RE: Ford Mustang Mach-E | Ridden

[nickfrog]

Not sure about other people and I am not too bothered. I need a SUV and it's necessary for my use. HTH.

[eddharris]

big_rob_sydney said:

Do I have a problem with SUVs? Yes.

Why? Because people buy things that block the view of trailing vehicles.

Why does this annoy me? Because choices other people make which are unnecessary impact me. There is very little in the way of need as opposed to want in these decisions.

Do you really want to get into it with me?

I'll pass for now on your "hissy fit" comment, and let you have the first shot without responding.

You've done it again, "Because choices other people make which are unnecessary...".

You and the OP from the Bentayga thread, quite unbelievable.

We have an SUV, absolutely love it and it serves exactly the right purpose for us.

Edited by eddharris on Saturday 15th February 14:42

[BogBeast]

Ok effort 1st by Ford, but naming its a Mustang was idiotic. It's an SUV FFS. An electric Mustang that looked and performed like a Mustang would be Ok, but this.. nope...

Looks a bit gopping to me, I really don't understand the need for that blunt nose - If they styled it closer to the Urus then it would be so much better.

But, if you are after a mid-size electric SUV, I have no idea why you would buy this over a Tesla Model Y.

Suppose they have to start somewhere, but they have a hell of lot of catching up to do...

[Kolbenkopp]

Dave Hedgehog said:

SUVs are globally more popular, and the mustang is in the sweet spot for sales / profit per unit.

Yeah I get that, makes total sense financially. Really don't want to go down the SUV bashing road again, I think we've done this to death on here.

For _me_ personally, EV SUVs are not appealing. I'd like to have best possible efficiency at higher speeds and this is where the ride height, surface area and large tyres of a SUV have a negative impact. The same applies to any power train, but it's almost negligible with ICEs.

With current EVs, from ~ 130 kph, drag makes a surprising difference -- to the point some Teslas come with aero wheel covers and owners found out they can squeeze up to 10% more range out of a model 3 by lowering them by 4 cm.

[sidesauce]

Wolfsbait said:

"wife friendly"?

Really? I think the real 'odd thing' here is you my misogynist friend

Most married men I know don't just buy a car without their wives approval.

The phrase 'wife friendly' when describing this car is not a misogynistic thing to say in this context, at all. I don't know if you've noticed but many, many (often married) women, particularly the 'yummy mummy' types like SUVs for their perceived safety as well as the fact they get to sit higher up than in a normal car.

Try to not jump on anything mentioning women as being hateful.

[MC Bodge]

swisstoni said:

To those claiming sacrilege of a once proud brand, this was also a Mustang.
They were never all muscle cars. People just remember those more.

A dad at my primary school had one of those.

[big_rob_sydney]

eddharris said:

You've done it again, "Because choices other people make which are unnecessary...".

You and the OP from the Bentayga thread, quite unbelievable.

We have an SUV, absolutely love it and it serves exactly the right purpose for us.

Edited by eddharris on Saturday 15th February 14:42

nickfrog said:

Not sure about other people and I am not too bothered. I need a SUV and it's necessary for my use. HTH.

I would hazard a guess that of ALL the buyers in this country, not 100% of them buy for reasons based around "need".

Rather than stating the obvious, I could ask you to justify your own position, but then it would be a case of "none of your business", "choice is a good thing", or some variation used to hide behind refusing to tell the truth.

Frankly, many of these "sports" utility vehicles, wont see a day off road, and the most sporty thing about them resides in the daydreams of their owners, being 2 tonne plus barges of lard.

I could go on about the very obvious compromises, but I fear some in their (equally) entrenched positions may take it personally (as I clearly must have done when feeling my visibility trespassed upon...).

[Gromm]

I’m not disliking it, it’s just not the e-Mustang I thought it would be.

[eddharris]

Quote, "Rather than stating the obvious, I could ask you to justify your own position, but then it would be a case of "none of your business", "choice is a good thing", or some variation used to hide behind refusing to tell the truth".

You may ask and I'll tell you the truth, not sure why you think folk would lie about such a trivial thing. No off-roading for us but climate means 4 months of rough weather with snow so the clearance helps. BUT, let's say I was in the UK, i would still buy an SUV as they easier to get into so more comfortable for my dodgy back. Also easier for elderly parents. Easier to load up than an estate too and having young kids and an outdoorsy lifestyle, that matters. I've yet to cause someone behind me to swerve into a hedge due to lack of visibility, and I've definitely not noticed an eclipse leading to total darkness when I pull it out of the garage.

