Mustang Mach-E

[MX793]

EVs are now a reality for the foreseeable future.  The infrastructure is now underway.  For a time, it was fuel cell vehicles or EVs, EVs have proven a better choice.  As stated, at the time, hybrids were merely a stop-gap measure, as are small displacement turbo engines and the ridiculous 'displacement on demand' nonsense. 

Nothing is false, it merely awaits the means of achievement.  Electricity has unlimited supply and methods of capture and containment will continually improve.  The very nature of its existence promises this.

Unlimited supply?  Tell that to the folks in California who deal with rolling blackouts and brownouts on a regular basis.  Not to mention that a huge amount of electricity used today is generated via burning fossil fuels, which are not unlimited.

[GoCougs]

EVs are now a reality for the foreseeable future.  The infrastructure is now underway.  For a time, it was fuel cell vehicles or EVs, EVs have proven a better choice.  As stated, at the time, hybrids were merely a stop-gap measure, as are small displacement turbo engines and the ridiculous 'displacement on demand' nonsense. 

Nothing is false, it merely awaits the means of achievement.  Electricity has unlimited supply and methods of capture and containment will continually improve.  The very nature of its existence promises this.

How are EVs a reality? Few can afford them, no automaker can turn a profit making them, sales are flat, there is an economic downturn coming, and as California is proving, electricity is gonna have to get a WHOLE lot more expensive.

[CaminoRacer]

Few can afford them? The average price of new cars is $35k, same ballpark as a Bolt, Model 3, Kia/Hyundai EVs, and this Ford.

[Laconian]

Few can afford them? The average price of new cars is $35k, same ballpark as a Bolt, Model 3, Kia/Hyundai EVs, and this Ford.

And think of what people are spending on their big ol' trucks these days... huge purchase price, mega interest over god knows how many months, and then the cost of keeping the gas tank full!~

[veeman]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.autoblog.com/amp/2018/12/04/ford-mach-e-trademark-ev-crossover/

It looks like originally Ford was going to call this the Mach E or Mach-E but later on decided to add "Mustang" to it.  It's styling clearly has used the Mustang for inspiration with the tail lights looking similar and the long hood. 

So it's really a question of whether Ford will generate more interest and therefore sales in this Tesla Model Y competitor with the name Mach-E or the name Mustang Mach-E.  Since the great majority of potential customers don't read or talk about cars as a hobby, having a name that's recognizable and associated with a cool car is perhaps worth it to bastardize a bit that said name since it does have some very similar styling cues.  Other than the name, this car does seem really good. 

[12,000 RPM]

EVs are simply too expensive - most consumers can afford them and no automaker can turn a profit making them.

This is true today but things change. I do think govts and automakers are being way too aggressive in forcing EV adaptation. I also think the dream of a 100% EV world is ridiculous. But it's an idea worth continuing to develop and invest in.

Those that legit want to be environmental will buy a used Civic or something, with the added benefit of saving $20k+.

Every car has a finite life so at some  point every car will need to be replaced. Over time it will be better to replace dead ICEVs with new EVs

[GoCougs]

Few can afford them? The average price of new cars is $35k, same ballpark as a Bolt, Model 3, Kia/Hyundai EVs, and this Ford.

And think of what people are spending on their big ol' trucks these days... huge purchase price, mega interest over god knows how many months, and then the cost of keeping the gas tank full!~

Few can (legit) afford a $35k+ car and even fewer can afford a $35k+ car that carries a a ~75% premium for less utility (vs. a base model $20k Corolla or the like).

If people legit bought what they could afford and need - base model Corolla, Tacoma, Accord, etc. - US retail fuel consumption would be but a fraction of what it is, and there'd not be near this anxiety about EVs needing to save the world (wash/rinse/repeat for anything from home size to travel to fast food).

Buck up and afford your life, and most everything else will sort itself out.

[r0tor]

The Big 3 would die immediately if few people in the USA could afford a $35k vehicle

[FoMoJo]

Unlimited supply?  Tell that to the folks in California who deal with rolling blackouts and brownouts on a regular basis.  Not to mention that a huge amount of electricity used today is generated via burning fossil fuels, which are not unlimited.

