Whatever you think of the new Ford Mustang Mach-E, it’s obviously a big departure from anything ever sold with a galloping pony in the grille. I’ve only seen a handful in the wild so far and I don’t feel like my opinion on them is completely settled. Many peoples’ are, for better or worse, and I thought I’d share an amusing episode that brings the controversy to life.
My daughter is 8 and being my kid, she’s relatively car-aware. She has a demonstrated ability to identify a Mustang from any generation, though she’s never been put to the test on the 71-73 (which might stump her) or Mustang II (which I think she would get). Daddy drives a 2011, so naturally that was the first car she could ID on the road from around the age of 3. She’s a big ‘Stang fan.
I was driving on the freeway with her one day when she asks me, “What’s that car?” It was a Mach-E, which she had never seen before and I had never mentioned it in her presence in any context. When I told her it was a new Mustang Mach-E, she immediately says, “That Mustang looks bad!” Unfortunately for Ford, she didn’t mean it in the ironic bad is cool sense, but the traditional dictionary meaning. I just laughed.
This photo was staged several days later when I spotted this Mach-E parked. Here’s what I think happened in her mind. She saw the back of the car with its triple taillights and prancing horse logo, which automatically activated Mustang Identification Mode in her brain, but the unfamiliar shape and extra set of doors created cognitive dissonance. When it was confirmed to her that it actually was a Mustang, her 8-year-old naturally-judgmental disposition immediately pronounced an opinion since it didn’t fit her idea of what a Mustang should look like.
I think this is what goes on in many of our heads, except instead of 5 years of experience, there is up to 57 years of Mustang experience to base a prejudice on.
When I took her over to look at this shiny new car, I asked her if she liked it. “No.” I explained that instead of using gasoline it was plugged in to electricity to run on. The significance of that seemed to go over her head, as she was distinctly unimpressed.
Earlier this year, Jim Klein wrote up an excellent in-depth review for Curbside Classic. It drew 140 comments (average article gets 30-40), so it’s fair to say the car attracts opinions if not always love. I left a comment and I still feel about the same. It seems like a well designed vehicle and it’s pretty good looking, with the unavoidable qualifiers: for an EV and for a SUV-style vehicle. I understand the potential marketing value of using the Mustang identity and agree that a sporty electric car seems like a worthwhile market niche, because in many minds alternative fuel vehicles look more like this:
Nerdsville! I’ll grant the Mach-E is at least better looking than the Honda Clarity. Personally as a longtime Mustang fan, though, I’m just not sure I can buy into Ford expanding the Mustang line into models that bear little/no resemblance to the sporty/muscular coupes we love so well.
However, I know I’m not the typical car customer. Electric vehicles will need to spark passion in mainstream car buyers if they are ever to become naturally popular without depending on government subsidies or mandates. Tesla has demonstrated the potential for that, and they haven’t been eligible for federal tax credits under current law since the end of 2019 (though that may change soon, and CA and some other states offer incentives). Can the Mach-E and others duplicate that success?
Here’s how the Mach-E is doing so far, along with some other vehicles for EV and general market context. 2021 U.S. sales Jan-Sept:
Ford Mustang Mach-E – 18,855
Tesla Model Y – 121,229 (est.)
Tesla Model 3 – 87,910 (est.)
Volkswagen ID.4 – 12,279 (new BEV SUV on sale since March)
Hyundai Ioniq – 15,556 (not broken down by hybrid vs. BEV)
Nissan Leaf – 10,074
Chevrolet Bolt – 24,803
Ford Mustang – 41,065 (You know, the real one:)
Ford Escape – 111,791
Ford Bronco Sport – 81,204
Toyota Rav 4 – 313,447 (top Compact SUV and overall top non-Pickup)
Photographed in Houston, TX October 21, 2021. My apologies to any Clarity owners, I use the term nerds in the most respectful and loving sense possible. Sales figures taken from CarSalesBase.com.
We had our monthly Electrics & Espressos (the EV version of Cars & Coffee in Richmond) this past Sunday, and our first Mustang Mach E owner has joined the group. Not a bad car, but nothing that really turns me on. In the first place, it’s a lot bigger than the kind of cars I like driving. In the second place it’s a crossover. Ok, I don’t hate crossovers as much as I do broughams, but they are in second place. Thirdly, for that kind of money, I’ll buy a Tesla.
While talking to the owner, he admitted he’d taken the car to the bi-weekly Cars & Coffee a few weeks earlier. To an amazing amount of polite negativity. As he put it, “If I have to listen to ‘That’s not a real Mustang.’ one more time . . . . . .”
Your daughter was right.
These cars may have their merits, but slapping the Mustang name on them is a much bigger debasement than the Mustang II ever was.
On the other hand, it seems to me, there may not be much room in the future for “real Mustangs”. After all, the Ford Probe was supposed to be the next-gen Mustang back in the late 1980s.
Given the mandate-happy nature of the current regime, and their stated desire to move aggressively on electric cars, if there is a public backlash against electric, which is quite likely, unlike the Mustang which pioneered a popular segment, Mach-E will be associated with pioneering a disliked trend.
Just what Ford needs.
Your daughter is more succinct, than I, but her conclusion is spot-on.
this reminds me of a story… I needed a new heel for my shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on ’em. “Gimme five bees for a quarter,” you’d say. Now where were we… oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn’t have any white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones…
“So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time”.
Psssst! Hey Buddy!
Somebody has sold you a beet and told you it was an onion….
Shame when a fella your age is so easily fooled.
Vidalias are the best onions.
