[shaffe]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

That seems to be the developing consensus over on Mustang6G. I'm told that on FB the commentary has been far harsher.

If it succeeds, the vehicle itself will probably be fine for its intended purposes. But Ford is spending an unwise amount of Mustang heritage for what's likely to be little gain. 'Mach E' by itself might be acceptable, if only borderline so.


Jim Farley seems to have been the guy primarily to blame for suggesting the Mustang name be used here. I want to be optimistic enough here to hope that it's more than just a hope that Ford is rethinking this mess. That they learned enough more from the Probe fiasco to stop thinking that easing people into shifting what the Mustang name stands for (like they've done, going from Mach 1 to Mach E to Mustang Mach E) was going to work any better.


Martinjlm may have deeper insights. Hope he stops by.


Norm

As I said in other threads on other sites about this topic. As a mustang fan, I was fine with it using the styling. I mean corporate styling is everywhere in lots of brands. Look at Porsche, even GM has corporate styling traits making its way into lots of vehicles. So I was fine with it taking mustang styling cues, even heavily using them. I was fine if it was called Mach-E.

But calling it Mustang went one step to far. Porsche was smart enough not to call their sedans or suvs 911 but the styling is of it is 100% there. Ford tooko a big swing and miss on naming this one.

Should have just left it at Mach E

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by ChibiBlackSheep

It seems not only odd to be called a Mustang, but also odd to be called an SUV.

This car doesn't appear to be either of those things. Maybe it's a CUV? But it's much smaller than I anticipated, and I honestly can see standard "cars" becoming this style very quickly.

I agree, CUV would be more accurate. But it's not as small as it may appear - it sits on a 117" wheelbase (and I've seen rumors of it weighing 5000 lbs).


Norm

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

I agree, CUV would be more accurate. But it's not as small as it may appear - it sits on a 117" wheelbase (and I've seen rumors of it weighing 5000 lbs).


Norm

That weight wouldn't shock me I think I read the battery alone weighs almost 1000 pounds

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

The Mustang side appreciates the support.


That seems to be the developing consensus over on Mustang6G. I'm told that on FB the commentary has been far harsher.

If it succeeds, the vehicle itself will probably be fine for its intended purposes. But Ford is spending an unwise amount of Mustang heritage for what's likely to be little gain. 'Mach E' by itself might be acceptable, if only borderline so.


Jim Farley seems to have been the guy primarily to blame for suggesting the Mustang name be used here. I want to be optimistic enough here to hope that it's more than just a hope that Ford is rethinking this mess. That they learned enough more from the Probe fiasco to stop thinking that easing people into shifting what the Mustang name stands for (like they've done, going from Mach 1 to Mach E to Mustang Mach E) was going to work any better.


Martinjlm may have deeper insights. Hope he stops by.


Norm

I’m like Candyman...say my name three times and the horrors begin.

This particular theory of mine is just in its infancy stages. Still researching some parts of it, so on one hand, you heard it here first. On the other hand, I could be waaay off base. Here we go...

I’ve mentioned a couple times that the only difference between “GM’s killing the Camaro again” and “Ford’s gonna extend S550 a few years and then figure it out” is that Ford controlled their message by stating the extension of S550 instead of the expected move to S650. GM characteristically said nothing about extending Alpha to 2023 instead of making the expected 2021 move to Alpha2. They allowed a supplier leak of cancellation of Alpha 2 parts supply lead the story and never commented on what is REALLY going on. Still haven’t. What’s common to both is the idea that Ford / GM will figure it out by the time they get to 2026 (Ford) or 2023 (GM).

Putting the Mustang name on Mach E could be Ford’s way of hedging their bets on the idea to take Mustang completely to an electrified platform, skipping S650 altogether. Since there will still be ICE powered coupes and GT350 / GT500 vehicles available through the early 2020s, there is no need to lead with an EV coupe. So they lead with an EV CUV. When GT350 / 500 have run their course (2023 - 4?) introduce an EV coupe to replace EB and GT. Now you have your Mustang family of EVs ranging from economy coupes to performance CUVs. Mach E is one bookend. The most extreme bookend. An electrified GT350/500 replacement in the 2026 timeframe would be the other bookend.

[Nightfall ss1le]

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

That makes no sense.

If GM made a Camaro that I wanted I'd still buy it regardless of what else was called a Camaro. They could put the name on a school bus for all I care. What's the difference, I'd still have a nice car.

To each their own I suppose but I wouldn’t feel the same about them as I do now. I’m not blindly brand loyal & have had several muscle cars from different manufacturers (mostly GM) but if Ford follows through with identifying just anything they feel like as a Mustang then I can permanently scratch the them off my list of future purchases. Branding a particular model takes too much away from the specialness of it.. I mean if the manufacturer doesn’t even think it’s special enough to just be what it is then why should I?

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

That makes no sense.

If GM made a Camaro that I wanted I'd still buy it regardless of what else was called a Camaro. They could put the name on a school bus for all I care. What's the difference, I'd still have a nice car.

I understand and agree in principle with that thought, but the concerns goes more like
"As long as GM makes a Camaro that I wanted I'd still buy it regardless of what else was called a Camaro".

This isn't about your current 2+2 sporty car or mine, or our next one. Depending on our car buying cycles and unanticipated needs, maybe not even the one after that.

It's probably easier to see the long-term possibilities after you've already been through a similar transition away from what you prefer to a configuration that you personally have a strong dislike for (should be a big enough hint). Experience does take some of the guesswork out of imagination guided by advertising with an agenda.

