Wonder why Ford didn't develop all-new Mustang?

[Gregs24]

I agree and wish the 6G & 7G were lighter. However, I had a '71 Mach 1 that weighed 3200 lbs. and I have to say that my 6G GT that weighs more than 500 lbs. more handles so much better. Ever going over 100 mph feels stable and comfy compared to my '71. Obviously, this is more due to refinements in steering, suspension, etc. more than just the weight aspect. I also love the huge difference in performance and fuel economy. Yet, a 3000 lbs. car would've been much more desirable.

I actually am glad the Mustang isn't lighter. It is a GT not a sports car so works just right as it is.

Sponsored

 

[RocketGuy3]

My money is on black - epic fail of the EV division outside of commercial run-about vans which will be the only thing keeping it afloat. And not just Ford.

2 years of world-wide recession if not depression will severely crimp consumer EV delivery - all those Lighting orders in the queue will disappear. Lithium will get cheaper, sure. Ford-E and Audi's division will be both spun off into a combined entity (arms-length joint venture?) so the colossal losses don't sink the parent companies who finally shed the Greenie blinders and resume full-rate ICE. With novel fuels perhaps.

The S650 barely rates a model designation IMO - should just be S555 or S560

A recession could well put a damper on EV development, but no one is about to give up on them anytime soon. Hate them as we may as car guys (some of whom are also climate deniers), EVs are objectively better in almost every way outside of the battery, not even considering environmental impact.

The battery is of course a pretty big deal, though, so figuring out better, cheaper, and more energy-dense ways of producing and maintaining them will continue to be critical. Given how desperately the world will need batteries for everything going forward, though, the resources will be there... And of course, who knows, maybe the future of EV energy storage isn't even batteries at all. Maybe it's hydrogen.

 

[DeluxeStang]

I'm just glad to see more people are coming around to the fact that S650 is basically a glorified S550 refresh. And mind you I totally understand why Ford went this route, the market is shrinking and times are uncertain at best. So from a business point of view this was probably the only way to keep the Mustang alive and we should all be happy that they did it this way.

Exactly, plus everyone is operating under the assumption a cd6 based mustang would have been a better performance car when all the insider info says the opposite. It would have been bigger and heavier according to them. Better to build on an already solid platform than try to develop something new that ends up being worse anyway.

 

[Ace]

I'm just glad to see more people are coming around to the fact that S650 is basically a glorified S550 refresh. And mind you I totally understand why Ford went this route, the market is shrinking and times are uncertain at best. So from a business point of view this was probably the only way to keep the Mustang alive and we should all be happy that they did it this way.

It's easy to see that the Mustang team got a very small budget to work with for the new generation. I think they did an outstanding job in creating a the new exterior on the same platform. Really looking forward to first performance review, if they were able to actually outperform the previous models

 

[Gregs24]

A recession could well put a damper on EV development, but no one is about to give up on them anytime soon. Hate them as we may as car guys (some of whom are also climate deniers), EVs are objectively better in almost every way outside of the battery, not even considering environmental impact.

The battery is of course a pretty big deal, though, so figuring out better, cheaper, and more energy-dense ways of producing and maintaining them will continue to be critical. Given how desperately the world will need batteries for everything going forward, though, the resources will be there... And of course, who knows, maybe the future of EV energy storage isn't even batteries at all. Maybe it's hydrogen.

Interesting developments on Sodium ion batteries - BYD will launch their first Sodium ion powered car soon.

 

[6String]

I have little interest in EVs at present. The current batteries are too expensive, too heavy, and too toxic to the environment. The insurance cost is high--since a replacement battery in some cases cost more than the value of the used vehicle. Any damage to the battery in an accident often leads to a complete write-off, (one of the reasons for the insurance costs).

The infrastructure isn't mature enough to support a transition from ICE to EV. And I don't mean just charging stations. Lithium-Ion comes with a hefty weight. More range means larger (heavier) battery packs. The new Hummer EV is too heavy for many bridges (it exceeds the weight limit of the Brooklyn Bridge, for example). I forget the exact weight of the F-150 Lightning, but I think it is over 1,500 pounds heavier than the ICE F-150. Bridges in rural areas of the country may or may not support the weight of new EVs.

Testing and development is underway for new battery tech--aluminum-graphite, sold state, etc. However, in my opinion, consumer-ready new battery tech may be a decade away. Then the issue of retrofitting old-tech systems to new-tech could lead to huge costs both for manufacturers and the power infrastructure.

If lightweight, fast-charging, batteries ever become economical, I will be interested in an EV. Until then, make mine ICE.

 

[akfinfan]

I have little interest in EVs at present. The current batteries are too expensive, too heavy, and too toxic to the environment. The insurance cost is high--since a replacement battery in some cases cost more than the value of the used vehicle. Any damage to the battery in an accident often leads to a complete write-off, (one of the reasons for the insurance costs).

The infrastructure isn't mature enough to support a transition from ICE to EV. And I don't mean just charging stations. Lithium-Ion comes with a hefty weight. More range means larger (heavier) battery packs. The new Hummer EV is too heavy for many bridges (it exceeds the weight limit of the Brooklyn Bridge, for example). I forget the exact weight of the F-150 Lightning, but I think it is over 1,500 pounds heavier than the ICE F-150. Bridges in rural areas of the country may or may not support the weight of new EVs.

Testing and development is underway for new battery tech--aluminum-graphite, sold state, etc. However, in my opinion, consumer-ready new battery tech may be a decade away. Then the issue of retrofitting old-tech systems to new-tech could lead to huge costs both for manufacturers and the power infrastructure.

If lightweight, fast-charging, batteries ever become economical, I will be interested in an EV. Until then, make mine ICE.

I agree with you. I think it's funny that politicians and Green Peace lovers think that Electric cars are actually better/safer for the environment.

 

[papaD]

I agree with you. I think it's funny that politicians and Green Peace lovers think that Electric cars are actually better/safer for the environment.

Not better for the environment, but definitely better for their bank account!

 

[shogun32]

I think it's funny that politicians and Green Peace lovers think that Electric cars are actually better/safer for the environment.

because none of them have an IQ over 80. They refuse to study the science/physics/economics and just "wish upon a star" and it'll come true if they just wish hard enough.

Sponsored