Skip to content 
In an industry-first move, Munro Live welcomed Ford’s Chief Engineer Donna Dickson for a candid, on-camera teardown review of the Ford Mach-E. The 39-minute discussion offered rare insights into Ford’s electric SUV platform—from customer-first design choices and lean manufacturing decisions to lessons learned from rivals like Tesla. For EV enthusiasts, engineers, and automotive strategists, this teardown offered more than just a look under the hood—it delivered a clear picture of Ford’s evolving EV philosophy.
A Frunk That Actually Works
Sandy Munro kicked things off by praising the Mach-E’s frunk design, particularly its utility, thoughtful drain feature, and upcoming improvements. Ford is removing unnecessary dividers and enabling remote frunk release through over-the-air (OTA) updates—a customer-centric evolution Donna says prioritizes real-world usability.
These improvements showcase Ford’s increasing use of OTA capabilities to enhance customer satisfaction post-sale, aligning with Deming’s principles of customer focus and continuous improvement. This also marks a cultural shift within Ford toward iterative refinement in EV development.
Modular Design and Weight Reduction
Dickson emphasized Ford’s commitment to modularity and component reuse across platforms. Examples include the Mach-E’s window regulator design—praised as “the best we’ve seen”—and the shared components with Ford Explorer and Escape models.
Lightweight materials and simplified assembly processes were clear priorities. For instance, Ford’s use of a plastic battery enclosure (rather than aluminum like VW) drew interest from Munro. While Dickson couldn’t confirm all the rationale—having inherited the project post-launch—she reiterated Ford’s weight-conscious approach and openness to supplier-driven improvements.
Smart Choices in Door Design
Another standout feature was the Mach-E’s door access system. Instead of traditional handles, Ford uses a flush push-button design with a small mechanical “presenter.” The result? A sleek, intuitive entry experience with improved aerodynamics.
Dickson acknowledged that even within Ford, there was initial resistance to ditching traditional handles. But the team aligned late in development and executed it effectively. Compared to Tesla’s more complex mechanism, the Mach-E solution was smoother and more user-friendly—a clear win for design thinking.
Rear Motor Design and Park Pawl Criticism
Not all parts of the teardown drew praise. The rear motor’s inclusion of a traditional park pawl mechanism raised eyebrows. Dickson admitted it was a legacy design choice, meant to ensure immediate reliability and reduce launch risk. Future Ford EVs, she hinted, will ditch the mechanical pawl in favor of brake-based electronic systems.
This underscores a broader theme: Ford used proven components to get the Mach-E to market quickly and without early failures. But it knows that efficiency and refinement must improve as competition stiffens.
A Tale of Two Powertrains
Munro’s team compared Ford’s front and rear power electronics assemblies, noting stark differences. While the front unit—developed with LG and Magna—was compact and efficient, the rear motor electronics were more complex and disjointed. Dickson confirmed these were designed externally and suggested Ford will revisit these inconsistencies with suppliers.
Ford’s willingness to engage in teardown-driven feedback loops with suppliers shows maturity. It also reflects a lean manufacturing mindset—identify inefficiencies, benchmark the best, and iterate quickly.
The Cooling System: Overdesigned but Improving
Ford’s thermal management system drew critique for its complexity and weight. With 18 end-item part numbers, extra loops, and visible hosing, the system felt overengineered compared to Tesla’s integrated “super bottle.”
But Dickson revealed that changes are already underway: Ford plans to eliminate one of the coolant bottles and pumps, consolidate valves, and shrink line diameters. These moves will reduce cost, weight, and assembly complexity—all hallmarks of lean design.
She added that Ford leveraged components from existing platforms (like Escape’s HVAC) to reduce engineering costs. This trade-off, while practical, created some packaging and routing challenges that are now being addressed.
Efficiency and Range Goals: Year-Over-Year Progress
Compared to Tesla’s industry-leading range, the Mach-E still lags—despite carrying a larger battery in some trims. But Dickson noted that Ford has year-over-year actions planned through 2024 to improve range, reduce weight, and boost battery efficiency.
She also acknowledged the need to shift focus from raw battery capacity to overall vehicle efficiency—a key metric where Tesla still dominates. Software, inverter efficiency, and packaging are likely targets for improvement.
Regulatory Hurdles: The Case Against Side Mirrors
Munro raised a provocative question: why haven’t automakers eliminated side mirrors in favor of cameras? Dickson cited regulatory barriers as the main obstacle but expressed Ford’s interest in pushing for change alongside other OEMs.
This highlights a broader issue—technological innovation in EVs is often constrained not by capability, but by outdated regulations. Advocating for policy modernization will be as important as design evolution in the coming years.
Competition from China: A Looming Threat
The conversation closed on a sobering note: China’s rapid EV expansion. With hundreds of domestic brands and aggressive exports looming, U.S. automakers face growing pressure. While Ford currently sits at #23 in global EV rankings, Munro urged urgency and innovation to avoid market share erosion.
Dickson remained focused: her job is to make Ford’s products better—more efficient, more competitive, and more appealing to the next generation of EV buyers. She cited Ford’s use of recycled materials and vegan interiors as signs of alignment with changing consumer values.
Key Takeaways for Engineers and EV Stakeholders
- Customer-driven design pays off: Ford’s frunk, door system, and OTA capabilities reflect smart, user-focused choices.
- Lean manufacturing remains essential: Consolidation of pumps, valves, and thermal components will reduce cost and weight.
- OTA is more than updates—it’s strategy: OTA allows Ford to ship hardware early and refine software as data emerges.
- EV powertrain architecture must unify: Disjointed module design between front and rear motors hints at supplier coordination gaps.
- Efficiency beats raw battery size: Ford must close the gap between battery capacity and actual range vs. Tesla and others.
- China’s EV dominance is real: Benchmarking global competitors—especially in Asia—is no longer optional.
Final Thoughts
The Mach-E teardown with Donna Dickson wasn’t just a deep dive into Ford’s first major EV—it was a look at how traditional automakers are adapting to the fast-moving world of electric mobility. Transparent, thoughtful, and technically engaged, Dickson represented a new wave of engineering leadership focused on continuous improvement.
If Ford’s engineers and decision-makers act on these insights, the company may not just keep pace—it could lead. For more EV breakdowns, cost analyses, and teardown reviews, stay tuned to Munro & Associates and follow our teardown series to stay on top of the electric revolution.