By on June 15, 2021

Ford

It’s almost a cliché at this point.

“The Mustang Mach-E is a great crossover,” they say. “It’s quick, it’s capable, it’s got great range — it’s even pretty good-looking for a crossover. But it’s not a real Mustang.”

There are a lot of “theys” saying stuff like that, too. And they’re all wrong. Yes, even you — because the Mach-E is every inch a Mustang. And, arguably, the most “Mustang” Mustang ever.

To explain why we’ll need to establish what it is that makes a Mustang a Mustang. As such, I hope you’ll indulge me in a bit of a history lesson that starts in 1962, with the original Ford Mustang concept car.

FORD MUSTANG I CONCEPT

Mustang mythology teaches us that the Mustang began in 1964, with a front-engine, rear-drive coupe introduced by Lee Iacocca in Ford’s first-ever international press conference, but that’s not what really happened. The push for a sporting Ford actually started years earlier, with the car you see above.

Meet the Ford Mustang I — a lightweight, fiberglass-bodied speedster designed by Roy Lunn and crafted by Troutman-Barnes of Culver City, California. His original Ford Mustang was powered by a rear-mounted V4 engine and four-speed transaxle tuned to a reported 89 horsepower and sourced from a European Ford Taunus (not Taurus) P3. The car was seen, internally, as a response to the fiberglass-bodied Corvette being sold by Ford’s crosstown rivals at Chevy and as a potential alternative to the incoming flood of sporty European cars like the Porsche 356.

That original Mustang I was eventually deemed too extreme — and too expensive — to reach production, but you can see the influence it had on Ford’s designers. That rear engine needed cooling, so the original Mustang I needed side vents. The Mustangs that came after? Not so much.

1963 MUSTANG CONCEPT II

Ford

In 1963, Ford released a second concept called Mustang. This looked a lot more like the long-hood, short-deck Mustang we know today. It had fake side vents and the same sort of pointy, rocket-age nose as the rear-engined original, too. The message was clear:  This car isn’t the Mustang we promised. It just looks like it.

Well, as much as a car that was built using Ford Falcon bits and powered by a front-mounted, “High Performance” Ford V8 can look like a rear-engined two-seater, anyway.

As for that V8, it made a reported (there’s that word again) to produce 271 HP — 20 more than the standard 327 cubic inch V8 that was standard in the 1963 Corvette made — and serves as a direct visual link between the original Mustang concept and the 1964 production car. They even put the now-iconic pony logo in the same spot on the car — take a look.

1964½ FORD MUSTANG

Ford

Great looking car, right? A lot of people thought so, and the fun, affordable new Ford Mustang sold like hotcakes when it was first released. But wait a minute. Aren’t “real” Mustangs supposed to be real burly, macho deals with V8s and drag radials and manual transmissions? Who’s that woman dressed like Jackie O. over there?

Did you forget that this generation of Mustang was marketed primarily to women? More specifically, secretaries?

1966 FORD MUSTANG COMMERCIAL

It’s true. Ford’s base-model Mustang — the one that sold in big numbers and made up the huge majority of Mustang sales — was proudly referred to as “a secretary’s car” for years.  Remember that for later (the list of keywords is now “reported”, and “women”).

Where were we? Right. The “real” Mustang. So, OK, there are a few phony styling elements like the side vents that don’t vent and the more squared-off nose makes sense as a cost-cutting change, but now we’re getting somewhere. This is real, “real Mustang” stuff, right? This is the high watermark, “pony car” touchpoint that Chevy, Pontiac, Plymouth — heck, even the Mitsubishi Starion were trying to reach. This is where Mustang magic was born, and the car was such a huge hit that Ford would never, ever dare to compromise … for about five years

That’s right, gang. In about the time it takes Toyota to visually refresh a Highlander, Ford’s Mustang sales had dipped so badly that Ford decided to pivot. The car was, mechanically, pretty much the same in 1971 as it had been in the years before, but the American public was demanding bigger, longer, more luxurious rides.

It even came with a vinyl roof.

1971 FORD MUSTANG

Ford

Despite being mostly a styling upgrade, the Ford Mustang had grown over a foot longer and gained more than 800 lbs compared to the 1965 “original”. This Mustang shifted its focus. It built on the “power and performance” legacy that the Mustang was building with cars like the GT350, sure, but not in the way you’re probably thinking … unless you’re thinking of milquetoast white guys who go to “encounter groups” looking for confidence and “inner power”, which is exactly what this Ford ad from 1971 is — they don’t even bother to merely imply it. They make it explicit. They’re literally telling you that the 1971 Mustang will make you more of a man.

Just watch the ad.

1971 FORD MUSTANG COMMERCIAL

Maybe this is the “real” Mustang? A sort of — let’s go with, “enhancer” of maleness? At least they got rid of the phony side scoops and started to go down a design direction that would pay lasting dividends by establishing the Mustang as a V8-powered personal luxury coupe for decades to come.

That might have been Ford’s plan, honestly, but then the oil crisis of 1973 hit and big, powerful luxury coupes were suddenly white elephants languishing on dealer lots.

In response, Ford needed a new kind of car. They needed something compact and fuel-efficient and they found it in the Ford Pinto hatch … but the Mustang name was popular. “Premium” even, if you could apply the same kind of meaning to the word half a century ago. Would buyers be willing to pay more for a Pinto if it wore a Mustang nameplate?

THE ANSWER IS YES – KINDA

Ford

As the ad says, this new Mustang — sorry, Mustang II– was very different from the bigger, longer, manlier Mustang of 1971. For starters, it was 19inches shorter than that Mustang. Instead of a big V8, the ads touted a fuel-efficient, four-cylinder base or an optional 2.8-liter V6. Instead of a loping cam, the Mustang II offered “a unique new suspension designed to ride more like a luxury car…” and “jewel-like decor and finish everywhere.”

One more thing to notice about the Mustang II: the side vents were back. They didn’t look like vents anymore, though. They were just “scallops” in the bodywork, but they’re there. And, as if it wasn’t obvious enough, there’s another element from the “original”, first-generation Ford Mustang that was back as well:  A woman in the drivers’ seat.

