I would argue that the kind of car that has a sub-$1000/yr annual cost of ownership (licensing, insurance, depreciation, maintenance) is not going to be quite the same car as you'll rent from Hertz :) I think my WJ Jeep falls into that cost category, being fully depreciated, cheap to insure and license and not needing too much repair at the moment. But that's a pretty thin budget, and even a new set of tires every 6 years is going to be about 10% of that annual number.
Obviously I am of the "more cars better" mindset as well :) Just saying that if you're not into having a spare car to use once every two months, the rental scenario is possible.
If you rent a car for a long trip, you're also saving wear and tear on your own car. It may be hard to quantify but it should be considered.
mtn
MegaDork
11/19/19 1:25 p.m.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Totally agree. I just couldn't get the rental numbers to work for our use-case. Doesn't matter, as many EV's would work for our use case, if they were cheaper anyways.
I also advocate for using a small trailer to tow your E36 M3, but my wife thinks that is silly. Whatever.
Especially if that E36 M3 includes things like "children". Think of how much more restful the trip would be!
YouTube had an ad running for this and, given I'm not a fan, I am even less of a fan after seeing that "15.5in touchscreen" is a headline selling point. Do they want to be so true to Mustangs that they need to enable drivers to inadvertently plow through crowds of people while futzing with an electronic device?
I have a motorcycle. I ride defensively. I like to watch what cage-drivers do in their cars and see how long it takes their heads to drop to stare at a screen while doing 55 in a 45. Giving these morons another, bigger, prettier screen to play with is borderline criminally irresponsible IMO. Of course, it's just societal training to get people to cheer for giving up control to self-driving cars that let them watch DisneyFlix+Red on their way to wherever GoogleBook is taking them. (I believe Wall-E is prophetic, btw, and not necessarily the environmental destruction part)
I had to scroll through to see if this had been posted yet.
Saron81
HalfDork
11/12/20 11:19 a.m.
They're getting close!
The interior has reminds me of a cross between a Tesla and the i3. Certainly get that electric car vibe, lol.
Hoping to drive it this afternoon.
ddavidv
PowerDork
11/12/20 4:32 p.m.
Not a Mustang.
Don't care how many running horses they plaster on it.
ddavidv said:
Not a Mustang.
Don't care how many running horses they plaster on it.
Agree!
Just one reason I hate Ford I used to be a big fan but in 2 decades they have run the company into the ground
rustybugkiller said:
ddavidv said:
Not a Mustang.
Don't care how many running horses they plaster on it.
Agree!
Just one reason I hate Ford I used to be a big fan but in 2 decades they have run the company into the ground
OK Boomer?
Maybe my memory is hazy but the 2000 Taurus, mustang, and explorer sure didnt seem like flagship modernized pieces of equipment at the time?
Pretty sure the current gen mustang is as potent of a chassis as they have EVER sniffed. Is it the styling cues that you prefer from the early 2000s? Those of Chris Bangle meshed with fox body and a hint of dumpster fire?
I am not sure why they are putting the Mustang name on this. Just the "Mach E" would have worked well.
Yeah, branding it as a Mustang is a pretty polarizing move. I think it was an attempt to "make it cool" to compete with Tesla coolness. I think the idea mostly fell flat. But, I do think it was smart to bring an SUV ish EV product to market vs a sedan or economy car. If the range is competitive and the pricing undercuts Telsa buy a few grand, and they aren't losing money on every one, I think they'll do well with it.
They had so many other cool names they could have used; Falcon, Galaxie, Fairlane, Thunderbird, ad nauseam.
Or what about re-launching Mercury as an all-electric brand...
mad_machine (Forum Supporter) said:
I am not sure why they are putting the Mustang name on this. Just the "Mach E" would have worked well.
I wish they would've brought back the "Lightning" name for this. Seems like a missed opportunity...unless there's an electric F-150 muscle truck waiting in the wings?
I don't care what they call it. But I have no emotional investment in the Mustang name either.
Saron81 said:
The interior has reminds me of a cross between a Tesla and the i3. Certainly get that electric car vibe, lol.
Hoping to drive it this afternoon.
Is that a real knob embedded in the middle of the screen?
No one's going to cross-shop it with a real Mustang, so to me the name doesn't matter much. I'm interested to see driving impressions and how it's different from the other EVs.
mad_machine (Forum Supporter) said:
I am not sure why they are putting the Mustang name on this. Just the "Mach E" would have worked well.
"Mustang" has become a brand. Not just a car, but an entire brand.
At least that's what they are trying to tell people- since it's the only car left in the Ford lineup. It's still around because it makes a lot of money.
In reply to Olemiss540 :
It's more of what we lost and poor quality.
No cars..... focus/fiesta ST gone
No sedans all suvs
Mustang gets more power but more weight as well
etc.
Have you seen the stock price?
rustybugkiller said:
In reply to Olemiss540 :
It's more of what we lost and poor quality.
No cars..... focus/fiesta ST gone
No sedans all suvs
Mustang gets more power but more weight as well
etc.
Have you seen the stock price?
I guess I just dont remember any cars ford made 20 years ago I would rather have over ones that they make today. Now BMW's, for sure, but to think ford is going backwards seems silly considering they have routinely made crap cars and seem to be clawing out of that fairly recently.
I honestly can't imagine any era of Ford with a better line up than their current lineup.
In reply to rustybugkiller :
All vehicles are getting more power and weight lol
yupididit said:
I honestly can't imagine any era of Ford with a better line up than their current lineup.
You weren't around in the late 60s then...
In reply to Olemiss540 :
They don't make cars ( except the stang) and I despise SUVs
maj75 (Forum Supporter) said:
yupididit said:
I honestly can't imagine any era of Ford with a better line up than their current lineup.
You weren't around in the late 60s then...
I'm certainly glad I was not around in the 60's whew!
ddavidv
PowerDork
11/13/20 6:25 a.m.
Olemiss540 said:
rustybugkiller said:
ddavidv said:
Not a Mustang.
Don't care how many running horses they plaster on it.
Agree!
Just one reason I hate Ford I used to be a big fan but in 2 decades they have run the company into the ground
OK Boomer?
Maybe my memory is hazy but the 2000 Taurus, mustang, and explorer sure didnt seem like flagship modernized pieces of equipment at the time?
Pretty sure the current gen mustang is as potent of a chassis as they have EVER sniffed. Is it the styling cues that you prefer from the early 2000s? Those of Chris Bangle meshed with fox body and a hint of dumpster fire?
Ok Snowflake, I'll type slow so you can maybe understand.
The Mustang has always been a two door sporty car. It's a brand with a huge and loyal following and is pretty much Ford's flagship much like the Corvette is to GM fans. How do you think Corvette guys would react to a four door SUV bearing the Corvette name?
Ford is taking their most recognized brand and diminishing it in a failed attempt to 'excite' buyers about the Mach E. I have nothing against the Mach E other than the horribly bad decision to call it a Mustang. It has no relationship historically or technically with Mustangs past or present. But FoMoCo is just another corporation with their heads up the ass of the marketing department.
Calling the Mach E a Mustang is about as brilliant as calling a Cavalier a Cadillac Cimarron.