Here’s a great pickled beet recipe:
https://bellyfull.net/refrigerator-pickled-beets/
“current regime”
I get it, really I do. The old world is dying, and the new one is struggling to be born, and goldarn it you hate the kids. Way to take your anxieties about aging and ultimate oblivion out on an amazing creation of industrial organization and integrated technological progress! Kudos! Do you have an EGR valve bypass too because of the Communist 1990 Clean Air Act?
I took a picture of this dead ’71-’73 parked next to the Gulf service station on Ventnor Avenue and Franklin in Margate, New Jersey, in June of 2020 and I just got the bill for the flood insurance on my seventy year old house which has stood *without a single insurance claim* in every hurricane and nor’easter since Truman negotiated NATO. In 2016 we lost our beach view because a five-mile long longitudinal dune berm was built against the daughters of Sandy, and part of the reason for that dune is the fact that global CO2 is at 417 ppm, an increase of thirty percent since I was my son’s age, and we haven’t had a damn frost yet in New York City and there are still flies and mosquitoes on Guy Fawkes Day.
Sorry, I tried reading through but I keep getting distracted by that cool looking Mustang. It’s the best looking car in this topic, as is, I wonder if it’s for sale, I’d love to get it running again 🙂
It’s the owner’s wife’s car, hasn’t run since 1990, and which has been parked at the Gulf across from Downbeach Video since before Bill Clinton was President.
About 200 yards from the Atlantic Ocean.
Sad, this is not how it is suppose to go down for a Mustang.
I completely relate here. I have two daughters (ages 12 & 14), and I enjoy getting their opinions on car designs because, unlike the rest of us, they’re unencumbered by historical opinions, memories or other baggage. They just call things like they see it, from the perspective of a new generation.
One of my daughters is particularly interested in design. She can’t stand cars like the Nissan Leaf below because she says the rear design looks like Butt Cheeks. After the first time she said that, I couldn’t unsee it; she’s absolutely right. She took this picture below because she created an album of pictures of car designs she doesn’t like — I find that amusing.
Since she seems focused on cars she doesn’t like (OK, she’s a bit negative, like me), I asked her what her favorite new car design was. She said it’s the Mini. It’s distinctive and interesting, but not trying to be annoyingly different… I get her choice there.
Other vehicles that rank high on my daughters’ Least Favorite Cars list are Cadillac Escalades, Kia Souls (I disagree with them on that one), and BMW i3’s.
And both of my kids dislike electric vehicles because they’re too quiet and can sneak up on you too easily.
Incidentally, both of my girls were able to identify Mustangs at an early age. I haven’t pointed out a Mach E to them yet — now I’m curious what they’ll think.
It’s certainly interesting what appeals – or doesn’t – to teenagers these days. A young person of my acquaintance really dislikes Hyundai’s Santa Cruz and Veloster. You’d think they’d both have some draw for younger drivers, but definitely not in this case.
The diaper is full on that Leaf.
Look! We have an electric Korean or Japanese four-door sedan! PHEW! At least style it to look like a mustang. Get a new look that other manufacturers do not have. Did we not just read an article about the gussied-up 1957 Ford called the 1958 Edsel? As for electric autos, they do not save the world. There is too much content that might not be recyclable. They take forever to recharge whereas one goes into a fuel station and five minutes later you are on your way. The electricity needed to power these vehicles is more costly than renewable petroleum – YES – it is renewable. A Russian study in 1951 proved that but the media do not mention this in their quest to make a green environment the back door way (to be polite). This Mustang is to be put out to pasture. It needs 1) swanky sleek styling unique to itself and 2) an optional gasoline power plant.
Do tell us about that “renewable petroleum”; I’m all ears.
In oh I don’t know half a billion years or so of decaying buried organic waste . . . kind of like the dino oil we get now, maybe? Maybe we should go back to flat head motors too, I mean who wants this crazy complicated computer controlled OHC with VVT?
Reminds me of an old back-country farmer I knew who was used to fixing all his own machinery, being fairly remote and all that. Once his nice comfy computerized ’86 broke down and he found he couldn’t fix it, he backdated to a ’74. Reckoned his farm workshop could keep that thing going as long as he’d need. He was in his seventies at the time, so he was probably right.
Can we have too much technology for our own good? Jack thought so.
Isn’t “renewable petroleum” 100% ethanol?
I’ve heard about this carburetor that gets 250 MPG… but the Big Three, the media, and Big Oil don’t want you to know about it. Wake up sheeple!!!!!!
I would _so_ trust a 1951 study by the USSR, the same country that made Lysenkoism state policy and declared that genetics were “a bourgeois pseudoscience” in 1948.
Besides, renewing petroleum would make it _worse_ as we can then put even more crap into the air until we die from carbon monoxide poisoning. A Google search for “1951 russia renewable petroleum” had no mention of this study for the first two pages. Citing theories like that completely invalidates your points.
To be fair, even without that study, his points did a pretty good job of invalidating themselves anyways.
They did! You can either bend with how the world is changing or stand against it until you break and it goes its own way anyhow.
I’m building a home next year, it’s gonna have a 220 charger and solar panels.
It is unfortunate how many people will develop an opinion about something without actually giving it a fair shake. I own a Mach-E (non-GT) and am quite happy with it. Unlike the Mustang Bullitt I had previously, I am actually comfortable in this one. It is cheap to drive, looks great sitting next to my diesel 3/4 ton, and is no slug either despite the common misconception (at least in the EV-hating southeast) that all EVs are slow. I support anyone’s right to have an opinion about something. It just seems like a well-formed opinion comes from at least having tested something first. Hopefully more people will be willing to do that before forming judgement against this car (or those similar to it) and those who drive it.
