Remember the great Don Henley song, Dirty Laundry? The line about the “bubble headed bleached blonde, who comes on at five . . . she can tell you about the plane crash, with a gleam in her eye”?
That came to mind as I read an article in Automotive News – echoed elsewhere – about sales of the Ford Mustang falling below those of the device that Ford has been trying to sell by leveraging the “Mustang” name (and history). That device being the Mustang Mach-E, which is a five-door electric hatchback that has some styling affectations to suggest Mustangness as well as artificially generated engine sounds to mimic what’s not revving or bellowing through exhaust pipes it hasn’t got.
But it is selling . . . sort of.
To the tune of 51,745 examples in all of 2024. Ford sold almost 200,000 Explorers during the same timeframe and nearly three times as many of its compact-sized pick-up, the Maverick, vs. the Mach-E. So it’s not that the Mach-E is selling well so much as it is selling better than it was – and chiefly because of the huge “incentives” (including the federal $7,500 tax kickback) that effectively lop a lot off the devices’s $36,495 base price.
The Mustang – which stands alone now as the last pony car (it is not a muscle car; almost every car publication refers to it as that, which shows exactly how much most of these publications know about pony cars and muscle cars) now that the Camaro, it’s chief and longtime rival, has been taken off the market – does not enjoy the benefit of such “incentives.” The federal government does not allow Mustang buyers to take a $7,500 deduction off their taxes – which means anyone who buys a new Mustang must pay what it costs to buy one.
And that is getting to be a difficult lift for many who would love to own a Mustang but can no longer afford one. Especially as regards the desirable one. That one being the V8-powered GT, which is also the only new Mustang you can buy with a manual transmission. The base “EcoBoost” Mustang comes with a turbocharged four cylinder engine and an automatic transmission only. It is a good performer in a by-the-numbers sense and the turbo four makes more power than most of the V8s that were installed in Mustangs back in the ’60s, ’70s, ’80s and event into the ’90s and early 2000s. But because it is automatic only – and because it is powered by a four cylinder engine, which just isn’t “right” for a car such as this – the Ecoboost/automatic-only Mustang is regarded by many Mustang People as a rental car Mustang. 
That is to say, the Mustang most Mustang people do not want to buy.
The GT – with its screaming V8 and six speed manual transmission – is the one most Mustang people want. But that one stickers for $45,460 and that’s definitely a difficult lift – most especially for people in their 20s and 30s, who are the ones most likely to want a high-performance sport car and don’t need a car with four doors and people-viable back seats since they probably haven’t got kids yet and may not even be married yet. Those are the people who – traditionally – have bought Mustangs en masse. 
And because they could afford to.
The Way Back Machine will help make the point.
Back in 1995 – a Mustang GT coupe stickered for $18,105 and that got you both a V8 and a manual transmission for the equivalent of $37,760 in today’s inflation adjusted dollars. In other words, back in ’95, you could have bought a new GT for about $7,700 less than it costs to buy a GT today, in 2025. Put another way, a ’95 GT – with a V8 and a manual transmission – only cost $5,840 more than a 2025 Ecoboost four cylinder-powered Mustang with an automatic.
Secondary costs – especially insurance – were also less (in real terms) back in ’95 because these costs are to a great extent based upon the “book value” of the vehicle. It is much more expensive to insure a 2025 Mustang GT than it cost to insure a ’95 GT. That – plus the lower price of the ’95 GT relative to the 2025 iteration – accounts for the fact that Ford sold 185,986 Mustangs back in 1995 and of that number, the majority – 55 percent – were GTs.
Also, everything else costs a fortune today, too – including food. That compounds the problem. When buying groceries is a heavy lift, people tend to stop buying fun but unnecessary things like Mustangs.
Also, it was necessary to clear the inventory of Mach-Es that were piling up on dealer lots unsold. How many got “sold” at a fire-sale price – just to get rid of them? No doubt this helps to account for the “record sales” last year.
Now, it is true the 2025 Mustang GT is a much more formidable car than the ’95 GT was. The latter’s 4.6 liter V8 didn’t produce as much power as the 2025 Ecoboost Mustang’s four cylinder does. But that is beside the point because it misses the point. Which is that the ’95 GT was a hot seller because so many people who wanted one could afford one. The 2025 isn’t because not many can.
And that is why the Mustang is dying.