Will we ever run out of electricity as long as we have the means to capture it?  My point is that ongoing research and development in capturing and storage of electrical energy is constantly improving. 

[FoMoJo]

How are EVs a reality? Few can afford them, no automaker can turn a profit making them, sales are flat, there is an economic downturn coming, and as California is proving, electricity is gonna have to get a WHOLE lot more expensive.

Few aspects of technology are static.  As an emphasis is now being directed towards the capture and storage of electricity, there will be rapid improvement in this specific technology.  This is key to EVs.

[CaminoRacer]

Few can (legit) afford a $35k+ car and even fewer can afford a $35k+ car that carries a a ~75% premium for less utility (vs. a base model $20k Corolla or the like).

If people legit bought what they could afford and need - base model Corolla, Tacoma, Accord, etc. - US retail fuel consumption would be but a fraction of what it is, and there'd not be near this anxiety about EVs needing to save the world (wash/rinse/repeat for anything from home size to travel to fast food).

Buck up and afford your life, and most everything else will sort itself out.

GM/Ford/Tesla etc don't operate in Cougs-land, though, so your macro-financial fantasies don't usually sway their decisions.

[Soup DeVille]

The Big 3 would die immediately if few people in the USA could afford a $35k vehicle

Well, there's afford, and there's afford.

[GoCougs]

The Big 3 would die immediately if few people in the USA could afford a $35k vehicle

Correct - between unions, debatable profitability, the consumer debt needed to buy the product, and being but a half an economic downturn from a bailout - yeah, the Big 3 died some time ago.

[FoMoJo]

Correct - between unions, debatable profitability, the consumer debt needed to buy the product, and being but a half an economic downturn from a bailout - yeah, the Big 3 died some time ago.

Fortunately, Ford has never needed a bailout as have the other 2.

[GoCougs]

Fortunately, Ford has never needed a bailout as have the other 2.

Ford absolutely has. Ford did not take TARP loans and related shenanigans but Ford did take government loans at that time (and is still working on paying them back).

[FoMoJo]

Ford absolutely has. Ford did not take TARP loans and related shenanigans but Ford did take government loans at that time (and is still working on paying them back).

Not a bailout.

[2o6]

It's weird how people are harping on the name when

1. It's not like the Mustang already doesn't feel like a large house to drive. A good handling house, but a house nonethelesss

2. People act as if it's "diluting a brand name" when mustangs are languishing on lots and they're incentivized to all fuck to get them on the lot. People aren't buying coupes.

[FoMoJo]

I've changed my initial reaction.  After seeing the commercial...the youtube I posted...I see their strategy.  Who wouldn't want to have a Mustang CUV, especially when Indris Elba told them they should.

[MX793]

A Mustang is a very specific type of car.  The archetype of an entire class/segment of cars, called the "Pony" cars in honor of the Mustang that was their progenitor.  That formula does not include:
-4WD/AWD
-Elevated or "off road" ground clearance (although this doesn't appear to have terribly much ground clearance by SUV standards)
-Rear doors

A Mustang is a 2-door, 2+2, RWD coupe or convertible.  Anything that does not fit that mold is not a pony car and not Mustang.  Calling this a Mustang is as silly as GM deciding to rename the Bolt a "Corvette Stingray-E".  The car isn't a Corvette in any way shape or form, it shouldn't be associated with one by model name.

If this has been a 2 door, 2+2 coupe with an EV powertrain, I'd be all for calling it a Mustang Mach-E.  But it's not and they shouldn't have.

Ford has a number of legacy names that would have worked better.  "Thunderbolt" comes to mind.  Perfect name for an EV trying exude performance, and it traces back to a factory experimental drag racing version of the Fairlane that won an NHRA title back in the mid-60s.  Falcon is a fine name as well.  Or pulled from the old Mercury name bin and used Cyclone or Comet.  Any and all of these would have worked better than branding a vehicle that isn't a pony car as a Mustang.

