Saddest Mustang Shootout Ever?

65
4539
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A reader wanted my take on a “shootout” between the electric crossover-thing Ford styles a “Mustang” and a Tesla Model Y. I almost shot my lunch. My comments follow his query:

I saw this review of the new Mustang Mach-E against the Tesla Model Y and it struck me as really sad and depressing.  They seem to spend most of the contest worrying about running out of juice, and the final battle is a struggle to get the charging stations to work.  The one time they actually punch it, the “Mustang” (it’s a disgrace to the name) disappoints quickly.  Old Camaro vs. Mustang comparisons generally didn’t have to focus on not running out of gas and the people generally seemed to actually enjoy themselves as opposed to the dejected Mustang driver in this review.  I wondered what a professional car guy who’s not an electric Kool-Aid drinker would think of this. Hopefully this isn’t the future of “performance car” road trips.

Well, to begin with, it’s not a Mustang shootout. That four-door crossover-thing is a Mustang like an Elvis impersonator is Elvis – only worse because it doesn’t even look like Elvis, much less sound like him.

It has no moves, either.

Ford owns the Mustang name so it can tack it on a box of oatmeal if it wants to – legally. But it’s no less an affront to the name.

That’s for openers. As regards the rest:

What we have here is a “shootout” between two $40,000-50,000-plus electric cars that can’t do what most any $2,500 15-year-old used economy car can do – i.e., travel more than 300 miles without having to stop for a long wait. It’s sad – and delusional. The not-laughing, I mean. The normalizing of this regression of mobility – for which those who can afford it will pay through the nose.

One can buy a real Mustang – a GT – for about $35,000. It has a 430 hp V8 and gets to 60 in just under 4 seconds. It also goes 384 highway miles on a tank and can be fully refueled for another 384 miles in about 5 minutes at any gas station.

And leaving that aside, it’s fun to drive – something Mustangs used to always deliver. There is a manual transmission and there is a magnificent V8 that sings rather than whirrrrrrs like a Makita drill.

The Mach-E not-Mustang stickers for $43,895. It is roughly as quick as the actual Mustang. But it only goes about 222 miles – maybe – before it has to stop for that extended pit-stop. It takes at least 30 minutes to recover a partial charge, if you can find a “fast” charger. If you can’t find one, the wait will be an hour or longer to go not much farther.

So, let’s do some EV Maff and calculate the regression.

You pay $8,895 more up front to drive the not-Mustang about half as far and to wait five times as long – best case – before you can get going again. And people are enthusiastic about this?

Thank you, sir! May I have another?

It’s even worse than the Maff indicates because the Maff is actually much worse – if you subtract from the equation the range you won’t have after a “fast” charge and add to the equation what it will cost to wire up your house to “fast” charge the not-Mustang, which most houses are not wired to do.

Some cannot be wired to do it because their panels are only 100 amp service and that’s not enough juice to power a “fast” charger. But assuming a 200 amp panel, you still have to pay and even then, it’s not actually “fast” in the way that the commercial “fast” chargers at dealers and other not-at-home places are “fast” because you need commercial service to “fast” charge an EV in the 15-30minutes  deceptively touted by the hawkers of EVs.

And even then, it’s only a partial “fast” charge because a full “fast” charge risks a fire or damage to the EV. (It’s the reason why you read almost weekly about EVs going all hot-zig and up in smoke.)

So, if these tests – and ads – were honest – they’d adjust the EV’s range downward to reflect what it is after a “fast” partial charge rather than a several-hours-long charge to full. They’d add the cost to the sticker price of getting your home wired – assuming you can.

And your “fast” home charge? It is only “faster” than waiting overnight for a charge via the household 120V outlet in the garage.

