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

[Bit_the_Bullitt]

Holy buckets this is about to go off the rails here.

Sponsored

 

[Mikthehun1]

Holy buckets this is about to go off the rails here.

Rails...trains run on rails...some trains are electric...electric cars...ok, we're back on track.

 

[GP2017GT]

T

We may have a choice if we get enough people to think the same. If we get enough people to think with their own heads instead of blindly swallowing the official propaganda.
And yes, I do intend to enjoy my real, proper car for as long as I can.

There in lies the problem we can never agree on anything these days. Sad.

 

[Bikeman315]

Also not an accurate statement. 1st ICE patent - 1823, 1st electric motor patent - 1837.

Tell that to the guys that want the 7.3 Godzilla.

 

[RPDBlueMoon]

You know what's funny? This isn't about what want. This is about what we eventually are going to get. So enjoy your ICE car. They will be around for a long time. But when that time comes, sometime in the future, you are not going to have a choice.

Sadly this is what will happen in next decade or so unless something drastic happens. Just a matter of time before round 2 of emissions regulations hit the cars, V8s are already going away which is why I am so glad and lucky I was able to get the Mustang I wanted.

I would hate to be born around this time.

 

[Mikthehun1]

Tell that to the guys that want the 7.3 Godzilla.

Every time I see that word...

 

[Hack]

You know what's funny? This isn't about what want. This is about what we eventually are going to get. So enjoy your ICE car. They will be around for a long time. But when that time comes, sometime in the future, you are not going to have a choice.

One thing that makes me hope is that the same people who want to outlaw the ICE want to make it illegal to eat meat. I just hope that there are enough voters who like meat to keep cows and ICEs alive.

And the other thing is money. If there is more money in the ICE than electrics, politicians and car companies will come around. At least I sure hope they will.

 

[Mikthehun1]

One thing that makes me hope is that the same people who want to outlaw the ICE want to make it illegal to eat meat. I just hope that there are enough voters who like meat to keep cows and ICEs alive.

And the other thing is money. If there is more money in the ICE than electrics, politicians and car companies will come around. At least I sure hope they will.

Where is all this "make meat illegal" rumbling coming from?

 

[Hack]

Where is all this "make meat illegal" rumbling coming from?

Cows contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than cars do. The rumbling comes from government officials who are proposing to get rid of cows before they kill us all. And then they say something like "you can't ignore the science".

Sorry I'm getting off track. I think it's directly related to electric cars (not really, but the people who are making the ICE illegal are also saying they are trying to improve the environment). So it is related to the electric only Mustang that will kill the Mustang's ICE heart.

 

[Mikthehun1]

Cows contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than cars do. The rumbling comes from government officials who are proposing to get rid of cows before they kill us all. And then they say something like "you can't ignore the science".

Sorry I'm getting off track. I think it's directly related to electric cars (not really, but the people who are making the ICE illegal are also saying they are trying to improve the environment). So it is related to the electric only Mustang that will kill the Mustang's ICE heart.

Well, from that perspective, they should kill Amazon then. Manufacturing things cheaply, and then shipping them from China can't be great for the environment either.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Cows contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than cars do.

And the oceans contribute more than any other source. We just need bigger and better sponges and leave the cows and ICE alone.

 

[amk91]

Right there with you. One of my comments was quoted, seems like only about a word or two really were relevant to what he replied, but I'm not about to sift through 10 quotes to address that.

I was too tired to delete the rest of your quoted post, but I definitely had to point out the rumor you were referring to about "7 years", was complete BS to me at least. I think that should be very obvious to you though or do I need to put it in bold, that I wasn't interested in the rest (which happened to be quoted)?

Maybe you misread mine instead.





That'd be my question as well. So if the older aspects of the S550 aren't holding it back enough (technically) to justify a revolutionary redesign it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to do an extensive redesign. That leaves evolutionary changes.



