There’s not many car reveals these days that the world actually stops for. A new Corvette. The next Miata. Defender? Well we waited long enough, god knows how long it’ll be before there’s another. Porsche shows a different 911 version each week. But of course there is one more that’s worth waiting up for. A new Mustang.
When the Camaro and the Challenger took a break, the Mustang remained available as an all things to all people slice of American performance and style. It’s seen some ups and downs, but remaining in production since 1964 is a pretty decent achievement. Clearly there’s a lot of merit in Iacocca’s idea of a stylish, accessible, decent performing car for the everyman. And now there’s a new one.
We’d heard rumors of hybrid systems and 4WD to make this latest horse a bit more 2024, but the reality is Ford have played it extremely safe. And when I say safe, I also mean cheap. Despite what the PR wonks say, this S650 Mustang is a reheat of some S550 leftovers.
Much of the problem with the S550 Mustang was that it had turned into a bit of a pastiche. It was always a slightly awkward, gawky looking thing, endowed with too much hood and deck and not really enough passenger cabin. The overhangs were a bit too long, the roofline a bit too tight. Listen to some uniformed commentators and they’ll tell you that’s what makes muscle car proportions, too much is great and even more is better. Well that’s why they’re uninformed and I do this for a living. It’s all about nuance and balance in the volumes and proportions. The thing with this new Mustang is it uses the existing car’s body in white, so these proportions haven’t changed.
If you look at the side view, you can see the cant rail and the pillars haven’t altered at all. The shut lines for the doors are in exactly the same place. The daylight opening has changed slightly for the rear glass, but fundamentally you can see it’s the same car.
Looking at the front, the top horizontal line of the headlights now becomes the shut line of the hood and the top of the grill. This gives the whole down the road graphic a monobrow visage, and draws your attention to the shape of the hood and the fact there is a lot of sheet metal bending down to meet the lights. Like a Mk8 Golf, it looks like the front of the car is melting off. Not only that, but in replicating the three segment taillights in the main beams, it’s all starting to look bitty and unconsidered.
And those tail lights are doing some serious retro heavy lifting.
The three vertical bar tail light was present on the original ’64 and has remained in various forms ever since. The previous S550, despite having a slightly fat bum had a nice simple black infill panel with plenty of blank space in the center for various badging options. It worked well as a graphical call back to earlier cars and helped reduce the visual mass of all that bodywork. This new Mustang eschews that cleanliness for a more aggressive treatment that lowers the trunk opening but looks blander due to there being more body colored sheet metal. You have to be really careful doing this because if you get it wrong it can look cheap.
Speaking of looking cheap the interior is a major let down. I’m sure the new digital displays are crisp and have some nice animations, but the integration here is awful. There’s starting to be a lot of pushback around moving secondary controls to touchscreens in cars, so it’s surprising to see a car that supposedly plays on emotional appeal and driver engagement just plonk a couple of screens on top of the IP and call it a day.
So we’ve got a car that is basically the old car in a new cocktail dress. The underlying ungainliness of the old model hasn’t really changed, and has arguably been exacerbated. There’s no reinvention here, no four wheel drive for inclement states and no hybrid for the inner city. It’s all a bit half assed, which to a degree I understand. Like all OEMs Ford is betting big on EVs throwing all their spare dollar bills in that direction, so there’s not a lot left over for the ICE stuff. You can only work with what you’re given. But this is the last the last ICE Mustang we’re going to get and it’s basically the same as the last one but uglier?
You have a car with nearly sixty years of design heritage, that adapted to reflect the circumstances of it’s time, but Ford is determined to keep us in 1964. After the first Mustang, we had the baroque malaise Mustang II. Ok, not great, but it sold (a lot!), was the right car for the right time and kept the name alive.
As we moved into the microprocessor eighties a new Mustang appeared with weirdo metric tires, aero styling and a hatchback. Pretty advanced stuff. But as we headed towards the millennium, the Mustang took a step back into the warm bath of nostalgia. Since then it’s been, like it’s contemporaries the Camaro and Challenger trading on a heritage appeal that does a disservice to those earlier generations.
