Edmunds CarPool

"Ford has flirted with idea of a small-engined, front-wheel drive Mustang in the past, but I'm hoping they don't *probe* that concept again..."

(emphasis mine)

Nice touch, Karl!

"Which brings me to today's question: Could a future performance car ever see the level of economic and cultural success that the Mustang has seen over the past 45 years?"

I don't think that in today's economy Ford Mustang will continue to be as popular as it was during 60's and 70's. Those were the times of muscle cars when the gas was cheap and customers were less concerned with safety and emissions. Today, it's a different story. Fast, sporty cars have lost their appeal. I think they'll always have followers but not in numbers seen in the past.

I was 10 years old when the Mustang came out--just old enough to be interested in cars--and I remember the splash it made, people pointing them out on the road. There was nothing else like it at the price, practical and sporty. T-birds and Vettes were expensive. "Everybody" wanted a Mustang, and the price was low enough that many wanters could be buyers. Dad bought a red V8 fastback, which he kept long enough for me to take to college (after I beat up and old junker for 3 years). Even the base V6 was a quick little grocery-getter with its 4.11 rear-end. It was a car that started a category. The automotive market is more complicated and splintered now; but who knows, another game-changer may yet appear.

"Am I wrong?"

No, Karl. You're right! It's not just the environmental issues and political pressure. (The 4-cyl Hyundai is pretty green by modern standards.) Euroman71 pretty much hit the nail right on the head by noting that fast, sporty cars have generally lost their appeal.....I think that's what it boils down to. I believe a compact and affordable crossover could achieve that feat if it has a unique enough character.....but I don't see a sports car selling a million in 3 years in this day and age.l

Probably only 2 cars in history cut as wide a swath in automotive popularity, the Model T and the Mustang. However, I would give the 240Z and its progeny a close runner up award and it needs just a few more years to match the Mustang in longevity if not overall sales.

Won't happen, the world changed long ago. Remember, basic transportation cars for the mass market were simple front-engine, rear drive solid axle cars in the early Sixties. Falcon was the base, Mustang was the platform offspring, not that platforms were thought of as such then.

Barracuda followed on Valiant chassis, then Camaro on Nova. Rear drive enabled high output variants, even though they really didn't handle unless extensively modified.

For decades now mass-market cars have been front drive, and you simply have limits to power increases and a very different handling profile. There simply isn't the scope for a huge-selling performance variant coupe and convertible based off a modern mass-market car in the way the pony cars evolved.

Today, a reasonably priced rear-drive performance model is an outlier in the marketplace. Choices have multiplied, and coupes and convertibles have Jeeps, SUVs, crossovers, minivans, pickup trucks, two-box xB and Cube type things, two-seaters, etc.

Pony car explosion days are behind us.

Mustang has already changed the world for the better, with a myriad of affordable performance coupes and 4-seaters on the market. There really isn't the void anymore that Mustang filled. The Mustang is now nostalgic as much as anything. Enhancements to existing formulas will advance incrementally, rather than explosively.

Why would the general public buy a sports car when you can get a practical Accord V6 with similar power?

No, the market will never buy in such quantities again because there's enough supply to meet demand.

That's not to say there haven't been cars that have been just as profound. If I had to point to a Mustang-level vehicle for my generation, I'd say the Civic. Bash me all you want, but the Civic is as much an icon as the Mustang.

I can imagine scenarios in which a sporty car could enjoy the success of the Mustang in the '60s. When the new fuel economy and emission standards make performance too expensive for the average American, the next big breakthrough will have to occur on the zero-(or near-zero) emissions front. The company that comes up with a car like the Tesla roadster, for a reasonable price, with a reasonable driving range, will enjoy success. I think the public (including myself) would eat that up. It would also help if competitors are caught off guard, much like Ford surprised GM and Chrysler, leaving them racing for several years to develop similar vehicles of their own.

Does the Miata/MX-5 not count?

I don't think there will be another muscle-car explosion. I think today is the last gasp of V-8 power.

I think there are just too many nameplates for one to get that big - unless a manufacturer figures out a way to build a good car for a lot less money than the competition. That would be a game changer.