You’ll also need to do the Charge Kabuki much more often if you use the not-Mustang’s 4 seconds to 60 capability. The faster you drive, the sooner you wait. This is a cost, too – and one you don’t pay with the Mustang, no matter how fast you drive it. Because there is no wait to get back to full and much less anxiety if you’re running close to empty. Even if you do run out, you can get going again because gas is portable. Electricity isn’t, not practically. It’s true you could send for a charge truck to get the not-Mustang going again. But that is not the same  as getting a gallon from the station down the road and bringing it back to the actual Mustang.

Sam Kineson – the ex-preacher turned comedian – had a great routine about it never ending, even after you die and had hoped that, at last, there would be peace.

This EV freak show is kind of like that.

. . . .

Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

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.

 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!)

My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  If that fails, email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy directly!

Share Button

65 COMMENTS

  1. The thing is that most people have few opinions or ideas about anything. They have extremely limited views and extremely lazy minds with not a speck of desire to think beyond what they hear in the news, hear from social media or from friends. There is so assumed garbage floting around that most just accept as gosphel and the truth.

    I firmly believe that upwards of 80% of the accepted “normal and pretend” facts are unproven, outright lies and mainly originated to market products and services and even certain mindsets. A perfect example is the advice of drinking 8 eight ounce glasses of water everyday. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that supports this claim and yet is has become etched in stone. The truth is that water or liquid requirements vary greatly from person to person…or body to body. And this unfounded advice has spirited a super boom in the bottled water industry as well as the major increase in plastic garbage and the increase in useles, resource wasting recycling.

    Yet, few even think twice about this now commonly accepted practice. You can find all types of “accepted practices and beliefs” that have no or very little factual evidence to back them up. People are so brain dead, unquestioning and lost in a world that is dead beyond their stupid-phones.

    Very similar to socialism and all the other leftist garbage…including fake global warming, fake pandemics and now fake vaccines.

  2. I am so proud of myself for buying a 2016 Volkswagen diesel Passat with manual transmission: 45 miles per gallon and no ethanol. It has 60,000 miles, and considering my age (77), it might be the last car I ever own. To hell with the electric cars and all the phony climate-change panic. This country started down the dumper with the Constitutional Convention. All that’s happened since was inevitable after that!

    • Morning, Wilhelm!

      I’m glad you got one, too – while you still could. If VW had gone Woke, I think I could have wrangled a TDI crate engine out of them for “testing” purposes – and installed it in my ’02 Frontier pickup. It is something I have thought about for several years. The TDI would likely deliver 30-plus MPG in the truck (vs.the gas four’s horrendous 22) and let me pull 5,000 lbs. as well.

      • I’ve likewise considered getting a functional Mercedes-Benz OM617 engine out of a wrecked ’78-85′ Benz. That five-banger only put out 94 ponies, but gobs of torque out of its 3.0 liters. Drop that bad boy into a vintage Toyota SR5, Nissan King Cab, Plymouth Arrow, Chevy LUV, or Ford Courier small pickup. Bring with it the ‘Benz 5-speed manual, so the biggest customizing job would be fabricating engine and transmission mounts.

      • Skip the TDI. Try to find a 1993-97 1.9TD (AAZ). Much simpler, no computer, IDI. Less power but less potential problems, and it will run without a battery. Should get 40+mpg.

        DLS below has the right idea too. Dead simple tech.

  3. i found myself wondering what the EV car owners are going to do with Biden’s Green policies coming down the pike and the push towards solar and wind policies. much of the electrical grid throughout the U.S. is in poor shape as it is. my ex-hubbie and i owned a mustang just like the one Steve McQueen drove while filming Bullitt way back when. that was a nice, fast car until he totaled it taking down a light pole! brand new, a few months off the showroom floor. funny how a single word can bring back so many memories and better times.

  4. They went backwards to pushrods?!? Why? Overhead cam is so superior, as is multi-valve and Ford already have these engines. Stupid.

    • Hi Eric,

      You say OHC engines are “superior” – how so?