If the Mustang’s appeal is it’s authenticity, why are we getting a fuzzy copy of a copy, like a bootleg cassette that’s been passed around high school and re-recorded repeatedly? Surely a really up to date Mustang would look around at today’s environmental challenges, the geopolitical landscape and what’s influencing popular culture and wonder how it would evolve.
An aero Mustang with a 4 cylinder turbo and a hatchback perhaps….
I’m going to do something I tried to avoid when writing about cars “professionally” and judge a design before I have a chance to see it in person. While I’m not really blown away by the new “Stang, and wish it had been better, it is a welcome change from the “mee-too-ism” I see in many modern designs. It doesn’t look like, for example, a Supra, and I’m grateful for that.
To make this look like a Camaro, you’d have to turn it upside down and drop it on its lid a time or two. It seems the driver can actually see out of this car. Likewise, the number of extraneous doo-dads — especially the now-obligatory black plastic ones — appears to have been kept to a minimum.
Personally, I thought the 2005 redo was the best thing to happen to the Mustang since 1964, and don’t think subsequent versions have improved on it. But that’s all subjective. What do you expect from someone who wants actual, physical instruments and control buttons, knobs and levers inside, and the simplicity, sound and feel of a 5.0 under the hood?
“It was always a slightly awkward, gawky looking thing, endowed with too much hood and deck and not really enough passenger cabin. The overhangs were a bit too long, the roofline a bit too tight.”
Adrian, could you or The Bishop show us what a truly redesigned Mustang might look like with these faults you listed fixed? I’m intrigued to see how you’d keep the soul of a Mustang but change the body so significantly.
I’d like the same, especially because I generally disagree with him. Though, I do agree the rear overhang is a bit too long.
Loving the analysis, and agree with most of it but isn’t it fascinating how 99% of all car-related media buys into Ford’s narrative about a new car?
::cough:: hacks! ::cough ::
This feeds back i to the discussion yesterday about how 95% or whatever of new car reviews are positive, even when we know 95% of new cars are not uniformly good. A lot of reviews are tainted by marketing fluff or the pressure to appease advertisers or just being disconnected with what the needs of the audience really are. Not unique to cars
It’s like they took the ugliest parts of a Camaro and added them to the Mustang.
I hope they rethink that IP. Touch screen controls are not the way to go. Love the new steering wheel as the current one is too skinny. Other than that, I like it. Mr. Clarke, I’m sure you’re a fine designer and a wonderful person, but it’s obvious that you wanted to hate this car.
I really didn’t at all. I love American cars, and especially muscle cars. This is just very underwhelming. They clearly didn’t want to do a whole new car yet, and this comes across as being a very big face lift. It feels like a missed opportunity.
“Underwhelming” is exactly right. I recall some executive at Ford saying that this car would be “poster-worthy”. This ain’t it.
I appreciate your opinion and I regret saying, “..you wanted to hate this car.” That was heavy handed of me. Cheers!
One could argue that “uniformed” commentators are generally also quite “uninformed”, but it’s a hilarious typo nonetheless.
You know how we always dunk on Nissan for sticking with ancient-ass platforms?
Well it seems like those cheap bastards are the only ones who have figured out how to keep making an old platform look new, fresh, and exciting. Whereas same-platform updates like this Mustang look half-assed and arguably worse than their predecessors, the new Z is the most gorgeous version yet.
I rarely “full stop” disagree with Adrian’s design critiques, but on this one he’s wrong. While I agree that it hasn’t been changed much, this is far better looking than its immediate predecessor. It’s clearly of the same shell, and keeps the Mustang design traditions, but in a more modern way.
The body styling that Adrian complains most about are the exact improvements I like best.
