I've changed my mind about it being called a Mustang. I never understood it, but didn't think it was a big deal. But now I realize it was a stroke of marketing genius. Everyone is still talking about it two and a half years after the announced it. You can't buy that kind of advertising, it's a gold mine for Ford to have people discussing the vehicle still just because of its name.
In reply to wae :
The Mustang II was based on a cheap economy car - just like the first Mustang was. The Mustang II was a return to form after the 67-73 versions. In the 60's and 70's, a "cheap economy car" was a smallish sedan. Today it's a SUV of some type (with the "cheap" part being up for debate...).
I have to admit that I am also fussed by the name. It doesn't carry forward any of the lineage or architecture of a Mustang. They were all 2 door coupes or notch backs, this is a 4 door sedan. By all accounts it is a great car and I am glad that Ford has put it out but the name feels insincere.
wae said:Maybe I don't understand... What relationship does the Mustang II have to the Mach-E other than it's another car that isn't a Mustang that Ford tried to call a Mustang?
So you do understand, then.
NY Nick said:I have to admit that I am also fussed by the name. It doesn't carry forward any of the lineage or architecture of a Mustang. They were all 2 door coupes or notch backs, this is a 4 door sedan. By all accounts it is a great car and I am glad that Ford has put it out but the name feels insincere.
When has that ever mattered when you are trying to sell as much stuff as possible? The whole point in calling it a Mustang is to sell more of them- and like Adrian posted, the fact that we are still talking about isn't a bad thing.
For the last 20 years (almost), Ford has had a hybrid, and not many people knew about it. Why? Because it was either an Escape or Fusion, not a Prius. So Ford had to come up with a name that everyone knew, and it would draw eyes like "Prius" has. It's working.
Why aren't the Dodge guys as cranky about the Charger being a four door? It was always a two-door coupe, now it's a sedan. Well, it was a FWD hatchback for a while, but it still only had two doors! (BTW, if Dodge doesn't put the Charger name on an EV I will be sorely disappointed).
It's tiresome. We get it. People with Mustang posters on their wall are offended by a vehicle that doesn't match their personal vision of what a Mustang is. Complaints registered and filed, let's talk about the car instead because it is FAR more interesting and you can always peel the badge off.
It'll be interesting to learn more about this stop delivery order and the recall - the contactors can fail under hard use (rapid charging and lots of full acceleration). If they fail open, you stop by the side of the road. If they fail closed (ie, weld themselves shut) the car will operate normally until you go to restart for the next drive, at which point the car will realize the contactors are welded shut and will refuse to proceed. It affects half of the total production, but it's not clear if it's due to different suppliers or GT vs non-GT. It'll be a software fix, but will that mean de-rating earlier to prevent the high heat that causes this problem?
Turns out that EVs are different than ICE, and Ford really doesn't have a lot of experience with them yet. There's simply no substitute for having a hundred thousand vehicles on the road being driven by the general public, so being a major manufacturer doesn't give you an automatic pass when it comes to real-world experience.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Oh there was absolutely backlash when the current Charger was introduced as a 4-door.
In reply to Ian F (Forum Supporter) :
I guess it wasn't an interesting enough car for me to notice at the time then ;) Somehow, the world has kept turning. Looking at the dates, the Charger has been a four door sedan longer than it was a RWD coupe.
Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to Keith Tanner :
Oh there was absolutely backlash when the current Charger was introduced as a 4-door.
Yeah, I worked with some turbo Dodge fanatics when it was introduced and they were pretty pissed about it having four doors, regardless of it returning to V8 and rwd.
Last I talked to them about 10 years ago, one of them had caved and was loving his Charger SRT8, so maybe in a few years the Mustang guys will be loving the Mach E.
I think Ford electrics would have been better off under a different brand, like Mercury or maybe Lincoln, or maybe Edsel after this week. Elon nailed it with "Tesla", few would have drooled if it were "Edison" or "Watt".
So, what's going to happen in 5-6 years when there is an electric version of the REAL Mustang, the 2 door sports coupe (if it survives)? Customer comes in, says "hey, I want a fast electric Mustang, whatcha got?" Salesman: "um well, we have a 4 door CUV in stock, is that what you're looking for?" Seriously, IMO it was short-sighted and fairly disingenuous to name it that. Their car, their choice, but it IS costing them sales and brand image. I blame whoever said the Mustang would be the only car made by them moving forward. Oops.