I wasn't around, but there must've been less of a "my car must be a tool than can do anything I ask of it" culture back when the Mustang was big. Few people are willing to buy coupes anymore.

"Small is not always bad. Karl, you owned a MINI did you not?"

I did, and I loved it.

But I CHOSE to buy that car, I didn't have it forced on me by an out-of-touch political body. That's where my dread of soul-less, 8x8 cubes for everyone comes from.

Could a future performance car ever see the level of economic and cultural success that the Mustang has seen over the past 45 years?

No. As mentioned earlier, the Mustang used an existing mass market platform to make an inexpensive performance coupe that sold in the millions. Car manufacturing has changed and there are no inexpensive RWD small sedan platforms. Insurance cost and government regulations make it difficult to make a high volume inexpensive high performance car.

"But I CHOSE to buy that car, I didn't have it forced on me by an out-of-touch political body. That's where my dread of soul-less, 8x8 cubes for everyone comes from."

Karl, Karl, not again! There is the NEED for more economical cars and I'm glad we finally have a government that is doing something about it!

Besides, I think you missed the point behind the "Small is not always bad. Karl, you owned a MINI did you not?" comment.
There will always be small, economical, fun to drive cars. Have you forgotten the late '70s to early '80s Golf GTI? That was a fun-to-drive, fast and economical car created in an era of low-powered cars. And we don't have to go that far in time: The 4-cyl Hyundai Genesis coupe. We can even include the 335i in this group.....it's fast and reasonalby economical.

Lower emissions standards does NOT imply boring cars. There will always be fast, affordable, desirable and stylish cars.....not matter how stringent emission standards (made necessary by environmental realities and science) are.

"Lower emissions standards does NOT imply boring cars."

Lower emissions standards are the least of my concerns (though it is ironic that cars are obsenely clean in terms of exhuast emissions today -- but I digress). What happens when the all-knowing political body decides any car larger than 8x8 feet is selfishly hogging suface space and thus must be outlawed? What happens when these same brainiacs decide anything over 125 horsepower is just a waste of precious, non-renewable resources and must be outlawed? What happens when these self-annointed "earth-savers" decide all cars should run on electric power, even if that means a range limit of 82 miles and/or a cost of $40,000-plus? (BTW, these rules only apply to the average citizen; politicians, movie stars and corporate CEOs will still be shuttled around in V8 powered limos and SUVs while flying only first-class when traversing the globe on a regular basis, but that's okay because they're "special" and don't have to lead by example.)

Emissions standards are only the tip of this liberty-sinking iceberg.

It's hard to see any car making a Mustang/Model T/VW Bug impact on the market right now. There's just too many competitors, and they're so fast to copy each other. And worse yet, none of them seem to swing for the fences anymore... every move is calculated and evolutionary.

If Honda priced the Civic SI at 13,999, maybe. That would be the modern day equivelant, right? A cheap performance vehicle build on an existing non-performance small car chassis.

It seems to me over the next few years there will be significant consolidation in the industry. That may lead to another Mustang like market-dominating entry. But it would be for all the wrong reasons. It would be because of limited options to consumers, and limited R&D budgets. It's not likely it would be because a company made a new market, or they made that much of a better product than anyone else (which is what the Mustang did).

I'm still waiting for another Minivan paradigm shift. The Smart isn't going to do it. It could have with a lower price and better refinement.

Karl, I'm thinking you've been in California too long. The rest of the nation isn't envisioning such extremes.

"Karl, I'm thinking you've been in California too long. The rest of the nation isn't envisioning such extremes."

But don't forget, "California often leads the country."

Which apparently means you're all destined for a decaying road system, horrendous educational quality, bankrupt government, and an anti-business economic climate -- all brought to you via higher tax rates.

Don't you other 49 states wish you were as cool as California...

I assure you, if Hell is where California is going, the rest of the country will not follow.

+1, Estraka!