THE FOX BODY

Ford

The Mustang history lesson is starting to run long, I know — but there’s one last stop on this Mustang history train that needs to be made, and it’s right here.  Affectionately known as the “Fox Body” Mustang, this version of the car was built from 1979-1993 and, like the Pinto-based Mustang II, was based on another mainstream Ford. In this case, the Fairmont.

What’s really wild about that fact isn’t that this Mustang was based on the Fairmont “platform” (used in quotes because “vehicle platforms” weren’t part of the automotive zeitgeist when this car was launched — the Mustang “just” shared a floorpan, suspension and driveline components, interior bits, and several chassis hardpoints with the Fairmont), it’s that the Mustang was still using that platform when the SN-95 cars debuted in 1994, before running their course a full 10 years later in 2004.

That is a staggering twenty-five-year production run for a platform that was chosen not for its superior performance pedigree but for its low cost. This Mustang was still relatively affordable, and a 5.0 GT Mustang like the 1987 I owned stickered at $11,385.

That 5.0 was really something else, too. It gave the Ford Mustang a reported 225 HP and a stout 300 lb-ft of torque at 3,200 rpm — but not really.

It was a bit of a well-known secret back in the days before YouTube made dyno video fun and famous that car companies may have just ever so slightly fudged the horsepower and torque figures of their cars. Once the game was up, Ford suggested that it had developed a set of new “hypereutectic” pistons for the 5.0 and “re-rated” the Mustang for 205 HP in 1993 — just in time for a new Ford Mustang Cobra model to demand a much higher price tag for its beefed-up V8, which was good for a reported (sorry) 245 HP.

Sharp-eyed observers will notice that this version of the Mustang GT also has side vents that don’t cool anything.

MUSTANG MACH-E

Ford

So, where are we now? The 2004 Mustang that’s been more or less the basis of every Mustang since has arguably swung the needle back to 1971. Nearly 10 chest-pounding inches longer in 2020 than it was in 1990, this generation of Mustang makes you feel like a badass. Talk of horsepower and torque and smoky, noisy burnouts out of the Cars and Coffee parking lot are on order.  It’s the kind of car that would tell you support groups are for pussies, if it could, and that seems to be what passes for a “real” Mustang in 2021.

Where does that leave the Mach-E? The first all-electric Mustang, the Mustang Mach-E GT, will reportedly accelerate from 0-60 mph in under four seconds, which would place it very near the top of the performance pecking order as far as Mustangs go, but it does the job quietly. Capably. Responsibly, even.

The Mustang Mach-E has some performance chops, then — but what about its styling? At 186”, it’s actually a few inches shorter than the V8 Mustang coupe. And, with a base price of $42,895, this Mustang it’s just as affordable as ever, costing thousands less than the average new car transaction price after EV rebates and incentives.

So, the new Mach-E is fast, middle-of-the-road affordable, and even has some fake cooling features on it (really, Ford, it didn’t need a black plastic “grille”, did it?).

More importantly, the Mustang Mach-E is a car that has been reimagined and repackaged for its time. When the original, hardcore Mustang I sportscar concept wasn’t right, it changed and became a softer, more practical, but still sporty-looking car that women could enjoy driving to work in every day. When the company decided it wanted to go after male dollars, the hood became longer and the engine got louder, and a few Mach-I and Boss sticker kits were even tossed on a small percentage of those cars to help make that true. As the oil crisis loomed large in the car-buying public’s memory, the Mustang changed again.

That’s what the Mustang is and does. It changes with the times, and it always has. This new Mach-E is absolutely no exception to the rules that Ford has played by with Mustang for over 50years. Far from a revolutionary product, it is exactly the Ford Mustang you should have seen coming if you’ve been paying attention at all. Just, you know, watch out for those “reported” range figures when you hit the road.

And, the icing on the cake?  My wife wants one.

This is a real Mustang, boys. The realest.  A true continuation of nearly 60years of Ford tradition — and if you don’t like it, just wait for the next one. Without a doubt, Ford will swing the Mustang back your way again in just a few years.

[Images: Ford]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

140 Comments on “Opinion: The Mustang Mach-E Really is A Mustang, and Let’s Not Pretend It Isn’t...”


  • avatar
    Fred

    I am the great decider of all things, and not just cars. I proclaim no cross over can be a sport coupe and therefore this is not a Mustang. I have spoken.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      So say we all.

    • 0 avatar
      jack4x

      I look forward to the follow up piece about how the X3M is the new M3.

    • 0 avatar
      Steve Biro

      Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. The Mach-E is not a Mustang.

      Ford can call it whatever they want and the company has a right to do that. The author of this piece can agree with Ford – or not.

      But the fact remains: The Mach-E is not a Mustang.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        That is… an opinion.

        If you are looking at it from a strictly factual perspective, this is a Mustang, because its builder named it “Mustang.”

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        The Mach-E is Mustang just like Crystal Skull is an Indiana Jones movie.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          “The Mach-E is Mustang just like Crystal Skull is an Indiana Jones movie.”

          …a conclusion made easier by the fact that Crystal Skull sucked. If it had been a great movie, then people might have embraced it as an Indiana Jones flick.

          Same deal with this car, if you think about it. The Mach-E is good, but it’s not a knockout. If it had been, then maybe embracing it as a “Mustang” might have been a bit easier.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “But the fact remains: The Mach-E is not a Mustang.”

        This is the only correct answer. Anyone defending this is either not a true car person or is just a shill.

        It does make you wonder why didn’t Ford do this sooner? Take a legendary name and slap it on a mediocre product to generate interest. Why did they wait for this electric Escape and the (non)-Lightning?

        Can you imagine how well a Freestar rebadged as a Mustang Mach 1 would have sold? Or instead of the Taurus X they could have called it the Taurus Bronco.

    • 0 avatar
      Syke

      Back to your cave.

