their torque, which is expected with electric engines, but how are their handling and brakes — sports car like or more luxury SUV floating on a car? I grew up driving a Trans Am (dreamed of a KITT!), and the brakes and the grip on the road was awesome. I’ve never driven a BMW or Porsche, but I expect they are even more gripping. But I think most drivers today aren’t into that, and more interested in having the car drive for them.

Hence mustang was a goner no matter what.

cosmic_cheese

As a middle of the road millenial I only learned to drive recently and drive only as much as I absolutely have to. I don’t find it enjoyable unless there’s practically no traffic on my route, which is often not the case.

My preferred type of car is a small, efficient, highly practical hatch like the Honda Fit but those largely aren’t sold in the US anymore.

wakawaka28

How have you been living without a car? Do you live in a huge city or something?

dotancohen

Then you're clearly not the Mustang demographic.

pkulak

Good riddance to people who think they “know how to drive”. If they did that stuff on private tracks, fine, but in my experience they prefer to use the public road network, which is obviously built and managed for transportation only.

verandaguy

I think there's two kinds of "knows how to drive."

- There's the people you're talking about, who treat public roads like their own playgrounds with little regard for public safety or road laws.

- There's also people who will keep an eye on their surroundings, understand how weather affects driving performance (acceleration, braking, cornering) and when to use or not use automation like adaptive cruise

As long as we've got a car-centric society in North America I'm more than fine with more drivers falling into that second bucket but having to deal with roads in Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal very regularly, most people just don't pay attention on the road.

tadfisher

It's still fun to push it (a little) on back roads, where the primary danger is to yourself. Just don't cross the double yellows and don't overtake your braking zone, e.g. speeding around blind corners.

And I highly suggest a day of performance driving lessons from your local HPDE club. It will help you understand what is going on with the car that makes it lose traction, and to unlearn some bad habits when that happens.

kllrnohj

> Pony cars have been dying for decades

only if your definition of "decades" is ~5 years? Otherwise the resurgence of the pony car was only like 20 years ago in the first place (5th gen mustang & charger 2005, Challenger 2008, camero zeta 2010).

timewizard

> GenZ isnt interested in learning to drive AT ALL.

The statistics do not bear this out. In 2012 41% of people under 19 had a license. In 2022 49% of people under 19 had a license. However, it should be noted, that the total number of people under 19 has decreased since then, which is a normal population phenomenon. Failing to account for this can produce false trends in the analysis.

> Hence all cars tending towards SUVs.

I think government regulations and worldwide markets have more to do with this than the imputed preferences of a single generation in the US.

> But I think most drivers today aren’t into that

I think most drivers have never been into that, as I think most people see their car as a utility, and not a high performance entertainment option.

> Hence mustang was a goner no matter what.

I think producing a 315 horse power 10 speed "EcoBoost" compromise to get to a whopping 26mpg was the death knell. It's a car that has no practical value in today's market. I don't exactly know who it's made for other than ignorant first time buyers.

EDIT: Since the site thinks I am "posting too fast."

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2012/

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2022/

"Licensed drivers, by sex and percentage in each age group"

Zak

> I don't exactly know who it's made for other than ignorant first time buyers.

I've rented a couple Ecoboost Mustangs, and I see the appeal.

315 HP is enough. It's faster than a Mustang Cobra from the 1990s or Mustang GT from the early 2000s. With the premium interior, the car is a surprisingly nice place to be for two adults - about as nice as the last BMW I rented. The back seat is usable in a pinch, and cargo space is adequate for daily driving and road trips. Maybe the fuel economy could be a little better, but it's easy to do worse. If the steering feel wasn't nonexistent even on the hardest setting, I think I might want one.

Sales seem to be OK: 44000 cars a year for an an enthusiast-oriented car is a significant number.

echoangle

> The statistics do not bear this out. In 2012 41% of people under 19 had a license. In 2022 49% of people under 19 had a license.

Maybe not Gen Z specifically but the general trend absolutely exists.

„The percentage of 19-year-olds with a driver’s license dropped steadily from 87.3% in 1983 to 68.7% in 2022, according to most recent data from the Federal Highway Administration.“ https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/teens-drivers-license-car-sale...

