“Next Gen” Mustang Will be Electric (EV) Only Claims Autoline

[Mikthehun1]

Have you heard of the saying 'fight fire with fire' I reply in a style mirroring the original post. Treat me nice and I'll treat you the same !

I haven't seen any evidence to support this assertion. You've been condescending to people, even when they weren't addressing you. Don't try to match us in a shit-slinging contest, we're the biggest apes around

Norm, you’re rewriting history. The Mustang that arrived in 1964 was designed and sold as a car for secretaries. It was a cute little 2 door coupe with a so so 6 cylinder engine. I know, my wife had one. Things, of course, changed when CS became involved, but at the beginning the car was hardly a “measure of defiance”.

Part of it was also to capture the youth market, no? Boomers no less

Sponsored

 

[Norm Peterson]

Norm, you’re rewriting history. The Mustang that arrived in 1964 was designed and sold as a car for secretaries. It was a cute little 2 door coupe with a so so 6 cylinder engine. I know, my wife had one. Things, of course, changed when CS became involved, but at the beginning the car was hardly a “measure of defiance”.

You're forgetting that even the 1965 Mustang was also available with a 260 CID V8 and with fastback styling. Definitely 'sporty' at a time when the average compact and intermediate cars were essentially smaller (and more lightly equipped) versions of each make's larger cars.

Your "secretary" would have bought a sixxer Mustang out of active preference to a Falcon or possibly a Fairlane (both of those being the kind of stodgy grocery-getters her Dad would have bought for her Mom's use or for his own mindless commuting reasons).


Norm

 

[NoVaGT]

...If the Norwegians were talking about it then fair enough, but they are not talking about it , they are doing it...

They've passed legislation. Offered some tax incentives. But other than that, what have they actually done? Next to nothing. Having maybe 3-4% of cars on their roads as EVs has absolutely NOTHING to do with having 100% EVs.

The Norwegians absolutely cannot get to 100% EVs on the road. It simply cannot happen. They can't even get to 20%, or thereabouts.

And once this is made very clear, the legal mandate will disappear.

Why is this so unclear for you?

 

[Hack]

Norm, you’re rewriting history. The Mustang that arrived in 1964 was designed and sold as a car for secretaries. It was a cute little 2 door coupe with a so so 6 cylinder engine. I know, my wife had one. Things, of course, changed when CS became involved, but at the beginning the car was hardly a “measure of defiance”.

I think you are equating the word "defiance" with violence or muscle. I think "bucking the current trends" might be another way to express what Norm was stating. The Mustang was small, simple, sporty and relatively inexpensive when it came out. And that defied the trends of the day.

Current trends are big, fat and expensive cars (and EVs seem to be following that trend if you look at the Mach E or whatever Ford is calling it) - so I definitely think that a return to the Mustang's original premise would be refreshing.

 

[Gregs24]

They've passed legislation. Offered some tax incentives. But other than that, what have they actually done? Next to nothing. Having maybe 3-4% of cars on their roads as EVs has absolutely NOTHING to do with having 100% EVs.

The Norwegians absolutely cannot get to 100% EVs on the road. It simply cannot happen. They can't even get to 20%, or thereabouts.

And once this is made very clear, the legal mandate will disappear.

Why is this so unclear for you?

The clarity loss is yours.

You can't even get the figures right - over 17% of all cars on the road in Norway are now EV or PHEV with 54% of new cars EV, so increasing fast. Pretty close to the 20% you say is impossible.

I completely understand if you don't like EV's but don't make stuff up to suit your narrative.

 

[Bikeman315]

I think you are equating the word "defiance" with violence or muscle. I think "bucking the current trends" might be another way to express what Norm was stating. The Mustang was small, simple, sporty and relatively inexpensive when it came out. And that defied the trends of the day.

Current trends are big, fat and expensive cars (and EVs seem to be following that trend if you look at the Mach E or whatever Ford is calling it) - so I definitely think that a return to the Mustang's original premise would be refreshing.

That's a good point Mike. But honestly the Mustang we got in 1964 was a merchandising, and not an engineering marvel. If we had gotten the car that was originally thought of, 2 seater, mid engine, that would have been truly defiant.

 

[Bikeman315]

You're forgetting that even the 1965 Mustang was also available with a 260 CID V8 and with fastback styling. Definitely 'sporty' at a time when the average compact and intermediate cars were essentially smaller (and more lightly equipped) versions of each make's larger cars.

I'm not forgetting Norm, but really the 260 CID was nothing to brag about either. And as far as the competition what about the Corvette, the Corvair, and , of course, Ford's own Thunderbird. And let's not forget the actual first Pony car, the Barracuda.

Of course everything changed pretty quickly but I never thought of the Mustang as revolutionary. At least not in an engineering point of view. On the other hand, like it or not, for Ford the Mach-E is revolutionary.

 

[Bikeman315]

The clarity loss is yours.

You can't even get the figures right - over 17% of all cars on the road in Norway are now EV or PHEV with 54% of new cars EV, so increasing fast. Pretty close to the 20% you say is impossible.

I completely understand if you don't like EV's but don't make stuff up to suit your narrative.