      OHC designs are more complex, have more moving parts than OHV engines. That makes them more expensive to make and to sell and to service. They are also physically larger, which creates packaging difficulties and makes them harder to work on in most applications.

      GM’s LS family of OHV V8s make tremendous power/torque reliably and affordably. Also the Chrysler Hemi V8, which in Hellcat trim produces 900 streetable horsepower. These engines flow tremendous volumes of air through two valves, using pushrods and a single in-block cam (like the GM LS V8s).

      How is that “stupid”?

      • Simple, every conversion of mechanical direction causes frictional losses. You know, that bitch physics. Ask yourself why Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, Fiat, Toyota, Nissan, etc, etc, etc all use OVC. It’s better, plain and simple.

        • Hi Eric,

          The manufacturers you mention all specialize in small engines and to get high power out of a small engine, the OHC/multi-valve layout helps because it flows more air vs. the OHV layout But it is also more complex and expensive, per my earlier points. You have not addressed my points about the OHV V8’s simpler, inherently more rugged/lower-maintenance design nor the astounding power produced by the modern OHV V8s referenced. GM’s LS V8s are also able to rev to 7,000 RPM-plus . . . with pushrods.

          These big V8s also produce tremendous torque without turbocharging – without the cost of the turbo and with generally longer service lives.

          There is no “superior” or “stupid.” There are pros and cons.

          • He’s a pompous twit, Eric. As you pointed out, whether OHC or OHV, each has pluses and minuses. The 7.3 liter OHV engine, which is essentially a revamp of the vintage ‘385’ engine family, is intended for applications suited for a TRUCK…i.e., peak torque at relatively LOW RPMs…y’know, like what a DIESEL would make, before they were Fatwa’ed to DEATH! The pushrod OHV V8s were inherently more rugged and reliable, something else you want in a truck.

            • It stands to reason that if multivalve OVC cam engines squeeze more power from a smaller engine they would also do the same for a larger engine as well. A better breathing engine is more efficient and numerous studies have shown the pent roof four valve design to offer superior airflow. What’s good for goose is good for the gander. If you want massive torque go diesel,

              • The engine “breathing” is more relevant as the engine turns higher revs. Some years ago, Mopar fiddled around with their “early” Hemis, based on experience of developing an aircraft engine design for piston-engined aircraft, the IV-2220. Though this engine was never put into mass production, the engineers at the Mound Engine Plant worked on an OHV successor to the venerable 323 CD “Straight Eight”. In 1951, the first “Hemi” V8 was introduced on Chrysler-branded cars (Sixes still went with the old flathead), marketed as the “Firepower” with a 2 bbl carb, ran 7.5:1 compression (so it used regular gas), and put out 180 bhp…a considerable improvement over the Flathead straight 8 that put out only 135 ponies! A 276 cube Hemi was introduced for DeSoto cars in ’52, branded as the “Firedome”, and Dodges got their Hemi in ’53, as the “Red Ram”. It was soon realized that the true advantages of the Hemi, save they were used in racing apps (they performed so well at Indianapolis that scared competitors pressured the Indy racing body to ban them) or high performance models like the Chrysler 300 series, some of which came with dual quads and put out over 300 ponies. However, the Hemi was bulky, heavy, and costly to produce. As an expedient, Chrysler developed “Poly” versions of this series of engines, designating them as “single-rocker arm” engines, with the “hemis” as “dual-rocker arms”, which was repeated in a way with the Saturn four bangers in the 90s and “aughts”, with a single OHC and a DUAL OHC version of the same basic engine. Still, even the Poly engines were quite bulky and still relatively expensive compared to competitors’ engine. Chrysler engineers fiddled around with experimental wedge-head designs and found that in typical compression ratios and RPM bands used for street machines, the increase in either polyspherical or hemispherical combustion chambers was fairly nebulous. Still, for the Plymouth brand, Chrysler developed an entirely NEW “Poly” engine for that marque, which was first available in ’56, Plymouth had NEVER had any of the prior Hemi or Poly engines at all. This particular engine series, known as either the “WIndsor” or “Canadian” engine, being produced at Chrysler’s Windsor, Ontario engine plant, was available in 277, 301, 303, 318, and 325 cube versions, and became the “base” V8 for Dodges and Plymouths. However, Chrysler needed to get production costs down on the higher end vehicles, so the “B” engines came out in ’58, with two stroke lengths (3-3/8″ and 3-3/4″) and different deck heights, other than that, most engine parts were readily interchangeable. Chrysler went this this arrangement and entirely dropped the Early “Hemis” and “Polys” after ’58, the 392 being the most famous.