This also shows different numbers compared to your comment, where did you get those values?

jauntywundrkind

Very few people got licenses during COVID (2021) then after COVID a lot of people did (2022) then the number of people getting licenses decreased.

If you are looking at a spike in 2022 as proof that the number of interested people isn't going down, I hope you have better evidence than comparing 2021 and 2022!

jauntywundrkind

Many car enthusiasts/gear heads used to be tinkerers & modifiers, used to have intimate knowledge of cars.

Cars of today are far more complicated systems, where there's no longer clear mechanical linkages connecting components together but instead opaque unobservable digital systems weaving the together.

The way cars are made has killed the ability to be a knowledgeable useful enthusiast. The car is just a commodity now. And sure, you can spend a lot of money to have your car modded for performance or looks, but there's so much less of a diy culture that genuinely knows cars. The industry has superficialized out its best fans.

I hope computing can a good similar fates, somehow (doesn't look great right now!). We don't even need material inputs to improve our machines; software gives us vast flexibility. If we can maintain some cultures beyond base consumerism.

Cumpiler69

>GenZ isnt interested in learning to drive AT ALL.

Only those in dense urban areas with great public transport.

bluedino

Yup.

Camaro was canceled last year.

throwaway48476

Pony cars are probably correlated with military recruitment.

linotype

Probably because of how much grief the Mach E got when it was first launched. “That’s not a mustang”, “it’s going to flop”, etc.

bigfatkitten

It's an overall decent car even if Ford gave it a stupid name.

dotancohen

They could have called it the GT-64, seeing how it is 64 inches tall and out-accelerates the GT-40.

bigstrat2003

I mean... it's not a Mustang. It has absolutely none of the Mustang ethos, and it was just an attempt by Ford to bolster the marketing of their new product. I think it was perfectly reasonable for people to object to that nonsense bit of branding.

RajT88

Yeah see, I do not even desire to have a mustang but appreciate the few V6 models I have driven. They do not go anywhere particularly fast, but they do so with great noise and style.

The idea of an electric mustang is not a non-starter. Electric vehicles can be fast as hell, if not terribly noisy.

But the fact that the electric mustang looks more like a Nissan Rogue than a Mustang car always threw me.

I guess my big take-away hearing that the eMustang sold well is that most people do not care much about cars compared to car guys.

timewizard

> how much grief

Otherwise known as "market feedback." If only the company processed it correctly they might have been able to convince people to fork over medium 5 figures to get one.

linotype

I didn’t say it was right or wrong. Just explained why it’s surprising that it’s sold more to some people.

null

[deleted]

bluedino

It flopped

dralley

We're in a thread about how it's outselling the original. Regardless of the silliness of the branding, it clearly didn't flop.

Temporary_31337

Weird comparison as all they share is a name but still interesting to see how uneducated the car buyers are. EV Mustang is in my honest opinion the worst EV I have driven and I include golf carts and mobility scooters in this category. Yet it still outsells and ICE car which says something.

rhelz

// EV Mustang is in my honest opinion the worst EV I have driven //

I don't doubt it but that just makes its sales all the more impressive. (One of?) the worst electric vehicle on the market still was better than a classic mustang.

pyaamb

I read somewhere that their "Free EV Charger + Home installation" offer seemed to have convinced a lot of first time EV buyers

rqtwteye

I never understood why the Mach-E is called Mustang. They are totally different cars for different use.

null

[deleted]

Drunk_Engineer

Ok, but which earns more profit? Ford's EV division overall loses $5+ billion per year.

https://www.automotivedive.com/news/fords-ev-losses-q2-earni...

thebruce87m

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/24/business/ford-earnings-ev...

> The losses go far beyond the cost of building and selling those 10,000 cars, according to Ford. Instead the losses include hundreds of millions being spent on research and development of the next generation of EVs for Ford. Those investments are years away from paying off.