When the mfr's stated long game is to build only more utilitarian body styles and go big with electric, what does it suggest when they try to attach identity of the name of their current icon (one of their longest running models as well) to the latest people-mover. Sure, the CUV/SUV may well have higher performance than many/most other such vehicles, but it's still a tallish 2-box people-mover.


Norm

[90503]

Just went to the LA Auto Show. Ford had a very nice exhibit and the star was the new Mustang. Make no mistake about it, they are marketing this car full bore as a Mustang.

and it looks nothing like the current Mustangs for sure. It sticks out like a sore thumb, but they are definitely touting it as Mustang's future. It's a good way to bring attention to the car, but they are using every bit of Mustang clout they can find to promote it.

[lemontwist]

[RagingHawk]

Originally Posted by 90503

Just went to the LA Auto Show. Ford had a very nice exhibit and the star was the new Mustang. Make no mistake about it, they are marketing this car full bore as a Mustang.

and it looks nothing like the current Mustangs for sure. It sticks out like a sore thumb, but they are definitely touting it as Mustang's future. It's a good way to bring attention to the car, but they are using every bit of Mustang clout they can find to promote it.

If that's the future, yikes. I'd never buy an electric muscle car and most muscle car people won't. So I guess instead of killing off the Mustang it will eventually just become an electric CUV. Which will probably sell more than the S550 so Ford doesn't care what we think, lol.

[Silveradoss573]

Originally Posted by shaffe

As I said in other threads on other sites about this topic. As a mustang fan, I was fine with it using the styling. I mean corporate styling is everywhere in lots of brands. Look at Porsche, even GM has corporate styling traits making its way into lots of vehicles. So I was fine with it taking mustang styling cues, even heavily using them. I was fine if it was called Mach-E.

But calling it Mustang went one step to far. Porsche was smart enough not to call their sedans or suvs 911 but the styling is of it is 100% there. Ford tooko a big swing and miss on naming this one.

Should have just left it at Mach E

Agree but Ford knew what they were doing by calling it a mustang. I'll never buy one of these...fact. In fact, maybe I should get my Mach 1 back because they actually have some mustang heritage and the fact that it's a 2 door coupe...what a mustang has been and only should be.

[Nightfall ss1le]

This guy pretty much sums up how I feel about it.

[Martinjlm]

Mach E being called a Mustang actually makes sense if you look at it from a portfolio management perspective.

Ford wants to expand the Mustang portfolio:
Evidence? They said it. So, if they intend to expand the Mustang portfolio that means adding something that does not exist today.

Options for Ford to expand Mustang portfolio:
Add a sedan. Something to compete with M3 (not M4) and M5. Maybe even Panamera or S7
Add a performance hybrid coupe
Add a performance EV coupe
Add an ICE performance CUV to compete with Macan, Trackhawk, AMG GLA45, X3M
Add a performance EV CUV

Selecting amongst the options
Sedans are a dying breed, luxury, performance, or otherwise. A few will be able to maintain a decent amount of volume, but there is little or no incentive to bring in a new one.

Performance hybrid coupe makes sense and is probably coming. Evidence? Ford has stated they will produce one. But in the short term, there is very little space in the portfolio for that. EBHP—>GT—>Bullitt—
>GT350–>GT500. Where does it fit? Trying to shoehorn it between any of these makes little sense until one of them <cough> Bullitt <cough> goes away. You’d be trying to sell a high cost / low margin vehicle side-by-side with an existing moderate cost / decent profit vehicle. That would be intentionally losing money.

A performance EV coupe makes sense long term, but in the short term, would Ford intentionally set up customers to compare between a just updated $65k GT350, a $75 - 100k GT500, and a [pick a number over $80k] performance EV coupe? No. If (when) a performance EV coupe appears, it will be after GT350 / GT500 have run their course. Food for thought....Ford has indicated that there may be a Shelby Mustang EV at some point. What they did not say was that the potential Shelby would definitely be a CUV. It could be a coupe. That appears after the current GT350 / GT500 are retired.

A performance EV CUV is actually the safe play for now. It sits in what we in the portfolio planning profession call “white space”. Meaning, if you draw up all the various types of vehicles currently available on a sheet of paper based on expected customer wants and needs, the part of the paper that has little or no entrants pencilled in is white space. Back when everybody had a cell phone and a laptop, Apple dropped the iPad into the white space.

Fast forward to 2030. Ford’s “Mustang portfolio” could look like this:
EcoBoost
5.0L GT
5.0L Hybrid Mach I (yeah, I said it)
Mach E CUV
Mach E GT CUV
Shelby GT500 EV Coupe

That’s my crystal ball.

[Norm Peterson]

So why does the name 'Mustang' have to become a "portfolio" in the first place? Especially after Ford has basically said that they're not interested in building anything that isn't a truck, SUV, or CUV?

A performance EV CUV sounds like a safe play no matter what they decided to call it. Certainly better than a compliance-level EV with indifferent performance at best.


Norm

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

So why does the name 'Mustang' have to become a "portfolio" in the first place? Especially after Ford has basically said that they're not interested in building anything that isn't a truck, SUV, or CUV?

A performance EV CUV sounds like a safe play no matter what they decided to call it. Certainly better than a compliance-level EV with indifferent performance at best.


Norm

They said they have no interest in building anything that isn’t a truck, a utility, or a Mustang.