this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
45 points (92.5% liked)
Electric Vehicles
3124 readers
385 users here now
A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No self-promotion
- No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
- No trolling
- Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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."