I've got no problem with Ford making a performance crossover SUV.
And I've got no problem with Ford updating some of their classic brands.
But to me, a Mustang should always be a two-door GT coupe. Making it into a crossover SUV dilutes the classic identity of the thing.
Like, Porsche is making sport SUVs, but they're not calling them the 2024 911.
I mean, if Ford's going to recycle an old brand, they should choose one they haven't used in decades. "The new Pinto! This one doesn't explode!”
@bennomatic Yeah…but I’m kind of OK with it. The Mustang has evolved over the decades into something very different from the secretary’s car the 1964 model was. It will continue to evolve, and given industry trends, if the name is to survive it probably needs to diversify. Just my opinion.
@larand 🤪 Reasonable people can disagree. It just makes me sad to see it as a fairly generic SUV. Everything is a generic SUV today.
I didn't realize that the ‘64 model was considered a "secretary’s car”. Maybe my image of it is unrealistically romantic.
Tell the truth, one of the worst cars I've ever driven was the Vanilla Ice-era Mustang 5.0 convertible. A friend of mine was going home to Alaska for the summer, and her boyfriend was legally blind, so he couldn't use her car…
1/2
@larand …so she loaned it to me. It was underpowered, had no torque, and Cadillac-esque floating suspension. And literally an hour after dropping her off at the airport, I hit a pothole that tripped the gas cutoff switch all Fords have since the Pinto, and the car drifted to a halt in the road.
Luckily, someone came along who knew how to fix it: the one cop I've ever been happy to see.
But it looked good and sounded good, and it was fun to have for a summer.
2/2 FIN
@bennomatic The ‘64 was basically a Falcon with better styling. It took a couple of years and Carroll Shelby to turn it into a legend.
My own Mustang story involves an overnight drive across eastern Arizona on I-40 in a friend’s new ‘90 GT 5.0 at 100 mph. 😈