      A Mustang is whatever the Ford Motor Company, inventor of said automobile in whatever variation they decided to do at that moment, and legal owner of the trademark, cares to say it is. THEY own the term Mustang, not a bunch of boomers desperately trying to live out the tail end of the youth they probably never had because it’s not exactly cool to admit you drove mommy’s station wagon to school. On the days she’d let you have it, and you didn’t take the bus.

      Yep, the Mach-E is a Mustang. And I can’t wait until they start showing up at Cars and Coffee to dilute the mind-numming masses of gasoline powered two doors that hang out there like their owner’s youth still matters.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Skye – I fully agree that Ford has the right to call it what they want.

        People want to cling to a version of history that fits their beliefs. Most ’64 1/2 and ’65 Mustangs were in fact stylish econoboxes. Only a few were fire-breathing monsters.

        I knew a lot of kids driving mommy’s car to school. A few with money got cool cars. Most were in sh!tboxes fantasizing about 60’s muscle. 40 – 50 years later and most are still fantasizing about 60’s muscle.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          I remember the first 64 1/2 65 Mustang I ever rode in and the person that bought it. It was my grandmother. That car was not a firebreather. I think 0-60 in 13.5 seconds.

          Actually, based on dimensions (mostly the width), I think the current Mustang coupe is actually a Torino and not really a Mustang. Compared with 1960’s Models and the Fox bodies, it really feels to me more like a Torino(with much better suspension). So there.

    • 0 avatar
      phreshone

      An E-Bird maybe, but not a Mustang…

    • 0 avatar
      Robert Schwartz

      Amen, brother, Amen.

      It is an ugly piece of canine dejecta. If I found one on the street, I would put it in a little plastic bag and put the bag in a municipal waste disposal receptacle.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      In addition, I hereby proclaim that a BMW is in fact not a Toyota and therefore can not be a Supra.

    • 0 avatar
      Flipper35

      Most enthusiasts don’t think the Mustang II was a real Mustang any more than the Bronco II was a real Bronco.

    • 0 avatar
      David

      LOL. Kinda true.

    • 0 avatar
      rolando

      so say we all!

  • avatar
    jack4x

    “The first all-electric Mustang, the Mustang Mach-E GT, will reportedly accelerate from 0-60 mph in under four seconds, which would place it very near the top of the performance pecking order as far as Mustangs go”

    The reduction of “performance” to 0-60 times and the naysaying of anyone who prefers a bit more from their “performance” cars than the single trick of silent acceleration is an unwelcome development. Not unique to the Mustang/Mach E of course, but disappointing to see repeated here.

    • 0 avatar

      I was there when Ford revealed the first Cobra with IRS in the late 1990s. Literally the first question they took, right out of the box, was “Will a 9″ bolt in?”

      It’s not a question of whether or not 0-60 is the go-to figure of performance for everyone, but it is *for lots of people*, and those people seem to really like Mustangs.

    • 0 avatar
      dwford

      The Mach E is good looking, but needs more “Mustang” in the “grill” and in the interior design.

  • avatar
    Imagefont

    I personally think the Mach-E is the best looking Mustang ever built. It certainly has the most usable interior space and best packaging. I’ve rented a few GT’s and it aggravating how ridiculously small the trunk is and how awkwardly shaped the opening is. Getting in and out is zero fun as well – I freaking hate it. I wish I could buy a Mach-E without batteries and a gas engine for 10k less (and no giant iPad in the dash!)

    • 0 avatar
      jalop1991

      “I personally think the Mach-E is the best looking Mustang ever built.”

      Disagree. The Lincoln MkVII LSC was the best looking Mustang ever built.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        We have a winner.

        • 0 avatar
          Imagefont

          Point is, if Ford can sell a Pinto based Mustang with a vinyl half roof and gutless 4 cylinder engine – and they sold a lot of weak Mustangs with 4 cylinder and ancient straight 6’s with 1-barrel carbs over the years – I don’t think a sporty 4-door hatch breaks any rules – Ford already broke all the rules long ago, there’s no reputation to protect.
          Based on all the crap versions of “Mustang” that Ford has sold over the years, the Mach-E does great credit to the name.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            This is the right answer. This is a fast vehicle that is RWD and legitimately sporty by CUV standards. Any name that can be stretched far enough to include an 88 hp Fox body convertible can include this without a lot of pain.

          • 0 avatar
            Steve Biro

            I would humbly argue that the mid-70’s Pinto-Based Mustang II was more of a Mustang than the Mach-E is. The Mustang II was a two-door coupe that handled well for the era and could be had with a manual transmission. The inline-four powerplant was no worse for its time than the inline-6 was for 1964-66. And you could get a V6-powered Mustang II. You could even get a 302 V8 after a couple of years.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “there’s no reputation to protect”

            Because of what they built in the 70s???

            I think a lot of you guys are giving *way* too much weight to things that happened when my dad was in elementary school and not enough to how Ford has positioned the car over the last decade.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Y’all are focused on the Mustang II, which was a product of its time.

            The most embarrassing Mustang wasn’t the Mustang II. It was the late four-cylinder Fox. 88 hp in 1993 was less power than you’d expect in a base economy car and less power than any other allegedly sporty car on the market. And the car was ancient and its chassis mailed in; it had no other redeeming qualities to make up for the lack of power. If that was a real Mustang, then there are few limits on how far the nameplate can be stretched.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      My son jokes about the fact that someone will buy the Mach-E and LS swap it.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    Nope not buying it. It’s a featureless blob of a CUV and mis-named to boot! Also the base price you have listed has much less range and is slower. The quoted less than 4 seconds 0-60 is the top GT model at over 60K which is almost Corvette territory and a car that will smoke this thing in every possible way. My Mustang friends, who are incidentally in their 30’s, refer to this as the Mustang mistake.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    “And, the icing on the cake? My wife wants one.”

    My wife would consider one except that she has too many negative associations with the Mustang name, which she associates with rednecks in her native Texas. She likes the type of vehicle and all of the styling except the grafted-on Mustang cues.