[r0tor]

Ford Ficus would have been a great green name

[FoMoJo]

A Mustang is a very specific type of car.  The archetype of an entire class/segment of cars, called the "Pony" cars in honor of the Mustang that was their progenitor.  That formula does not include:
-4WD/AWD
-Elevated or "off road" ground clearance (although this doesn't appear to have terribly much ground clearance by SUV standards)
-Rear doors

A Mustang is a 2-door, 2+2, RWD coupe or convertible.  Anything that does not fit that mold is not a pony car and not Mustang.  Calling this a Mustang is as silly as GM deciding to rename the Bolt a "Corvette Stingray-E".  The car isn't a Corvette in any way shape or form, it shouldn't be associated with one by model name.

If this has been a 2 door, 2+2 coupe with an EV powertrain, I'd be all for calling it a Mustang Mach-E.  But it's not and they shouldn't have.

Ford has a number of legacy names that would have worked better.  "Thunderbolt" comes to mind.  Perfect name for an EV trying exude performance, and it traces back to a factory experimental drag racing version of the Fairlane that won an NHRA title back in the mid-60s.  Falcon is a fine name as well.  Or pulled from the old Mercury name bin and used Cyclone or Comet.  Any and all of these would have worked better than branding a vehicle that isn't a pony car as a Mustang.

I actually tend to agree.  Mustang is one of the most, perhaps the most, iconic profiles in the automotive industry.  We all recognize it and although it has been used to some degree in designs of other manufacturers but still, we recognized the authentic look as only Mustang.  This is true from the first Mustang fastback through to the latest GT500. 

As for name, plenty of names to choose from.  It might've been a good opportunity to resurrect the Edsel name as gesture to one of the Ford family who is underappreciated for all that he contributed.  Hopefully it would be a hit this time.

[2o6]

I don't think it's a great name or use of branding, but I also don't think it's that serious. The vast majority of people complaining would have likely still derided it no matter what it was called, or would have never bought this type of car either.


I think Ford had made a lot of missteps lately, but I think this particular model isn't one of them.


Edit: also weren't there several early prototypes for a four door mustang? And also doesn't the Challenger come with AWD?


It's just really weird how much vitriol people have for a *name*.....

[MX793]

I don't think it's a great name or use of branding, but I also don't think it's that serious. The vast majority of people complaining would have likely still derided it no matter what it was called, or would have never bought this type of car either.


I think Ford had made a lot of missteps lately, but I think this particular model isn't one of them.


Edit: also weren't there several early prototypes for a four door mustang? And also doesn't the Challenger come with AWD?

The earliest Mustang concept was actually a mid-engine speedster.  There was a sedan concept in the mid 60s, but it never officially made it out of the design studio.  At that time, the Mustang wasn't an icon and there technically wasn't a "pony car" segment yet.  There's even been rumors of a sedan based on the current platform, but nothing has ever really been seen.  Also no guarantee any such car would actually be branded as a Mustang.

The current Challenger is not a pony car.  It's a full class size larger than the Mustang or Camaro and not a 2+2.  V8 models are muscle cars.  The V6, which is the only trim available in AWD, is just a 2-door sedan.  Just like how a Chevelle SS was a musclecar while the Malibu, which was the same car but fitted with a lesser engine (either a 6 or a smaller V8) was just a midsize 2 or 4 door sedan.

It's just really weird how much vitriol people have for a *name*.....

Because names, and brands, have meaning.  They are something people connect to.

[2o6]

The Challenger not being a "pony car" seems like an online only semantics debate. The vast majority of the public view the Camaro, Challenger, and Mustang as direct competitors.

[MX793]

The Challenger not being a "pony car" seems like an online only semantics debate. The vast majority of the public view the Camaro, Challenger, and Mustang as direct competitors.

That they are all performance oriented 2-doors in the same price segment makes them competitors in the minds of many.  Doesn't mean they are the same category of car.  "Pony car" has a meaning (hey, there we are again with words and names and meanings).  One could argue that some or most of the sport compact and hot-hatch segment competes with the Mustang/Camaro/Challenger, particularly the base engine versions thereof.  Don't see anyone claiming that the WRX, Focus ST, or GTI are pony cars.  Because they're not.

