pointofdeparture said:I don't hate it looking from the front, but the rear end proportions are all wrong to me...what say you all?
There is resemblance to the Model X, but also many other fastback SUVs.
I don't hate it, but wonder how much real cargo space it has.
GTwannaB said:With that Tesla tablet on the dash is should be call Mustang mE Too.
You're talking about the company that has a history of following trends. The butt-ugly tractor-trailer looking front ends, the V10, even the canted valve heads on the 460 that IIRC can even use parts from the Chevy big-block.
OTOH, if they see that as something people want, it would be stupid to not give the market what they want. Ford tried to define the market with a product a long time ago, and from that we remember "Edsel" as a bad product.
Out here, I hear from a lot of people, even people who are not technological luddities, who are exasperated with the modern cheap-ass approach to driver inputs. They want knobs and switches and buttons, because those make immdediate sense and, after 10 second's worth of familiarity, can be operated without taking your eyes off the road. Touchscreens will NEVER have that because you always have to navigate menus and look down to see what you're poking at. If you can even see it, when the sun is low those screens are usually glared out.
But touchscreens are cheap, so that is what we get.
Daylan C said:Nobody asked for a fastback crossover Mustang....well if you ignore the distinct possibility that people were already buying things like this.
"They have turned my race horse into a cart horse."
- Felix Wankel, on the redesign of his engine against his wishes
tester said:
A deuce coupe.
Certainly not a little deuce, either.
I just threw up in my mouth. I can't stand that genre of sloped roof, fat butt, mom jean wearing SUV thingamajigs. Then to slap a Mustang face and tail lights on it is just insult to injury.
Thankfully for Ford, the masses aren't smart enough to realize just how pointless these style vehicles are. They'll sell quite a few.
Put this technology in a big wagon (i.e. the Magnum) or small van (i.e. Mazda5) and now we're talking a very different game.
Klayfish said:I just threw up in my mouth. I can't stand that genre of sloped roof, fat butt, mom jean wearing SUV thingamajigs.
It's called a "crossover". For when you are too embarrassed to be seen in a minivan, and also too embarrassed to be seen in an SUV, so they combined the least-practical points of both and they are selling like hotcakes because the American consumer is nothing if not willing to sacrifice practicality for pre-packaged image projection.
That's why I see them all as the same thing... they're all minivans in my book. Even the SUVs. At least the minivans own what they are and do it without shame.
Ford had announced that moving forward it would produce all trucks (no sedans) but keeping the Mustang.
Is this the Mustang they meant?
I don't hate it, but I don't like it. I think with wider wheels it would look a bit better. The back end is a bit too slopey for me. If they can keep the dealer markup down then it should have a chance. The positive aspect is that this car is obviously going to be polarizing, so if it turns out to be a good EV then in a few years you'll be able to get one probably for cheap.
People need to notice it. What was that weird hybrid not quite a small van thing that they made but really didn't sell? I'm not sure if it was even good because it was invisible in the "I never see it and when I do I don't notice" way. At least people will see these. They will notice when their co-worker parks in the parking garage and ask them about it. It just needs to be good enough that it stands on it's own from a driving/value standpoint.
Best comment I have read thus far.
This looks like a crossover that "identifies" as a mustang.
I guess I just don't understand the marketing choices. I don't dislike the car and understand it needs to be distinct, and know they thought about uses styling cues from pony car for something like this was going to ruffle feathers.... BMW, and Telsa and many of the others have a really unique look in order to make certain the casual observer notices them on the street, but I guess I just don't get what ford is trying to do here.
It is like the Jag electric which still has a grill opening. It just doesn't make sense.
Mustang just doesn't seem like the right name for this.
As a lifelong mustang hater, the name is all wrong and ford needs to fix it
Strange, Ford downsized me so I have no earthly incentive to defend them, and lot's of reasons to be bitter, but I find myself wanting to defend this vehicle. I've saw it come through a long and difficult gestation. The original renderings and clays were awesome, then the beancounters were pushing to make it nothing but an on paper Prius fighter. As a result it got progressively uglier and uglier, not just on the design language but in the drivetrain and every thing from front to back. It would have been awful. Thankfully upper management grew a pair and said 'Nope, if we're doing this, we're doing it right' and they went right back to square one. I honestly think when people see it in the flesh they will like it, I really really do. I do agree they should have just gone with Mach-E and left the poor pony off the car, but don't judge it based on it's badge. It's a really elegant looking vehicle that's the right size for the market with the right battery/motor options including high performance versions too. As I said in another thread pricing will range from 'Huh, that's pretty good' for the regular models to 'WTF' for the high performance ones. The interior is ultra modern and ultra clean. I lilke it. Yes it's got a berkeleying trendy tomb stone tablet like appendage, but so will everything for the next few years, it's just a market trend. It has to have one, large tablets are absolutely critical for the Chinese market. Big touch screens are a status symbol over there like big engines used to be over here. The appearance of tech is at times more important than the function of it for that market. Part of Ford's issue in China is the arrogance that they thought they knew better than the local market what people there wanted, and we've seen the collapse of their sales as a result, plus a change of senior management in that region to try and get back on track.