Part of this is the government’s fault, of course. Federal regulations have added thousands to the price tag of all new cars. One example will make the point. The ’95 Mustang GT had two air bags, which were enough to be deemed “safe” by the federal regulatory apparat. The new Mustang has six and the everything in the car – even the seats (which house some of the bags) had to be designed around all these bags. The ’95 Mustang had electronic fuel injection. The new GT’s engine is direct injected and fitted with an array of “emissions” equipment that doesn’t make its exhaust meaningfully cleaner but does make its MSRP a whole lot higher.
Ford is at fault, too. The Mustang – especially the GT – is this close to being what the Corvette used to be. Which is to say, a near-exotic. (The Corvette has moved up to exotic-hood.)
Once upon a time, the Mustang – including the GT – was a kind of everyman’s car in that almost anyone who wanted one could afford one. In particular, the 35-and-under crowd that doesn’t yet have to balance needs with wants.
Back in ’95, more than twice as many people who bought a 2025 Mustang bought a Mustang GT. Put another way, Ford sold the ’95 GT to the tune of roughly six figures, which is a healthy number for a sporty two-door with vestigial back seats.
Now it’s down to about a fourth of what was sold back in ’95 – and that’s all told (Ecoboost and GT).
The device that is trying to pretend it’s a “Mustang” has its own problems, of course. But one of them isn’t that it lacks a people-usable back seat or space for stuff behind that. It may not go very far but it can take the kids (plural) to school.
The Mustang isn’t made for that.
But it’s also not priced to sell to the people who don’t have to care about that. And that is why it is dying.
Not because the heavily subsidized Mach-E is “selling.”
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here. We also accept crypto (see below).
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you like items like the Baaaaaa! baseball cap pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!
The bitcoin code is: 3GAfymoqSUbaFvY8ztpSoDKJWCPLrkzAmi if you’re unable to scan the QR code above!
Looks like a crossover not a sports car of ANY type. Sad really.
I would NOT buy ANY EV of any kind for any reason.
Me, either!
And that’s the voice of experience…
That Mustang video from the Autobahn is fantastic, and seeing older classic cars makes me a bit sad, because modern cars won’t last as long, even the great ones. Where older cars have lots of wood and metal exposed, modern cars are all plastic. Plastic doesn’t hold up to sunlight, it cracks with vibration, and it wears in a way that’s hard to repair. Sure, old cars have plastic too, but it’s usually behind the bits you touch, and you can find alternatives to repair in the future.
Screens don’t age well, phone/app integration lasts 5 years at best, polycarbonate headlights start to degrade after a few years (glass is now banned), engines are way too complex, nanny systems are super difficult to defeat when something fails.
The little 289 in the video had no problem running the speed-o out of the numbers (about 125 mph) and sounded great doin it. Looks like fun to me.
The Mustang is dying because Lee Iacocca is rolling over in his grave.
FLOP!? Why 2024 Mustang is WORST Selling Mustang Ever!
it owns the market segment…should be hot seller…..
One reason…they locked it…you can’t do any mods…no tuning etc….screw with it…it’s bricked….they will have to unlock it….or no enthusiast sales….
Another reason…price increase and higher interest rates…
The styling is not great…only so, so….should have been more exciting….not enough cool colours….
Another reason…ugly cheap screens inside….horrible crap….
Stick shift should have been offered in all ice Mustangs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24PvDoZz_Lk
Oh, c’mon guys, the Mach E is actually a very nicely styled little SUV. That pig has enough lipstick on that I’d do ‘er after several drinks. It is a shame that the styling was applied to a toaster.
You’re killing me! LOL!
I wanted to buy a 1966 Mustang when I was 18 years old.
My dad said no, he probably feared I would do something stupid and crash the car.
It was only 800 dollars used.
Instead, I drove a Studebaker Lark.
Fire on the asphalt
LA Freeway
Santa Ana wind storm
Come blow me away
This rear view mirror
Could use some adjustment
Some other reflection of some other place
You get to Kentucky
Then you roll on home
Oh Cumberland… – Matraca Berg, Oh Cumberland
The Mach E has had what, some 24 recalls?
It’s too cold here to ride, so I jumped in my ’92 Mustang GT 5.0 5 speed stick this morning. I’ve had that car since I bought her new in ’92, and I still smile every single time I drive it. There are plenty of cars that could beat me these days, but not many of them are as fun to drive.