              • Eric,

                You keep missing the point;is this deliberate? The OHV is simpler and by dint of that less costly and inherently more reliable and lower-maintenance. These are virtues. Why do you ignore them? Note that I have not argued OHV engines are superior to OHC engines; merely that each has its pros and cons. You seem to believe OHV engines are “stupid” – this makes no sense to me.

                In re diesels: They are so expensive now that their torque advantage is largely irrelevant due to their cost. For example, the 6.7 turbo diesel in the current F250 stickers for $11k. But the 7.3 gas V8 can be had for $2k.

                The displacement of the 7.3 enables it to make tremendous torque – without tremendous cost. It also makes 430 horsepower, in an extremely mild/understressed combination. This engine could probably make 600 horsepower without losing its daily driver attributes.

                An OHC engine half the size with twin turbos can make comparable power, of course. But it requires the two turbos – and it would cost twice (and maybe three times) as much to make it.

                • So far the only advantage to OHV engines I am hearing is that of packaging; yes they are more compact because the camshaft resides in the V. That’s true. I am an engineer so I don’t necessarily see things from the gearhead perspective so I apologize for that. For my $ I prefer OHC with 4 valve pent-roof combustion chambers because the research suggests that this leads to the best use of the fuel-air mixture.

                  • It’s a question of COST and RELIABILITY also, for the intended application. I’m likewise an engineer, with almost 40 years of professional experience in the military and civilian sectors.

                    That Ford more or less dusted off their old ‘385’ (named for the crank stroke, 3.85 inches, likewise one based on a stroke of 3.35 inches was dubbed the ‘335’ engine), which we knew back in the late 60s and into the 70s as the 429 and 460. This “old is new again” pushrod, OHV V8, goes back to the adage, “No replacement for DISPLACEMENT”, as it relies on its massive size. The improvements in horsepower AND fuel efficiency over the 50-y.o. design are mainly due to EFI and better engine management technologies, not expensive valve-train designs where THEIR advantages are never utilized for the RPM bands typically seen. Were it not for all the diesel “Fatwas” that made them more expensive and LESS efficient, let alone, with the DEF, a pain in the ass to operate, the “retro” OHV V8 would have never been considered.

                  • Hi Eric,

                    I’ve repeatedly mentioned the OHV design’s simplicity vs. OHC and the fact that simpler usually means less expensive and often also means lower (and lower cost) maintenance and longer life. Unless cost is no object, these are objective “pros.”

                    I’m not sure why you keep ignoring them.

                    Also, the airflow advantage of the OHC (and multivalve) layout, while true, is less so than it used to be. As an engineer, you should be aware of this. Have you looked at the CFM numbers of modern OHV V8s such as the GM LS series? These engines develop high horsepower and tremendous torque without turbo-supercharging or four valve heads.

                    You say “best use” – of the air-fuel mixture. This has to be defined before it can be answered. If “best use” is a simple, affordable, understressed engine that doesn’t require elaborate systems and which is likely to not require more than basic maintenance for most of its service life, it is very hard to beat a modern OHV V8 engine.