I do find it fun to taunt the “real Mustang” crowd when I tell them that my Mach-E managed to outpace a stock 5.0 from a standstill. And don’t get me started on the fact that the “real Mustang” doesn’t have a rotary engine, propeller, or wings (or hooves if you prefer…). Regardless, love the commentary here and thanks to the site owners who have kept this site running over the years.
Thanks for your comment (and not just for the last line). Enjoy your Mustang; it’s every bit as much a real Mustang as every other car that was called a Mustang, from the Falcon-Stang, the Pinto-Stang, the Fairmont-Stang, and all the rest of them.
The current Stang could be called the “Jaguar S-type Lincoln LS Stang,” except with MacPherson struts.
The current Mustang (S550, not Mach E) actually comes full circle, as the IRS is somewhat similar to the one in the final Australian Falcon. Otherwise it could be called the “Jaguar S-type Lincoln LS Stang”
Just FYI the Mustang airplane that I assume you’re referring to didn’t have a rotary engine; it was a V12. But your comment about the misconception that EV’s are slow is interesting. I think that’s true even outside the SE (I live in California). Of course, most of us here know the reality. A friend who owns a Model 3 thinks that the Plaid Model S is a brilliant tactic by Elon to convert diehard V8 fans into EV lovers. In effect, using 1/4 mile times rather than global warming as the attraction that could create a tipping point towards EV’s. I questioned that … assuming that anything Tesla is far off the radar of your average Dodge Hellcat or tuned diesel truck lover. But then I watched some of the Plaid drag racing YouTube videos and some have millions of views. Those can’t all be fanboys.
Ford: “We own the Mustang name and we can put it on any pathetic mommy-wagon we want to!” Go for it. Driving home with the wife the other day, she spied this odd looking car next to us and said “what the hell is that?”. As I looked over at the car, I instantly burst into laughter and identified the thing. She said “are they really that stupid?!”
I like the classic Mustangs, but if I get an EV, it’d be a Hyundai Ioniq 5. More practical, looks more “classic VW” than the ID.4, and minus the forced Mustang “styling cues” that compromise utility. Without the bulky ICE in the way, EVs should be boxes on skateboards. Mach E has a “frunk” because Mustangs must have a long hood. Free from such styling constraints, the Ioniq 5 has a short hood crammed with electronics, minimal overhangs, maximum interior space. Exactly what an EV should be.
I added the Ioniq sales above. Looks like it is just behind the Mach-E for 2021 calendar sales, but I believe that includes all engine versions and not sure when the Ioniq 5 went on sale.
The Ioniq is very different from the Ioniq5. I don’t think any 5s have been delivered in the US yet. At first Ioniq was a model and now it’s turning into a sub-brand, making the sales numbers confusing.
I find the polarization of perspectives interesting. It seems to me that Ford made a
brilliant decision in branding this as a Mustang. From a marketing/product development
perspective they are currently firing on all cylinders, what with the Bronco, Electric F150
and all.
Internal combustion is going away, that is just how it is.
I’m glad Ford called it the Mustang, if anything, for the hilarious reaction from bitter old people.
+1.
And that’s actually the only reason. There’s no others.
I’m a bitter old person, and a lifelong Mustang fanboy, and I have no problem with the Mach-E. They tossed in a few Mustang styling clues and now it’s a member of the family. The amount of free publicity has been priceless.
My last Mustang was a ’68 with a 170 six and three speed someone had put into it from a wrecked Maverick. It had no power and rode like a pickup truck. I’d probably like this Mustang better than that one but it’s priced out of my league and desire to have a car payment stay under a certain limit.
If it’s fun to drive, reliable and charging stations can be found (there’s a whopping two within ten miles of my home) I can see it becoming a success.
I took one of these for a drive; yes, it’s a blast, like all the powerful EVs. And yes, the original Mustang was a crappy Falcon in disguise, just as this is a CUV in disguise.
Detroit is the master of disguises, because they know what suckers we all are. It’s the essence of their business.
Master of disguises, and not just on cars!
Everything…. ( PR, politics, financial report, headcount, future planning, and probably railway station too )
As a Mustang fan, I had my doubts about these when they were announced. I have even commented here on this site about how I’d never except the name Mustang applied to a CUV.
Well, I can say here now that I have flip-flopped like a politician (oops… sorry Paul… our rules! 😉) on this issue.
While I would much rather see the Mustang name be used on a new all-electric high-performance coupe, say a Shelby GT450KW, I’ve given up on complaining about the CUV-EV with this moniker.
Why the change of heart? I recently got to drive a couple of Dual-Motor Teslas. The first was my nephew’s new Model Y; the second was an in-law’s 2018 Model 3. These were the fastest accelerating vehicles I have ever experienced, full stop.
If the new Mustang Mach E GT accelerates anything like those ‘Ludicrous’ Teslas, it gets as pass in my book for being called a Mustang.
(I’ve got to agree with your daughter on the appearance though. 😉)
Having driven a Mach E, I can assure it it does accelerate very briskly. Depending on the model, maybe not quite as fast as a Tesla, but very fast, nevertheless.
Your experience mirrors that of a great many others. Having once driven a Tesla, their eyes are opened.
But good luck buying one; they’re back ordered for almost a year.
