this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
94 points (97.0% liked)
Electric Vehicles
2458 readers
612 users here now
Overview:
Electric Vehicles are a key part of our tomorrow and how we get there. If we can get all the fossil fuel vehicles off our roads, out of our seas and out of our skies, we'll have a much better environment. This community is where we discuss the various different vehicles and news stories regarding electric transportation.
Related communities:
- !automotive@discuss.tchncs.de
- !avs@futurology.today
- !byd@lemmy.world
- !ebike@lemm.ee
- !energy@slrpnk.net
- !geely@lemmy.world
- !micromobility@lemmy.world
- !polestar@lemmy.ca
- !rivian@lemmy.zip
- !teslamotors@lemmy.zip
- !xiaomi@lemdro.id
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The article says that even with the frunk, the space has dropped from 4.7 cubic feet to 2.6. Are you sure the stuff in your picture isn't low enough that the 2.6 cubic feet of storage couldn't fit above it?
I think its a completely different configuration. I don't think a frunk tray could fit above it. The components in the photo don't appear to be densely packed so I think a lot of the empty volume exists between those components. With the frunk, they are likely routing cables and tubes around the 2.6 cubic foot frunk.
Edit: Here is a shrimp-less photo of the small 2025 Mustang Mach-E frunk (a sentence only possible in 2026)
https://fordauthority.com/2024/12/2025-ford-mustang-mach-e-gets-smaller-frunk-due-to-heat-pump/
Edit2: going back and forth between photos and also understanding the 2025/2026 models are different, I think it might only be a slightly different configuration or simply such a shallow frunk that its arguably not usable and hard for Ford to justify keeping it with the base model.
I'm not convinced. I'd like to see a picture of the frunk-less version from a different angle where the perspective isn't flattened.
Even as it is, though, I see the same shape in the frunkless version as I do in the frunk.
(Also, why would Ford design a second mechanical configuration, when they already had to make it more compact for the version with the frunk anyway? It doesn't make sense for it to be different because designing two things with two different BOMs and assembly processes costs way more than just letting it all be the same.)
You have convinced me.
New frunk is too shallow to be practical, only a small set of their customers want it, and Ford wants to reduce cost of the base model.
I could possibly see a ease of manufacturing be worth making a different BOM if the frunk dramatically changed the layout, but that I don't think that is what happened.