    Personally, I don’t have the same issues with the Mustang brand and I think it makes a lot of sense to market this thing as a Mustang. It’s RWD and will have legitimate performance, and nobody should think of it as an electric Escape or Edge.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      “nobody should think of it as an electric Escape or Edge”

      But that’s *exactly* what it is, a heavily modified Ford C2. What it is *not* is related to the S550 (or earlier S197) Mustang.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_GE1_platform

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_C2_platform

      Ironically you touch on the exact problem, if this had been the Ford [anything else] but with all of the same styling and drawbacks, your wife would not have had any negative association. Someone in Dearborn thought, hey lets cause all this controversy for publicity and call it a Mustang when it clearly isn’t. So instead of being a great success as the electric Ford Edge et al, its only going to move 20-25K units this year as I predicted late last year.

      According to this link, Ford even agreed with me:

      “Ford said it moved 6,614 vehicles off U.S. dealership lots in Q1. This is exactly on pace with what the automaker suggested shortly after the SUV’s 2019 reveal, on track for 25,000 to 30,000 sales annually—higher volumes than the automaker would need to do if it were only a compliance car.”

      https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1131783_ford-mustang-mach-e-moving-quickly-off-dealer-lots-sales-on-pace-with-early-estimates

      Hey sales are still pretty sad and we’re likely losing money per unit, but its better than a compliance car! It’s Miller time!

      “Ford also said nearly 70% of Mach-E sales came from competitor brands. These sales—known as “conquest sales” in the industry”

      Tesla is the only competitor, so ooooooo we’re picking up at most 20K customers (70% of 30K units) who already bought an EV and are switching. So very small market share of an already small market (2-3% USDM) which will *never* grow to significance unless technocrats and other unelected figures forcibly remove what people want. Tesla is believed to have sold over 1m Model 3s and Ys by I think April 2021, so 2% of those customers with some perhaps coming from a Leaf or Volt. Break out the champagne! What’s the total investment per sale, how many billions spent to sell 20-25K units in a year? Seriously?

      Ford Edge-E (or some other new name) sells many more units, especially if its actually useful and can transport adults without having to duck their heads to get in it. Your attempt at controversy is failing Dearborn, I hope by the end of the year after you pretend Mach-E never happened (like ELR) you fire the Millennials responsible because only they would be this blind to the obvious.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        The point isn’t the platform ancestry, it’s the drive layout, weight distribution, and performance level—the stuff the customers can see. All of those look much more like an RWD near-luxury CUV than an Edge.

        “Tesla is the only competitor, so ooooooo we’re picking up at most 20K customers (70% of 30K units) who already bought an EV and are switching.”

        Most of these conquest sales aren’t going to be from other EVs, they’re going to be from gas cars.

        “which will *never* grow to significance unless technocrats and other unelected figures forcibly remove what people want.”

        We’ll see about that. There are a lot of good reasons to enjoy electrics, and the price premium is shrinking and will soon disappear.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I agree, but if the technical elements were truly relevant the naming wouldn’t be a factor and clearly it is. No different than the Bronco Sport, which is NOT a Bronco or even related but shares the name for marketing purposes. Though the Bronco Sport and Bronco have somewhat similar missions whereas Mustang and Mach-E share little in common other than both being vehicles from Ford.

          “Most of these conquest sales aren’t going to be from other EVs”

          Perhaps you’re right, the source doesn’t elaborate on their definition of “conquest sales”.

          “the price premium is shrinking and will soon disappear.”

          I’ve got my eye on this… but would it be possible the price of the conventional vehicles rises due to the ostensible “chip shortage”? In such a scenario one could claim price parity without really fulfilling the goal of lower cost.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        It doesn’t matter what historical name you use there will always be those that have negative and positive connotations associated with it as well as a bunch of meh people too. So the thing that matters is whether the number of people who have positive associations exceed those with negative associations.

        As far as volume goes Ford made it clear from the beginning that they only had capacity to produce about 50k in the first year. Much of that due to battery supply. Calling it the E-scape or just Mach-E would not have changed the battery supply issue.

        Because compliance is a much bigger problem in Europe they have ear marked a large percentage of the production for that.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Mr. Borras, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

    (yes this is a film reference)

    • 0 avatar
      Rick T.

      One of the best 30 seconds in film history. I use that quote often. Thank you.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      C’mon, 28, like you’re going to actually shop this car?

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        I don’t think I want to be in a one mile radius of it, but I’m not understanding your point.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          My point is this: why do you – or any of us, really – care if it’s not a car you’d even consider?

          I mean, Ram could call its’ next truck Mongo C*ck Extender and I could care less because I’ll never buy one.

          Mustang owners might not like the idea, but then again, do I really think they’re off to Dodge or Chevy because of this car? I don’t.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Because I sometimes feel a need to challenge stupidity with logical thoughts. Debuting it as the Ford Its-not-an-X6-copy wouldn’t have gotten word one from me other than “m’eh”.

            “do I really think they’re off to Dodge or Chevy because of this car? I don’t.”

            Chrysler’s Challenger isn’t really the same thing (a pony car) and the Camaro has a lot of drawbacks so no I don’t see the Mustang faithful saying no more for me.

            I’d be leaving both if I could get a Mustang with the LS drivetrain as that pretty much solves the problems with both but alas…

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Is “this car’s name sucks” really logical thought? I mean, it’s definitely an argument based on an opinion, but cars aren’t logical at all. They’re emotional objects. If they weren’t, Ford would have simply put some performance stuff on the Falcon – which was the car the ’64 1/2 Mustang was based on – and this discussion wouldn’t be happening.

            In any case, the ultimate test won’t be on this site – it’ll be in the marketplace. People are either going to dig this car, or they won’t. I think it’ll be a moderate hit. And, as you say, I don’t think Mustang drivers are going to just flip the bird at Ford because of the Mach-E.

            All this occurred to Ford, I’m sure, and you know what? Knowing all that and deciding to name the car as they did is a lot more logical than anything I’m seeing tossed around on this thread.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Perhaps the purchasing or marketing is emotional but go look at your car and see the logical (and occasionally illogical) thinking behind its design and construction. I look at mine and try to understand them, then learn how to repair or improve them. There is indeed something logical about automobiles.