Karl, are those the proposals floating around in Cali (8-by-8, 125 hp, all-electric cars NOW, etc)? Wow, those are some new lows! I'd never heard of them, not even on Edmunds.com! I don't believe such proposals will make it out in Cali, let alone in the rest of the country! I wouldn't worry if I were you......

Seems like Arnie now has Calee-fornia on the same track to nowhere that his predecessor Gray (Grey?) Davis did, even with all his talk about being totally different. I had a job offer out there in '05 and am SO glad I didn't take it (couldn't afford to live there at the time anyway, what with a basic 1000 sq ft house starting at $300,000).

If Lex Luthor was able to complete his scheme of detonating a nuclear bomb underneath the San Andreas Fault causing Calee-fornia to "fall into the sea", as he so eloquently put it, I'd actually be right there to cheer him on.

Karl, "Obscenely clean"? Seriously?

An individual car may be better than what we had in the 60's mile for mile, but when you take into consideration how many miles American's drive every year nowadays, what may seem like obscenely clean can probably add up pretty quick to obscenely dirty and obscenely irresponsible to blindly take risks like that and make our children pay for them. Liberty really is great (not being sarcastic), but externalities have to be accounted for somehow.

I think there are people so obsessed with their cars and have been for so long that they will make every effort to convince themselves that there isn't an element of insustainability in automobiles (which I love by the way). Karl, you are one of those people.

I love the fact that you put both of these statements in the same post:

"Liberty really is great (not being sarcastic), but externalities have to be accounted for somehow."

"I think there are people so obsessed with their cars and have been for so long that they will make every effort to convince themselves that there isn't an element of insustainability in automobiles (which I love by the way)."

Here's a thought: Let's actually account for the "externalities" BEFORE we decide what is and is not sustainable.

What is the basis for these histrionic claims of "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE IF WE DON'T STOP EVERY FORM OF MODERN LIVING RIGHT NOW!!!!"

There are two big ones:
1. Pollution is increasing the earth's temperature while also irrevocably damaging our air!!!

And
2. We're about to run out of oil!!!

But is human activity really altering the earth's temperature? NOBODY ACTUALLY KNOWS.

Is our oil supply really about to run out? How long do we have? NOBODY ACTUALLY KNOWS.

Of course all the Chicken Littles will argue that we do know these things, but the bottom line is WE DON'T. (and once again for the cheap seats) WE DON'T. WE DON'T. WE DON'T.

"But isn't assuming these terrible things are occurring the 'smart' thing to do, even if we don't know."

Let me make my response clear: NO -- IT IS NOT!!!

It's a great way to expend money and resources fixing a problem we don't know exists. It's a great way to justify ever more government intervention. It's a great way to reduce the size of vehicle regardless of whatever other consequences that move brings...

But, chasing phantoms dreamed up by niche social groups and government agencies chasing power and money is NOT a prudent way to save the planet (no matter how good it makes you feel inside).

BTW, it's not my obsession with cars leading to my position on this topic. It's my obsession with logic and rational thought. There are as many scientists, with as many (or more) facts, suggesting man's zero effect on global temperatures as there are suggesting we're the cause of every drought, hurricane or earthquate. Same with oil reserve predictions.

Karl, you (like most anti-global warming people) keep exaggerating!

"WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE IF WE DON'T STOP EVERY FORM OF MODERN LIVING RIGHT NOW!!!!"

Nobody's ever said that! Environmentalist simply say we must be careful/mindful of the harm our actions have or could still cause the environment.....and where possible, make some changes to ensure minimum impact. That's all!

Yes, we know we're causing the planet to warm up, and there are a whole lot of negative consequences.
Nobody knows when we'll run out of oil, but we know that there's a finite supply and we'll eventually run out. Even without the environmental issues, it's prudent to start considering and pursuing alternative sources!

"But, chasing phantoms dreamed up by niche social groups and government agencies chasing power and money is NOT a prudent way to save the planet (no matter how good it makes you feel inside)."

SO you think the oil (and other energy companies and polluters) disputing the science just because their profits are threatened is a good way to save the planet?

I think you're spot-on, Karl.

