Skip to comments.The Mustang Becomes an Obamamobile
Posted on 04/20/2012 6:21:08 PM PDT by rhema
The greening of a classic car makes it unrecognizable to drivers.
The Ford Motor Company is giving its Mustang a unique 50th birthday present: death.
Detroit will still market an automobile called the Mustang. It just won't bear much of a resemblance to the iconic roadster driven by the likes of Lt. Frank Bullitt and James Bond.
Ford's new "Evos" concept features gull-wing doors, a rounded, aerodynamic body, and a smaller design clearly inspired by Europe. When Ford officially unveils its new Mustang in 2014, company insiders insist it will embrace this visual transformation.
More pertinent than its changing look will be its changing feel. Rumors abound, to the chagrin of drag racers, regarding the introduction of independent rear suspension. The five-liter engine supposedly morphs into a two-liter one. There is even talk of a hybrid Mustang.
Why not a hang-glider F-18?
A 2012 Ford Mustang boasting an eight-cylinder, five-liter engine goes from zero to sixty in less than five seconds. It takes a lot of fuel to generate all that power. The muscle car travels an average of twenty miles for every gallon of gasoline consumed. It's a performance car, albeit one that performs the way that drivers, rather than bureaucrats, want.
Twenty miles per gallon is considerably less than fifty-six miles to the gallon. That is the 2025 industry fuel-efficiency standard announced by the Obama Administration last year. With automakers having to produce a fleet of cars traveling an average of further than 56 miles per gallon by 2025, and further than 34 miles per gallon by 2016, a Mustang guzzling a gallon of gas every twenty miles would be certain to bring the fleet average below the mandated standard.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Et tu, Ford?
Like the Tbird, going, going, gone.
This stupid article is based entirely on speculation, not facts. The Spectator can’t even get politics right. Why believe anything it says about cars?
I’m going to get one of those 600hp ones as an investment then.
miraculously, it came back to life.
Thank God for Ronald Reagan and the '80's.
I blew snot when I scrolled down and saw that picture.
That was a hideous car. My dad had one. It was vomit-inducingly bad.
Unbelievable plastic interior, with that weird bumpy texture, all topped off by poorly crafted and mated parts.
On my dad’s car, new, was a gap where the plastic inner door handle mated, and there was flashing...untrimmed flashing spilling at the seam.
That was a low point for American industry, or at least the auto industry.
I wish Ford would tell the gubermint to take a hike and build a Mustang with a 7.5 liter power plant in it, that would make liberals heads explode. I still think about the 1969 Mach I w/ 429 cid, 13.5:1 compression, High Lift Roller Cam, Holly 750 Double Pumper carb, Tuned Exhaust Headers and a C6 Automatic. That was a muscle car.
Not bad but it's not a Mustang. Looks closer to a modern version of the derided "Mustang II" that was posted in #7.
Well, I’m with you, but why the Hell do they have to call it the Mustang?
The 1974 beige piece of crap with the tan colored plastic interior had more in common with the original Mustang than the nice looking car you posted.
Sheesh, they should call it something else.
Coming soon to a taxpayer near you.
Damnit coffee all over my keyboard !
If that's the car it's actually pretty cool looking.
What's up with those razor-thin side mirrors? The only way I can envision those working is if they actually contain a small back facing camera with some sort of associated display in the cockpit (which would actually be a pretty cool concept if no one has thought of using it before).
Sad sad sad. Dear hubby has a ‘Bird, and I love that car to bits.
As for that new ‘Stang...I think I’ll pass. :(