What's with all the hate for the 2nd gen Mustang II? I've driven one, not that different than a '65. Same horsepower range for the 6cyl engines. Ford would kill to have sales numbers like that (almost 400,00 first year) for the Mache. Or any Mustang since then, frankly.
On to the vehicle in question. I'm sure it does everything well, I would expect no less. EV's should be figured out by now. Looks are nothing special. I'm sure it will do well enough when supply catches up and they iron out the teething issues.
That name, though.
Keith Tanner said:Why aren't the Dodge guys as cranky about the Charger being a four door? It was always a two-door coupe, now it's a sedan. Well, it was a FWD hatchback for a while, but it still only had two doors! (BTW, if Dodge doesn't put the Charger name on an EV I will be sorely disappointed).
It's tiresome. We get it. People with Mustang posters on their wall are offended by a vehicle that doesn't match their personal vision of what a Mustang is. Complaints registered and filed, let's talk about the car instead because it is FAR more interesting and you can always peel the badge off.
You are right we should be talking about the car and not the name. I am sure everyone would be cool if this was the 2023 Miata Zoom-E...
EDIT: Added smiley face to show I am just having fun and not trying to be a total jerk.
llysgennad said:On to the vehicle in question. I'm sure it does everything well, I would expect no less. EV's should be figured out by now.
EV's are definitely not figured out by now. Note the active recall that affects half of all Mach-Es produced right now that is specifically related to the drivetrain (the two previous recalls were related to normal production issues). Ford may be an established automaker, but they're new to electric drive. I expect all automakers to have similar struggles as they work their way through mass production EVs.
I think the Mach-E is a pretty cool looking SUV, it's better in the metal than pictures. I was quite surprised when I saw it, you could legitimately call it the Mustang of SUVs ;)
If Mazda wants to put the Miata name on other cars, they're free to do so. It won't change the sports car at all. Tire manufacturers do this all the time, they have sub-brands like Proxies that can be anything from an R compound to an all-season. But the Proxies name means it's at the upper end of performance of that category. But yes, a subset of Miata owners had a collective stroke when Mazda dared to use the same color on an MX-6 as they had on the 1995 M-edition Miata and that population is definitely at risk if Mazda puts "Miata" on a CUV!
In reply to llysgennad :
EV's are very far from figured out by now. Every single part of the hardware is still rapidly being developed- especially the battery/charging system- given all of the valid questions about cost and charging speed. And it should not be a surprise that customers are really good at being creative to destroy stuff. Requirements are constantly changing thanks to how customers find new ways to break stuff.
And multiple Tesla's have had battery fires- so thinking they have all of this figured out is not all that realistic, too.
Well, granted, it's only been 120 years since they were first popular. Dr. Porsche had a hybrid in 1901. Edison was a huge proponent of BEV's. Regen brakes, hybrids, none of this is new. A friend built a 24V go-cart 30-some years ago.
There's a huge difference between a 24V system and a 240V system, or even a 480V system that you can charge at +100kW.
Let alone the change from Lead Acid to whatever we will be ending up with.
And electric motors have changed a lot recently, too.
So while it's exactly the same, it's also completely different.
In reply to alfadriver:
I know that. But this was a 15yo in the garage with handtools. The EV-1 was in, what, 1995? 96?
Don't get me wrong, I love EVs. I want one, I want to build conversion kits, I'm all for it. I'm not sure where we get enough raw materials for the batteries, and I don't think the grid is up to it without billions invested. I love that Keith's wife is driving for basically free now.
Pardon me, I'm off to look for a go-cart frame.
In reply to llysgennad :
Other than the EV using a battery and an electric motor, pretty much nothing has carried over since the EV1. They sure seem simple, but they are not. Especially since they are also trying to address your concerns at the exact same time- how to charge 100M cars over night, where to get the material, etc.
And for this specific topic, Ford has far more Focus EV's on the road in the last 5 years than the EV1 back in the day. And the Focii are way more capable than the EV1 was. Yet this problem was not seen on those thousands of vehicles. People are creative in ways engineers are not really able to think about- even with millions of development miles.