Adrian’s worst take: the rear. Where the old design used a cheap sheet of black plastic between the lights, this new model’s body-color creased metal panel between the lights is a huge improvement. A plain glossy black heckblende is nowhere near as appealing as an actual trunk lid with some careful sculpting. The glossy black panel was overdue to leave as soon as it arrived.
The front looks awesome with the unified hood line. Combined with the understated ridges cresting the fenders that follow back into upper door sills, it’s a great look. I’d rather have round headlights, but we don’t get all we want.
I’m neutral on the squared nose, when viewed in profile. I don’t think it’s worse or better; just a bit different.
Complete agreement with Adrian about the interior, though.
The rear does not look carefully sculpted to me at all, it looks disjoint with the rest of the body and the tail lights have no elegance to them at all, compared to the S550 tail which blended nicely and whose tail lights had depth and a bit of intricacy to them rather than just some rectangular bars slapped on a haphazardly chiseled decklid.
The bend in the new tail lights call to mind the similar crease in the original tail lights, but where the 64s bent outward, these bend in. Otherwise these are more similar to the 64s than most of the designs between, and they look great.
The S550 Mustang’s rear end was too much about framing. It’s not a bad look, but it’s like the lights and the heckblende aren’t part of the car, but instead are accessories stuck in an inset panel created by the trunk lid, fenders and rear bumper.
Again, the S550 is not bad, but this new one is much better. The tail no longer looks like a glue-on part. It looks like a deliberate part of the car again.
It looks like a 1970’s Monte Carlo. Henceforth, I label this as the “Musty-Carlo”. Will there also be an SS version?
Pretty much 90% of the body is the 2005 Mustang Guigiaro Concept, but with a slightly taller front end for pedestrian impact standards. The hip jump that’s very Camaro like (and I’m pretty sure GM just straight up stole for the ’07 Camaro Concept), the character line that hints at the side vents that hark back to when the Mustang was mid-engine in 1960 prototype form, the upturned headlights, the stamping folds on the hood are 1:1, and the very specific droop of the nose. The only change they made is that they kept the roof from the S550 Mustang to save costs on changing hardpoints, and that the rear-end completely throws out the Guigiaro Concept’s taillights and lower valance.
And another brand kill’s off it’s muscle car lineage with a weak, uninspired design. Fuck you Ford!
Your new Ranger sucks too.
Easy Online home Job to earn extra $18,000 or more by working Online. I am a full time college student and doing this Online Job in spare time for only 2 to 3 hours a day Online
HERE–> https://netcareer54.blogspot.com/
The two things I do not like about it:
1. The new headlight shape makes it look like a Camaro.
2. The dash layout got rid of the really nice AC vent design from the 2015-17 models.
I like it. I like the flattened (vertically) front and rear profiles. Like the rear end profile. Like that the rear window is hidden in profile.
I don’t much care it is similar to the 6th gen. They had to do what they had to do to allow this to live to 2030 before dying. I’m happy they did it the way they did.
The interior…. well, I don’t much like the screen. Seems to be a last minute design choice. Does not seem fluid with the rest of the interior. It would have been nice to have a simple screen for the gauges, and a smaller one on the center, more integrated. The buyers of this are in it for the experience, not the gizmo’s, IMHO. though, i’m sure there is going to be some track goodies that will come in handy on the screens.
As I am an “ONLY manual” guy, in his mid 40’s, almost able to buy something like this. I bet I will own one someday, for one reason, and one reason only, three pedals for life.
It seems every single new car has the “screen stuck on top of dash” rather than a nice integrated screen. I could mount a tablet on the dash if that’s what I wanted
Just giving you a hard time, but you launched a pretty aggressive (written) critique of the design and forgot to have someone proofread your piece. Just seems in bad taste.
That said, nice critique!
Point taken, we wanted to get something up as soon as it was released.