Yes the regular Mach-E is very close (almost indistinguishable to the long range dual motor Model Y in acceleration. The GT should be faster still (more like the Performance Tesla option). Most would have zero need for the GT. And the handling is perhaps slightly better (more entertaining) with more of a rear-bias. Note that that’s for the regular Mach -E and Tesla Y both with awd. Both already quicker than 99percent of all other cars if acceleration is your thing.
Beyond that it acts, drives, and behaves basically like any other car. Good to see you could overcome your bias that as with most such things seems to be due to not being familiar with the object biased against.
Hey, Dodge has a 4 door Charger, the VW GTI is 4 door only also, so a 4 door Mustang is no different, really. In fact, I’m still coming to terms with the lack of a hatchback Accord in the lineup for what, the last 20 years or so. But what does surprise me in the sales figures above is how close the iD4 is to the Mach E. I feel like I’ve seen far more of the Ford than the VW on the road recently. I’m not really a CUV guy and I think a lot of the Ford styling details are awkward but it seems like a decent EV and I wish it success.
I agree, they should still have a hatchback Accord! Because they now have a hatchback Mustang. SUV, crossover, call it what you will but it is basically a 4 door hatchback.
I like the current Charger and the 94-96 Impala SS and the GTI 4 door, but all those cars would be infinitely cooler in my mind if they were proper coupes. But the reality of the world these days is that there is a very limited market for 2 door cars.
Seeing a new Mach-E going down the freeway a few weeks ago, it appeared squarely in the CUV styling idiom, neither exciting nor ugly. It seems the badging is the issue, for the most part, not the car itself.
Like Jeeps, Miatas, and other beloved nameplates specifically identified with particular vehicles, the Mustang logo seems to carry its own baggage. Porsche got away with moving away from the 911 derivations with its brand, and Mercedes has managed to turn out an AMG version of just about everything it builds, so Ford, too, is moving the Mustang around in the lineup. Given that the traditional notion of a Mustang is probably dead in the water in a few years, other than as a dedicated bodyshell for a NASCAR cookie-cutter race car chassis, it makes sense for Ford to go somewhere with the Mustang brand. The alternative is to let the brand die. I’m actually OK with either choice by Ford. The world moves on, and things change.
Ford has gotten about 1,000,0000,000 percent more free publicity by naming it the Mustang Mach-E than naming it the Edge Mach-E. This particular post likely wouldn’t have been written if that was the case for example.
And they lost realistically about zero sales due to it. Most “Mustang fans” railing against it were never going to consider buying an EV anyway, at least not yet…
I am not so sure the E-Mustang exploits or “uses up” the Mustang brand, so much as perpetuates it in a different kind of car. There is room to extend the badge to new electric “performance” Ford vehicles of various sorts in the future.
It is interesting to me how certain people feel the need to “protect” a brand with their firmly-held opinions. Car companies simply can’t buy such loyalties, they must earn them over time. It then creates the question of how far and where to go with the brand, without burning too many bridges with those who are “loyal” to the brand—whether or not they will buy a new example at all, but perhaps instead polish and maintain the old one 🙂
Given that the new E-Mustang appears to be a very competent offering, placed squarely in one of the most popular categories (CUVs), and one that Tesla has not exploited with an offering that lines up directly as an e-powered alternative to an RAV or CR-V, it makes a ton of sense for Ford to do this.
Mustang has survived a number of bad iterations over the decades. I don’t think Ford has anything to worry about.
Electric vehicles will need to spark passion in mainstream car buyers if they are ever to become naturally popular without depending on government subsidies or mandates.
EVs are all too “naturally popular” at this stage of the game, which is of course still early days. Demand for EVs grossly outstrips supply; order a Tesla today and it could be close to a year before it arrives. The Mach-E is sold out; Ford has many more orders (over 160k) for their F-150 EV than they will be able to make.
Here’s the simple reality: manufacturers cannot just quickly ramp up EV production, because of the huge shortage of battery cells, which require brand new production facilities as well as access to increasingly scarce raw materials.
The current ramp up in EV production to meet existing demand will out of necessity take years, and even then it will still be only a modest percentage of the market. If demand keeps growing rapidly, as it currently is, the whole process will stretch out for quite some time.
This transition to EVs is unlike any previous change in the market. The huge downsizing and shift to FWD in the late 70s and 80s was a cataclysmic even for Detroit, but they were still able to use their existing factories and suppliers to build these new smaller FWD cars. That’s not the case with EVs; the change is much more profound.
While it may be interesting to watch the sales stats of EVs compared to conventional cars, they don’t really reflect the underlying demand, not only current, but at what rate the demand for EVs is growing.
It’s an apples to oranges comparison. And frankly, “passion” is not what drives the bulk of the car market. You think Rav4 and CRV buyers are “passionate”?
Passion drives the fringes of the market. And it’s certainly what’s driving the EV market so far; ask any Tesla owner about their passion.
The question is: how big can that passion for Teslas (and such) grow, and at what point do EVs just become logical choices, like buying a Rav4 or CRV?
What a fascinating time to be alive, to be seeing the fundamental change in the automotive power source from petroleum to electricity. It’s amazing to see just how quickly it’s unfolding.
I have no problem with the name, but I wish Ford had ditched all the Mustang clichés. They did it once before. The 1979-1993 Mustang was a clean start with not even a horse badge anywhere. Ford should have taken this opportunity for a clean break as well.
Without the prancing ponies and tailights, a 4 door CUV’s connection to the Mustang would be tenuous indeed. It would be bolder without it, but for marketing purposes, I don’t see how they could avoid it.
