Sharpen Those Barbs: Ford Mach E(?) Revealed in Spy Shots

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

We’re a pretty non-judgemental bunch here at TTAC, and that goes double for our readers. And yet it’s sometimes hard to keep those opinions bottled up deep inside, where unexpressed feelings can wreak havoc on health and marriages.

This is why the most talked-out vehicle vehicle in autodom right now, one that sees its public debut on Nov. 17, is worthy of your scrutiny. It’s the Mach E, or something like that — Ford’s upcoming electric crossover.

How much Mustang do you see?

The spy photos, we don’t have. But others do, and you can see a gallery over at Motor1.

While camo is heavier on the rear than the front, hiding what appears to be a set of Mustang-inspired tail lights, there’s plenty to look at here; far more than we’ve seen via carefully concealed renderings issued by Ford.

The automaker is eager to tie the model to the Mustang via a strand of design language and, quite possibly, a bastardized name that calls up memories of the brawny, fuel-sucking Mach 1. Ford’s going all-in on the tenuous connection, perhaps having decided that highlighting muscle is a better way to get noticed than advertising virtuousness.

People are getting sick of that.

The vehicle in the spy shots certainly appears less Mustang-y than the side-on rendering released last week (see above), but that’s what front- and rear-quarter angles gets you. Blame a two-row crossover cabin and the need for four doors. From the rear, dare I say it, there’s a hint of HR-V, at least when camo’d up. The front fascia seems to be of the solid variety, with Ford leaving a suggestion of a grille, rather than going the Audi or Mercedes-Benz route in offering a distinct faux front opening for its EV crossover.

Offered with rear- or all-wheel drive and three choices in battery size, the Mach E offer drivers up to 300 miles on a charge, Ford claims. L.A. will be the venue for the Blue Oval’s first ground-up EV model, and you can bet we’ll have pictures once the thing goes live. That said, a great many of you probably have no intention of every sitting behind the wheel of one, let alone opening your wallet for one. That’s the hurdle Ford is up against.

[Image: Ford]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Join the conversation
3 of 68 comments
  • Juan Let's do an 1000 mile drive and see who gets there first.
  • Eliyahu CVT needed for MPG. Outback is indeed the legacy of, err, the Legacy.
  • Gayneu I can comment on these. My wife always thought the Minis were "cute" so I bought her a used 2005 (non-S, 5 speed) for one of her "special" birthdays. She loved it and I kinda did too. Somehow a hole developed in the transmission case and the fluid drained out, ruining the car (too expensive to fix). A local mechanic bought it for $800.We then bought a used 2015 S (6 speed) which we still have today (80k miles). Her sister just bought a used S as well (also manual). It has been a dependable car but BMW-priced maintenance and premium gas hurts for sure. I think the earlier generation (like in the article) were better looking with cleaner lines. The 2015 S rides too stiff for me (Chicago roads) but is a hoot on smooth ones. It does seem to shift weird - its hard to describe but it shifts differently from every other manual I have driven. No matter how hard I try, so won't let go of her Mini.
  • Crown Seems like they cut some cylinders too.A three cylinder...where are they planning on selling that??
  • Slavuta "There’s also the problem of climate change, and the more intense weather that comes along with it"How could one even write something like this? We don't have more intense weather. We have better weather. When Earth started, it was a fiery ball. We don't know what weather was in 1700. And even if we know some of it in Europe, we don't know what was happening in Africa, South America, Oceania, etc. We have people living in places where they did not live before. We have news that report weather related events minutes later or during. This did not happen before. There is no evidence that we have an increase in intensity. I looked into historical records in the area where I live - there is not much movement at all between 1970 and now. And remember - none of the previous weather predictions have materialized.