                    Mind, I am not suggesting that the OHC layout hasn’t also got “pros.” But the layout does have cons, too. I love the DOHC engines in my high-performance sport bikes. They make high horsepower and spin to extremely high RPM. But I also love the huge OHV V8 in my muscle car, which makes asphalt-rippling torque without effort – or the unnecessary expense of turbos or the much greater complexity of the OHC layout.

                    This isn’t about “stupid” or “superior,” as you initially claimed. It is about pros and cons and what works best in a given type of vehicle given how much you’d like to (or can afford) to spend.

                    One of the problems with engineering today is that some engineers think things like cost no longer matter – and that “simple” is bad when something can be made more complex.

  5. Just for kicks, I looked up the difference in price betwen the Golf Sportwagen I’m driving and an e-Golf. and it’s about $9000. At current gas prices, that takes me about 140,000 miles. In that 140k miles, I’ve pretty much used up the battery on the electric car, and I would have spent another $5000 or more to charge the vehicle.

    Um, why on earth would I want an electric car? Here in MN, you lose range over time, plus at 20 below, I’m guessing you only get half range to begin with–that makes even the longest range electric cars a tough bet to get from Rochester to the Twin Cities on a single charge. And if it runs out on the way, at 20 below, that’s a safety issue.

    • Hi Bike,

      It’s puzzling if you approach this from the standpoint of why would they want to make driving more costly and less easy? But once you understand that’s the point of the whole thing, it is no longer puzzling.

      • Because, you, a loathsome member of the Great Unwashed, have lived far too well, using up far more of the limited resources to which you’re entitled, according to your betters and masters – you must now “give back” what your betters believe is your rightful share – now drop to the floor and commence groveling, begging, wheedling, whining, sniveling, and cough up what little remains of your income and your paltry savings, you swinish and loutish serf.

      • “Woke” morons seem to think that they can brush aside engineering and market considerations with the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen. The trouble is, the motoring public isn’t fooled…only a few, VIRTUE-SIGNALING DIPSHITS.

        • Forget engineering and market considerations – the “woke” (actually brainwashed) crowd won’t even acknowledge fundamental concepts such as human biology – male and female. They live in a Bizarro world that has no connection at all to objective reality.

  6. “the commercial “fast” chargers at dealers and other not-at-home places are “fast” because you need commercial service to “fast” charge an EV in the 15-30minutes deceptively touted by the hawkers of EVs.”

    I’d wondered about that. Do the fast chargers run on 3 phase current?

  7. 302 cid V8 5 speed manual, fox body GT hatchback, bought new in ’92 and still running tight and fast. What I have is a Mustang. I don’t know what the hell that slot car is.

  8. I think the Ford EV is a far better “car” than the Tesla. Things like panel gaps, NVH, paint quality, and so on that normal people look at while shopping.

    But I can’t get past the stupid name. If I were in the market for one, I’d ask if there were a Pony Delete option. They should have gone with Galaxie (or Galax-E), followed by the range. So Galaxie 300 would be the 300 mile version.

  9. As we speak, Hitlary is rummaging through her collection of hideous pantsuits for one to wear to the inauguration — one that will at least restrain the awful jiggling of her putrescent slabs of cellulite.

    No, not the purple one with the inverted pentagram … it’s a bit too ‘out there.’ How about this seamless gold one, of off-planet manufacture, which gives that smooth, flattering ‘Michelin man’ look?

    What would Ghislaine do, Hitlary wonders idly, reflecting on how well turned out the accused child molester was at Chelsea’s wedding. If only beastly Bill had taken me to Ascot when he was fornicating his way through Oxford, Hitlary fumes.

    Meanwhile Bill stares glassy-eyed out the big back windows, a thin stream of drool descending from his shriveled lip. End-stage syphilis takes a terrible toll, as it did on the gaunt, hollow-eyed slaughterer Lincoln. Bill don’t even recognize his dirty blonde Energizer Bunny no more.