That said, I don’t believe I’d want any of the iterations made after the Fox Body. I just love that car. And btw, nearly a daily driver, rotated with a work van and a Harley, and I have never had to do a major repair. Not even a clutch!
I used to know a family who collected the original Shelby’s from the late 60’s. They had 8, 5 restored and 3 in restoration, they are long gone but they would be turning over in their graves if they saw the incompetence that Ford currently has in the board room. Well what do you expect when manufacturers go woke?
They go broke! Because everything woke turns to sh__.
Model year 2025 should see a sales increase since it’s the first year with no dodge or Chevy v8 options. They are also talking about making a sedan 5.0 version. That would help justify the higher costs to people a little older who need more room for families.
That they’re even thinking of making a four door “Mustang” shows how hopeless management at FoMoCo is.
‘But [the Mach-e] is selling . . . sort of. To the tune of 51,745 examples in all of 2024.’ — eric
Producing two entirely different vehicles sporting the Mustang brand name — one of them an EeeVee — is incompetent, retarded brand management.
I would fire Lightning Jim Farley’s ass for that alone — not to mention the abject debacle of his EeeVee pickup.
Brand confusion forced me to look twice as to which Mustang that 51,745 sales figure applies — it’s the Mach-e. For comparison, the hydrocarbon-fueled Mustang sold 44,003 units in 2024. (Shouldn’t this be the punch line of the article?)
Totally agree with letmepicyou that a 3,800 lb Mustang with a four-cylinder engine is ludicrous and unacceptable. What sort of minge wagon is that? I don’t do obese cars or obese females.
One is shocked — shocked — to learn that when Govco regulators effectively design cars, they suck balls. Away with them!!
Don’t know or care about the Mach-E but the regular Mustang, circa 23 is no fun. We rented one for a couple weeks for a trip up the coast from Crescent City to BC. The drivers seat is uncomfortable AF. I’m skinny, not overlarge, six-three, two hundred pounds. And getting in and out of the thing was a PITA. Don’t have that problem with my T bird or the wife’s MB. Driving five or six hours every other day, Even on the days it was nice enough to ride sans top, I got to actually dislike the thing.
Ford seems to have sided with the managerial garbage elite in deciding we the customers shouldn’t be allowed to have nice things. Still see a lot of late nineties, early two thousands Mustangs around here with low miles, reasonably priced. Possible alternative for those who still want one. That era IMO, seems to be the sweet spot in Automotive evolution
Moving from a 2013 Mustang to a 2018 Challenger emphasized how much you “Get into a Challenger” versus “Put on a Mustang” (As was said about the WW2 Supermarine Spitfire: “You don’t climb in it so much as put it on”).
Not that I didn’t like the Mustang but it’s pretty obvious the Challenger is a bigger, roomier, and more comfortable car than the Mustang. Obviously because like the original E Body, it fetches it’s platform from a bigger car (The Charger/300 in this case, lots of B Body components in the original 1970-74 E Body). Were it not for the damned seatbelt anchor in your way getting into and out of the rear seat on the Challenger IS possible and it IS roomy back there.
A Mustang back seat? Not without a visit to a chiropractor.
Couldn’t agree with you more. Both the Challenger and Charger are nice. Have driven both. Except for the convertible, the Challenger was way more fun to drive than the Mustang. If I recall both Challenger and Mustang were pretty low to the ground getting in, but after driving around all day my back wasn’t screaming from driving the dodge. Maybe its something simple as the seat. Idk, it wouldn’t surprise me if Ford cut some corners on the seats.
Don’t need a back seat anymore. The wife is still tiny enough, but she’s not the bendable buddy she used to be.
I learned to drive on an 86 Mustang with a 5 speed. My 2nd car was a Pontiac Firebird, but my 3rd car was a 91 Mustang GT. It was, alas, my last Mustang, but I’ve gotten behind the wheel of a few since then. Nothing beats giving it “just enough gas” to induce a controlled slide getting sideways making the turn onto the freeway on-ramp and putting the hammer down. Fond memories.
The biggest enemy of the Mustang, starting with the SN95 body style, and continuing through today, is WEIGHT. They just keep piling more and more crap into the car, making it heavier…and heavier…and heavier.
