You must log in or register to comment.
So the term “SUV” has apparently lost all meaning. I’ve actually seen people calling the Ferarri Purosanguo an “SUV” too, which is hilarious.
Great, an suv called a “mustang” from ford and a bloated 4 seater from Ferrari called “pure blood”.
Car makers are just wasting names.
“SUV” should mean an off-road capable vehicle or something that can tow a decent amount. Maybe had a body-on-frame construction. Usually larger and less pleasant on-road manners. Usually has a transfer case. A Tahoe, Expedition, Dodge Durango, Wagoneer. Those are all firmly in the SUV territory in my book.
Everything else should be called a “crossover”. Less off-road capable. Less towing. Not saying they couldn’t do these tasks, but not as much. Usually unibody construction. Usually smaller. More street-focused.
Obviously there is some overlap, and neither term is strictly defined, but not sure why this is so complicated.
Yeah, the model Y, Mach-E and ID4 are definitely all crossovers.
I’m more bothered by how this dilutes the “Mustang” moniker. Why they’d do that with their most iconic car I’m not sure. Might as well make a “Mustang M150” truck now too.
I kind of like the idea on an EV El Camino, so that could work for me.
Sure, shape it like an El Camino and call it an El Camino. But don’t build a new 7-passenger mini-van or SUV and call it an El Camino.
It doesn’t dilute anything. Porsche has ample proof that it doesn’t.
I don’t follow using Porsche as an example. What iconic model name are they re-using on vehicles that don’t match its image?
Did they create a 911 SUV or a G3 station wagon?
Porsche IS the brand. It’s customers thought the Macan would tarnish the brand. But in reality they needed the Macan to keep making other models. Same situation as Lambo, Aston, Lotus and soon to be McClaren.
I can’t wait for a McLaren SUV.
I don’t buy into the “we HAD TO in order to stay afloat” mantra all of the performance makers are using to justify SUVs. It’s a lie. They sell tons of cars at absurd prices. What they meant was “Investors said we had to because there was more money to be made.”
It’s not until literally the eighth paragraph of this article that the phrase “in the US” shows up. US EV sales numbers pale in comparison to global EV sales.
This headline is so bogus.
Kirk Kreifels is going to be upset. EVs are still selling.
I hate that this thing is selling. Thing’s hideous.
IMO it’s one of the few EVs that’s actually decent looking. It’s not a mustang, but it’s a decent looking car. Pretty much the only one I’d consider buying
Is it? I don’t know, I don’t find the design to be all that outrageous. Looks like a pretty standard crossover/inflated hatchback to me. This style of car isn’t going to be for everyone, but I don’t think it’s doing anything super outspoken design wise
From what I’ve read, it’s one of the few EV’s that is fun to actually turn, not just in a straight line. That alone makes me root for its success.
My only real problem with it is the branding. They shouldn’t have called it a mustang. I think it probably hurt sales more than it helped, (no evidence for this though).