Yes, but as always, why? Why was it important to get something up as soon as it was released? Did you think we wouldn’t read it if it came up an hour later? Did you think we’d spend less time on the page if it came up an hour later? This interest in speed really baffles me. This is not the NYT vs WaPo, CNN vs MSNBC. We’re going to click anyway, and I just wouldn’t think your metrics are going to be better at 8:22 than they would have been at 8: 52. Often, however, poor syntax and typos really take me out of the story.
I know I’m not the only Old who’s turned off by all the tech. And guess who has 50 grand to spend on a toy? Oh yeah, old people. Thank gob there are plenty of used ones out there.
As for the outside, it’s a Camaro.
I’m 31 years old and even I’m turned off by the current tech dystopia interior trends. This interior is distracting, dangerous, and would take my focus away from the point of a pony car in the first place…which is to drive. I thought long and hard about nabbing the MK8 Golf R until I realized what a nightmare the interior is…so I saved a big pile of money and headaches by getting one of the Hyundai N cars.
Not to brag or anything, but my wife and I could afford to drop 50 grand on a car if we really wanted to. But I’d never, under any circumstances, want to do so on something as laughably inefficient and impractical as this. The amount of compromises you have to make (horrid fuel economy, unusable back seats, adequate but hard to use cargo space, astronomical insurance costs, etc.) for something like this are hard to swallow…especially when there are countless more efficient and livable options at this price point.
I really don’t know who this car is for anymore other than nostalgic Boomers (I don’t say that in a derogatory way), rental fleets, and childless Gen Xers who can finally afford what they’ve wanted since their teens. If I wanted to drop 50 grand on a toy the manual Supra or a used 718 would be my pick….and if I wanted to drop that much on a daily Id probably go with an S5 sportback, M240/340i, or maybe even an IS500…even though the fuel economy penalty is still there with it the other compromises are not.
Same age group, and I am with you on the tech. Another thing I am thinking is just how horribly these screens will age, especially given how quickly tech evolves these days – like 80’s cars with a million buttons. Regarding screens, less is more in my opinion. At least have the decency to integrate it into the dash, and not just paste it on there. It looks like crap now, and will look even worse in 10 years.
The thing that shocks me is just how much that centre console looks like it belongs in a 2010 Camaro.
Overall…It might grow on me, but it doesn’t look better to me than the 2022. I kind of judge new designs on whether they a) look good and b) do thry immediately mak the previous model look worse This does not do either.
“An aero Mustang with a 4 cylinder turbo and a hatchback perhaps….”
What they need to do is make a streamliner Mustang with a 5.0L naturally aspirated V8, and harken back to the rounded headlights of the original. Don’t make the car look angry, make it look SEXY. Go for a fastback streamliner with no compromises on the aero, and the looks could easily come into their own. If anything, retro styling cues could go well with a streamliner.
If it had a drag coefficient of around 0.18, a frontal area of around 20 sq ft, and weighed in around 2,700 lbs, with a 5.0 V8, and nice, tall gearing(especially to reach the top speed such aero would allow), this could be a legit 40+ mpg US car. With a naturally aspirated 5.0L V8 under the hood.
For a cheaper model, a hybrid-electric 4-cylinder could be standard. Ford proposed such a thing more than 15 years ago with the Ford Reflex, which was a fastback coupe said to get more than 70 mpg. The next base Mustang should be something akin to that, not the retrograde rehashes we keep seeing.
And such an efficient platform would also play well into an EV version and help maximize range per dollar of battery pack.
THAT is the sort of future we need for musclecars. We need to update the chassis and body design into the future. Efficiency needs to be the emphasis, not brand identity, not planned obsolescence, not marketing. The average new car has a drag coefficient of ~0.28, which has just begun to match the 1921 Rumpler Tropfenwagen, an outboard-wheeled car from more than 100 years ago(outboard wheels are really bad for drag), and the most efficient car available today, the Tesla Model S PLAID at a Cd of 0.20, has finally beaten the 1935 Tatra T77A that had a 0.21.
None of this is rocket science, and it was known how to do this for a century now, many decades before CFD software, the reconciled Navier-Stokes equations, and the modern wind tunnels we have at our disposal today.
When I saw this my first thought was what the Mustang knockoff would look like in GTA.
Looks like an updated Ford Evos concept with modern Comaro haunches. This is not exciting.
Looks like a Charger fucked a Mustang, right?
Based on that rear quarter panel, I’d say it was a threesome with a Camaro,
Adrian’s review kinda brings to mind the SN95.
It was really at best a bridge to keep the Mustang going until a brand new product for the 21st century could be designed and released.
An antique chassis, old but proven engines, a bunch of retro-ish parts here and there, and then refreshed midway through to put it into a nicer dress but keeping the same head if you will.
So is this perhaps the bridge to a truly all-new electric Mustang?
(full disclosure: I own and love an SN95. But I understand what it is)
I actually really loved the original SN95 at the time. The ’99 update, I hated.
Style wise the sn95 was a pretty big departure from the fox bodies though, even if it was a low budget make over from and engineering/manufacturing standpoint. I like the looks of this but it’s not a major change from the previous one for better or worse
No it’s not a departure at all, and that’s what’s disappointing.
I agree… the “New Edge” Mustang looked awful.
Am I right in saying that the first year SN95 was the best because it was the new chassis with the best of the old motor?? didn’t they switch to the new motor in year two?
Yeah. I remember they came with the 302 for a year or two at the outset. That is the one to get in my opinion minus the goofy looking horizontally segmented tail lights, which I would imagine are easy to replace..
For me, it brought to mind the SN99/New Edge Mustang that was very clearly an updated SN95 – they haven’t given an old chassis an entirely new body. I imagine you’re right, and that Ford’s been working on this car’s successor for a few years.
Great take, and cool car. The SN95 has definitely grown on me in recent years. As J. turner mentioned in reply, I believe this new “generation” is a perfect analog to the SN99. Some sharper sheet metal, but the same old (at least not as old as the Fox platform) chassis underneath…
“The SN95 has definitely grown on me in recent years. ”
Like a tumor?
:-p
Of all the retro style cue’s attempted not bringing back the round headlights is a missed opportunity.
I’m tired of the angry squinty look already. Take that pony badge off the grille and it could be anything else I see driving around looking mean for no reason when it could’ve looked different, maybe even fun.
Meh…
That’s a really good observation – b/c we can have headlights in every possible shape these days, there seems to be an allergy to ever replicating old round or square sealed beams, doesn’t there?
Yes, and it’s sad. Very sad.
A pair of round driving lights set into the grille could do wonders for it, I think. It leans into the retro aspect, but would help alleviate the angry squint.
So I’m supposed to buy aftermarket parts for this thing Ford has unveiled as a revelation of muscle car history and future combined?
It’s up to me to make this already expensive car look better with mods?
Strong pass.
What is with the desire to make everything an AWD hybrid?
Can’t anything remain RWD and V8 powered anymore? Jesus Christ every automaker on the planet would be delighted to sell you a hybrid with AWD, an affordable sport coupe is much more rare.
It’s about offering options to those who want them, one doesn’t preclude the other. Part of the Mustangs traditional appeal is being a lot of things to a lot of people.
IIRC all the talk of hybrids and AWD was predicated on switching to the Explorer platform which would have necessitated larger size and weight.
Even if that wasn’t the case, the cost of development is passed down to the consumer.
It’s not as if adding options is cost free even to those who don’t want them.
The hybrid idea apparently died due to Ford selling enough Mustang Mach Es to get the EV offset credits they needed for their corporate CAFE average. Don’t need to make more fuel efficient ICE cars if you sell enough electrics. Whether customers want to buy a more fuel efficient ICE car or not is not a relevant concern, evidently.
First you tell me I’m wrong about design because I’m “uniformed”. Now you are trying to gaslight me on what a Mustang is? The Mustang has never stood to mean a lot of things to a lot of people. Come on, a two door car–especially in the modern era–has generally meant a limited set of things to a limited number of people. It’s a fuckin’ Mustang, not a F150.
You personally attacked my appearance and personal style, as if that has anything remotely to do with how I design a car. Here’s the thing. My personal look and style was part of what got me hired because I stood out and was committed to presenting myself in a certain way, rather than slavishly following trends.
Secondly, unless you’ve studied car design (I did for six years) then compared to me you are uniformed. Do I know everything? Of course not but it is my area of expertise and how I earn a living. Somebody clearly thinks I know what I’m doing because they are prepared to pay me to do it for them. Someone else pays me to write about it. And believe it or not I also get paid to teach it. I’ve got cars I worked on on the road and very successfully received, so that suggests the buying public think I know what I’m doing as well.
Finally if the Mustang wasn’t a lot of things to a lot of people why was it available with different body styles, various engines and outputs and with myriad options packages from the outset? Iacocca was many things but above all else he was a salesman, and knew how to shift the metal. It’s a V8 muscle car for people who want that, but was also a stylish runaround for people who wanted the looks but not necessarily the expense and power of a V8.
The insinuation I’m trying to gaslight you is fucking offensive, frankly. Especially when elsewhere in thread you say you’d like to see my take on the proportions and you agree the rear overhang is too long.
I’m with you. Let this one die with pride, RWD V8 is the only answer to that. The ECOboost is, IMHO, just there for those who want the name. It’s not the real thing, and I’m glad that the 6MT is only on the V8, as I consider that “pure”.
As a 2017 Ecoboost owner, I disagree.
303 HP (and 200 lbs lighter than the GT) makes for a very authentic Mustang experience.
I agree with you jblues. Did I want a GT? Sure. But $10000 difference is a lot of money to me. The Ecoboost is better than it needs to be.
I’ve driven the Ecoboost convertible as a rental and was actually impressed. The nice thing about turbos is all the low end torque. Couple that with all the gears available in modern transmissions and it’s a compelling package. I’d love to do a 2.3 Ecoboost restomod into a early to mid 60’s Falcon/Comet.
I had one as a rental too….and had the same reaction about how torquey it is!
Wasn’t a fan of the fake engine noise though, would rather have heard turbo spool.
I don’t disagree with you, and your point is sound. It’s just not a “pure” pony car, IMHO. I wouldn’t say its a BAD car, nor that it is NOT fun or awesome. There has always been a non-V8 Mustang, and the ECOboost fits that bill well. I, personally, think it’s better than ANY V6 in history, as I hate a V6 (I own one!). If it’s a “V”, it should be a V8.
Psssst! PSSSSST! Come over here
*whispers*
The current HPP ecoboost with the handling package is one of the most interesting Mustang offerings
I’m saddened we don’t have an affordable big-block V8 rear-drive sports coupe that follows Lotus’ philosophy regarding weight, and then also applies it to wind loading.
Overpowered V8 cars don’t need to be gas hogs, at all. There’s really no reason for it. All the changes that would improve efficiency ALSO would improve performance. And greatly so. Since the idea is a road car and not a dedicated track car, we don’t need thousands of lbs of downforce at 200+ mph, we need just enough downforce to keep the car stable for the very rare times the car will ever see 200+ mph, and no more, and that can be achieved with ground effects and a well designed rear diffuser, which the Peugeot 9X8 hypercar car has proven(among many others before it). That in turn, helps minimize drag, which in turn means you go faster on a given amount of power, with the added benefit of improving fuel economy.
Everything is designed for marketing, and it suffers as a result. More steak, less sizzle, should be the overriding philosophy, but these days, things are the opposite. And it’s not a sustainable model, especially as natural resources become more scarce.
To get an idea of what is possible, on youtube look up LegitStreetCars 400 horsepower EcoVette. The Corvette is more efficient than most platforms, so it is no surprise that they get decent highway fuel economy. But the owner of this specific Vette tuned the engine to operate in a lean-burn mode. The result is he gets 40 mpg at 70 mph on the highway. This version of Corvette has a drag coefficient of 0.29. Imagine what would happen, that retaining the same pushrod V8 we all know and love, the car lost 1,000 lbs AND saw its drag cut by half. Think about this for a minute.
It would be economical. And significantly FASTER.
A lean running V8 might work for a little while but will not last due to the heat a lean mixture produces in the cylinder. Manufacturers can’t sell a car with an engine that’s inevitably going to blow up. Engineering around this would be extremely costly and would drive up the cost of the car… why do that when a smaller turbocharged engine or electric drivetrain would yield the same performance?
Also even if what you’re saying was possible/practical, couldn’t you do the same with a smaller engine? Wouldn’t a lean running inline 4 be more efficient than a V8? It’ll just move the goal posts further in terms of regulations and customer expectations.
Sorry man, I like big loud NA engines too but it’s just the reality. Personally I’m just appreciative that this still has the 5.0 V8 available instead of a V6 turbo like the Raptors
The argument I made wasn’t that we should have lean burn V8s, but that the car itself, regardless of engine, should be a more efficient platform on the whole. In fact, that would have a much larger impact on efficiency than running a higher-compression lean-burn engine tune. I simply pointed out this lean burn Corvette as an example of what a hobbyist has done in the real world.
Without lean burn, a stock Corvette of that vintage can still return more than 30 mpg at a steady 70 mph. Cut the road loading in half by reducing drag, mass, and rolling resistance, and using the same exact engine and tune, you will also cut highway fuel consumption by roughly half. The potential for a reliable V8-engined car that gets more than 50 mpg highway is there, without compromising much of anything.
THIS. So much of THIS. I get the HURR DURR MUH BIG HEAVY INEFFICIENT V8 crowd is never going to want anything else because all they care about is their own driving pleasure, but that crowd is dwindling more and more by the day. The Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger are ludicrously inefficient and impractical cars and they simply don’t need to be.
They all have roughly the same footprint of a damn 4Runner…and yet neither the Mustang nor Camaro have a usable back seat, they each have doors that are so massive and heavy you can’t fully open them in regular parking lots, their trunks are needlessly small, the Camaro in particular has a trunk opening so small you can’t fit a big suitcase through it, the list is endless. They’re ridiculously huge, heavy cars…and while the Challenger actually has usable backseats and a trunk, it’s still laughable how massive and inefficient it is.
These things are as big, heavy, and inefficient as friggin full sized SUVs, and yet they can really only seat two adults and carry enough stuff for a weekend. Just…why?!?! It’s absolutely absurd. They could make the Mustang smaller, lighter, dramatically more efficient, and give it enough space for 4 actual full sized humans easily.
I like our pal V10emous, and to a degree I certainly get the appeal of these cars. But in 2022, in the middle of a climate crisis no less, there’s just no reason why this car should exist as it still does when we have the technology to make it much more practical and less harmful. It doesn’t need to be a gas guzzling land yacht.
But not *everything* needs to meet your definition of what’s desirable.
The Mustang is the last one standing. The aggregate harm from a single slow selling V8 coupe is virtually nil in the long run. Your mindset is already winning; there are hybrids and efficient cars everywhere if you want them. Must you take everything from us? Must you not only win, but salt the earth afterwards?
Slightly unhinged rant aside…..
As someone who has actually worked in automotive engineering, I take great issue with the statement that it would be “easy” to simply improve everything you want at no cost. Reducing weight in a modern car is actually quite difficult, and it’s not as if engineers set out to make heavy cars on purpose. Everything is a tradeoff, weight especially.
Every other automaker would be delighted to sell me an AWD hybrid SUV, crossover, or possibly sedan. I want a fuel efficient, four season usable, stylish and impractically designed coupe or convertible, damn it!
I’d suggest a 2 or 4 series or an Audi A5 then.
Nodding vigorously