Farley Says It's Not a Mustang

[eleven24]

We finally have the answer to the age old question of "Is the Mach-E a Mustang?" In the linked article below, CEO Jim Farley says they will never build an Electric Mustang or one for off-roading (sorry Mach-E Rally). Interesting little article.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/four-door-ford-mustang-super-saloon-pipeline

Except they will eventually build a two door coupe Mustang. Sure, it may not be on the roadmap now, but it's inevitable. Especially as batteries become smaller while providing longer range.

Sponsored

 

[MachEnthusiast]

If you by that mean that the question can be answered with a "no", I am now in a postion to clarify. I reached out to Emma Bergg (director, EV Energy & Battery Tech Communications). She confirmed that Jim Farley was - as I indicated in my previous post - "referring to the 2-door coupe".

So what Ford CEO Jim Farley said was that Ford won't build a fully electric Mustang with the body shape of a 2-door coupe.

The Mustang Mach-E was, is an will stay part of the Mustang family in its own right

Thanks for doing that. Seems like that is /thread then.

 

[Jimrpa]

If you by that mean that the question can be answered with a "no", I am now in a postion to clarify. I reached out to Emma Bergg (director, EV Energy & Battery Tech Communications). She confirmed that Jim Farley was - as I indicated in my previous post - "referring to the 2-door coupe".

So what Ford CEO Jim Farley said was that Ford won't build a fully electric Mustang with the body shape of a 2-door coupe.

The Mustang Mach-E was, is an will stay part of the Mustang family in its own right

Except that’s NOT what Jim Farley said. She may want to have Jim put out some type of “clean-up” message. As it stands, he basically dumped all over their only non-truck EV (yes, I know there are about 8 electric transits in Norway or something )

 

[Dear_OP]

Trying to think if there ever been such an existential issue for any other car in recent memory.

Farley clearly forgot about the MME or truly doesn't believe it true in deep down. Meh. I've always referred it as the Mach E or if you want to be haute couture - marché .

 

[Mach1E]

Trying to think if there ever been such an existential issue for any other car in recent memory.

Farley clearly forgot about the MME or truly doesn't believe it true in deep down. Meh. I've always referred it as the Mach E or if you want to be haute couture - marché .

He clearly wouldn’t forget about it.

He just knows that when he talks about the “Mustang,” he definitely isn’t talking about the MME.

I do think the “oh he must be confused about the vehicles his company builds” comments are cute though.

Except they will eventually build a two door coupe Mustang. Sure, it may not be on the roadmap now, but it's inevitable. Especially as batteries become smaller while providing longer range.

Maybe, maybe not.

Maybe the current plan is to keep the Mustang ICE for as long as it’s being built.

Coupes aren’t very large sellers. And the Mustang is the only car Ford even makes at the moment. Maybe when they’re done with the ICE Mustang, they’re done with cars.

 

[User100723]

Dang it, somebody already thought of it

Ugh, Mach T anyone?

 

[Petter]

Except that’s NOT what Jim Farley said.

I agree. What I was trying to ascertain, was what he meant by it. And Emma Bergg's answer is very reasonable. It was Jim Farley himself who pushed for that Ford's first electric car from the ground up should not inly be inspired by Mustang, but be a Mustang. Ford has stuck by this through all the noise from those who can't come to terms with it. Why would Farley suddenly turn around on his word now?

 

[phil]

Why would Farley suddenly turn around on his word now?

Because people are not always entirely honest. Sometimes they tell people what they think those people want to hear. Politicians are famous for this, but they are not the only ones who exhibit this universal human weakness.

If Farley had been speaking at a meeting of EV enthusiasts, he may well have said something very different, or at least phrased it differently. You can ascertain what Farley said, and you can ascertain what some PR mouthpiece communication director claims he meant. Ascertaining what Farley really meant is not so easy.

 

[DennisD]

This is really a silly thread.

For those that know how to read, the car that I own states quite clearly on the title the name "Mustang". It is like their birth certificate. It is the legal name and not a nickname. Period

It is a Mustang Mach E. Different versions and interpretations yes, but still a Mustang.

One could easily use the same logic when the Mustang II came out. Was that a "real Mustang" in comparison to the previous versions? Yes it was albeit a smaller version of the previous model.

Was the Boss Mustang a "Mustang"? Yes it was but with more power than the 64 1/2.

The Mustang is like many family members. Some are big, smart, etc. where some are quite the opposite. At the end of the day, their last name on their birth certificate is still the same even if some in the family don't want to recognize them as such (if they are a criminal for example).

For those that don't want to admit that the MME is a Mustang are simply painfully ignoring the name on the title of their car. Their prejudice is clouding their judgement and they are overlooking the name Mustang.

If Farley is really suggesting that the Mustang Mach E is not a Mustang, he is simply wrong. Until Ford Motor Company changes the "birth certificate", it will forever be known as a Mustang no matter what the CEO or any other individual thinks.

Whether you like the car or not, the name is something that can only be changed if you legally make said change. Until my title suggests some other name, I can't legally make the claim it is not a Mustang (just like I can't state that it is not a 2022).

So there you go.

This should conclude the thread now.

 

[HuntingPudel]

Dang it, somebody already thought of it

In Oz, wouldn’t that be a “Ute?”

 

[Snakebitten]

Yep. That's what they would call it.

 

[phil]

In Oz, wouldn’t that be a “Ute?”

 

[VaporTrails]

Because people are not always entirely honest. Sometimes they tell people what they think those people want to hear. Politicians are famous for this, but they are not the only ones who exhibit this universal human weakness.

If Farley had been speaking at a meeting of EV enthusiasts, he may well have said something very different, or at least phrased it differently. You can ascertain what Farley said, and you can ascertain what some PR mouthpiece communication director claims he meant. Ascertaining what Farley really meant is not so easy.

Because Farley wants that $12 per share to become $13. They are in the business to sell vehicles and they are bound to act in the interest of the shareholders. I don’t even mind….but I am one of said shareholders. They were poised to expand rapidly if the US decided EV’s were the thing. The US did not actually decide that. Farley correctly identified that his current DCFC partnerships were hurting EV sales and addressed it. It is not perfect, but Farley is addressing the things that concern his customers and dealerships. You can argue that it is too little. You can argue it is too late..but he is taking action. What I actually want ( more quality EV’s) has nothing to do with it.

I had an option to put in to a local Mustang car show. I strongly considered it. But at the end of the day I deal with enough “not a Mustang” at Drive Electric events.

 

[Mach1E]

This is really a silly thread.

For those that know how to read, the car that I own states quite clearly on the title the name "Mustang". It is like their birth certificate. It is the legal name and not a nickname. Period

It is a Mustang Mach E. Different versions and interpretations yes, but still a Mustang.

One could easily use the same logic when the Mustang II came out. Was that a "real Mustang" in comparison to the previous versions? Yes it was albeit a smaller version of the previous model.

Was the Boss Mustang a "Mustang"? Yes it was but with more power than the 64 1/2.

The Mustang is like many family members. Some are big, smart, etc. where some are quite the opposite. At the end of the day, their last name on their birth certificate is still the same even if some in the family don't want to recognize them as such (if they are a criminal for example).

For those that don't want to admit that the MME is a Mustang are simply painfully ignoring the name on the title of their car. Their prejudice is clouding their judgement and they are overlooking the name Mustang.

If Farley is really suggesting that the Mustang Mach E is not a Mustang, he is simply wrong. Until Ford Motor Company changes the "birth certificate", it will forever be known as a Mustang no matter what the CEO or any other individual thinks.

Whether you like the car or not, the name is something that can only be changed if you legally make said change. Until my title suggests some other name, I can't legally make the claim it is not a Mustang (just like I can't state that it is not a 2022).

So there you go.

This should conclude the thread now.

People have tried to make this point multiple times like it’s a mic drop.

Having something in your name doesn’t make you that thing.

Green beans aren’t beans
White chocolate isn’t chocolate
Strawberries aren’t berries

The Mach E is part of the “Mustang family,” but it’s more of a cousin. It isn’t a “Mustang.”

Farley didn’t “suggest” it. He straight up stated it.

Yes, it’s debatable. Yes it’s semantics.

Feel free to tell people you drive a “Mustang,” without the need to clarify “electric” or add the words “Mach E” to the end.

But you will confuse people if you do.

 

[DennisD]

People have tried to make this point multiple times like it’s a mic drop.

Having something in your name doesn’t make you that thing.

Green beans aren’t beans
White chocolate isn’t chocolate
Strawberries aren’t berries

The Mach E is part of the “Mustang family,” but it’s more of a cousin. It isn’t a “Mustang.”

Farley didn’t “suggest” it. He straight up stated it.

Yes, it’s debatable. Yes it’s semantics.

Feel free to tell people you drive a “Mustang,” without the need to clarify “electric” or add the words “Mach E” to the end.

But you will confuse people if you do.

If your name was John Smith and your brother just went by "Smith", you would both be Smiths. If I called out and said "Smith", John's brother would assume that you are asking him a question but technically they could both answer and both be correct in their assumption. They are both Smiths just like the MME and Coupe are both Mustangs.

I get that point that a Mustang and Mustang Mach E are two different cars but they are in the same family similar to the "Smiths". They are brothers and not cousins. They have the same Dad (Ford Motor Company). Semantics................

Cousins don't always share the same name but biological brothers (unless they are adopted) (see my birth certificate reference), always have the same last name.

A Boss Mustang is typically called "Boss". Is it too a cousin?

Sponsored