Which Annoys You The Most?

[Razors Edge ★]

That the new Mustang is an SUV?

OR

That the new Mustang is an electric vehicle?

 

[maddmaxx ★]

The front end of that vehicle is hideous.  A major part of the design element is a fake grill opening pretending to be the place air used to go into the radiator through.  It may go down in automobile history as an attempt to outdoo the Edsel.

 

 

 

yes I meant to spell it that way.

[jsharr ★]

Looks like the bastard love child of a Tesla screwing a Mazda

[Razors Edge ★]

3 minutes ago, jsharr said:

Looks like the bastard love child of a Tesla screwing a Mazda

Sort of does.  Honestly, the SUV or maybe CUV distinction is no a surprise as we have seen most automakers jump on that sort of profile the past several years.  I don't really know the tech details yet, though, so it will be interesting to see if this is a real effort to make a worthwhile electric vehicle or not. The buzz was that initially, Ford was viewing this as a "make one to satisfy the rules" sort of thing, but then had a change of heart and decided to give it a real shot.  We'll see.

12 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

The front end of that vehicle is hideous.  A major part of the design element is a fake grill opening pretending to be the place air used to go into the radiator through.  It may go down in automobile history as an attempt to outdoo the Edsel.

I am not sure if electric car front ends look bad because they are truly ugly or we are just so conditioned to traditional front ends that the new non-grill types freak us out.  One neighbor has a Tesla Model S and another a Tesla Model 3 - both are black - and I FAR prefer the front end of the more traditional Tesla S to the newer Tesla 3.  I think it is because the S has a almost "normal" look.  Tesla has slowly moved to less grill on the Model S:

2013:

Current:

Versus the Model 3:

[Road Runner]

This should increase the demand for my 07.  

[maddmaxx ★]

It's not for me to say but I think minimizing the air intake opening would be proper.

[Razors Edge ★]

4 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

It's not for me to say but I think minimizing the air intake opening would be proper.

Form ought to follow function.

But, not everyone is a Jobs/Ive super-duo.

[jsharr ★]

 

 

 

Couch's buddy Charlie Fartburg's wife posted these pics on the book of faces.  She works for Ford or some such.

 

 

[jsharr ★]

And I have no problem with Ford making a battery powered SUV.  I do resent them calling it a Mustang in any way shape or form.

[Razors Edge ★]

2 minutes ago, jsharr said:

Couch's buddy Charlie Fartburg's wife posted these pics on the book of faces.  She works for Ford or some such.

There are actual professionals who post stuff as well, you know 

[jsharr ★]

1 minute ago, Razors Edge said:

There are actual professionals who post stuff as well, you know 

are you calling me an amateur, you bush league hack?!

[Razors Edge ★]

Just now, jsharr said:

are you calling me an amateur, you bush league hack?!

Nah. We all suck versus the pros.  Autoblog or Jalopnik or whatever car sites will have tons of better stuff than us

[Indy]

That's it an SUV

 

And further reason as to why I bought an Infiniti G37 over a Mustang.  That's my biggest complaint with a lot of the domestic car companies, proliferation of models.  You can get a Mustang which is really a good performance car, but you can also get one that pretty mundane in the realm of sports cars.  Yes the higher performance ones have some minor differences, but overall, they are all Mustangs and generally look the same.

[Indy]

12 minutes ago, jsharr said:

 

 

 

Couch's buddy Charlie Fartburg's wife posted these pics on the book of faces.  She works for Ford or some such.

 

 

That big ass tablet screen thing looks like a half assed after thought.  They seriously couldn't integrate it better than that?  Of course I am also of the firm belief, that in general, touch screens don't belong in vehicles.  You should be able to operate everything by feel and not have to look at a screen to try touch a particular area and stare at the screen to do so.  It just seems completely backwards to be trying to prevent people from looking at their phones and doing things while driving and then put a larger, just as distracting version of their phone built into the car.

[Mr. Silly]

24 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

It's not for me to say but I think minimizing the air intake opening would be proper.

Agreed 

[Razors Edge ★]

2 minutes ago, Indy said:

Of course I am also of the firm belief, that in general, touch screens don't belong in vehicles.  You should be able to operate everything by feel and not have to look at a screen to try touch a particular area and stare at the screen to do so.  It just seems completely backwards to be trying to prevent people from looking at their phones and doing things while driving and then put a larger, just as distracting version of their phone built into the car.

+10000000

[Dottleshead ★]

SUVs are fer ags.

[Mr. Silly]

Electrification is the direction of the industry so I can't blame Ford for putting out an electric Mustang. 

Naming an SUV a Mustang is unconscionable 

[Razors Edge ★]

Just now, Mr. Silly said:

Electrification is the direction of the industry so I can't blame Ford for putting out an electric Mustang. 

Naming an SUV a Mustang is unconscionable 

You missed the late 70s through the early 00s, I guess. Most of the Mustangs of those 30 years were pretty pretty pretty bad.  Even the good, were relatively bad

[Wilbur ★]

There have been worse Mustangs.

 

[bikeman564™]

yes

[Kzoo]

3 hours ago, Don Cherry said:

There have been worse Mustangs.