Given the current (har har) problem is heat management of the connectors and is basically caused by rapid charging followed by repeated wide open pedal events - I'm surprised it didn't show up in the journalist fleet :)
But that high speed charging is a fairly new thing for EV makers. The EV1 charged at 6.6 kW. The Mach E tops out at 150 kW and can dump that power pretty quickly as well.
And just "uses a battery" is a lot more subtle than you'd think. The Mach-E battery design doesn't have awesome thermal capacity. This is an area where automakers are going to keep making modifications, and where we'll see gradual improvements in performance, cost and longevity. If you look at Tesla, they've already been through a few generations including a lot of early battery replacements in the first Model Ss. There are unannounced improvements going on all the time in this area across the industry.
Alfadriver said: ...pretty much nothing has carried over since the EV1. They sure seem simple, but they are not.
But that's my point. These should be evolutionary steps, not revolutionary. I don't even think I've heard of the Focus EV (2011-2018). Seems like a good car, what happened? Oh, right. Ford doesn't want to do cars anymore.
Keith said: problem...caused by rapid charging followed by repeated wide open pedal events...
Why would a vehicle labeled as a GT Performance get thrashed? Gee, I wonder. Maybe because it was marketed that way, with 0-60 of 3.5s. Who needs that in a sedan? No one. But they had to, because Tesla did it. Why did Tesla do it? To get attention. I like fast cars as much as anyone, but 6-7 seconds would be just fine, thank you. Especially if the reliability went up accordingly.
The EV1 charged at 6.6 kW.
And yet it could fully charge in 8 hrs, or 80% in 1-3 hours, for 80-105 mile range. Not so different after all.
I am familiar with this E36 M3. I work with control systems, usually 480V 3ph, but lately 240V 1ph. Loads vary from 30-110 amps depending on what's enabled (1-4 motors, heater, lights) at that moment. Not battery powered, thankfully, but headache enough.
Just don't call it a Cobra. That SUV doesn't look anything like a 50s vintage AC Ace roadster.
I still have a problem with Mustang Cobras, not to mention the infamous Mustang II Cobra II.
llysgennad said:Alfadriver said: ...pretty much nothing has carried over since the EV1. They sure seem simple, but they are not.
But that's my point. These should be evolutionary steps, not revolutionary. I don't even think I've heard of the Focus EV (2011-2018). Seems like a good car, what happened? Oh, right. Ford doesn't want to do cars anymore.
Keith said: problem...caused by rapid charging followed by repeated wide open pedal events...
Why would a vehicle labeled as a GT Performance get thrashed? Gee, I wonder. Maybe because it was marketed that way, with 0-60 of 3.5s. Who needs that in a sedan? No one. But they had to, because Tesla did it. Why did Tesla do it? To get attention. I like fast cars as much as anyone, but 6-7 seconds would be just fine, thank you. Especially if the reliability went up accordingly.
The EV1 charged at 6.6 kW.
And yet it could fully charge in 8 hrs, or 80% in 1-3 hours, for 80-105 mile range. Not so different after all.
I am familiar with this E36 M3. I work with control systems, usually 480V 3ph, but lately 240V 1ph. Loads vary from 30-110 amps depending on what's enabled (1-4 motors, heater, lights) at that moment. Not battery powered, thankfully, but headache enough.
The high performance is a sorta side effect of the big long range batteries. Tesla gave their EVs performance to change people's perception of what an EV was - the Mitsubishi M-IEV was state of the art at the time. But hey, you've got the capability of that big discharge, so why not use it and make the car something people WANT to drive instead of something they HAVE to drive.
And yes, a Mustang Mach-E GT should be able to handle it. But despite the fact that the percentage of idiots working at Ford is not terribly high, they didn't quite get it right. Now we're back to my point that EV drivetrains and how they're used are still on the learning curve on the mass market. Before progress can be evolutionary, it has to start. A few carefully managed cars in a small fleet leased in a small area of the country is far from the mass market - GM only made about 1200 EV-1s and only leased them to a handful of cities. Ford now has a hundred thousand cars in the hands of a hundred thousand random people across the world and it turns out this is the beginning that we will evolve from.