1991 Mustang curb weight – 2,824 – 2,960 lbs. Ahh, the days of the sub-3,000 lb Mustang.
1995 Mustang – 3,451 lbs.
2024 Mustang – 3,579 – 3,933 lbs!!!
And while I’m on the subject…the 2024 Mustangs have ALUMINUM engines. How in the hell do you put an aluminum block in a car and it’s STILL heavier than the iron-block 1991 car? One of my DREAMS was to shove an aluminum-block 351 in my 1991. The thought still makes my heart flutter.
You want to know the big secret of the CAFE requirements? It has BUILT-IN SELF-DEFEATING POLICIES THAT CONSTANTLY GROWS THE WEIGHT OF CARS RATHER THAN REDUCING IT. How in the hell has adding 1,000 lbs to the Mustang in ~30 years done ANYTHING for either the performance OR efficiency?
We really need to start calling 100% BS-MF’ERS on these CAFE requirements when our cars keep getting HEAVIER instead of LIGHTER.
Our materials technology SHOULD BE ADVANCING.
Our cars SHOULD BE GETTING LIGHTER. NOT HEAVIER. Am I the only one that sees CAFE and SAFETY being diametrically opposed??? Or is my logic way far out in left field on this one? Because I don’t think it is.
Everyone loves to point out maximum HP numbers. Ohh, look at how much more powerful cars are today! Ohhh, spank me now. You NEED 700HP in a new Charger because it weighs 8,000 friggin pounds. I swear modern “muscle cars” would be better served with TURBO DIESELS than gasoline engines.
I would offer my design services to Ford, but I’d be fired the first time I refused to sign my “diversity pledge” or whatever silly things they have people do nowadays.
The Mustang, like most cars today, needs to be put on a DIET. Curb weights are ridiculous, and we need to stop clapping like trained seals every time someone posts a huge HP number. What we need to start demanding is power to weight ratios and power to weight ratios ALONE.
And speaking to the engine choices in the Mustang…I agree totally that the turbo 4 in today’s Mustang just doesn’t have the “grit” the SVO’s turbo 4 had. What the base Mustang has always needed has been a turbo 6. Think: Buick Grand National. In fact, if I had my way with the Mustang design team, there would be 3 available engines: Turbo 6, V-8, and Turbo 8. Base, GT, and GT-R.
Imagine THAT for an engine lineup, folks.
~300HP turbo 6.
~450HP NA V8. (But but the GT has 480 hp! I don’t care, it’s going on a diet. You won’t miss it.)
~600HP Turbo V8.
That would be the engine lineup in the next Mustang, if I was in charge of it. Right now, a Corvette is about 50 lbs lighter than a mustang, give or take. Imagine the Mustang on a 500lb diet with a 600HP turbo 8 nipping on the heels of a Corvette at Watkins Glen. Oh yeah.
And don’t even get me started on if I were able to put a SOV engine in the Mustang.
The Mustang has fond memories for me, but gosh she’s a fat pig now. Fix that, and fix the “economic issue” as Eric has so aptly pointed out, and we got ourselves a whole new Muscle car era.
Hi LetMe –
Yup! My ’76 Trans Am has a huge (7.5 liter/455 cubic inch) cast iron V8, cast iron solid rear axle, heavy stamped steel coil springs (front) and leaf springs (rear) as well as a heavy, bolt-on steel front subframe and massive/stamped steel hood and thick steel body panels and it weighs less than a new Mustang GT with an aluminum V8 and aluminum front end parts, ultra-thin body panels and a unibody!
Hi Eric!
This is what I’m saying, man. How have we gone from cast iron and steel to aluminum and GAINED WEIGHT?!?
It blows my mind. It really does. If you put an aluminum-block 455 and aluminum body panels on that TA, the 500 lbs of weight savings would have turned it into a ROCKET.
letmepicyou,
My 2013 Mustang HAD a 300 HP V6 that didn’t need a turbo. Starting in MY 2011 Ford introduced the 3.7L Twin Cam, 4 Valve Per Cylinder V6 that put out 305 HP. That’s the engine they dumped for the EcoBoost I4.
Laugh all you want the V6 could chirp the rear tires, even mated to a slushbox.
exactly my 2012 Chevy Impala had 300 hp without a turbo and it was just a sedan.
“You want to know the big secret of the CAFE requirements? It has BUILT-IN SELF-DEFEATING POLICIES THAT CONSTANTLY GROWS THE WEIGHT OF CARS RATHER THAN REDUCING IT.”
You’re confusing CAFE with safety regs
CAFE is about fuel economy only
FMVSS and NHTSA crash saftey regs are completely different.
The government has forced a dual mandate upon the OEMs. On one hand they are forcing more stringent fuel economy (and emissions) while simultaneously mandating that cars crash without occupant injury which means stronger body structures, more air bags, etc., all of which are massively adding weight.
Hi Eric, curious what your view is on the Chinese cars coming out. Granted they may not be for everyone, but there is some serious innovation, the kind you used to find in American / European cars when I was a kid. Sure they may not be the best quality just yet, but they are so cheap it may not matter that much. Looking at youtube videos, I suspect if the west doesn’t up its game- the next generation may have a poster of a Chinese car on their bedroom wall instead of a Mustang or 9/11!
Hi Nasir,
I dunno – as I’ve yet to drive one! But if they’re all devices (EVs) then they’ll all just be more of the same…
I have driven some of the Chinese product going all the way back to the early 2000 when Chery first got going.
In many ways the China stuff is exactly what this market needs, affordable transportation. Fit, finish, and materials are all over the map but even at their worst, it is nothing worse than what a Chevette, Pinto, or other 70s / 80s era economy car was.
EVs will always be soul crushing devices regardless of where they are designed and built.
The Chinese have a head start in the race to the bottom…
Crappy quality…loaded with spyware…..all lithium fire bomb battery powered…lots of fires in China….
diesel was a far better solution…so they banned it…..
I hate to bring this up, but there’s (at least) one less classic 1967 or 1968 Mustang hardtop in the world thanks to the Los Angeles wildfires. I witnessed one in a driveway in flames live on Fox News yesterday. Made me sad thinking about all the classic cars out there that are now scrap.
I was a huge Mustang feak, we owned 3 Shelby GT350’s 2017-2019; a 2020 GT500; and 4 GT’s 2016 to 2022. The S650 is hideous. It killed it for me, the car is so ugly, expensive and you cannot mod it like you could the s550. We sold all of our stangs, and just washed our hands from them. We do not like the way Ford is going with the Mustang. We now have Bronco’s, which are way more practical, and the 2.7 liter twin Turbo V-6 is pretty quick! Those have alos gotten so expensive, we bought ours used in 2023, we bought 2 2022 Wildtrak’s.
Thanks for your perspective on this, Missy –
I’ve been hearing similar from other Mustang people. A common complaint is the new car’s LCD displays, which look ticky-tacky to many and are no doubt very expensive to replace – or will be, when the time comes.
Agreed, the s550 gauges were similar to the old days stangs. I had both the analog and digital, I loved both. I follow a lot of Mustang stuff on the internet, and the word on the street with the new ones is not good. A local dealer here said they cannot give them away. Hubby and I’s only regret is selling the 2019 Shelby GT350, it was race red with the white stripes, that car was so beautiful.
Yup!
I’d love to see Ford offer an “LX 5.0” iteration of the current model – one like the ’80s LX 5.0s that had the GT’s mechanicals but were stripped of cost-adding extras. Get the car’s price down $10k and I think sales would pick up.
I ordered a brand new Mustang GT in 1986 for $11.5k. It’s hard to believe they cost 4x as much now 🙁
Hi Robbie,
Yup – and while the new Mustang is very powerful and very capable, in many ways, the ’80s Mustangs were more fun because they were more accessible. Easy to modify – and make as powerful as a new Mustang – but without all the over-the-top “technology.”
I picked up a brand new 2000 Mustang V6 coupe (straight off the car carrier, plastic covers on the seats and steering wheel) with automatic and appearance package (rear spoiler, rocker panel stripes) for $17K tax, license, and title included in the fall of 1999. First brand new car I’d ever bought.
I now see from Ford at their website the absolute bare bones basic EcoBoost Mustang rolls out the door after “Destination and Acquisition Fees” at $34,210. And any option I click (rear spoiler, side stripes) ups my cost $800 – $1400.
Did I see two computer screens on the dash instead of instrumentation? That’s a sacrilege! On a pony car???????? That can’t be real. Are the Ford people insane?
Ford marketing seems to be (no pun intended) a 3-trick-pony when it comes to nomenclature.