            I agree, and I don’t think 25K units annually is even worth Ford’s investment. Last year or late 2019 after a conversation with a co worker I concluded its purpose was to be the vanguard before F150 EV, to give dealers and techs experience with EV before the real party starts. If that’s really the purpose so be it, but an actual Mustang EV would have served the same purpose, been as niche, and probably only moved the same amount of units. Instead of 60-70%+ of a population saying “Oh cool Mustang EV” you’ve got at best 50% on board with the Not Mustang and the other 50%+ decrying it to some degree. How is this smart? The only thing that came close to a Mustang EV AFAIK to this point was the Tesla Roadster. Why would it have been so terrible to build one of those?

            “Knowing all that and deciding to name the car as they did is a lot more logical than anything I’m seeing tossed around on this thread.”

            A gamble at best as I already speculated, but I think its polarized its audience at this point. Once the F150 EV is out you won’t be hearing much about the Not Mustang anymore.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “My point is this: why do you – or any of us, really – care if it’s not a car you’d even consider?”

            We aren’t the ones that brought it up though.
            I don’t spend much time thinking about the Mach-E but if an author is going to whip out their hot takes I’ll comment on it.

          • 0 avatar
            ToolGuy

            I am definitely interested in that Mongo thing, but only if it actually works.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I could *almost* buy into this if they weren’t continuing the “traditional” Mustang at the same time.

    This is Cutlass Calais and Cutlass Supreme sub-branding not a natural evolution of the model.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      When are we gonna get the Cutlass Ciera version of the Mustang…a cheap diminutive model based on the transverse-FWD Escape/Bronco Sport/Maverick platform?

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Didn’t that sub branding help to kill Oldsmobile in general?

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        Maybe. I don’t think it will be a huge deal for Ford though. The “Mustang” is just a sideshow in Truck Land.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        I think Oldsmobile was dead long before all the sub branding took place. And the day they died was the same day Honda brought out the original Accord sedan.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I’m not a a scholar of Oldsmobile but the Accord was first introduced in 1976. I’m not sure that the ship started sinking the day after.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Today, I’d say Honda occupies the market that Olds did back then – cars for middle class suburbanites who were moving up, but not necessarily “there” yet, and the Cutlass was the go-to model.

            The Accord hatch hailed from 1976, but the sedan was a 1979 model, and came out right when GM cars – including the Cutlass – hit their absolute bottom. Before long, Accord was the go-to nameplate for folks who had been buying Cutlasses.

            Now, if GM had responded to the Accord sedan (and, later the Camry) with stuff that was truly competitive, Olds might still be around today. Instead, they went with the tried-and-true badge-engineered-Chevy-with-a-Landau-roof approach, which worked great during the ’70s, but they didn’t realize that buyers had noticed a MAJOR qualitative difference between GM product and Japanese makes.

            My take, anyway…

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I’ll add another thing that killed Olds: Chrysler minivans.

  • avatar
    ajla

    My Stinger is actually a Mustang.

  • avatar
    Dan

    Fsck no.

    I agree with the premise that the Mustang is, or was when it defined itself, a cheerful chick car but today’s cheerful chick car isn’t an electric blob.

    It’s a Wrangler.

  • avatar
    MitchConner

    A solid, well-reasoned argument. Well done. While you had me leaning a bit, I’m going to respectfully disagree.

    What’s the pure essence of Mustang? What do people think of? Outside of the performance crowd who is going to recall Shelby, Boss, Super Cobra Jet, 5.0, etc. — the majority of folks are going to think along the lines of a smallish two door coupe with visions of a convertible in their heads. And while they won’t recall rear wheel drive — it’ll definitely be an underlying factor.

    Older folks will flash upon a ’64 convertible with a young Elizabeth Taylor lookalike, scarf around neck, motoring along with the top down. Younger folks will recall their favorite generation. An 86, 90, 94, 2000, or whatever. Hardly any will say “yeah, I loved that fat slow pig of a ’72” or “boy, that Mustang II King Cobra was the cat’s meow — lookit those decals on the hood” unless they owned one back in the day — if they cared to even admit it.

    And let’s not forget the Probe. You could build an equally good argument that it’s as Mustangy as Mustang. Yet nobody would ever agree with you. Because it’s not.

    So, let’s review:

    – Does the Mach-E come in a version with two doors? Nope.
    – Does the Mach-E have an available ragtop? Nu-uh.

    Conclusion. Not a Mustang.

    Thank you, please proceed to the drive thru.

    • 0 avatar
      sayahh

      So are you in the “the modern Dodge Charger doesn’t have two-doors like the General Lee, so it cannot be a Charger!” camp?

      • 0 avatar
        MitchConner

        Couple of differences between the Mustang and Charger. The Mustang has been in continuous production ever since its debut. It has also pretty much been the same package of a two-door RWD coupe.

        The Charger, on the other hand, was out of production a couple of times. In addition, the Charger name was applied to everything from large RWD coupes to FWD compacts so its equity was already diluted somewhat.

        If Chrylser had been making different variations of the same car that entire time — then applying it to a sedan wouldn’t work.

        Conclusion: The Mach-E is not a Mustang.

    • 0 avatar
      PlaysInTraffic

      If they wanted to reuse a name from their past, they should have just named it Probe.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Not the smartest. It dilutes a historic and arguably legendary badge for short-term gain.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    The Mustang II wasn’t based on the Pinto. The early Concept started with a modified Pinto, but by the time it reached production, it shared zero body, chassis or suspension pieces with the Pinto.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      “The Mustang II wasn’t based on the Pinto. The early Concept started with a modified Pinto, but by the time it reached production, it shared zero body, chassis or suspension pieces with the 1971 Pinto.”

      Fixed it for you. The 1974 Pinto did share a lot of suspension pieces with the MII.

  • avatar
    loner

    This was quite poorly written, taking a meandering path to simply argue that because Mustangs have been driven by women and have had fake air scoops, then the Mach-E fits this definition of a Mustang.