And I both have and have had 'normal' height cars so appreciate the merits of each.

I'm not sure why you're struggling to see this. Anyway, wrong thread for this.

[MC Bodge]

I await the E-Mondeo Estate.

Electric cars are here to stay. Internal combustion engines (an air pump in which oil is burned) are going the way of steam engines.

[nickfrog]

big_rob_sydney said:

Rather than stating the obvious, I could ask you to justify your own position, but then it would be a case of "none of your business", "choice is a good thing", or some variation used to hide behind refusing to tell the truth.

That sounds a bit dramatic - if you know me so well as to guess my answers, what is your version of the truth ?

FWIW, in the meantime here is my truth: the shape of a SUV is more practical than an estate to transport my bike or 2 bikes standing up AND despite not being an off roader, it goes places where an estate won't, courtesy of the ground clearance/wheel travel. It's also shorter than an equivalent estate so uses less road space and is easier to maneuver/park in town, amongst many other advantages, including but not limited to a soft and comfy ride with the balloon tyres and much better resilience over the many potholes that litter the Sussex roads.

big_rob_sydney said:

Frankly, many of these "sports" utility vehicles, wont see a day off road, and the most sporty thing about them resides in the daydreams of their owners, being 2 tonne plus barges of lard.

Ours is 1250kgs

big_rob_sydney said:

I could go on about the very obvious compromises, but I fear some in their (equally) entrenched positions may take it personally (as I clearly must have done when feeling my visibility trespassed upon...).

I don't have entrenched positions, don't judge my by your own standards. I like estates a lot, I have had a few. It's possible to like two different shapes of cars. They may well suit other people's needs better and there is nothing wrong with that, I certainly wouldn't dream of telling people they shouldn't drive a 2-ton barge of lard like a RS6 or like your Lexus LX . Call me open minded.

No other compromises for me at all. I have the Meg Cup for track days.

Edited by nickfrog on Saturday 15th February 19:06

[gigglebug]

big_rob_sydney said:

Rather than stating the obvious, I could ask you to justify your own position, but then it would be a case of "none of your business", "choice is a good thing", or some variation used to hide behind refusing to tell the truth.

I could go on about the very obvious compromises, but I fear some in their (equally) entrenched positions may take it personally

Surely this couldn’t be coming from the person who recently bemoaned straw man arguments could it?

big_rob_sydney said:

(as I clearly must have done when feeling my visibility trespassed upon...).

Dry your eyes mate. Maybe one day in the future legislation will allow you to gain compensation for the trauma that you suffer. Until then maybe you should just get on with it.

[gigglebug]

I like the styling of many of the small to medium size SUV’s currently available and this doesn’t look bad either. Must be something with the proportions that suit the modern design languages as I prefer most to the hatchback alternatives. Still can’t see myself needing or buying one as it stands though. As for the name it’s neither here nor there to me, I don’t think the new Puma demerits the original either even if they are a mile apart in conception.

Edited by gigglebug on Saturday 15th February 19:42

[mac96]

MC Bodge said:

swisstoni said:

To those claiming sacrilege of a once proud brand, this was also a Mustang.
They were never all muscle cars. People just remember those more.

A dad at my primary school had one of those.

They look better now than they did when new though. I suppose that's the effect of nostalgia.

Back on topic- it has been obvious for years that Ford were planning on using Mustang as a subbrand, like Mini. The S550 Mustang has no Ford badging on the inside, and just a windscreen sticker on the outrside. The engine has 'Ford' on the coli covers but that's it.

[unsprung]

mac96 said:

it has been obvious for years that Ford were planning on using Mustang as a subbrand, like Mini. The S550 Mustang has no Ford badging on the inside, and just a windscreen sticker on the outrside. The engine has 'Ford' on the coli covers but that's it.

It's thoughtful of Ford to ensure that Mustang is almost exclusively about Mustang (and not about blue ovals).

But the Mustang tradition has been mostly this way, all the way back to the original car in 1964. Some of the early versions had a discreet line of F O R D letters set apart from one another on the leading edge of the bonnet, in a way not too different from, say, Range Rover.

The Mustang brand, however, as both iconography and name, was dominant inside and outside the car -- as it is today. The major exception was during the fox body years.