Greg, chalk it up to American arrogance. If we do not do it first and/or best it doesn't count. And recently there is little we are doing either of. Instead of minimizing what Norway, England, and others are doing, we should try and learn everything we can.

Like him or not that's what Elon does. And that's why Tesla is light years ahead of the rest of the industry in the design and manufacturing of electric vehicles.

 

[Blithe16]

Let me just say I am for technological innovation. However, reading some of the posts on this thread just made me want to post this

 

[IronG]

I'm not going to go down the wormhole that a 'discussion' on such a subject would end up. You are I'm sure well aware of why EV's are being introduced. Whether you agree with that or not is your personal opinion, nothing more nothing less.

In the US, residential cars (including SUV's and pickups) account for about 14%. So even if you remove that 14% with all EV's you still will have a problem...yes? The reason cars are the big thing is that there is money to be made. In almost every other major area that produces CO2, there is little to no profit. Maybe the electric companies make money, but only because they will raise prices to pay for all the renewalable tech needed to replace fossil fuel plants. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | US EPA

Don't let Musk fool you, he did what he did to fund all his pet projects. Creating and building EV's was his strategy for building his empire. I would say he completely bamboozled everyone. He got lucky a few years ago when he was about to go bankrupt. He would have gone done as a complete and utter failure. As it turned out, he has a cult following that has boosted his stock to epic proportions. Also he is a bit looney, but I guess super geniuses are a bit off in some way.

If you really want to save the environment, forget about cars and put all the money into the 86%. Without taking care of the big hitters, moving to EV's won't mean a damn thing.

 

[Hack]

That's a good point Mike. But honestly the Mustang we got in 1964 was a merchandising, and not an engineering marvel. If we had gotten the car that was originally thought of, 2 seater, mid engine, that would have been truly defiant.

I don't think anyone said it was an engineering marvel. It was a very good looking design and made for people who didn't earn much money. A very cheap car. At about $20,000 in today's dollars for a Mustang back then, it wasn't meant for a family but more for young people.

And I don't think the Barracuda counts as the first pony car. It was too fugly. Only after the Mustang came out did people realize how important better styling was. Pony car isn't as simple as being a small, cheap car. I think the styling piece is underestimated. The breed is named pony car because a million Mustangs had already sold in early 1966. The 1964 Barracuda sold ~23,000 units. It really doesn't even count as competition.

 

[IronG]

Greg, chalk it up to American arrogance. If we do not do it first and/or best it doesn't count. And recently there is little we are doing either of. Instead of minimizing what Norway, England, and others are doing, we should try and learn everything we can.

Like him or not that's what Elon does. And that's why Tesla is light years ahead of the rest of the industry in the design and manufacturing of electric vehicles.

Not sure it is American arrogance due to someone else doing something first. It is a fool's errand to think that going to EV's will save the planet. Why waste your time on the little fish that will get caught on its own and dismiss the whales that are going to net you much bigger gains. I am all for a clean and healthy environment. If the government wants to start forcing things to happen do it where it will make the most good. Oh right yeah....easier to feign virtue by imposing restrictions on the people because that is who is easiest to control. Why lose your funding for the next election by pissing off the big donors.

 

[Gregs24]

In the US, residential cars (including SUV's and pickups) account for about 14%. So even if you remove that 14% with all EV's you still will have a problem...yes? The reason cars are the big thing is that there is money to be made. In almost every other major area that produces CO2, there is little to no profit. Maybe the electric companies make money, but only because they will raise prices to pay for all the renewalable tech needed to replace fossil fuel plants. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | US EPA

Don't let Musk fool you, he did what he did to fund all his pet projects. Creating and building EV's was his strategy for building his empire. I would say he completely bamboozled everyone. He got lucky a few years ago when he was about to go bankrupt. He would have gone done as a complete and utter failure. As it turned out, he has a cult following that has boosted his stock to epic proportions. Also he is a bit looney, but I guess super geniuses are a bit off in some way.

If you really want to save the environment, forget about cars and put all the money into the 86%. Without taking care of the big hitters, moving to EV's won't mean a damn thing.

Europe is working on all of those sectors, not just private cars. Even steel production alternatives to coke by using hydrogen are being developed - one of the most difficult areas of fossil fuel use to replace.

Musk is supplying a product to demand, if people didn't want EV's or they didn't work they wouldn't buy them. My brother in law has done nearly 70k miles in his Model 3 so he is well beyond the 'does it work phase'.

Personally not a fan of Tesla - badly made overhyped cars in my opinion. However there are some fantastic EV's around now from more established car makers. As was mentioned before if you drive a compact 1.0 family car an EV will easily replace that.

 

[GP2017GT]

I think when we get to this point is the only time I will consider an EV. Damn the grandkids, let them fend for themselves like we did.

 

[Norm Peterson]

The clarity loss is yours.

You can't even get the figures right - over 17% of all cars on the road in Norway are now EV or PHEV with 54% of new cars EV, so increasing fast. Pretty close to the 20% you say is impossible.

In the overall scheme of things it really doesn't matter how soon 20% is reached. What probably is important is that even triple that is still a long way from 100%. And current purchase rates suggests (rather strongly, I suspect) that 54% could actually represent an asymptotic limit based on mostly free consumer choice where the ICE option still exists.


Norm

Sponsored