The new Mustang is an abomination

[Rogue Hawk]

JHC, I remember in the 80's the car that became the Probe was suppose to be the new Mustang. People howled their disapproval. Well, here we go again:sour:




https://youtu.be/9WfyiYpLnN8

 

[Possible]

Wow, now there's a company that has lost touch with its roots.

 

[RICZ]

I thought the ***** Nation was behind us. :lecturef_smilie:

 

[Lew L]

That is not a Mustang. Ford---- just call it something else.

 

[canamjhb]

This is a real Mustang. 1965 289 High Performance. Photo was taken in 1967. And, yes, that is me at 20 years old

 

[MONK]

The video is about the Mustang Mach-E which was never meant to be the next generation Mustang. The Mach-E is an EV based on the LOOKS (only) of the Mustang. To compare it to the Mustang is incorrect.

 

[ARtraveler]

Will have to see how this one goes. I for one, am not an e-car fan. For sure it is NOT a Mustang.


I don't see the followers jumping on this one. At $42K for the base one, and going up to about $65K...not going to be in my future. :bowdown:

 

[Possible]

If they don't intend for it to be thought of as a Mustang, why name it a Mustang? Duh.

 

[Motorcycledave]

My oldest son worked for Ford for many many years, not a dealer he worked for
FORD, and is a big Mustang fan he has a Mustang now that is faster than I care to drive it.... FUN CAR
His opinion of the Electric abomination Nice car but why tarnish the best car
Ford has ever produced by calling this glorified golf cart a Mustang....
Gee I guess that about sums it up..

 

[Gwolf]

300 mile range and average 10 hour recharge time................. it would be totally useless to me. Cheaper to get an electric golf cart to go pick up the mail.

 

[Lew L]

This is a real Mustang. 1965 289 High Performance. Photo was taken in 1967. And, yes, that is me at 20 years old

I really wish I still had my '66 HiPo GT convertible. I really, really wish I did. Blue with white interior and top----- and the cute little luggage rack on the trunk!!

Lew L

 

[canamjhb]

Electric Vehicles present an interesting dilemma. Some time back I remember reading that our electrical grid would not support our needs if we all switched to electric vehicles. And, electricity needs to be produced somehow. Coal? nuclear? hydroelectric? wind? All these things require a LOT of infrastructure which requires resources (electricity) to produce. Parts of California have recently experienced rolling black outs because demand exceeded supply. Maybe in the future we will experience electrical time off work. Can't work from home because the electricity is turned off. Can't drive to work because can't charge the car. Nothing to do but sit at home and read a book by candle light:shocked:..... Jim

 

[gkamer]

At $42K for the base one, and going up to about $65K...not going to be in my future. :bowdown:

Mine either....

 

[NoahMercy]

Crossovers, SUVs, and large four-door touring vehicles exude a "cross-country" vibe. So take one, limit the range so it is only good for short-distance jaunts followed by long periods of uselessness while it recharges, use a power source that develops more toxic byproducts than fossil fuels and needs to be replaced in a few years, and charge as much as for a gasoline vehicle. Brilliant strategy, Furd.

 

[Lew L]

And now some brilliant person is pushing HVDC ( High Voltage Direct Current) for power transmission. PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong here---- isn't there a large loss in efficiency in DC trans mission over distance????

Lew L

 

[Possible]

I believe that was part of the wrangling between Edison and Tesla way back when.

 

[BajaRon]

There is nothing 'Mustang' about this vehicle. Just putting Mustang'ish rear lights on a vehicle does not a Mustang make.

 

[BajaRon]

Crossovers, SUVs, and large four-door touring vehicles exude a "cross-country" vibe. So take one, limit the range so it is only good for short-distance jaunts followed by long periods of uselessness while it recharges, use a power source that develops more toxic byproducts than fossil fuels and needs to be replaced in a few years, and charge as much as for a gasoline vehicle. Brilliant strategy, Furd.

When government regulation determines winners, losers and what products a manufacturer can offer. This is what you get. Pushing a square peg through a round hole comes from minions sitting in cubicles neatly arranged in rows with artificial lighting making decisions as to what products we are allowed to purchase. If you don't believe me, look at California who is banning all sales of new fossil fuel cars in the future. This is the reason they have successfully demonized the diesel engine. It is a much better solution, and electric can not compete with it. When you have to eliminate the competition to succeed, the customer is the one who ends up paying more for a lesser product.

In short. They don't want you taking long trips. The electric car is another step in limiting what you can do.

Overall, the electric car is much more detrimental to the environment than either gasoline or diesel powered vehicles. They cheery pick the data, stacking the deck to their liking to squeeze you and I into their future.

It's like a highway where you keep seeing signs that say; 'Right Lane Ends - Merge Left', until there is only one lane to choose from.

 

[Lew L]

So prophetic----'Right Lane Ends - Merge Left'
This country ( world ) has been moving to the left for a century. Much of it painful and deadly.

When battery powered cars can charge in 10 min., and not cost $70k I might consider looking at one.

Lew L

 

[NoahMercy]

Oh yeah...by giving billions of taxpayer dollars to manufacturers to "incentivize" EV production, and more billions to consumers to help them afford this inferior technology, they have effectively stacked the deck against gasoline and diesel and bypassed the idea of allowing a free market to determine demand for a product. Since diesel and alcohol can be made from sources other than fossil fuels (renewables, in fact), and the vehicles using them are NOT limited by distance, and- as you pointed out- EVs create more toxins and emissions than their fuel-burning counterparts, one begins to wonder what the actual motives are for these decisions. Are the rules-writers stupid, paid off, or just so brainwashed by the AGW/ACC propaganda that they throw common sense and reality to the wayside in their slobbering rush to be "green"? EVs have improved a lot in the last few years, but not nearly as much as the gas and diesel powerplants. I can now buy a muscle car with a 600+ HP engine that gets over 30 MPG. I can get a full-size 3/4 ton truck that hauls big loads and hauls ass that will get over 30 MPG. Unheard of just a decade ago. EVs still have very limited range, long recharge times at specialized stations, will need thousands of dollars worth of batteries replaced in less than 65,000 miles...sooner if those batteries get too hot/ too cold/ overcharged/ excessively discharged/ etc. Gas or diesels are just getting broken in at 65,000 miles and the weather has very little to do with how they work. The word "boondoggle" was invented for EVs and large scale wind & solar energy programs.