So the “loss” includes R&D.

zdragnar

That's missing the forest for the trees. They're losing money on every vehicle they sell. There needs to be a lot more R&D to get the vehicles to a price point that consumers will purchase them and they can actually make a profit. Thus far, their R&D has been a net loss for the company.

I'm sure at least a good portion of it will pay off eventually, but there's no guarantee of how much, or how long it will take.

jacoblambda

I'm not sure if that's necessarily a fair assessment as Ford's laid out plan to get from the current 40% loss to 8% profit is pretty reasonable.

Of that 40 percentage points, 20 of them are directly attributable to economies of scale. As they sell additional units those costs will amortize out. i.e. the more they sell the less they lose.

They expect to pick up another 15 points via engineering changes that will unify a lot of parts between the different product lines. They apparently initially just focused on shipping the vehicles so each model has a lot of bespoke parts that could semi-trivially be reworked to de-duplicate them between product lines.

That gets you down to 5% losses. The bulk of the remaining 13 points they expect to pick up via battery design improvements and cost reductions in their supply chain.

And their stated deadline for this is the end of 2026 so it's not exactly like they intend this to take ages. Rather they expect to achieve this within a handful of model revisions.

Retric

If you lose 4 billion on the first car you sell and 40k on the 10,000th that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to lose money on the 1,000,000th one you sell even if nothing else changes.

People talk about EV’s underperforming etc, but there’re still steady year over year increases. They are just about to break 10% market share, and everyone sees the writing on the wall.

mmooss

> there's no guarantee of how much, or how long it will take.

Where do we find these guaranteed risks and investments that you apparently know of?

What you describe is the nature, the purpose, the challenge of business.

thebruce87m

> They're losing money on every vehicle they sell.

Unless I’m missing it, neither article shows the profit/loss of manufacturing the vehicle vs sales revenue of the vehicle itself, so we can’t know that. Even if it’s true, it’s not unusual when bringing up a new product as you optimise for scale.

> There needs to be a lot more R&D to get the vehicles to a price point that consumers will purchase them and they can actually make a profit.

Does there? Maybe all of the retooling and new assembly lines are done, all the designs are finished? Maybe not and they still have R&D budget left? They are also not operating in isolation - If another company comes out with a cheaper battery then Ford can just buy it with minimal R&D, they don’t have to invent everything themselves.

> Thus far, their R&D has been a net loss for the company.

I mean, that’s R&D? It’s an investment. The alternative is to do nothing and end up like Nokia. Even if they are losing money on every vehicle, “shipping fast” is better than not shipping at all and they can control the numbers. Most people want the 2nd or 3rd gen when all of the bugs have been worked out, so having units on the road lets you learn what doesn’t work.

passwordoops

I'm looking forward to the day when share buybacks are also counted as losses

umeshunni

What do you mean? They're already expenses on the balance sheet.

linotype

I’ve given up on explaining this to people. They know that’s why there are “losses”, they’re just being disingenuous.

mmooss

Lots of new technology ventures lose money at first; that's necessary. That includes other electric car manufacturers.

You sell what you can and at least offset costs somewhat, and also build marketshare, build infrastructure (dealerships, etc.), and learn invaluable lessons about everything from sales to service to reliability to performance, etc.

Or wait until you have the perfect machine that makes you profitable, then begin sales. That doesn't make any sense.

mulmen

Hard to say. Profit per sale doesn't tell the whole story. Mach E and F150 Lightning help Ford offset the CAFE contribution of their high margin gas guzzling cars and trucks. How much would they be making on Mustangs if they had to pay CAFE penalties?

I'd be interested to know the profit/CAFE for each Ford model and how much they are spending on R&D for EV vs ICE.

bluedino

Only because of the massive discounts and incentives. People were able to get 8-11k off and 0% financing.

Easy way to send sales up 30%

nxm

In other news, Porsche Mecans and Cayennes vastly outsell 911s

randcraw

The insane price tags on 911s might have something to do with that.

kllrnohj

Cayennes aren't exactly cheap, either.

philjohn

It's more than to buy one of the super rare models (GT3 RS) you need to buy other cars first ... and at the moment, that means a Taycan.

They're damn nice cars though, IMHO.