Photo: Kleber Silva on Behance
As you all know, the Mustang Mach-E is not a Mustang in the true sense of the word nor does it feature a dedicated EV platform. It’s actually based on the Escape compact crossover, and this gets us to the pictured rendering from Kleber Silva.
The original design features a raked, sporty liftgate which is meant to bring the Mach-E closer to the fastback-styled Mustang. However, this type of liftgate also means that the roofline slopes a little more aggressively than that of the Escape.
In other words, the Blue Oval has traded cargo capacity and practicality in favor of visual drama. Given that it bears the Mustang badge and that it’s a part of the Ford Icons family, there’s no denying the Mach-E is better suited to styling decision.
With the rear seats in place and folded into the floor, cargo capacity is quoted in the specs sheet at 29 and 60 cubic feet (821 and 1,699 liters). With the second-row seats pushed all the way back and folded, the Escape offers 33.5 and 65.4 cubic feet, respectively, working out at 949 and 1,852 liters if you prefer the metric system.
The Brazilian pixel artist’s rendering also serves as a “what if” of sorts. What if Ford comes up with an all-electric Escape as a more affordable and not as conspicuous alternative to the Mustang Mach-E? It wouldn’t be too hard, but on the other hand, don’t forget there are differences in width, length, and wheelbase.
Alas, the Escape EV can’t happen at the flick of a finger. Looking further, why would Ford even consider a “budget” electric crossover when it has a deal with the Volkswagen Group in place for a compact-sized hatchback and likely a crossover based on the MEB platform? From a financial standpoint, the Mustang Mach-E makes more sense because there are greater profits to be made off this fellow.
At the time of reporting, the Select trim level with the Standard Range battery and RWD kicks off at $43,895 excluding destination and any potential savings. The top-of-the-line GT retails at $60,500 and comes with all the bells and whistles even though the 250-mile range is disappointing compared to the Tesla Model Y.
In other words, the Blue Oval has traded cargo capacity and practicality in favor of visual drama. Given that it bears the Mustang badge and that it’s a part of the Ford Icons family, there’s no denying the Mach-E is better suited to styling decision.
With the rear seats in place and folded into the floor, cargo capacity is quoted in the specs sheet at 29 and 60 cubic feet (821 and 1,699 liters). With the second-row seats pushed all the way back and folded, the Escape offers 33.5 and 65.4 cubic feet, respectively, working out at 949 and 1,852 liters if you prefer the metric system.
The Brazilian pixel artist’s rendering also serves as a “what if” of sorts. What if Ford comes up with an all-electric Escape as a more affordable and not as conspicuous alternative to the Mustang Mach-E? It wouldn’t be too hard, but on the other hand, don’t forget there are differences in width, length, and wheelbase.
Alas, the Escape EV can’t happen at the flick of a finger. Looking further, why would Ford even consider a “budget” electric crossover when it has a deal with the Volkswagen Group in place for a compact-sized hatchback and likely a crossover based on the MEB platform? From a financial standpoint, the Mustang Mach-E makes more sense because there are greater profits to be made off this fellow.
At the time of reporting, the Select trim level with the Standard Range battery and RWD kicks off at $43,895 excluding destination and any potential savings. The top-of-the-line GT retails at $60,500 and comes with all the bells and whistles even though the 250-mile range is disappointing compared to the Tesla Model Y.
Google News