The Fox Mustang was at its core a Mustang in the original mold. About the same size as the original and a sporty coupe based on the chassis of a high volume car. Eshewing traditional cues was bold, but the car was so intrinsically Mustang (and appealing) it wasnt a problem.
I wonder how proponents of the Mach E would feel about it if it were gasoline powered only, any criticism of it seems to unleash the EV mob when the vast majority of us who dislike it dislike it because it looks like a 20 year old Infiniti FX with Mustang taillights hastily grafted on. I don’t particularly like EVs myself for visceral reasons, but if there were a choice between this and and an EV coupe I’d still pick the coupe if you put a gun to my head.
Maybe that was the true marketing genius of Ford, make detractors seem like technological luddites while the elephant in the room(literally based on its looks) is quietly ignored as the more costly sedan coupe Mustang can gradually be phased out and eventually share platforms with some other Ford EV crossover in the future. (Cough, Mercury Cougar Villager, cough)
As far as upsetting the older demographics who like the old Mustang, from my perspective at 33 the whole shift towards crossovers parallels the aging median buying demographic for new cars. These seem like they’d only appeal to older demographic of Mustang buyers who ONLY cherish the nostalgia of the name but need something that won’t bust their hips getting in. It’s telling in the first commercial for it it was owned by a much older Clark Griswold, who has a great vehicle purchase history.
They’d probably wonder when or if Ford would ever be embracing the future or more likely wouldn’t bother discussing it to begin with, it’d be just another car. The MachE is a good EV possessing a great and historic name that generates an untold amount of free publicity and more goodwill than bad will. The name though is immaterial to most actual buyers.
It’s interesting that the next Ford EV will be the F150, likely representing the only possible vehicle style with an even more “traditional” buyer base than that of the ponycar proponents, and it seems to not get anywhere near the vitriol as that of Mustang fans.
What I’m curious about is if the author of this post who actually owns a recent Mustang and also has a family that has a medium size Toyota CUV would be more or less likely to shop a Mustang MachE if they decided to take a close look at the EV market for vehicles that might fit their needs.
Or, a question for you – should you ever find yourself in a family situation where your significant other was interested in a CUV and an Electric one at that, would you take a look at the various offerings on their actual merits or simply declare that the Mustang MachE is off limits due to the name and styling cues and how it seems to offend you? How something looks is immaterial to how it performs its function and you are well established as disliking all CUVs so no biggie there, it wouldn’t be your primary ride anyway.
They’d probably wonder when or if Ford would ever be embracing the future or more likely wouldn’t bother discussing it to begin with, it’d be just another car.
That’s the rub. The original Mustang was just another compact car (Falcon)in the technical sense, but its image couldn’t have been further at the time. Being in favor of mining 50 years of goodwill from a car to make the EV a success whilst chastising anyone who dislikes it because it’s a huge departure from anything made in those 50 years is the very definition of hypocritical.
It’s interesting that the next Ford EV will be the F150, likely representing the only possible vehicle style with an even more “traditional” buyer base than that of the ponycar proponents, and it seems to not get anywhere near the vitriol as that of Mustang fans.
I wasn’t too keen on them using the Lightning name to be honest because to me the Lightning of my childhood was a lowered stepside singlecab with blower whine and side exit exhaust, and I’m a little disappointed that there won’t ever be anything like that built by Ford again, but there are more vehicles that fit those needs in the last 10 years than in the 90s so, it’s not a big loss. Moreover, the Lightning is still a F150, Ford didn’t morph the design to something completely different to “create a buzz”, it’s simply just another crewcab F150 but one that has a frunk. As I said earlier, The EV part of the Mustang Mach E buries the lead which is it’s a 5 door crossover – That is 99% of what we don’t like.
Yes it’s off limits in that scenario, and my significant other would understand that. Besides which I let people who want to be on the bleeding edge of progress do the bleeding. The EV system may well be excellent on the Mach E but it’s still a Ford and electrification doesn’t magically cure corrosion problems, paint delamination, brittle window regulators, leaks and all sorts of other little stuff that can end up plaguing them after a few years. I don’t want to be stuck with a mild facsimile of a Mustang I hate and it be a POS. I can tolerate that on a coupe but not this
What I’m curious about is if the author of this post who actually owns a recent Mustang and also has a family that has a medium size Toyota CUV would be more or less likely to shop a Mustang MachE if they decided to take a close look at the EV market for vehicles that might fit their needs.
To answer your question, if I was in the market for a new compact CUV and wanted a BEV, I would not hold my reservations about the Mach-E concept against the car. I’d look at all the various models in that category and choose the best one. If all else were equal, the tiebreaker would go to the Mach-E because of the Mustang connection. I’d embrace it and get it in Kona Blue to match my other one.
Whether I would actually get a BEV is another matter. We don’t drive enough for the fuel savings to outweigh the extra cost, and the family truckster gets taken on road trips, which is not the wheelhouse of BEV’s at this point. While admittedly I’m not an expert on EV’s, I’m not sold that EVs are an environmental savior, between intensive manufacture, rare earth minerals (plus the problem of the countries they have to be obtained from) and other toxic chemicals in the batteries. If EV’s were to become the primary type of vehicle, I am haunted by the thought of 10’s or 100’s of millions of used batteries piled up wherever those get sent to, joining all the discarded batteries we already have from our endless tech gadgets. How good for the environment could that be?
There are multiple ventures that are recycling EV batteries. As well as those from phones, laptops, etc. EV batteries are the big prize due to the sheer volume of material per unit. There won’t be piles of them, there’s money to be made. It’s not like the 12v lead acid batteries get tossed at the roadside or landfill, they are worth money too and have been recycled for decades.