    And what’s with the racist interpretation of the old Ford commercial, where we see at least two black persons and several women in the group? Yet the writer makes a point to single out the “milquetoast white guys”.

    Perhaps Jo would like to explain why race is relevant here, and why you’re casting a specific race in a negative light? No, really, what’s the point you’re trying to make?

    • 0 avatar
      MitchConner

      Holy smokes take your meds, huff a bong, snort some scotch, breathe into a bag, or make sure your underwear isn’t stuck up your crack there princess.

  • avatar
    Rick T.

    I’m sorry. What? I was distracted by the presence of Farrah Fawcett (RIP) or her twin sister in that ad. Ah. No, it’s not a Mustang.

  • avatar
    JMII

    If this was middle school you would get punched for posting such nonsense. Great product but bad name. No need to define the sloppy work by Ford’s marketing department here.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Excellent piece.

    You’ve made the argument more eloquently than I’ve been trying to, but I’ll repeat one more point:
    — The Mach-E is a Mustang because Ford says it is. The name and its definition do not belong to the public, but to Ford.

    Also, you make a great point about how the Mustang has changed with the times. If the Mustang II is accepted as a Mustang, the so should the Mach-E.

    But here is a counterpoint: I think the great unspoken objection is that Ford chose to make the Mustang into a family instead of a single line. If *all* 2021+ Mustangs were Mach-Es, then the discussion would be different.
    A similar – but lesser – problem occurred while Chevy was simultaneously producing the C7 (front engine) and C8 (mid-engine) Corvette. Corvette purists were vexed by the mid-engine layout, but especially that both cars could coexist.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      Did Bowling Green ever build the C7 and C8 at the same time?
      Unsold prior gen inventory on dealer lots is different than selling two different Corvettes at the same time.

      • 0 avatar
        JMII

        Correct – the C7 and C8 were never made at the same time. Just like any model year turn over: they shut down the factory, changed out the parts, paint and tooling, then restarted things with a whole new car coming out the other end.

        The C8 going mid-engine makes it arguably a totally different car but at the same time it keeps the Corvette’s DNA. Its an affordable, high performance, V8 sports car made by GM. The engine being in middle and the lack of a manual are its biggest non-Corvette crimes.

        There is no Mustang DNA in this SUV aside from performance which is actually just a by-product of the way EVs work with massive and instant torque. Putting a horse logo on the front doesn’t count, because if that’s the requirement I’m going to convert my Dodge into Ferrari with a sticker. Both are RWD V8s so they are clearly the “same”.

        • 0 avatar
          SCE to AUX

          “Its an affordable, high performance, V8 sports car made by GM”

          Except for that pesky I6 Blue Flame 1953 Corvette, which is summarily rejected from Corvette clubs due to its wrong engine. /s

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            LOL, no one would even drive a Blue Flame ‘Vette to a car club meet, for fear of getting bird poop on a car that costs as much as four-bedroom house. Those things are rolling 401ks.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      I agree. Excellent piece.

      I have to commend TTAC on their new trajectory.

      Bravo.

      One does not need political click bait to get hits.

      Well done!

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        Vertical Scope the organization that ‘owns’ TTAC went public today on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

        Vertical Scope intends on retaining only about 17% of the shares.

        Wonder how many shares members of the B&B or the Baruth brothers have purchased?

  • avatar
    tallguy130

    Look its not a mustang and that’s ok.

    It has four doors and rides higher than any mustang ever. That by itself is enough to make it not a mustang. You don’t have to clutch your pearls and scream heretic any more than that to make the point.

    That said, I don’t hate anything about it except for the name. It’s exactly the right product at the right price to be successful. I even get why they named it that as the mustang name has some band equity but it’s a bad mood pissing off the faithful. When a real electric mustang comes out at some point you’ve just muddied the waters by havng this CUV thingy on the lot at the same time. Long term its a bad move.

  • avatar
    Mike Beranek

    I’ll go with the transitive property here-
    A Mustang is a Pony Car.
    A Pony Car is a car designed for maximum acceleration and handling while providing room for four passengers.
    A car with good handling is as low to the roadway surface as possible, because if it was any higher, it wouldn’t handle well.
    Therefore, the Mach-E is not a pony car because it’s jacked up to high heaven.
    Therefore, since the Mach-E is not a pony car, it can’t be a Mustang, because the Mustang is the original pony car and the progenitor of the entire segment.

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      Maximum handling as a desirable feature was reactionary to the velour whales of the 70s and wouldn’t happen for another fifteen years, pony cars were never roadsters and the max acceleration overlap with muscle cars came later too. It took three years and a redesign for Ford to put the 390 in.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      The Mach-E is quite low for a CUV and will handle even better than you’d think from its height because of the low center of gravity stemming from its underfloor battery.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Mike Beranek

      “Pony car is an American car classification for affordable, compact, highly styled coupés or convertibles with a “sporty” or performance-oriented image.”

      “Muscle cars on the other hand were always much larger, both in their exterior dimensions and the equipment found under the hood. We’re talking vast, V8-powered monsters like the Dodge Charger, Ford Galaxie and Chevrolet Impala.”

      Please note the “image” part.

      Muscle cars on the other hand tended to be “in your face” straight line beasts.

      You can argue that since it isn’t a coupe or convertible,it can’t be a pony car but the rest of your argument does not jive with historical evidence.

      • 0 avatar
        Mike Beranek

        Well then I guess the Trans-Am series, which featured pony cars like the Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, Challenger, Barracuda, and Javelin, was just straight-line racing? I seem to remember curves being involved.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Mike Beranek – muscle cars are intended to be dragsters. I threw that in since Pony cars are lumped in with muscle cars.

          As previously noted, pony cars only need to look sporty or performance oriented.

          Trans-Am series cam later and that’s why the Boss 302 was built.

          I still stand by my initial comment.