Presumably the equity of the brand lies in 3 nameplates – F series, Mustang and Bronco, hence why the latter two are applied to vehicles on wildly different platforms.
I suppose Ford will do whatever they think necessary to convince the buying public that they need an EV or compact butch crossover in their lives.
Last summer while in Denver and Dallas, I saw rows and rows of Mach-E’s on lots.
Yet all the EV evangelists point to “record EV sales in 2024!” as if it’s organic demand and not an inventory dump highly dependent upon .gov tax incentives and massive manufacturer markdowns (which exacerbate the already negative profit on each EV sold.)
Meanwhile, with the EV production pipeline allegedly drying up, what will 2025’s EV sales look like?
Part of the problem is that back in the 60’s when they first came out is that they weren’t that much more than a Falcon and now they cost almost as much as a Corvette. Small, practical and affordable can help sell cars not the opposite. Great styling versus what he have today, which is ugly.
Perhaps if they were allowed to sell what they once did sales would go up.
The key problem that Eric misses is “Pony Cars” were developed from existing platforms and pulled components from the regular production line. The 1964 – 73 Mustangs were heavily dependent on the Falcon platform to keep costs low (even as they pulled and stretched that platform to stick bigger and bigger engines in it) and had engines in them that standard line Fords used (Boss 429 not withstanding.). The 6 cylinders and V8s were based on engines you could find in other Fords of the era. Sure some were hopped up but for example those 289s and 351s showed up under the hoods of other Fords.
Even the rotten little Mustang II (which saved the Mustang from the ax, even with all the hate it gets) used Pinto components and the platform (again stretched and pulled) to save cash.
The Beloved Fox Body was based on the pedestrian Fairmont/Futura platform and made it to the 2004 model year, pulled and stretched and tightened.
Now? The Mustang is it’s own platform (D2C / S550) probably with hardly anything to share with the rest of the Ford line. What worries me is the Green Eyeshade crowd is going to do it’s cost/benefit analysis at some point and the beloved pony gets put out to pasture for a 2 door EV.
Ah, I see the problem. Cars aren’t supposed to be fun, unless they’re also responsible. A V8 might seem fun in the moment, but like eating a second desert or drinking too much or voting for Trump, there’s going to be hell (on Earth) to pay later. You sinners have to repent.
What’s the root cause of the California fires? Not the diversity hire of the LA fire department. Certainly not mismanagement of the forest. Mother Gaia does what she does. No, the reason for the fires is a combination of overconsumption and putting those rich folks’ homes in harms way.
It’s their fault for living an exorbitant lifestyle on the backs of minorities.
The only answer is more brutalist architecture. Cars that can only go a few miles and have a governor holding them to the PSL Only approved building materials like steel and concrete from now on. Stuff that will only melt when exposed to jet-A. Your car can’t be made from anything other than recycled soda bottles.
Unaffordable? Nonsense. The kid across the street has a GT. Of course he is about 27 and still lives at home.
yep,
young fellow at work drives a MB, how can you afford that on our low wages?
I live with my parents and pay no dig money!
In my dreams when I was 21!
I posted this on another EP thread but it bears repeating:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q04lE6yKL0A
The bit about the “mustang” is ~8 minutes into the video. Takeaway, every EV Ford sells, they lose $37K.
BTW, I’d love to have a Mustang GT; that would be SO MUCH FUN! I could afford one, but then I’d have to take out a sizable chunk of my retirement money to do so; the opportunity cost of that just isn’t worth it. I dare say that many men are making the same calculation. Even a Mazda Miata or a MINI Cooper, smaller, more affordable fun cars, are harder to justify in a day and age when necessities cost more.
It’s a CRYING SHAME that an American icon like the Mustang is dying! WTF are the people going to rise up and put an end to the gov’t apparat that’s responsible for this bullshit?
When they’re miserable starving peasants in rags picking through dumpsters in the streets. But not right away, only after they’re ALL dispossessed, until then envy and jealousy will somehow make that condition virtuous. “You ain’t no gooder’n me! Why should YOU get nice clean stale bread?”
Also, the very existence of the sacrilegious “Mustang” Machwerk-E dEVice taints the Mustang nameplate itself and creates doubts about whether the original concept has any future, thereby potentially making the ICE-powered Mustang sports car a less desirable purchase.