I'm not sure how to read this in the context of your other question "How much do some older aspects of the S550 hold it back technically, is my question?". Either the S550 having roots in the 2000s isn't holding it back technically, or those older roots are. Which is it? If the old stuff is holding it back, how badly? Badly enough that a revolutionary new design would be enough better to justify the unavoidable price increase?


Norm

I didn't misread your post, as I very much responded in kind to the fact that you took me out of context, in virtually claiming that I was asking for Ford to reinvent the wheel by my stating "revolutionary redesign".

I didn't ask for a Ford 911 or a Ford GTR.

I am asking for them to simply to give the Mustang new bones, as was intended with the original S650 plan under Mark Fields.

Ford did that for the S197 in 2004 after using the Fox for 26 years, so I can't see why it makes sense to rehash D2C (S197/S550/also S650), other than penny pinching and trying to pull the wool over buyers. Calling something "all-new", when it rides on the same dated architecture from 2 generations back is an insult to me as a buyer, when Ford is capable of developing world-class, all new bones for the Mustang after 16-18 years.

And yeah, I do believe there are technical limitations of an architecture using a floor pan which dates back to 2004 and who knows what else in terms of components? It was time to ditch D2C by 2021, but that won't happen yet will it? And when it even does, it will be to abandon the Mustang formula in favor of a low-riding Mach E.


I made a typo in my last response to you, so clearly some stuff got lost in translation. Your excuse that they should just keep it the same to essentially "keep the price low", is laughable, when you look at how much some stuff costs nowadays anyway. A $60k non-Shelby Mustang isn't even unheard of anymore, when you B&P certain GT Premium cars.

In plain speak, the Mustang is dated underneath and it's time to give it new bones, but with the same RWD, V8 formula in mind. (It comes across you are implying, that I am asking for way more.) Ford refuses to do it, by kicking the can further down the road once again and now possibly, focusing such desired efforts on an EV-focused coupe instead and possibly abandoning the formula, to cave into hype and fads.

If GM simply redid the Camaro on the Zeta architecture versus move to the newer Alpha, I doubt they would even break half of the already challenging sales of their 6th generation Alpha car. As the added performance benefits to SS buyers, just wouldn't even exist. Thus, no incentive to buy one.

That Camaro simply doesn't sell due to the more cartoonish, rehashed styling theme and inferior practicality. Not just the increased price, due to moving to a fancier architecture shared with Cadillac.

The Flat Rock Plant construction married to CD6 would be a match made in heaven, as it was originally developed with higher quality engineering in mind and Flat Rock is a much better plant than Chicago.

To me, I am not all that impressed with them constantly reskinning the same 2005 MY basis over and over, to the point it makes losing any weight more challenging and how certain fixed hardpoints of the D2C, are hard to design around, versus having a clean sheet car, with less limitations.

I am fine with a company using a platform or architecture for 2 generations, but 3 or more generations is pushing it, over a 25 year period. They have needed to move it from the D2C since 2014/15, but save for a few halo models, have left the Mustang on the backburner way too much and are often too flippant on committing to anything worthwhile beyond a few superficial changes.

With modular CD6 and what was intended for it originally as a multi-billion dollar investment, a Mustang on it would've been fitting. In a last ditch effort to raise the stock price short term, the last guy butchered it from the roster and opted for a lazy compromise.

I don't know why you seem to be okay with a car that already weighs a lot more than many of us desired and has roots in the 1990s, via Jag/Linc DEW98 (D2C is dumbed down from it). Yet is nothing like those lighter weight cars of yesteryear and is still bulky anyway.

They will not do anything, as long as the customer base continues to eat it up. Luckily for them FCA never wanted to spend any money on anything not Jeep or Ram and GM had sour grapes over the Camaro6.

My frustration is that 2023 S650 under Hackett was intended to be only a placeholder until a fully new Mustang would be developed on CD6 for 2026ish, but it is becoming a possibility they will go overboard and make it what I don't want it to be.