  • avatar
    Sanman111

    While I understand the argument, the Mach-E is let down by the design. If one were to argue that the Mach-E is following in the mustang tradition, then the Mach-E should have been a model 3 competitor with sporty mustang styling. As a crossover, the Mach-E horns in on the territory of the vehicle Ford introduced to complement the mustang in 1964/65…The Ford Bronco. So, my question, is there any way the product planning would have been worse with an electric mustang/ sedan model and the Mach-E powertrain in the Bronco Sport? Pick your affordable electric vehicle, coupe or SUV.

  • avatar
    Undead Zed

    No, it’s not a Mustang, and anybody who says it is only does so because they’re ashamed to admit that they can’t get in and out of a proper coupe anymore without throwing their back out. Same goes for all the other “sporty” crossovers that the industry is pushing nowadays.

    If they really wanted to slap a classic name on this EV and pretend it has some pep in its step, they should have gone with Thunderbird. It’s historically been an in-between car for Ford and Lincoln (which the mockey is), it had seats and suspension designed more for comfort than performance, had enough power under the hood to keep most folks happy, and it came in 4-door variants. Oh, and it has THUNDER in the name, which would have fit an EV perfectly.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    We don’t even call 4cyl a “real mustang”, let alone this

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      So no 75-HP Mustang IIs for you, nor 300-HP EcoBoost Mustangs, either?

      Is an I6 or V6 Mustang a ‘real’ Mustang, or are we only going to count V8s?

      This is getting fun.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Put me down for an L/I6 Mustang, it sounds hilarious.

        • 0 avatar
          SCE to AUX

          I was referring to the 1964-1/2 straight-6 Mustang.

          If a Mustang is supposed to have a V8, then we’re disqualifying the original, plus all the I4 and V6 variants over the years, not to mention the electric version.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Pity, a modern I6 Mustang would be wicked.

            General consensus at the time was Fox Mustangs I4s were not real Mustangs, though had Ford sold every one as a turbo that stereotype may never have been formed. Not that I am a truck or even Ford person, but general consensus among the Bronco people I knew was Bronco II wasn’t a real Bronco either (I expect the same for the Bronco Sport from Bronco/truck people).

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        There are HPs but no refinement in 4cyl, no matter how you slice it. I am talking about current situation. Currently, real Mustang is v8. 4cyl is a way for Ford to make money by selling half the engine.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        I can add… While ago saw a MB E-class at the mall. Sticker – $75K, engine – 4cyl. Real MB? no way. A-class, real MB? no. MB – supposed to be luxury. Luxury with a rattling 4cyl… thanks a lot

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    It’s an Edsel. Edsel Model E to be precise. Edsel was the wrong car at the wrong time. Now is the right time for Edsel. E car, introduce on E day. Right car, right time. Edsel Model E

    Not a Mustang, never will be.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      What’s funny is that Ford sued Tesla to secure (or retain) the Model E name, which is why the Model 3 isn’t the Model E.

      Nobody would have batted an eye if Tesla used the name, but its near-use for the Ford Mustang Mach-E is driving people insane.

      Of course, all the controversy is no accident. It’s a branding coup by Ford.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Next Ford Better Idea a Pinto Runabout E for those who never thought about a mini E car.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    This is an offshoot of the endless “if only Lincoln and Cadillac would name their cars they’d be instantly successful” complaints that have been rehashed here time and time and time and time and time again.

    (Silly question: did anyone who whined about this run out and buy a Continental just to put their money where their mouths were? Are they going to run out and buy the Lyriq once it comes out? Yeah, didn’t think so…)

    Personally, I could care less what a car is named. I care how it looks, how it drives, and whether it fits my budget. As long as it’s not named “Smegma” or “Himmler,” I’m in. Therefore, I have a two step solution to put this stupid “is the Mach-E a Mustang” argument to bed once and for all:

    1) If this car works as a Mustang for you, then put it on your shopping list.
    2) If you don’t think this car works as a Mustang, then don’t put it on your shopping list.

    Case closed already. Sheesh.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I don’t know if there were incentives but Continental I believe *started* at $52K which was down from $60K. A bit rich for my blood then and now. Did Ford do any conquest leasing with is as they were with the Zephyr?

      “As long as it’s not named “Smegma” or “Himmler””

      How about Smeghead?

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        I’d say the Conti failed for the same reason the CT6 did – bad timing. Full size luxury sedan buyers have moved on to Escalades, Navigators and duded-up pickups

        Shame – I liked both cars quite a bit.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I don’t know for sure but financing may have had something to do with it as well. Banks will write long loans on Escalade, Navi etc. but I doubt they would have done the same for CT6 or Conti. So unless a favorable lease was set up, I don’t think too many people could have afforded one whereas you probably could get your ‘slade payment down to $500/mo (for 84+ months but still you see my point).

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I think GM Financial and Ford Credit would have been more than happy to get CT6 and Conti buyers into 84 month loans.

            The problem is that the buyers wanted Escalades and Navigators instead.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I disagree on the first point, the depreciation on both in 2019 BC was significant and the bank’s don’t want to be left chasing the former owner’s negative equity after they repo. Escalade/Navi have less of this problem.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Well, with Stelantis being partially French, they could do a smegma variant called Richard(pronounced Reeshard)Fromage….. or roughly translated “Dick Cheeze”. LOL

  • avatar
    mcs

    My question is who’s turn will it be to make the popcorn for the Corvette Crossover article? I’ll bring the beer. Oh, and we’ll need nachos too.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/01/electric-corvette-crossover-in-the-works-according-to-new-report/

      https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/15/gm-may-expand-corvette-lineup-to-include-a-crossover-suv.html

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I think it’s just a matter of time before Corvette becomes its’ own brand, like Porsche. Get ready for the ‘Vette CUV, folks…that check is in the mail.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        Hey, almost every neighbor of mine with a 911 has a Porsche CUV/SUV for the daily driver. Charge six figures for it and it’ll probably outsell the Cadillac Lyriq that it would most likely be based on.

  • avatar
    dwford

    It’s the crossover body that throws people. If it had been a 4 door coupe/sedan Mustang EV, no one would’ve complained.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      …and no one would have bought it, because no one today buys sedans.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        What’s the Model 3?

