It’s the carcinization of automobiles. Tall station wagons are simply the most practical shape for cars to be.
Frankly, the thing that bothers me about the Mustang Mach E isn’t the shape, but rather the fact that they desecrated the name of what’s supposed to be a low-slung coupe.
Frankly, the thing that bothers me about the Mustang Mach E isn’t the shape, but rather the fact that they desecrated the name of what’s supposed to be a low-slung coupe.
The shape bothers me a lot, but this bothers me more. They could have just called it the Bronco. Or the Fairlane.
But if cars are all going to look like that in the future I guess I’m never buying a car again.
As much as I hate it, having a 50 year old blue collar welder with 2 Chevy trucks parked out front come over and get excited about “The new Mustang” made me realize how perfect that decision was. People can complain about it all they want, but I don’t think it would have been anywhere close to being as successful otherwise.
Frankly, the thing that bothers me about the Mustang Mach E isn’t the shape, but rather the fact that they desecrated the name of what’s supposed to be a low-slung coupe.
I think it’s worse than them being ugly. I think the dimensions and visibility for crossovers makes people worse drivers. Massive blind spots, zero rear visibility, huge amounts of body roll in curves, and the danger of rollover are all worse in this body scheme.
It’s so bad that they have to add technology like rear cameras, BLIS, and traction control to attempt to fix it because they can’t just make a car with reasonable dimensions and good sight lines.
The MachE doesn’t really suffer from any of those issues. I had no major blind spots, in fact smaller than what I’ve been used to. Rear view mirrors were very effective, it’s a “Mustang like suspension” so it was super stable, to the point of uncomfortably stiff. With the battery pack underneath, the center of gravity makes a roll over extremely unlikely.
Your points are accurate for many other CUVs, especially ICE ones. But not the MachE. It has its own issues mind you. Specifically the suspension being so bumpy it induces car sickness. A, frankly, obscene amount of power which tempts bad driving habits. And the worst central control system I’ve ever experienced.
I’m glad the MachE doesn’t have those issues, but you raise a good point about it having an obscene amount of power. A lot of EVs have way too much power for the average person.
Rear cameras were mandated after a bunch of kids playing behind their parents car were run over, traction control exists because road conditions change throughout the year in most areas and blind spot monitors exist because all cars have blind spots and it reduces collisions. Saying all cars are built incorrectly with zero supporting argument isn’t much of an argument. Cars are safer than they’ve ever been and much of the sight line issues are related to reinforced pillars to protect occupants in a crash.
Yeah, I don’t know why everything is moving toward that ugly crossover form. They’re ugly as sin IMO.
It’s the carcinization of automobiles. Tall station wagons are simply the most practical shape for cars to be.
Frankly, the thing that bothers me about the Mustang Mach E isn’t the shape, but rather the fact that they desecrated the name of what’s supposed to be a low-slung coupe.
The shape bothers me a lot, but this bothers me more. They could have just called it the Bronco. Or the Fairlane.
But if cars are all going to look like that in the future I guess I’m never buying a car again.
I would hate this car much less than I do if they had called it anything BUT a Mustang.
It’s much more like a mustang than a bronco. Regardless, If Ford wants to call it a mustang, it’s a mustang.
Ford should launch a sub-brand called Denver and then launch it as the Bronco. And then sell it exclusively in the UK.
No, they should relaunch the Ford Prefect and it should come with a towel
As much as I hate it, having a 50 year old blue collar welder with 2 Chevy trucks parked out front come over and get excited about “The new Mustang” made me realize how perfect that decision was. People can complain about it all they want, but I don’t think it would have been anywhere close to being as successful otherwise.
Nobody lost money underestimating the American consumer
That…that right there.
I think it’s worse than them being ugly. I think the dimensions and visibility for crossovers makes people worse drivers. Massive blind spots, zero rear visibility, huge amounts of body roll in curves, and the danger of rollover are all worse in this body scheme.
It’s so bad that they have to add technology like rear cameras, BLIS, and traction control to attempt to fix it because they can’t just make a car with reasonable dimensions and good sight lines.
The MachE doesn’t really suffer from any of those issues. I had no major blind spots, in fact smaller than what I’ve been used to. Rear view mirrors were very effective, it’s a “Mustang like suspension” so it was super stable, to the point of uncomfortably stiff. With the battery pack underneath, the center of gravity makes a roll over extremely unlikely.
Your points are accurate for many other CUVs, especially ICE ones. But not the MachE. It has its own issues mind you. Specifically the suspension being so bumpy it induces car sickness. A, frankly, obscene amount of power which tempts bad driving habits. And the worst central control system I’ve ever experienced.
I’m glad the MachE doesn’t have those issues, but you raise a good point about it having an obscene amount of power. A lot of EVs have way too much power for the average person.
You just listed a bunch of features that are standard on most vehicles these days.
And the reason they’re standard is because the cars aren’t built correctly
Rear cameras were mandated after a bunch of kids playing behind their parents car were run over, traction control exists because road conditions change throughout the year in most areas and blind spot monitors exist because all cars have blind spots and it reduces collisions. Saying all cars are built incorrectly with zero supporting argument isn’t much of an argument. Cars are safer than they’ve ever been and much of the sight line issues are related to reinforced pillars to protect occupants in a crash.
Sorry, I forgot the Internet is Serious Business™
Well nobody forced you to make unfounded declarations as if you’re a subject matter expert.
I’m not going to argue with someone who doesn’t know what traction control does
Is that more of your expert analysis? I’m really curious what you think it does and why “it’s installed on CUVs because all cars are built wrong.”
lmao you really pulled a “it’s just a prank, bro!”