[2o6]

That they are all performance oriented 2-doors in the same price segment makes them competitors in the minds of many.  Doesn't mean they are the same category of car.  "Pony car" has a meaning (hey, there we are again with words and names and meanings).  One could argue that some or most of the sport compact and hot-hatch segment competes with the Mustang/Camaro/Challenger, particularly the base engine versions thereof.  Don't see anyone claiming that the WRX, Focus ST, or GTI are pony cars.  Because they're not.

The whole "pony car" debate seems like a semantics issue; especially since the definition of what segment is what seems to be a marketing driven moving target? And the fact that words and definitions tend to move and change with time and use. Even a few places online call the Challenger a "Pony Car".


Either way, I just don't see how a "Mustang" moniker on this car merits more than an eye roll and a scoff maybe. Some of y'all are acting as if Ford stopped producing the Mustang coupe entirely for this car, or that somehow this car threatens Mustangs as a whole. I think the vast majority of buyers will think the name is kinda funky and probably buy it after seeing it's merits.

[Galaxy]

A Mustang is a very specific type of car.  The archetype of an entire class/segment of cars, called the "Pony" cars in honor of the Mustang that was their progenitor.  That formula does not include:
-4WD/AWD
-Elevated or "off road" ground clearance (although this doesn't appear to have terribly much ground clearance by SUV standards)
-Rear doors

Let's compare the E-Mach to the OG.



I would argue that the Mach-E comes closer to the Mustang (horse) then the car. The horse Mustang was essentially used as an SUV to haul people and their stuff around the Midwest, and West, over great distances. The car Mustang is actually closer to a Quarter Horse.

[shp4man]

Let's compare the E-Mach to the OG.



I would argue that the Mach-E comes closer to the Mustang (horse) then the car. The horse Mustang was essentially used as an SUV to haul people and their stuff around the Midwest, and West, over great distances. The car Mustang is actually closer to a Quarter Horse.

I think they named the Mustang after the P-51D fighter plane. But I suppose that was named after the wild horses that roam the Western US.   

[MX793]

Let's compare the E-Mach to the OG.



I would argue that the Mach-E comes closer to the Mustang (horse) then the car. The horse Mustang was essentially used as an SUV to haul people and their stuff around the Midwest, and West, over great distances. The car Mustang is actually closer to a Quarter Horse.

"Real" mustang's are wild/feral horses, so no, they were not used as domesticated beasts of burden.  Once domesticated, a horse is no longer a mustang.

[12,000 RPM]

A Mustang is a very specific type of car.  The archetype of an entire class/segment of cars, called the "Pony" cars in honor of the Mustang that was their progenitor.  That formula does not include:
-4WD/AWD
-Elevated or "off road" ground clearance (although this doesn't appear to have terribly much ground clearance by SUV standards)
-Rear doors

A Mustang is a 2-door, 2+2, RWD coupe or convertible.  Anything that does not fit that mold is not a pony car and not Mustang.  Calling this a Mustang is as silly as GM deciding to rename the Bolt a "Corvette Stingray-E".  The car isn't a Corvette in any way shape or form, it shouldn't be associated with one by model name.

If this has been a 2 door, 2+2 coupe with an EV powertrain, I'd be all for calling it a Mustang Mach-E.  But it's not and they shouldn't have.

Ford has a number of legacy names that would have worked better.  "Thunderbolt" comes to mind.  Perfect name for an EV trying exude performance, and it traces back to a factory experimental drag racing version of the Fairlane that won an NHRA title back in the mid-60s.  Falcon is a fine name as well.  Or pulled from the old Mercury name bin and used Cyclone or Comet.  Any and all of these would have worked better than branding a vehicle that isn't a pony car as a Mustang.

A Rustang is whatever Ford sells under that name

OCD pedantry seems to run counter to what I thought enjoying cars was all about. The name of this thing has zero effect on the "real" Mustang.