My point about the EV1's charging time was that it's super-easy to manage 6.6kW of power compared to 150+. It's vastly different when it comes to power and heat and battery management. You don't have to manage the temperature of a battery pack that's sipping away at 6.6 kW. You have to liquid cool the cables when you're trying to run 200+. And, guess what, at least one EV-1 burned to the ground while charging because GM had trouble managing even that 6.6 kW connection.
In reply to llysgennad :
Well, what you think should be happening and what is actually happening isn't the same thing, apparently. Since the EV1, batteries have been close to revolutionized- at least as I see it.
FWIW, my point of reference in terms of power- back in 1990, we were melting dirt with ~350kw of electrical power. And many are convinced that we will be capable of charging batteries at that rate.
Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said:I've changed my mind about it being called a Mustang. I never understood it, but didn't think it was a big deal. But now I realize it was a stroke of marketing genius. Everyone is still talking about it two and a half years after the announced it. You can't buy that kind of advertising, it's a gold mine for Ford to have people discussing the vehicle still just because of its name.
My cousin worked for a guy who spent a seemingly ridiculous amount of money for an otherwise very affordable piece of sporting equipment that some people considered to be special.
When my cousin asked why he had spent so much money on it, he replied that he had gotten himself ten minute segments on each of the three of the major network morning shows, he was on the national evening news, and countless other cable channels and entertainment networks. He said that it generated the equivalent of twelve million dollars of advertising time for his company, and added that he'd do it again in a heartbeat.
alfadriver said:In reply to wae :
Given the vitriol, I doubt anyone will be confused. In this case, the name is to portray an attitude, not a specific car. The Mach E is more of a Mustang than the Mustang II will ever be in terms of performance.
I like you, alfadriver, but we're never going to agree on this point. I am going to point out a common misconception the general populace has about the brand.
The Mustang brand is not a 'performance car' brand. The whole performance thing happened as an add-on over time. Mustangs aren't Corvettes. They are sporty looking cars that, during certain periods of time, you could order with some big horsepower or sporty-car handling packages. The bulk of Mustangs sold were more pedestrian. The whole idea of the Mustang was to give the consumer a car that looked like a sports car but didn't have the compromises of one (two seats, complicated drivetrain, expensive to maintain, questionable reliability). The Mustang invented the pony car segment. Pony cars are not necessarily muscle cars or performance cars.
The much maligned Mustang II actually a return to the car's roots after the bloated 71-73 models. Those cars got a lot of complaints from regular Mustang buyers and the sales figures reflected that. The M II was the right car at the right time. People conveniently forget how well they sold.
A four door SUV is not a Mustang. It's lazy marketing and poor branding. It disappoints me when a manufacturer robs a carefully crafted nameplate with a loyal following and uses it just to 'create a buzz'. Yeah, it's their brand and they can do whatever they want with it, but Ford and those of you who 'don't get' the furor over the brand useage I guess can't grasp how true brand enthusiasts relate to our cars.
Yes, I'm probable beating a dead horse (pun intended).
In reply to ddavidv :
I don't disagree that it's lazy marketing. But you also have to admit that it works. They are being sold in droves. You seem to think that the car is being marketed to people like you- it's not. It's meant to be recognizable to the brand like Prius is- the fact that it bears little resemblance to the Mustang isn't a big deal when you are just trying to sell cars.
When I first saw it, I didn't like it, either. But as the hype got rolling, and the interest got going- one has to remember it's a lot easier to remember the Mustang Mach E than it is some other random name that you want to sell in large numbers immediately. Especially when a lot of marketing is about "lifestyle" and "aspirations" than history. Most of the people who buy it have no interest in the real history of the Mustang- especially how it fits in with "performance"- as either they or their parents remember the Mustang as some important car that has some kind of performance that was important at the time.
As an alternative, what other 4 door large sedan that has massive name recognition could it have been called? Can't be Taurus- more people remember that as a cheap sedan that people bought because it was cheap. 500 didn't work as a replacement. Fusion isn't the right car for this, Explorer is a different shape, not enough people know Falcon or Galaxy.
"Mustang" sells. That's the simple truth.
You'll need to log in to post.