 

I owned one of those a '79.  It wasn't really a Mustang.  The only Ford I've ever bought.  The 2.0L engine was a piece of junk.  Even WoKzoo (who has little care of cars) told me never to buy another Ford - ever.

 

 

[maddmaxx ★]

25 minutes ago, Kzoo said:

I owned one of those a '79.  It wasn't really a Mustang.  The only Ford I've ever bought.  The 2.0L engine was a piece of junk.  Even WoKzoo (who has little care of cars) told me never to buy another Ford - ever.

 

 

A 2.0 engine in a 79 Mustang would have indeed been a piece of junk.  Somebody would have replaced your 2.3 with an older engine from before 1974.  The 2.0 was dropped in the release of the new 74 mustang II and replaced by the 2.3 L4.  That engine was still in use in 79 when the 3rd generation made it's debut.

I owned a 85 mustang notchback 2.3 with the intent of retrofitting the 5.0 police package and suspension produced for the Police special.  The notchback was lighter than the fast back.  That project was terminated by the cost of raising rug rats.  I drove it as a 2.3 for a few years

[Kzoo]

27 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

A 2.0 engine in a 79 Mustang would have indeed been a piece of junk.  Somebody would have replaced your 2.3 with an older engine from before 1974.  The 2.0 was dropped in the release of the new 74 mustang II and replaced by the 2.3 L4.  That engine was still in use in 79 when the 3rd generation made it's debut.

I owned a 85 mustang notchback 2.3 with the intent of retrofitting the 5.0 police package and suspension produced for the Police special.  The notchback was lighter than the fast back.  That project was terminated by the cost of raising rug rats.  I drove it as a 2.3 for a few years

Maybe I’m confused - maybe it was a 2.3.  It was junk.

[maddmaxx ★]

3 hours ago, Kzoo said:

Maybe I’m confused - maybe it was a 2.3.  It was junk.

Well, there's junk and then there's Junk.  The 2.3 was adequate.  

[MickinMD ★]

I bothers me that they're calling it an SUV while cheating on the roof height as it reaches the back end.

[Kzoo]

23 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

Well, there's junk and then there's Junk.  The 2.3 was adequate.  

No the oil ports for the overhead cam were vastly inadequate leading to premature cam bearing failure.  The only saving grace was the overhead cam could be slid out without removing the engine.  It sat just above the hood latch.

Trash I tell ya.

[groupw]

4 hours ago, maddmaxx said:

A 2.0 engine in a 79 Mustang would have indeed been a piece of junk.  Somebody would have replaced your 2.3 with an older engine from before 1974.  The 2.0 was dropped in the release of the new 74 mustang II and replaced by the 2.3 L4.  That engine was still in use in 79 when the 3rd generation made it's debut.

I owned a 85 mustang notchback 2.3 with the intent of retrofitting the 5.0 police package and suspension produced for the Police special.  The notchback was lighter than the fast back.  That project was terminated by the cost of raising rug rats.  I drove it as a 2.3 for a few years

The 2.0 Pinto engine was vastly superior to the 2.3 Lima engine. The 2.0 was lighter and better performing. Aside from having solid lifters, I’m not sure what else did this engine in. I just know they chose not to certify with the EPA as the catalytic converter was adopted. 

[groupw]

Ford has talked for a long time about expanding on the Mustang name because it seems to be the only car-based name that still sells well for Ford in the US. Not crazy about the lack of grill, but otherwise they could have done far worse. I will withhold judgement until I can see one in person. 

[maddmaxx ★]

4 hours ago, Kzoo said:

No the oil ports for the overhead cam were vastly inadequate leading to premature cam bearing failure.  The only saving grace was the overhead cam could be slid out without removing the engine.  It sat just above the hood latch.

Trash I tell ya.

Hmm.  Along the way I ran two of them and a 2000 without problem.  I was careful to replace the timing belt at the 75,000 mark on both and I am finicky on my oil change procedures.  All engines get the ignition shut down and the engine is turned over till adequate oil pressure is achieved.  

The 2000 was in a 72 Pinto Wagon that I used as a business car when I was with Stewart Warner.  It averaged about 200 miles a day 

The first 2300 was in my 77 Pinto Crusin Wagon and it ran to 120,000 before the overhaul and another 60,000 after that before I sold it.

The second 2300 was in the Mustang mentioned above.  No cam bearing problems in any of them.  All were standard transmission vehicles though as I am of the opinion that the automatic allowed the car to lug along in city traffic at too low an RPM........now that produced problems most likely due to low oil pressure.  The engine however was in every Ford vehicle for well over a decade from trucks to the larger Fox chassy vehicles.

[Razors Edge ★]

10 hours ago, MickinMD said:

I bothers me that they're calling it an SUV while cheating on the roof height as it reaches the back end.

I hear ya.  SUV, CUV/crossover, and even coupe are all whatever the companies (marketers) want them to be.  Any station wagon has "utility" and likely is more "sporty" than almost any comparable SUV, but they're still "wagons" or "estates" - not "sport utility vehicles".  It's all just marketing mumbo jumbo calculated by the marketing folks on how to sell the most vehicles. Sometimes they are correct, sometimes miserably wrong. We'll see on this "Mustang".