Here’s just one company at the forefront: https://li-cycle.com/
And one of the early Tesla guys just went off to start another battery recycling company. There are others as well.
Well, that’s good to know!
If Ford is going to make electric Mustangs, why not make an electric version of the car instead of a cross over if you want to find a way to get their “real” Mustang customers to come over to EV’s? Something that when you see it, ticks the right boxes as an actual Mustang car and while they’re at it, it blows the doors off its gas powered ancestors.
What has been of interest to me, is converting an older gas powered car into electric. There is a series of You Tube videos where a couple of gentlemen from Sweden convert a 1966 Impala to electric using a fair amount of recycled Tesla and other parts to make a car that turned out quite nicely. The video I’m linking to is the finished product. https://youtu.be/8McUViPbh6M The builder is a guy named Jan Karlander who has a series of build videos on this car.
I’m even more interested in a guy who converted his 1972 Plymouth Satellite into a Tesla powered EV because he’s doing that work to a unibody car and I have two old Mopars that might lend themselves well to that kind of conversion if I don’t know, somehow, manage to have a winning Powerball ticket.
As I could get the Mach-E with AWD, I’d buy that version of the Mustang before I’d buy any other.
Ford stock is at a 10 year high today.
My youngest daughter, now 42 years old, drives a Shelby Mustang, her third.
My other car is a 2005 Mustang GT convertible, my 5th.
Ford is still alive, despite screwing the pooch with the Mach E.
Cheers!
Screwed the pooch? I don’t see it. The Mach-E is the first and only Mustang I’ve ever found appealing; the only one I’ve ever caught myself thinking about while daydreaming about what-car-if-money’s-no-object.
Dan, I’m gad that you really like the mach E, and that’s a personal thing. I don’t care for certain year Vettes, but I’d love to have my 1965 Vette back.
As far as past and current Mustang owners go, the Mach E is a departure from the actual Mustang history of two door performance and fun cars. This expression by Mustang fans has been all over the media and maybe that was purposeful in order to get attention to the Mach E? Cheap marketing cost on Ford’s part!
I’m all for EV’s, but putting the Pony on the front of this EV in order to attempt to make buyer’s think they are getting a car in the Mustang family is stretching it a bit.
They could have named it something else.
A buddy just bought one. He says it’s thousands cheaper than an equivalent Tesla, plus far nicer (he likes having an actual dashboard).
One day he kept insisting that he bought it because wanted to be “green”, explaining that he was a responsible caretaker of the earth, scoffing at men who drove inefficient trucks. He clearly wanted me to acknowledge his virtue.
Instead, I responded that the greenest car possible was one that was already built. He was stung by the suggestion.
He might’ve been stung for no reason. Yours is a meme popular among old-car enthusiasts, but you might want to do some more and wider reading on the subject. There are a lot of variables, so there’s no pat yes/no answer, but a lot of the thoughtful, rigourous study of the matter I’ve seen concludes a new car’s greater efficiency and/or lesser pollution pretty quickly pays back the ecological debts incurred in its manufacture—not in absolute terms, of course, but relative to the older car it replaces.
My glib remark was more in response to several harsh comments about truck drivers and ignorant, environment-hating Albertans, comments preceded by “no offence”, making them even more obnoxious. (I’m an Albertan who drives a 2003 F150).
There are obviously merits on both sides of the argument. Still, I wanted to cut him down a notch.
I would say that would be the case if the older car was scrapped/recycled.
Since that is unlikely to happen, you have an old vehicle that is likely to
not be as well maintained as it slips further down the food chain in addition to
the new car. As an example, if I replaced my current 30 year old daily driver
that is all stock, running properly, and sold it down the line, I am sure it would
have the cat cut off immediately and be tuned in such as way as to billow out
100 times the pollution it currently does.
On the flip side however if you are maintaining the old car, and using parts from scrapped cars to keep it on the road there’s a pretty good argument for this mentality. I put a different engine in my 27 year old Cougar than the one it came with, and used the factory 4 cat exhaust system from the (newer) car it was removed from.
Plus there’s equivalency, If I didn’t like my old car so much I’d probably make the lateral shift to the closest modern equivalent to it being one of the big three ponycars or a Dodge Charger instead, and I’d probably modify it too eventually, as many people clearly do with “off road” exhausts and aftermarket tunes. Plus people who keep 30 year old cars tend to do so for beyond what their economic means allow, they probably like them for some intrinsic bond or desire they have for them and are in fact willing to maintain them better than average and not necessarily drive them as their primary vehicle, they’re not polluting if they’re sitting in a garage.
But yeah I never liked using that quote, it’s just countering virtuosity with more virtuosity. Just be honest and say you like your old car better, not everything has to have a rational data driven reasoning behind it.
This is a very complex issue, and the inconvenient truth is that things are not looking quite so green for EVs as commonly expounded. The painful reality is that although it’s easy to predict an EV’s CO2 “output” based on sources of the electricity. But the dirty not-so secret reality is that the embedded CO2 in the manufacture of EVs is significantly higher than for conventional vehicles. It gets worse: there’s absolutely no standards for measuring that embedded carbon footprint, as its in the mining, refining of raw materials for the batteries as well as their manufacture.
Also, because EVs are heavier, they require much greater use of aluminum, which has a higher embedded carbon footprint.
