Alpine A390 vs Ford Mustang Mach-E
Alpine A390 leads 4 to 3
Biggest differences: Power — Alpine A390 400 PS, Ford Mustang Mach-E 276 PS · Consumption — Alpine A390 18.7 kWh/100 km, Ford Mustang Mach-E 14.3 kWh/100 km · 0–100 km/h — Alpine A390 4.8 s, Ford Mustang Mach-E 6.1 s.
Alpine A390
Alpine A390 is an electric D-segment SUV offered in two all-wheel drive configurations with a WLTP range of over 540 km.
Ford Mustang Mach-E
Ford Mustang Mach-E is a D-segment SUV, in model year 2026 in four variants: WLTP range from 470 to 615 km, power from 268 to 487 hp.
Profile against the market: Alpine A390 vs Ford Mustang Mach-E
Alpine A390GT
Ford Mustang Mach-EExtended Range RWD · 2026 model year
Alpine A390 or Ford Mustang Mach-E — who wins where
Alpine A390 leads 4 to 3
The score leaves out metrics where data is missing on one side.
Click a slice to see only those metrics. Each bar shows where the car stands against the whole catalogue.
- WLTP range kmFord Mustang Mach-E +64 km
- Battery kWhAlpine A390 +1 kWh
- Consumption ↓ kWh/100 kmFord Mustang Mach-E −4.4 kWh/100 km
- Power PSAlpine A390 +124 PS
- 0–100 km/h ↓ sAlpine A390 −1.3 s
- Top speed km/hAlpine A390 +20 km/h
- DC charging kWNo difference
- AC charging kWNo data
- Charging ↓ minNo data
- Weight ↓ kgFord Mustang Mach-E −38 kg
- Boot lNo data
Technical data: Alpine A390 vs Ford Mustang Mach-E
Bold and underline = better value · ↓ = lower is better · — = no data
| Key parameters | Alpine A390 GT | Ford Mustang Mach-E Extended Range RWD · 2026 model year | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range and energy | |||
| WLTP range | 551 km | 615 km | Ford +64 km |
| Battery | 89 kWh | 88 kWh | Alpine +1 kWh |
| Consumption ↓ | 18.7 kWh/100 km | 14.3 kWh/100 km | Ford −4.4 kWh/100 km |
| Charging | |||
| DC charging | 150 kW | 150 kW | No difference |
| AC charging | 22 kW | — | — |
| Charging 15–80% ↓ | 29 min | — | — |
| Range per minute of charging | 12.4 km/min | — | — |
| Voltage | 400 V | — | — |
| Performance and drivetrain | |||
| Power | 400 PS | 276 PS | Alpine +124 PS |
| 0–100 km/h ↓ | 4.8 s | 6.1 s | Alpine −1.3 s |
| Top speed | 200 km/h | 180 km/h | Alpine +20 km/h |
| Drivetrain | AWD | RWD | different type |
| Practicality | |||
| Weight ↓ | 2124 kg | 2086 kg | Ford −38 kg |
| Boot | 532 l | — | — |
| V2L (external power) | Yes | No | only Alpine |
| Length | 4615 mm | — | — |
| Width | 1885 mm | — | — |
| Height | 1532 mm | — | — |
| Wheelbase | 2708 mm | — | — |
The better value in each row is bold and underlined in the colour of the car. Metrics marked ↓ — lower is better. Dimensions are shown without picking a winner.
Energy cost calculator
Alpine A390
Ford Mustang Mach-E
Amounts are in your currency — enter prices in the currency you use.
Video reviews of both models
Alpine A390
Ford Mustang Mach-E
Other comparisons in this class: SUV, segment D
Frequently asked questions about this comparison
Which has the longer range — Alpine A390 or Ford Mustang Mach-E?
The Ford Mustang Mach-E goes further: 615 km WLTP against the 551 km of the Alpine A390. That is a difference of 64 km.
Why does the Alpine A390 have a bigger battery but a shorter range than the Ford Mustang Mach-E?
The Alpine A390 carries 89 kWh and covers 551 km, while the Ford Mustang Mach-E with its 88 kWh battery does 615 km. Energy use decides it: 18.7 against 14.3 kWh/100 km.
How do the drivetrains of the Alpine A390 and the Ford Mustang Mach-E differ?
The Alpine A390 has AWD and 400 PS. The Ford Mustang Mach-E has RWD and 276 PS.
Which one can power appliances from a socket (V2L)?
Only the Alpine A390 — its 89 kWh battery then works as a power source. The Ford Mustang Mach-E, with 88 kWh, does not offer it.
Technical data comes from official manufacturer materials and we do our best to verify it, but a manufacturer can change a specification without notice and mistakes do happen. Confirm the figures with a dealer before you buy — we accept no liability for decisions made on the basis of this data. Full disclaimer
Range, consumption and weight are given for the base configuration: manufacturers homologate them as a band of values that depends on wheels and equipment (e.g. 533–592 km), and we take the lightest variant, on the smallest wheels — i.e. the most favourable. The same model on larger wheels will travel a shorter distance.