"Nobody's ever said that! Environmentalist simply say we must be careful/mindful of the harm our actions have or could still cause the environment.....and where possible, make some changes to ensure minimum impact. That's all!"

WHY? IF WE DONT' KNOW WE'RE CAUSING "HARM" WHY MUST WE BE CAREFUL/MINDFUL?

"Yes, we know we're causing the planet to warm up, and there are a whole lot of negative consequences."

NO, WE DON'T. THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA HAS SAID IT OVER-AND-OVER, AND UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S BEEN ENOUGH TO MAKE FAR TOO MANY PEOPLE (ahem) ASSUME IT'S A FAIT ACCOMPLI --***BUT IT'S NOT***. THERE STILL ISN'T ***ANY*** PROOF!!!!

"Nobody knows when we'll run out of oil, but we know that there's a finite supply and we'll eventually run out."

The sun will also eventually go supernova, enveloping the inner planets of this solar system and eradicating all life (and pretty much all matter) on them.

"Even without the environmental issues, it's prudent to start considering and pursuing alternative sources!"

Agreed, and we're already doing this simply because as the price of oil goes up the effort (and economic viability) of finding and using an alternatives also goes us. In fact, you don't even need a government program to make all this happen, as market forces do it all by themselves. And do it far more efficiently without wasting my tax dollars. Beautiful system, no?

"SO you think the oil (and other energy companies and polluters) disputing the science just because their profits are threatened is a good way to save the planet?"

Are you driving a car on a regular basis? Are you wearing clothes shipped to a store via petroleum? Are you sitting at a computer made of plastic (a petroleum product)?

Here's an undeniable fact -- oil is not the fuel of our economy, it's the chassis, engine, suspension, interior and body panels. Oil doesn't enhance our lifestyle, it makes pretty much every aspect of it possible (and that includes all the environmentalists, too).

To constantly villianize the oil companies that not only power your car but power your life is both luducrious and hyprocritical.

It's a natural resource people. EVERYONE in this country is beholden to it. Until I meet the person living in a cave, wearing animal skins (from an animal that died of natural causes, of course!) and eating plants he grew locally I'm officially labeling every "oil basher" a monumental hypocrite -- starting with the monster-carbon-footprint Hollywood elite and Al Gore.

I think there are certain irrevocable proofs that humans alter their environment. I certainly buy into the local cause and effect of climate change (if we cut down trees, there's obviously no forest there, which contributes to rapid erosion; tons of atmospheric particles cause smog; a dam can have a profound effect of fish populations; etc).

As far as the global aspect, there are certain things I agree with (China's air pollution does cause smog across the western US coast), but there are others that are true guesses. In my personal view, we should tackle the KNOWN causes before we concentrate on the unknown ones.

"Here's an undeniable fact -- oil is not the fuel of our economy, it's the chassis, engine, suspension, interior and body panels. Oil doesn't enhance our lifestyle, it makes pretty much every aspect of it possible (and that includes all the environmentalists, too)."

EXACTLY, so maybe we shouldn't blow on V-8 engines in every car and act like there aren't going to be consequences.

Here's where your argument fails Karl, you think just because we can't get out a climate change calculator to figure out the exact damage we're doing, that we should pretend we are doing NO damage. Yes calculating for some unknown externalities will be difficult and probably end up not 100% correct, but it will probably bring us a lot closer than doing nothing.

Just because my country doesn't know exactly what the future of the terrorist threat is going to be doesn't mean I don't want it making an educated guess and acting accordingly as a government should.

"A social niche" isn't pushing climate change on us. SCIENTISTS ARE! Just because Leo DiCaprio drives a Prius and tries to pursuade people given his status as a celebrity in NO WAY makes him wrong. And just because Al Gore lives in a mansion doesn't make him wrong either... Just a hypocrite.

Even extremely conservative radio nutjobs quote try to debunk Gore by saying approximately half of scientists believe in man-made global warming while 50% do not. I'll take some regulation over a 50% chance of environmental catastrophe any day.

Admit it Karl, you pick and choose what scientists you want to believe because you've grown up with cars and love them so much. Just admit it.