SORRY, I CAN'T POST THE IMAGES - GETTY..........................
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
To: Red Badger
2 posted on
03/10/2022 8:58:19 AM PST by
cp124
(80% of everything is fake)
To: muleskinner; Fiddlstix; TexasTransplant; Squeako; dennisw; norwaypinesavage; 1Old Pro; weps4ret; ...
3 posted on
03/10/2022 8:58:25 AM PST by
Red Badger
(Homeless veterans camp in the streets while illegal aliens are put up in hotels.....................)
To: Red Badger
To: Red Badger
5 posted on
03/10/2022 9:00:28 AM PST by
no-to-illegals
(The enemy has US surrounded. May God have mercy on them)
To: Red Badger
Maybe the same people who did the original wiring on my '66 MGB. When it comes to automotive electronic issues, I know my first thought is to turn to the British and those folks at Lucas.
To: Red Badger
7 posted on
03/10/2022 9:01:12 AM PST by
discostu
(like a dog being shown a card trick)
To: Red Badger
I don’t think it has much in the way of safety upgrades.
400 to 500 grand! OUCH!
To: Red Badger
No, thank you. If they had put in a diesel engine running at a constant RPM, driving a generator, which then drove electric motor on all 4 wheels via power electronics, then MAYBE. That, at least, you could fuel up in a reasonable time at a gas station. And, the torque of electric motors is unbelievable, even at 0 RPM.
But with a BATTERY? That takes HOURS to charge? And has less than 200 miles range (less in cold WX)? NO THANKS!
9 posted on
03/10/2022 9:02:47 AM PST by
backwoods-engineer
(Hold on, y'all, 2022 is going to be a ride you won't soon forget!)
To: Red Badger
Did they drop in a Merlin Rolls Royce engine?
To: Red Badger
My Cadillac CTS-V was only $100K, does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, top speed of 200 MPH, Range is Over 300 miles and takes 5 minutes to fully Recharge the Fuel Tank
12 posted on
03/10/2022 9:05:21 AM PST by
eyeamok
(founded in cynicism, wrapped in sarcasm)
To: Red Badger
No thanks - I prefer my ‘69 fastback...
15 posted on
03/10/2022 9:08:22 AM PST by
rockrr
( Everything is different now...)
To: Red Badger
Looks the same, but without the original ‘brains’.
It’s the insides that made the Mustang what it was/is.
Either way, I never did like the Mustang, no matter what the year, or changes.
17 posted on
03/10/2022 9:11:50 AM PST by
adorno
To: Red Badger
1968 Fastback, my favorite Mustang.
Not Getty:
19 posted on
03/10/2022 9:15:14 AM PST by
Yo-Yo
(Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
To: Red Badger
Electric mustang? Two words I never thought I’d see in a sentence.
20 posted on
03/10/2022 9:15:43 AM PST by
rdl6989
( )
To: Red Badger
“And I want one.”
You’re such a patriot!
21 posted on
03/10/2022 9:16:01 AM PST by
SaxxonWoods
(The only way to secure your own future is to create it yourself.)
To: Red Badger
How do the British get an electric car to leak oil?
To: Red Badger
It is a beautiful car, but $460K for a 200mi range indicates the beauty is only skin deep.
24 posted on
03/10/2022 9:18:58 AM PST by
budj
(Combat vet, 2nd of three generations.)
To: Red Badger
This must be the Pete Buttplug edition Mustang
29 posted on
03/10/2022 9:24:11 AM PST by
dennisw
To: Red Badger
“classic design and styling of the legendary Ford Mustang.”
Just wish they would tell us \which\ classic lines are being revived.
This one revives the 2+2 styling, not the original style of 64.1/2 or the Boss/Mach ‘beefy shoulders’ styles.
With ‘Stangs, style is relevant and not just a toss-off comment.
32 posted on
03/10/2022 9:26:42 AM PST by
Cletus.D.Yokel
(At this time, there is NO NUCLEAR THREAT to the USA. Turn off the TV and carry on.)
To: Red Badger
I need more than a 200-mile range, and I don’t need to go 0-60 in 3.9 seconds.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson