By on June 23, 2021

The range numbers are out for Ford’s highest-performance Mustang Mach-E.

The Ford Mustang Mach-E GT (say that five times fast) and Mach-E GT Performance Edition have maximum ranges of 270 and 260 miles, respectively.

Not bad for an EV that Ford promised will hit 60 mph from a dead stop in 3.5 seconds, thanks in part to 634 lb-ft of torque.

It won’t be cheap speed, however — the GT starts at $59,900 and the Performance Edition at an eye-popping $64,900, although both will qualify for $7,500 in federal EV incentives.

We’ve driven the “regular” Mach-E and found it to be quite quick. Obviously, the GT will be even quicker, and it won’t sacrifice much in range.

Maybe EVs have a future after all?

[Image: Ford]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

54 Comments on “Ford Mustang Mach-E GT Range Confirmed...”


  • avatar
    Lie2me

    I’m paying attention…

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    To put that in perspective, a Mustang GT with 5.0 has 420 lb. ft. torque. Zero to 60 mph is 4.2 seconds. If one assumes the stated average 21 mpg is correct, it can travel 336 miles on a tank (16 gallons) of fuel.

    The Mustang Mach E GT is on par with the current GT Mustang. Not too shabby.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      It does start at $24K more though.

      • 0 avatar
        Astigmatism

        But it carries a lot less stuff a lot less comfortably.

        We don’t act surprised that a Lamborghini Urus costs four times what a Camaro ZL1 costs for comparable performance. Sports car performance in an SUV body isn’t a cheap trick.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          Do people often compare the Urus and ZL1 to each other?

          • 0 avatar
            Astigmatism

            Well, I just did, I suppose.

            A more common comparison would be people comparing the performance of, say, a BMW M5 to a Corvette, which is $40k cheaper and a lot less capable of family hauler duty.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      21 mpg is kind of hard to achieve while you’re doing smoky burnouts and the like. I think that might be a very, very optimistic estimate.

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      It’s only on par until you realize that a 60K electric Mustang will not make it from LA to San Francisco or from Dallas to San Antonio without a lengthy recharge. And forget about longer road trips. Wake me up when electric vehicles have a 400 mile range and will fully charge up in 15-20 minutes.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Jacob – that’s been the whole debate around here lately, how many people actually travel those sorts of distances? My motorcycle has a range of 240 km. I don’t plan 280 km trips with it.

        • 0 avatar
          Jacob

          How many people? Most of the country does in the USA. In this country we travel 300 miles or more to go to a beach, to ski or just to attend a party. Combine large distances with a relatively low population density. No rail grid or airline network can cover such place adequately.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @jacob- statistically no.

            “It is estimated that 83% of the U.S. population lives in urban areas”.

            You happen to be in the remainder?

            The average single-trip distance?

            “Just 5.95 miles. And while rural respondents naturally traveled further on average than their urban counterparts, 95 percent of all rural-based trips were still under 50 miles.”

            Only 43% of vacation trips are over 50 miles with 314 miles being the one way average.

            Yes, this car won’t meet the vacation needs of 43% of the USA. The other 57%? Yes.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “Yes, this car won’t meet the vacation needs of 43% of the USA.”

            That seems like a lot of people.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @ajla

            I’ll fix it.

            Attention proles, 43% of you will not be entitled to a vacation this year.

            XO,
            Fedgov

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            “Yes, this car won’t meet the vacation needs of 43% of the USA. The other 57%? Yes.”

            Or it might meet the vacation needs of many of those 43%, just with somewhat slower travel time than a gas vehicle. I know everyone on TTAC pees in a bottle and does 16-hour stretches when they travel, but a 30- to 45-minute stop every four hours or so probably won’t be too hard on a lot of family travelers in the real world.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            Plug scarcity, state of repair, and availability is what worries me a lot more than charging times.

            I can live with this:
            youtube.com/watch?v=zwDI7moHvzg&t=388s

            This less so:
            businessinsider.com/tesla-supercharger-station-videos-reveal-ev-obstacle-2019-12

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “Yes, this car won’t meet the vacation needs of 43% of the USA.”
            That seems like a lot of people.

            If Ford can sell a product to 47% of the population, that would be a runaway success.

      • 0 avatar
        Astigmatism

        It’ll make it from Boston to New York without one. It’s literally been years since I drove farther than 250 miles in one throw, because everything around here is so close together. Was quite different when I lived on the West Coast, and SF-to-Vegas was a typical long weekend.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          @Astigmatism: It’ll make it from Boston to New York without one.

          I’ve made that run many times over the years. In ICEs I’ve always made a stop at Rein’s in Vernon CT. Plenty of modern EVs can make it non-stop, but I’ll still stop at Rein’s like with my ICE. If you want, there are several chargers withing walking distance and they do deliver.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        How lengthy do you think the recharge is? At 150kW you can get to 80% in half an hour. It’s not the same as filling up with gas in ten minutes, but it doesn’t make road trips impossible either.

        For cars with reasonably fast L3 charging, people should see charging time as a tradeoff, not as something that disqualifies cars from road-tripping. And it is definitely a tradeoff! But for a lot of people the other advantages of EVs may be worth the tradeoff.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        @jacob: “or from Dallas to San Antonio without a lengthy recharge”

        I go by real world non-epa real person tests on range. I don’t have the ford numbers, but the range on a Model 3 @ 70mph is 310 miles. Dallas to San Antonio is 273.8. So at 70, you could do it plenty of range to spare – at least with a Tesla. So, no one is going to make that trip at 70, they range will be worse. Let’s say it’s only 200 miles range for whatever reason and you need to add in 100 miles to make it with some padding. What I do is to just charge enough to get to the destination with padding. Looking at a test chart of real world charging on the Model S Plaid by Motor Trend, they added 100 miles in 7 minutes (10-40% SOC). Since it’s unattended charging, you can be hitting the bathroom and getting a snack if you can manage to do that in 7 minutes. The ICE you have to stand next to while it’s fueling.

        https://insideevs.com/news/515641/tesla-models-plaid-charging-analysis/

        By the way, the Cannonball record NY Redball to LA Portofino for an EV (a Taycan) is 44 hours, 25 minutes, and 59 seconds which includes time for charging. That’s an average of 63 MPH. Definitely doable and not a terrible average speed for a distance like that. Google maps is showing me 41 hours without stops, so it’s not a terrible hit.

        https://www.thedrive.com/news/38578/a-porsche-taycan-just-beat-tesla-for-the-fastest-ev-cannonball-run-record

    • 0 avatar
      ponchoman49

      Except I have rented GT automatic convertibles, taken them on long trips and got much higher than 21 and 336 miles of range so that comparison isn’t accurate with highway driving taken into consideration.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff_M

      Not too shabby indeed except that it takes hours to fill up rather than minutes.

  • avatar
    brn

    “eye-popping $64,900”

    That’s not eye-popping when compared to it’s competition.

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    What’s the source for these range predictions? I’ve watched a number of YouTube videos in which BEVs are charged to 100% and then driven on the highway until they quit. None go as far as advertised although Teslas seem to come the closest. The worst get as little as 70% of their advertised range.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      The EPA test cycle. EVs typically are more efficient in city and mixed driving than pure highway, and the EPA range number is intended to be a combined number and is usually consistent with real-world results in mixed driving. EVs are also more sensitive than gas cars to highway speed. If you stay at 60-65 mph you will usually meet or beat the stated range, but if you drive 75-80 mph you will get less.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      This is what Edmunds has doing a 65 mph empty test loop in the desert.

      edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-consumption-epa-vs-edmunds.html

    • 0 avatar

      Edmunds testing (see link in ajla comment) has so far found most of the EV’s can beat their range estimate except Tesla, Tesla still makes it the furthest just not as good as the EPA number. It appears Porsche and Ford in particular have gone fairly conservative with their ratings.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      I’m not sure what you’ve seen but it doesn’t jive with what I’ve seen where Tesla is at or near the bottom. https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/ while Ford and Porsche exceed their ratings.

    • 0 avatar
      Kendahl

      I suspected the source might be the EPA but the article didn’t say.

      The EPA and Edmunds tests are both experimental. Since the EPA tests are performed on a dynamometer under tightly controlled conditions, they should be very reproducible. However, they are critically dependent on a realistic estimate of real world driving behavior. In the early days, EPA estimates of fuel consumption were wildly optimistic because they were based on a driving cycle that was too conservative. Eventually, the EPA came up with a fudge factor to adjust the results so that they now do a good job of matching the real world. The Edmunds tests don’t need a fudge factor but they won’t be as reproducible as the EPA tests. Day-to-day variations in traffic will affect the driving cycle. Since Edmunds doesn’t say, we have no idea how much variation to expect in repeated tests with the same vehicle.

      The Edmunds test on the rented track focused on range remaining after the vehicle claimed to have none left. Edmunds didn’t publish total ranges. This is unfortunate because it was a good comparison test on a free flowing highway at 65 mph. Although environmental conditions couldn’t be controlled, they were the same for every vehicle in the test. That would have made comparisons valid.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        The thing about the EPA tests is that is possible to teach to it. The driving cycle is very specific and easy for the mfg to detect. That was part of VW’s diesel shenanigans.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    *Non Mustang.

    And with ford’s recent history of lying when it comes to fuel economy (fusion hybrid, mkfusion hybrid, Ranger) I don’t trust numbers they report to the EPA.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Yawn. Wake me when they start talking about the F-150 EV.

  • avatar
    boowiebear

    I really find the styling of this car distasteful and still think they should have named it something else. I am an EV owner so not hating on the concept….just execution.

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    Nice job, Ford.

  • avatar
    FalconRTV

    I would miss the V8 noises.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Little too pricey for my budget but then so is the Tesla. I am less interested in what a vehicle will do 0 to 60 just so long as the vehicle has enough acceleration to get on the interstate and pass vehicles safely–I don’t plan on street racing. It would take a lot of driving to justify paying over 60k to save money on gas and the few repairs and regular maintenance that an ICE vehicle has. Unless you really got to have this vehicle more of wants than needs this is less for the average go and more for those who want the latest and greatest and have the money to spend. With the exception of a few models Ford, GM, and Stellantis vehicles are more for the well off and less for the average Joe. I am interested in the hybrid Maverick but I will wait a few years till Ford irons out any of the bugs.

  • avatar
    Imagefont

    An electric vehicle loses, on average, 2% of its range annually. Battery degradation is inevitable and that convenient fast charging just accelerates the process. Weather extremes, especially heat, also makes it worse. Despite what anyone will tell you, whatever anecdotal, unscientific claims are made, you can take that 2% figure to the bank. Oddly enough I’ve noticed that my ICE vehicles experience improved range as they break in. And after 10 years your range will be about the same or maybe a little bit better. But in an EV, after 10 years you’ll be looking for a charger sooner because you’ll have 20% less range and your 270 mile Mustang Mach-E will drop to 200-220 miles. Your range will go from merely adequate to marginal. Too bad, i think the Mach-E is he best looking Mustang, more upright and usable interior space, better visibility and the process of merely getting in and out of the car has got to be much less of a chore. I think the Mach-E is more like the original Mustang than the current gas powered Mustang with its terrible space utilization, lousy visibility, cramped interior and bloated proportions.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      That level of degradation is in no way inevitable. Buy an EV that has good battery conditioning, use fast charging only when you need to, limit your state of charge to 90% (or, better yet, 80%) and don’t drain the battery fully when you’re not on road trips, and your battery will degrade a lot slower than 2%/year.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      ICE owners don’t take into consideration that as a vehicle ages everything degrades too. I did not see much of a difference in mpg when my truck was new to a year later once broke in. My mpg is a bit worse now than when new.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Most things degrade with use, do ordinary proles not understand this or factor it in their decision-making?

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @28-Cars-Later – “not understand” is the operative phrase and many do not factor degradation.
          When buying used the question should always be, “How much reliable serviceable life” is left in this vehicle. The next question should be, “is the price low enough that any up front repairs will factor into the “true value” of the vehicle?

          As an example, I had purchased a Ranger 4×4 extended cab from a friend. it needed brakes and a head gasket. He was willing to sell it dirt cheap. I looked at repair costs and with fleet discounts I used, it brought the out of pocket costs close to market value for a pristine example. I went for it since my friend was the sole owner and an honest guy. The only reason I sold it was:1. the gladiator jump seats (that’s what happens when two little boys face each other belted into seats) and 2. a dude backed into the box side and paid me full repair value. (I took the cash and sold it – which was close to my initial investment).

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I think those of us who apply logic and reason to such purchases are in the minority these days.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            LOL

            I currently own a vehicle the purchase of which was driven entirely by logic and reason. Not surprisingly, it does its job perfectly, but it’s boring and I’m restless with it.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Time to add “not boring” to your list of purchasing prerequisites.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @28-Cars-Later – That is true. No logic required. I read that the majority of buyers don’t even research financing options.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Agree and the Mustang Mach-E is one of the better looking EVs and probably much better quality and better built than Teslas. If you do above average driving (above average mileage) and take shorter trips and have a home charging unit then I could see the benefit. I drive so little now that a less expensive hybrid or slightly used vehicle makes more sense. A used Nissan Leaf would be better for me in that I would use it for commuting and short trips. I live in a colder climate where it snows and the Summers are hot and the battery would need charging more often.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Lou_BC: “Never Mask, Never Vax!” This message is approved by Morticians of America Association.
  • Lou_BC: @chuckrs – pubmed and the cochrane library database are good sources of information. Cochrane is great...
  • jkross22: @Mike and @Lou, It might indeed be rare to have side effects. Then again, if the company that produced the...
  • Lou_BC: @bunkie – there are experts who want to re-impliment mask wearing due to the increased infection rate...
  • Lou_BC: Deaths are predominantly in unvaccinated people. Once again, Your comments are inaccurate and misleading.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber