قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Business / My problem with the Ford & # 39; Mustang & # 39; Mach-E

My problem with the Ford & # 39; Mustang & # 39; Mach-E



I get it. I do. You're Ford, building what appears to be an electric Mazda CX-5, and you want people to buy it. You are worried that no one has bought an electric CX-5 before, before. You are worried that the electrical transition will not stand out in the endless ocean of other new electrical transitions, which very few are actually interesting to look at unless they have Falcon Doors. But people buy Mustangs. They love Mustangs. So call it a " Mustang " and you can end with the flop sweating over the huge investment. Apart from that it is incredibly craven, cynical and condescending. I'm not a fan.

This isn't going to matter how "Ford watered the Mustang's good name." First, the name "Mustang" is just branding, and the sooner you separate yourself from sentimental attachment to material things, you'll start living a more peaceful life. And after all, Ford has admired the Mustang's own "good name" many times already .

Don't get me wrong, current The Ford Mustang is a fantastic car. That's it. It makes great sounds, and it's fast and comfortable and surprisingly quick, and the interior is not a bad place to be. The inside is, I dare say, possibly even nice . At the moment it is a solid staff favorite.

But that was not always the case. Mustang II, which literally everyone knows, was rubbish. The Fox Body Mustang is known more for cheap speed than quality or appearance. Do you even remember the last time someone saw it lumpy from the 1990s and actually pined for it? You don't. Any statements about the opposite or notions at best, and at worst pure fabrications.

Certainly there were oddballs and hidden gems. SVO was interesting. Cobras R was great. But I'm not bothered by any notion of "watering" the good Mustang name. That's because this is not about "what Ford does with the Mustang", but what it says about what Ford thinks about us, the consumers.

It's no coincidence that most of the new EVs coming out are crossovers. Crossovers are what people buy! That is why "the future" is decidedly unsexy faux-SUVs like the BMW iX3 and Audi E-Tron . None of these things move the needle emotionally. No children will ever have posters of these cars on the walls. But they want Mustang posters, and at least everyone knows Mustang. This is why all the clueless non-automotive press headlines would say shit like " Mustang is an electric SUV now " and get away with it.

By calling a four-door, electric family SUV a "Mustang" and telling us it is "Mustang-inspired" with no explanation beyond the endless meaningless phrase, Ford assumes that we would just accept it.
[19659003] That we wouldn't be able to look at it and go, "oh, it looks like an electric Mazda CX-5." In short, Ford is embracing a certain cultural zeitgeist at the moment. " Just remember that what you see and what you read is not what happens ," Ford might as well say. And assuming that people will whine about that kind of marketing ploy, that consumers will think your electric crossover is a "Mustang" because hey, it has "Mustang" right in the name, volume says more about what Ford thinks about you than what it thinks on their own car.

This is not a judgment on the car either. Maybe that's good. Maybe it's going well. Maybe it's even fun, in itself. But in a time where people feel they can only tell you something that easily seems to be a lie in front of your own eyes, it would be good to have something honest. Which is what it is, and try not to pretend it's anything else in a ridiculously poorly fitting costume.

Imagine that all 5 & # 39; 5 "and 165 pounds of me walking around in a Los Angeles Lakers jersey insist that people call me" Magic Johnson, "because that's who I am. People will think It's hideous. They'd hide their kids.

I'm not saying I can come up with a better name for a car (all the good ones, like "Civic" and "Stanza," are already taken) But I think we can all see, with our own eyes, that this one is not.


Source link