I could go on, but before anyone makes any assumptions, here’s an excellent article on the subject (by a neutral source):
https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/22/the-tough-calculus-of-emissions-and-the-future-of-evs/
Its conclusion is one I have been supporting all along: instead of putting all the incentives and mandates on just EVs, the goal should be total carbon reduction across the fleet. Hybrids can reduce carbon emission by up to 50% and their manufacture is much less carbon intensive than EVs (their batteries are tiny in comparison).
It’s going to be essentially impossible to switch to 100% EVs in the near future, due to raw material limitations as well as manufacturing facilities. The government should do more to affect a reduction of carbon in the rest of the fleet. Stronger and effective CAFE requirements, or other effective incentives. The whole non-EV fleet should have been hybridized by now. But many manufacturers are skipping over that step to 100% EVs. I fear that as the numbers on true embedded carbon footprint of making EVs comes out, there may well be a backlash, one that may become political, and ugly.
My personal bottom line is that given the low number of miles I rack up in a year, I cannot at this time feel 100% certain that it makes environmental sense for me/us to buy an EV, given its unquantified but undoubtedly very high embedded carbon footprint when new. If I drove a lot, that equation might well be different.
But the issue is this: there is no accountability or any standards for measuring the embedded carbon footprint of EVs. That’s the gist of that article, and it’s hardly the first time I’ve come across similar disconcerting information.
Unfortunately, there are few simple panaceas.
I would like to see the government spend more on incentives to improve the energy efficiencies of our older housing stock. That was once very much a front-burner issue (“Cash for Caulkers”) during the Obama years; it came very close to fruition. I hear nothing about that in the current proposals.
Beyond the CO2 issue, there are the battery production and recycling issues, and the potential for exploitative child and hazardous labor practices, along with basic environmental destruction issues, in the mining of the metals needed for the current technologies of electric cars. The indirect environmental cost of producing a new ICE car is impossible to calculate as well. The list goes on, and it all is very difficult to quantify and judge, given that most sources of information have various axes to grind or things to hide, and don’t seem to very objective (or non-agenda-driven) at all.
I am of the mind to thoroughly use up what I have, and then opt for something newer when the need is there and jumping to a new ride is unavoidable. All in the context of keeping the current DD’s as tuned, proper, and environmentally non-destructive as possible.
there are the battery production and recycling issues, and the potential for exploitative child and hazardous labor practices,
As to recycling, there’s zero concern on my part, as the demand for the materials in used-up batteries is so huge, there financial incentives to recycle are overwhelming. I’m absolutely convinced that essentially 99.99% of lion car batteries will be recycled. And there’s a whole industry unfolding to do it. Google “Redwood Materials”.
Most/all EV companies have made it an issue to source materials that do not involve child labor. But then that may not be always 100% possible to do everywhere. That’s more of a social issue, as children can/are exploited in many industries.
Fracking for oil in and under US neighborhoods within a few hundred feet of schools and playgrounds, contaminating groundwater, sending young adults aboard to fight (and yes, sometimes die in) wars to secure oil production, air pollution, etc is all the other side of the inconvenient truth about good old oil…let’s not pretend that gasoline gets milked from free-range golden cows in Vermont or something…
Albertan oil is safely pumped from wells with the help of steam and gravity (among other technologies). The oil workers are well-paid and well-treated. Canada is a friendly neighbor. The emissions are reduced constantly.
Biden said no to Canadian oil, and is now pressuring eastern dictatorships and dirty producers to increase production to bring prices down.
Alberta’s tar sands oil is (still) among the most carbon-intensive oil produced on planet Earth. That might be one of the reasons why US President Biden cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline.
Great looking car almost as fast as my Tesla but with more room. And the pony still faces “west” as Ford claim… My solar panels charge my car every day for free so there’s $100 a week saved on dinosaur juice. Yes I know I had to buy the panels and pollute the world but the output is plentiful in sunny Oz. Did I mention no servicing and minimal brake pad wear? And the exclamations by friends who drive it always include a series of four letter words to make their feelings known…
Your daughter is VERY perceptive! 🙂 DFO
To my eyes it looks more like a current Mazda with Mustang taillights and badges. Change them, and if you told me it was a Mazda CX-E I’d believe you.
My wife likes (and has always done so) BMW and Mercedes – for aesthetic reasons. They have, in the past, looked good to her. She has been noticing various BMW and Mercedes “coupes” that are five door, hunchback, high rider CUVs. They’re odd and unattractive to her and don’t seem to her to be what the badge says they are. This is the same reaction Jon’s daughter has to the similar in shape Mustang Mach-E.
What these females admire is the style they equate with the brand name they know. The Mach-E and those German “coupes” don’t have it.
I’m not offended by the “Maverick” name on what seems to be a very nice, usable small truck. At least it does use gasoline.
Not w/o precedent:
OUCH!
It wasn’t meant as “ouch.” Times were a changing, and the 74 Goat was not a bad car for the era:
…the ’74 posted a best quarter-mile pass of 15.72 seconds at 88 mph, while the ’64 model was slightly quicker, turning 15.64 at 90 mph. Zero-to-60-mph times for the two were similar at 7.7 and 7.4 seconds, respectively. But even though the new model was not as quick, writers raved not only about its performance balance, but also how much ride and handling had improved since its inception.
https://www.motortrend.com/features/hppp-0602-1974-pontiac-gto/
I actually agree, from what I’ve read the 74 GTO is not that bad of a car functionally. It has a terrible reputation though as a legacy destroying infiltrator and sad last chapter. Somehow moving it to the NOVA platform seemed extremely cheapening, even if the performance and handling wasnt bad for 1974 and was probably more in the spirit of the 64 than the earlier 70’s goats.