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          The car everyone* bought because the Model Y wasn’t available yet.

          *yes, hyperbole, but all rumored sales numbers basically confirm it

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            The Model 3 is now the 16th best-selling car in the world. That’s a pretty good accomplishment.

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmorris/2021/05/29/tesla-model-3-is-now-16th-bestselling-car-in-the-world/

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Tesla doesn’t break out 3 and Y sales separately.

            That article is including an awful lot of Ys within its claims about 3s. Although Tesla makes it hard by not breaking out numbers, the obsessive Tesla watchers out there seem to think that Y production outpaced 3 production in early 2021 and that the the difference is growing fast. I believe that within another year the Y will be selling at least twice as many copies as the 3, likely more than that.

  • avatar
    phreshone

    In the words of Professor Nalebuff

    “you can believe that, but you would be wrong”

  • avatar
    Rocket

    Anybody claiming they won’t buy the Mach-E because of the Mustang name wasn’t going to buy one regardless of what name Ford put on it. I personally would have preferred they just called it the Mach-E, but it wouldn’t have sold as well, so ultimately Ford did the right thing. Families can now have the Mustang they always wanted, and they don’t need to sacrifice practicality to do it.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Ford -> youtube.com/watch?v=oAKG-kbKeIo

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    As long as they’re going to franchise it, how about a new Fox-size Mustang also? With a new pushrod 5.0? Live axle too?

  • avatar
    sayahh

    I don’t like how Mitsu and Chevy reused the Eclipse and Trailblazer names, respectively. I, however, don’t mind Mustang Mach-E. It reminds me of the Corolla Matrix, Celica Camry, Celica Supra, Legacy Outback, Impreza Outback Sport (later XV/Crosstrek), Skyline GT-R, Accord Crosstour and others, where the trim/variant eventually spun off and became its own model. Maybe this Mustang Mach-E will become Mach-E.

    We did have the Five Hundred become the Taurus, the Miata becoming MX-5, Lincoln changing all their normal car names to weird alphanumeric names, and plenty of other quirks. Just like the Mustang II was a product of its time, the Mach-E is also a product of its time. Maybe it doesn’t deserve the Mustang name, like the GTO didn’t deserve the GTO name, but Ford named it Mustang, so it’s a Mustang, pony car or not; it was named after the fighter jet, no? Call it Mustang+, Big Mustang or Mustang Mach-E. There is a qualifier, like KitKat BigKat, so just relax: there are probably people who will only drive the 64-1/2 MY Mustang and nothing else is a Mustang. Civics today are bigger than older Accords, and Corollas are bigger than older Camrys, and new Mini Coopers are so much bigger than the old Moni Coopers. I have no problem with people needing a bigger car, plus it’s environmentally friendlier the ICE cars.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    “Ford could make another Pinto and sell it in Jihad countries.”

    True they would be more effective than IEDs.

  • avatar
    Dave M.

    It’s a Mustang because Ford labeled it as such and tossed a few ‘Mustang styling details’ at it.

    The semantics of “Mustangs can only be a two door sporty car” doesn’t jibe with history. The original Charger was two doors. The ’67 Thunderbird introduced a four door model. European coupes sold as ‘shooting brakes’ qualify as well.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    What if for the next gen “real Mustang” they keep it a sporty 2 door but have BMW build it instead? Is it still a “Real Mustang”?

    • 0 avatar
      sayahh

      Thanks for this. This is the reason why some (or maybe even most) Supra fans don’t think the “Zupra” is a true Supra. But using the “it has to be a coupe” argument that many here are using to disown or not embrace or acknowledge the Mach-E as a true Mustang, then your example will make them try to come up with another excuse to say that it still isn’t a Mustang even if it is a coupe. Or what if hypothetically Toyota, GM or Tesla buys Ford like Mercedes, then Fiat and later Renault-Peugeot bought Chrysler. Is the Fiat 500 Jeep not a Jeep? Are or aren’t any new cars “truly” Mopar? Will a Fusion or Taurus that’s a rebadged Camry not a Ford?

      Also: Bertone Mustang, anyone?

      https://classiccars.fandom.com/wiki/Ford_Mustang_(Bertone)

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    There is a different take on why the Mach E *IS* a Mustang.

    We’ve seen Ford make the corporate decision that they will no longer actively pursue sales in the traditional “car” portion of the automotive market. Pickups, SUV’s and CUV’s ARE Ford’s new domain. A Mustang CUV just fits that new market position.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      Lambo has a CUV, Ferrari has a CUV (they’ve been sending my stuff), Porsche has had CUVs for a while, and we’ll probably see a Corvettified version of the Lyriq. Every performance brand is doing it. It makes sense that Ford would do it with the Mustang.

  • avatar
    namesakeone

    The Probe was more of a Mustang than the Mach-E.

  • avatar
    Chocolatedeath

    I didnt get a chance to read all of the comments and I dont really care thats its named Mustang or not however couldn’t Ford have just called it the Mach-E or even better the Probe.

  • avatar
    David

    Love this writing. LOL! Best writing I’ve seen in a long time. KEEP IT COMING JO.

  • avatar
    exJeeper

    You’re all too hung up on the name.

    The main pony point here, is the fact a Mustang Mach E isn’t a “Mustang,” since it does not have an internal combustion engine, as ALL Mustang automobiles have had, since the development of the first concept car. It’s a plug and play EV that runs on battery juice, not octane, and requires an electrical charge. It’s your basic full-sized RC car without the RC (yet).

    RC’s were fun, other than range issues and the countless batteries and chargers needed to “play.” Though the neighborhood cats were grateful for that “down time.”

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Tele Vision: This Just In: Driving Requires Driving. I haven’t used cruise control since 1989. Fact. I...
  • ajla: Until the Taurus came out the American auto makers were very hesitant to move away from Brougham styling in...
  • GregLocock: /rhetorical/
  • GregLocock: /rhetorical/
  • Tele Vision: That thing is hot garbage. At least Cadillac/GM got my V1 right: LS2 and a T56 in a mid-sized rear-drive...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber