Stephen, you may be right. Maybe this is the evolution of the Mustang and they are starting with an SUV type first. Speaking of the base '67 not being a muscle car, my first mustang was a '64 with a straight 6 based on the falcon chassis and was certainly nothing to write home about. I had several "muscle car" Mustangs after that with my favorite being my '70 Mach 1 428 SCJ. Then it went downhill from there and hate to admit it but I did have a '75 Mustang ll but at least it had a 5.0 V-8 however with the least amount of HP I have ever had in one. ?You know, the Mustang enthusiasts love to show off their monster muscle cars - and I love to see them, too.
However, no-one seems to want to remember the base model '67 that was no muscle car, just a sporty car. And we also never hear anything mentioned about the Mustang II with the tiny 4-banger in there, appearing sometime after the '73 oil crisis.
There is no doubt that the recent decades have brought us the greatest Mustang ground-pounders ever seen, and again, I love to see them all. But I cannot abide by all the moaning and groaning about the Mustang Mach-E not being a real Mustang - not when I tended to that 4-banger '74 Mustang II that I bought used for my kids to drive back-and-forth to High School, back in the early 90s.
To me, this is simply the latest evolution in a storied line of vehicles. I also think that some of the owners of the ground-pounders are going to be surprised at the performance of the GT when they start coming available.
Sorry for the rant. I just had to get that off my chest.
smp
I totally understand where you’re coming from, and I’m not trying to pick a fight.You know, the Mustang enthusiasts love to show off their monster muscle cars - and I love to see them, too.
However, no-one seems to want to remember the base model'67‘64 that was no muscle car, just a sporty car. And we also never hear anything mentioned about the Mustang II with the tiny 4-banger in there, appearing sometime after the '73 oil crisis.
There is no doubt that the recent decades have brought us the greatest Mustang ground-pounders ever seen, and again, I love to see them all. But I cannot abide by all the moaning and groaning about the Mustang Mach-E not being a real Mustang - not when I tended to that 4-banger '74 Mustang II that I bought used for my kids to drive back-and-forth to High School, back in the early 90s.
To me, this is simply the latest evolution in a storied line of vehicles. I also think that some of the owners of the ground-pounders are going to be surprised at the performance of the GT when they start coming available.
Sorry for the rant. I just had to get that off my chest.
smp
If you need a second driver for either car to compare them heads up… holla at ya boy. ? #helpfulStephen, you may be right. Maybe this is the evolution of the Mustang and they are starting with an SUV type first. Speaking of the base '67 not being a muscle car, my first mustang was a '64 with a straight 6 based on the falcon chassis and was certainly nothing to write home about. I had several "muscle car" Mustangs after that with my favorite being my '70 Mach 1 428 SCJ. Then it went downhill from there and hate to admit it but I did have a '75 Mustang ll but at least it had a 5.0 V-8 however with the least amount of HP I have ever had in one. ?
I will be very surprised if the GT/PE will be close to a ICE GT or any of the Shelby's in the handling department. While I know they will be fast, I just can't see how you can hide an extra 1200+ lbs and a higher overall COG. My Mach-E is super fun to drive but is no mountain carver and while I do have a GT/PE on order, I don't expect there to be a huge improvement in the handling. Sure it will be tighter and have the magneride shocks but again there is only so much you can do with that extra weight. We shall see and I may be proven wrong but comparing it will be easy against my GT500. I will have to say, the Mach-E as it is right now is the best handling SUV I have driven but then I have not driven all that many.