Ford Thunderbird was much the same.

All of this is basically the same as Corvette, where some will find it challenging to locate anything Chevrolet.

Domestic manufacturers have for many generations minimised their corporate presence on select cars because they were keen on building value-added brands -- lifestyle brands -- with aspirations and experiences that consumers would pay more for. Certainly more than for a bog-standard family appliance.

[Rumblestripe]

unsprung said:

But the Mustang tradition has been mostly this way, all the way back to the original car in 1964. Some of the early versions had a discreet line of F O R D letters set apart from one another on the leading edge of the bonnet, in a way not too different from, say, Range Rover.

Sorry that was standard Ford badging through the 60s and into the 70s my M3 Cortina had no "blue oval" and F O R D on the bonnet.


Not mine sadly

I'm fairly confident the "blue oval" became ever present in the late 70s?

[LuS1fer]

Rumblestripe said:

Sorry that was standard Ford badging through the 60s and into the 70s my M3 Cortina had no "blue oval" and F O R D on the bonnet.


Not mine sadly

I'm fairly confident the "blue oval" became ever present in the late 70s?

I'm extending my brain here but whilst the FORD script featured, on and off, dependent on model on bonnet and/ or bootlid, they also had a blue oval on the bottom of the front wing, certainly on the Mk 1 and 2 Cortina and possibly only on one side - oddly having a badge only on one wing was also notable on my 2009 Mondeo.

The Mk 3 Cortina had a shield denoting the engine on the wing with the trim level on the boot.

BL had a similar lower wing mounted small BL badge.

Back then, the car names were iconic, in themselves - it was largely with the rise of premium brands whose model names were boring numbers that the corporate badge became more important.

I had a 3rd and 4th gen Camaro where the only thing Chevrolet was a French tricolour nose flag. Corvettes only had the cross flags.

There is no Ford badge on my 2005 Mustang either.

Car names are often more iconic, whether Cortina, Corolla, Challenger etc

[98elise]

Mark_Blanchard said:

I think history will look at it in the same way as 1974 Mustang II. It sold in massive numbers but was an embarrassment to the Mustang brand.

Me I’ll keep my 69 Mustang Mach 1 thanks.

At least it looked a bit like a Mustang. This on the other hand.....

[big_rob_sydney]

eddharris said:

I've yet to cause someone behind me to swerve into a hedge due to lack of visibility, and I've definitely not noticed an eclipse leading to total darkness when I pull it out of the garage.

If you think being inconsiderate ONLY applies when someone drives into a hedge, then perhaps you truly are inconsiderate.

nickfrog said:

That sounds a bit dramatic - if you know me so well as to guess my answers, what is your version of the truth ?

FWIW, in the meantime here is my truth: the shape of a SUV is more practical than an estate to transport my bike or 2 bikes standing up AND despite not being an off roader, it goes places where an estate won't, courtesy of the ground clearance/wheel travel. It's also shorter than an equivalent estate so uses less road space and is easier to maneuver/park in town, amongst many other advantages, including but not limited to a soft and comfy ride with the balloon tyres and much better resilience over the many potholes that litter the Sussex roads.

Ours is 1250kgs

I don't have entrenched positions, don't judge my by your own standards. I like estates a lot, I have had a few. It's possible to like two different shapes of cars. They may well suit other people's needs better and there is nothing wrong with that, I certainly wouldn't dream of telling people they shouldn't drive a 2-ton barge of lard like a RS6 or like your Lexus LX . Call me open minded.

No other compromises for me at all. I have the Meg Cup for track days.

You may have missed the bit where I discussed need versus want. If this meets your needs, great. Try reading that again.

Even so, that wont change the fact that this body type causes trailing vehicles to have impeded view.

gigglebug said:

Surely this couldn’t be coming from the person who recently bemoaned straw man arguments could it?

Dry your eyes mate. Maybe one day in the future legislation will allow you to gain compensation for the trauma that you suffer. Until then maybe you should just get on with it.

Really? Nothing of substance by way of argument (and I think many would be saying you have plenty of material to work with here, given the rampant selfishness some observe), yet you talk of drying eyes and straw men...

The irony is strong with this one...

[Clivey]

Ugly electric crossovers, road pricing, average speed cameras & other digital vultures everywhere...I'm not looking forward to the "future" of cars at all. Utterly depressing.