What’s in a name- Part 3

[HSE2]

We have had a few of these discussions already.

The latest controversy is about about Ford decision to use the Mustang brand and logo on the new electric SUV.

What say ya all?

[4Vman]

NAY.......

[4Vman]

Personal feelings is this isnt a Mustang, it has none of the characteristics that underpin the Mustang Brand.

Mach E was enough.

[HSE2]

Personal feelings is this isnt a Mustang, it has none of the characteristics that underpin the Mustang Brand.

Mach E was enough.

Name them.

Before you do go back and have a real close look at all versions of mustang and what underpinned them.

The bar isn't actually that high.

In fact if it had stayed a us only brand fair chance it still has a leaf rear end.

[4Vman]

Name them.

Before you do go back and have a real close look at all versions of mustang and what underpinned them.

The bar isn't actually that high.

In fact if it had stayed a us only brand fair chance it still has a leaf rear end.

- 2 Door Sports car

That's plenty.

[HSE2]

- 2 Door Sports car

That's plenty.

No it’s not. That’s like saying fundamentals can’t change. That because something has been done a certain way, it’s there for ever in a day trapped.

That’s called extinction.

That sort of mindset is a business impediment.

A manufacturer owns the brand. They, no one else, define what the brand is. Just because they previously haven’t acted or created or expanded doesn’t mean they never should.

That’s neither an understanding nor a reason.

[HSE2]

I might also remind readers, that in the height of debate around falcons future and replacement options, we did in fact champion the expansion of mustang to create a four door sedan.

[4Vman]

No it’s not. That’s like saying fundamentals can’t change. That because something has been done a certain way, it’s there for ever in a day trapped.

That’s called extinction.

That sort of mindset is a business impediment.

A manufacturer owns the brand. They, no one else, define what the brand is. Just because they previously haven’t acted or created or expanded doesn’t mean they never should.

That’s neither an understanding nor a reason.

Well to be fair the Ford hierarchy weren't sold on it either.

Get your point.

To me, its kind of an act of desperation to cling to the Mustang "brand" to give it cred as opposed to forging your own new brand.

[HSE2]

Well to be fair the Ford hierarchy weren't sold on it either.

Get your point.

To me, its kind of an act of desperation to cling to the Mustang "brand" to give it cred as opposed to forging your own new brand.

What you are saying hurts the argument of not to.

It’s the fact that their initial reaction was no yet they did that should weigh very heavily on people’s minds.

It’s not proof of an act of cheapness to sell a car. It’s an act of consideration and with that comes the assessment of damage.

Let’s put it like this.

Calling it just a Mach E while have styling features from mustang, a name that’s linked to mustang yet not wear the brand is one foot in one foot out. You are living a lie, lacking the conviction of your actions. More worried about offending people than executing 100%.

Ford must get credit for not doing that.

If you can’t use mustang, you can’t use Mach either and it’s best to stay away from the design languages because as the thread title suggests, what really in a name.

I would support not touching Mustang if no part touches across mustang.

The next part has to be does Mach E being as it is damage the mustang history?

The obvious answer is that’s impossible. You can’t rewrite history unless you are penalising an engine from 2 months ago.

Does Mach E detract in any way from S550?

Are you going to cancel your GT500 purchase because of this new direction for the name plate? I am thinking no. I can’t see how Mach E hurts the coupe and I think the protests or objections need to come up with a statement of damage because I’m pretty sure that would have been at the forefront of conversations and concerns in Detroit.

Would Mach3 be less attractive if it didn’t have a mustang association or link?

Not sure. I would need to hear someone say they wouldn’t buy the Mach E because it was a mustang.


There are other points to note from other manufacturers.

Companies and I will use Porsche, created SUVs to compliment their 2 door sports car because they became aware that those who owned them actually needed another mode of transport. Who knew right? Two door sports cars have limitations.

That second car tended to be a Range Rover. Porsche didn’t like the fact that loyal owners were consuming another brands product so enter the cayenne.

It’s not called a 911 but they clearly used values and design language to create that family belonging.

Which approach is the more cohesive?

[FTe217]

"Companies and I will use Porsche, created SUVs to compliment their 2 door sports car because they became aware that those who owned them actually needed another mode of transport. Who knew right? Two door sports cars have limitations.

That second car tended to be a Range Rover. Porsche didn’t like the fact that loyal owners were consuming another brands product so enter the cayenne.

It’s not called a 911 but they clearly used values and design language to create that family belonging.

Which approach is the more cohesive?"

I think the above proves introducing a new name with the pedigree from its hero model is a path that works But this example is the Euros (and thinking) who do a good job in marketing their new models, incl Bimmer/MB Audi.
Whereas here we are with American train of thought.
Mustang is/has been so important to them keeping it in production, isn't this SUV going to use the same platform from past readings somewhere ? or am I mistaken ?
Mach anything isn't right as you mention, this is/has been Mustang performance models, not a SUV EV but what IF this was a petrol performance SUV would a Mach version be questioned ? or like Porsche introduce a new name but a Mach version for eg.
In saying the above, regards would this make a consumer think twice which to buy ? only if they had money constraints and if family man the practical SUV would reluctantly be the buy instead of the coupe.