I don’t particularly like the 74 GTO(I think the idea of putting performance in a lighter body was right, but Pontiac was pretty late to the party given 340 Darts and Dusters and not to mention Novas already were doing it 4 years and more prior) but few ever seem to even remember the Collonade based 1973 model, which in reality was no better as far as style content or performance than the Ventura based 74, to my eyes it’s a much sadder looking car than it.
I actually was thinking of the 73 in my comment. What would be the worst legacy: ending with the bloated 73 or the Nova 74? I think they ended it better with the Nova, even if it seemed like a big comedown.
I have a magazine article about the prototype SD455 73 GTO that was road tested but never actually released. THAT would have been a good ending.
Already a dead horse, but hand me the stick! The idea of Mustang as a “brand” seems ludicrous to me. It’s just a single model of a Ford. Could the name have been used on a whole range of different models, like the Cougar? Coupe, sedan, and wagon. From reports I’ve seen it’s a pretty good electric car or cross over. Could Ford build an electric or hybrid real Mustang? They could, but the sales are not going to justify the investment. I do agree that it should have been called The Edge Mach E, but all the hub bub is a lot of free publicity. I saw a lot of coverage of the new electric F150, is that not a real F150? From the reports I’ve seen that’s a pretty impressive truck. I think that the change over to electrics will be somewhat gradual, it depends on if you have charging facilities available where you live or work. Lot’s of people live in apartments with only a parking lot or curb parking available. It also depends if you have the money to buy a new vehicle, many of us don’t. I don’t know that the grid could handle an overnight change, but I;m sure that expansion is planned. Ford is planning to build a couple of huge battery plants in the South, GM had those commercials displaying their electric platform last year. Almost five dollar a gallon gas will win some converts!
At one time the name Ford was synonymous with Model T. The world changed, Ford had to also which brought the Model A, and so it goes. I applaud Ford for reading the tea leaves and trying something new. I’ve seen a couple of Mach E’s in the wild and they are a sharp vehicle. The biggest issue that I see is the name Mach E. In a non rhotic New England accent it sounds just like Marquis, as in Mercury Marquis and Grand Marquis-Grandma Kee. Not quite the image that they are seeking. If we can have a Maverick pickup truck then this Mustang doesn’t seem so far fetched. Can a new Thunderbird SUV CUV be far off?
I have been on this site for years. I generally enjoy the articles and the comments. However, I have to say that this thread has some of the nastiest and demeaning comments of any that I have encountered over the years. It sure isn’t as civil as I have come to expect.
So, I’m older than some of those making condescending remarks and I don’t like cars who claim to be emission free when they essentially run on coal. I am also to the age where I don’t give a damn what other people think of me.
I have to say that this thread has some of the nastiest and demeaning comments of any that I have encountered over the years.
I don’t see any actually nasty or demeaning comments. EV’s are a polarizing subject, obviously, and they tend to stimulate comments that reflect that. Speaking of, you’ve made one yourself. EV’s don’t “essentially run on coal”. That’s simply untrue. In 2020, 19.3% of US total electricity was generated by coal, and that number is steadily decreasing. You’re throwing gas on the fire, instead of helping to put it out.
Well speaking as a long time Ford owner and a 2nd Gen Mustang owner, as opposed to another manufacturer owner, I am ok with calling it a Mach E. Nothing on that car evokes the name Mustang for me except for the tailights on the blah rear end. From the side it looks like many any other car that I can’t tell one make from the other. It will simply be another car, although it looks more hatchback to me, and not get a second glance from me.
In short I won’t be going ooh a Mustang and may not even be going ooh a Ford. Just not my cup of tea which is why I was done with new car buying for me in 2004 for the rest of my life. Little has appealed to me since although most of that has to do with the severe lack of visibility which bothers me a very great deal and makes me extremely uncomfortable.
You know, maybe we’re approaching this all wrong. Haven’t we been clamoring for a Mustang Shooting Brake for decades? Now we finally get one and all we do is complain!
LOL! Good point!
I agree with your daughter…..
I was behind one the other day while driving home from work. It reminded me of a potato with Mustang styling cues drawn all over it.
Ford has done an excellent job on the technological end of the deal. I wish they would’ve just called it the ‘Mach-E’ (no Mustang name badge) and given the vehicle a chance at having its own unique identity, rather than confuse the works by “Mustanging” up. Did Ford not learn from their 1977 Mercury Cougar experience?
If the Mustang could survive its name being slapped on the Mustang II; it will survive being on an EV, which honestly, I find quite attractive.
I’m an old white guy, and I’m fine with EV’s; however I do have concerns –
I wouldn’t want to bring one on a long road trip, given the need to find recharging stations (becoming less of a problem) and the fact it takes a while to fill ‘er up (still a problem).
If the country goes all out for EV’s, we are going to need better electric generation and transmission infrastructure; and it can’t all be solar panels and windmills. Storage needs to get much better, and no one wants more nuclear, which to me is the best zero-carbon generation option.
I think making Ford’s first big EV a Mustang was brilliant. Everyone knows coupe and convertible sales are in the toilet, yet Ford has serious equity in the Stang name. SUVs sell. EVs have a stuffy, too-eco vibe (read “Leaf”) so enticing new buyers to the EV life needs to have a sexy brand, speed and the Mustang Mach E totally accomplishes that.
I’m a Volvo, Sienna type of guy. There is no world where a standart Mustang works in my life unless it’s a 1965 convertible, but I’ve “built” on line, Mach Es several times. THIS is a Ford, and a Mustang I could consider owning. And that’s why it’s smart.