I'm not an unabashed fan boy of the company as it is right now. I know many people in the company and the dealers are pissed at exiting the small car market (No, they never said they were only going to make trucks going forward) but a bigger issue than what they are or are not going to make is the absolute E36 M3 show of how they announced it.
Call it whatever. People get too caught up in a name. And by people I mean, you people! 
If its anywhere as good or better than a Tesla at being an electric vehicle, I am excited.
I will continue my internal combustion automotive quest with my Renault 8, but if I can daily an EV that can also drive to Disneyland in roughly the same amount of time as a IC vehicle, I will be happy.
E36 M3, if I could get rid of my small IC engines and be able to mow for 2 hours without charging or switching batteries, sign me up. Gas is gross. I think the folks that made normal gas cans illegal work for thr EV people. Spill-less my ass.
RossD said:Call it whatever. People get too caught up in a name. And by people I mean, you people!
Be careful with the choice of "you people"
- Don Cherry
It's obviously got Mustang styling cues, but the overall design has a "feel" that reminds me a lot of Infiniti's small CUVs from a few years ago which nobody really got worked up about:
Agree that using the "Mustang" name dilutes the Mustang brand more than it's likely to help sell this thing.
No Time said:
I don't hate it, but wonder how much real cargo space it has.
According to the screenshots that were taken from Ford's site, the rear cargo capacity is 29 cubic ft with seats up, 59.6cubic ft with rear seats down, and there's also a 4.8 cubic ft "frunk" since there's no ICE. Those numbers are similar to the Infiniti QX70 above (obviously not including the frunk).
Pricing (before the federal $7500 tax credit) is supposedly $44k-60k. The higher end GT gets better performance, but really no more range than the base car. The Premium is the model with the longest range up to 300 miles.
So 44k-7500 credit = 36500 for a RWD electric CUV with ~255hp/300ft-lbs, 0-60 in 6.5ish, and 230 miles of range. Those numbers are relatively competitive with the Chevy Bolt, or what we'd expect a larger, more powerful Bolt to be.
The more expensive trims are likely to be fairly competitive with the Tesla Model Y, but we don't have details on that one yet.
Overall, I think it's a pretty good first effort. I'm going to think of it as a higher, slightly larger, better looking Bolt, which is supposedly a very nice EV, but they're decidedly not sexy compared to something like Model 3. I think this gives Bolt specs in a wrapper that has a bit more sex appeal a la Tesla, and a bit more utility/ease of use.
So in terms of "timeline" IIRC, one of the first cars to have this general profile was actually the Honda Accord Crosstour- which was 2010. Well before the Tesla.
My opinion hasn't really changed since our last discussion about it. I don't love it or hate it. It's just there. But I've never been a fan of CUV's or SUV's. I'm a van-guy.
I like it. Other than calling it a Mustang instead of just mach-E, I have no complaints.
I know the crossover/small suv/tall car haters of this forum will surely state their disgust. But, us more automotively-acceptive people will probably like it in silence.
I bet money it's way better looking in person than pics, much like the new Supra which is gorgeous in person especially in red or white. Sometimes, proportions just don't make sense from 3/4 view pics but in person you really get it.
I look forward to this car-thang's release. Mostly to see yall bitch and moan when you actually lay eyes on it and because I want to see how well done it is.
When is my electric F150 coming? Adrian?
It actually reminds me more of the big BMW X6. Not in terms of "it has the exact same tiny crease above the rear wheel opening so it's basically identical", but style. A tall fastbacky thing with car styling cues stretched out over it.
I don't care about the name, "Mustang" isn't special to me. I'm also not going to elevate myself above the masses and tell them that they have chosen the incorrect vehicle based on nothing but style and flash.
I am interested in the platform, what it can do. Looking forward to hearing more about that.
Keith Tanner said:nimblemotorsports said:Looks like a Tesla for sure, and not in a good way.
Really? I mean, it's got wheels and glass. But that's about the end of the resemblance.
in the front 3/4 view, from the base of the A-pillar back it's a Model X
yupididit said:When is my electric F150 coming? Adrian?
it's on it's way.
from Rivian.
AngryCorvair said:Keith Tanner said:nimblemotorsports said:Looks like a Tesla for sure, and not in a good way.
Really? I mean, it's got wheels and glass. But that's about the end of the resemblance.
in the front 3/4 view, from the base of the A-pillar back it's a Model X
Roofline is sorta the same and they've both got a Hofmeister kink of sorts. There's also a "hip" above the rear wheels like basically every car, but it's shaped differently. But the surface detailing, the wheel openings, the windshield height, the mirrors, the uninterrupted glass roof, the height of the sills and greenhouse... no. If we're going to play the "totally looks like" game, these are not the cars to play it with. The Mach-E won't be mistaken for anything else.
mazdeuce - Seth said:People need to notice it. What was that weird hybrid not quite a small van thing that they made but really didn't sell? I'm not sure if it was even good because it was invisible in the "I never see it and when I do I don't notice" way. At least people will see these. They will notice when their co-worker parks in the parking garage and ask them about it. It just needs to be good enough that it stands on it's own from a driving/value standpoint.
The disgusting Ford C Max Energy
You'll need to log in to post.