An EV only, non-ICE coupe, with the latest and greatest, while denying the other areas of improvement to a more traditional Mustang (like Fields wanted).

Easy PR for Ford to the general public and much easier to sell to Wall Street types, who are gung-ho over Tesla.

I'm hoping Ford can carve out a niche for an ICE Mustang Coupe beyond 2028. Even a hybrid / AWD. There would definitely be a market.

It would be nice if we got a fully new Mustang, that wasn't EV-only and still ICE for Gen 8. The hybrid and AWD, might already be here by 2023 for Gen 7.

 

[Copperhead73]

You have a source I can dig into for this assertion? I'm not seeing anything that predates the ICE. Or do you just want to spout rhetoric under the guise of "facts"?

Source for what? You mean the electric motor used for transportation before ICE?

https://www.eti.kit.edu/english/1376.php

"After many other more or less successful attempts with relatively weak rotating and reciprocating apparatus the German-speaking Prussian Moritz Jacobi created the first real rotating electric motor in May 1834 that actually developed a remarkable mechanical output power. His motor set a world record which was improved only four years later in September 1838 by Jacobi himself. His second motor was powerful enough to drive a boat with 14 people across a wide river. It was not until 1839/40 that other developers worldwide managed to build motors of similar and later also of higher performance."

Earliest transportation use I know of for ICE is the Hippomobile 23 years later.

Look, they both are old. They both suck. They're both great. One is being legislated away for political reasons. Not mortality, not efficiency...just politics.

EDIT: I would be equally incredulous if it were the other way around. More choices, not less.

 

[Mikthehun1]

Source for what? You mean the electric motor used for transportation before ICE?

https://www.eti.kit.edu/english/1376.php

"After many other more or less successful attempts with relatively weak rotating and reciprocating apparatus the German-speaking Prussian Moritz Jacobi created the first real rotating electric motor in May 1834 that actually developed a remarkable mechanical output power. His motor set a world record which was improved only four years later in September 1838 by Jacobi himself. His second motor was powerful enough to drive a boat with 14 people across a wide river. It was not until 1839/40 that other developers worldwide managed to build motors of similar and later also of higher performance."

Earliest transportation use I know of for ICE is the Hippomobile 23 years later.

Look, they both are old. They both suck. They're both great. One is being legislated away for political reasons. Not mortality, not efficiency...just politics.

EDIT: I would be equally incredulous if it were the other way around. More choices, not less.

Actually already read that article when I was fact checking your "dinosaur" comment. More importantly, I also read this guy:

https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Samuel_Brown_(of_Brompton)

"1828 'We were much gratified a day or two ago by witnessing a novel exhibition on the Hammersmith road of a large carriage propelled by a Gas Vacuum Engine, which rolled along with great ease, at the rate of seven miles per hour. There were several gentlemen in and upon it, who appeared quite satisfied of its power and safety."

 

[Bit_the_Bullitt]

I was too tired to delete the rest of your quoted post, but I definitely had to point out the rumor you were referring to about "7 years", was complete BS to me at least. I think that should be very obvious to you though or do I need to put it in bold, that I wasn't interested in the rest (which happened to be quoted)?

It would be nice if we got a fully new Mustang, that wasn't EV-only and still ICE for Gen 8. The hybrid and AWD, might already be here by 2023 for Gen 7.

I assume the section you're referring to in my post/comment/quote was this: " seems somewhat strange that they'd run the same generation (despite a refresh) for another 7 years "

I said that it would be weird that they would continue with the current gen and light refresh until 2028, considering some of the job postings and supplier info they listed showing S650, so yea, I'm not really believing that 7yr run on top of current model until we see a new redesign.

But, time will tell. Honestly, I don't really care. I got my Bullitt year ago, so I'm not going to be in the market for another 5 years at least if at all, so we'll see what the refreshes/redesigns are...

Sponsored