Is it ok to say HELL NO?
John Bono
North Jersey
Buyer's tastes are changing. This is the new Mustang Mach-GTS. 0 - 60 in 3.8 seconds, 300 mile range. Starting price $60,500.
It's inevitable. It's for the new generation.
No, I detest the look of it. Attaching the Mustang name to it brings back
memories of GM in the '80's & '90's where the Oldsmobile division seemed
to call every vehicle they produced a Cutlass.
Saint Clair Shores, Michigan
@kocour Frank, the more costly version you speak of has a somewhat defined "grille" as I recall and looks much better than our red example here IMHO. It still does little for me but I do agree that it's made for the next generation of buyers, who are very different than us.
I think the Ford marketing department thought that if they attached the Mustang name to this "thing" that it would have more appeal to buyers.
Concerning the Mustang II: It was the right car at the right time, with the rising cost of gas during this time. From a sales standpoint, it was a big success with nearly a million cars sold during its five year run.
NO for me. The front end looks like it was in an accident. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so I've no doubt there will be some that will think the car looks fine. But I'll pass on it even if it's given to me free.
George Schire
Oakdale, Minnesota
I agree with all the negative comments in previous replies. I owned a 1967 Mustang (my first car) and a 2007 Mustang. Those were nice Mustangs. I saw a prototype of this at last year's Chicago Auto Show (see attached picture). It may be a nice Electric SUV, but the only things Mustang about it, are the horse logo and tail lights.
. I have no interest in buying one.
Ed Davis
Inverness, Illinois, USA
Talk about cultural appropriation! Please Ford, remove the Mustang nameplate from it. It's embarrassing.
Everybody seems to forget the original Mustang was basically a gutless glorified Falcon. I do like the '67 to '70 everybody else can have the rest.