    Smash the Clintons, and you smash Satan. 🙂

  10. Im just wondering – where the tesla share is now, why doesn’t it just BUY say GM or some real manufacturing company to actually be able to make proper cars (and get some actual cashflow)

  11. Another complaint about EVs: Do they have to be so damn ugly? Is this a rule written into whatever laws or regulations the feds drummed up to try to nudge us into these monstrosities? One of the Teslas isn’t horrible, but the rest of the cars are hideous, especially this not-Mustang travesty. All of them severely beaten with the ugly stick.
    I guess it’s probably shallow on my part, but if I’m paying $35,000 for something and opening my checkbook every month for six years to do it, I want to be happy when I look at it.

      • As the mystics say: As above, so below. As within, so without. Americans are fugly compared to the 50s and 60s, lumpy, round, and non-descript compared to the sleek trim and stylish look of the 50s and early 60s.

        • That reminds me of a complaint I recently heard on TV about our public buildings. Ugly, strictly utilitarian, prison-like buildings constructed in an architectural style called brutalist. They are intimidating and soul-sucking. You only need a glance to know that nothing good happens there. This, as well, is a reflection of our society. Perhaps our evolving relationship with our government?

            • Had Speer more time to resolve the chimera that was German war production under the Nazis, he might have pulled off an engineering management miracle. As the narrator from the Limey series, “The World at War” described their futile efforts to match USA and Soviet production of AFVs…”Too many types of tanks, too few tanks in all…too many calibers of guns.” This resulted in at times some really Frankenstein (or should that be written, “Frank-en-STEEN”?) creations like the Marder III, an assault gun/tank destroyer based on a Czech chassis, the 38(t), which was VERY reliable and maintainable, but out-classed on the modern battlefield, and used captured SOVIET 76.2-mm guns, re-chambered to take the longer German 75mm anti-tank rounds, fitted with a “driving band” to properly fit the slightly fatter Russki gun. The contraption looked like the cluster-fuck it was, but nevertheless, it was devastating on the battlefield, a tribute to forced German resourcefulness.

              Speer saw to it that German AFV production was to be streamlined into their “E-series”, to facilitate mass production and enhance reliability.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entwicklung_series

              Some AFV enthusiasts have postulated “Panzerwaffe ’46” pages of what might have been.

              • Morning, Doug!

                Yup. It is a good thing for Germany’s enemies that men like Speer didn’t have the operational control that would have enabled Germany to mesh its technical prowess with the organizational efficiency the Reich government lacked. In this vein, imagine also if men with foresight such as (IIRC) Walther Wever who wanted Germany to design a “Uralbomber” (i.e., a long-range heavy bomber) had been listened to…

                • Hard to say, Eric. Historian’s SHOULD have better than 20/20 vision, knowing how things actually worked out… but they tend to see the world with their own self-imposed filters on their spectacles, just like everyone else.

                  Germany originally cancelled the “Ural” bomber project as they were just getting their military aircraft industry going again, and lacked the resources (RM?) to embark on a heavy bomber development project. It should be pointed out that the French likewise shelved a similar project, on the basis that they were nearly broke just spending their military budget on battleships like the “Richelieu”, tanks (yes, in May 1940, the French actually had more than the Germans), and this little construction project known as the Maginot Line. The RAF probably had the most credible “strategic” bombing force, as their several lines of twin-engine bombers could reach most targets in Germany and carried credible payloads, but they had no fighters at the time that had the range to fly CAP and fend off enemy interceptors. The Soviet Union never seriously tried anything beyond their “Maxim Gorky” plane, which was used as a flying billboard! We Yanks had some interesting heavy planes like the Douglas B-19 as prototypes, but the thought, as put forth by a Russian immigrant and aircraft designer by the name of Alexander P Seversky, who himself had flown for the Russian Navy in the Great War, was to develop very long-range bombers that could fly from the USA to targets overseas, and thus dispense with the need for “entangling” and fickle alliances with other nations. He summarized these ideas in a book titled, “Victory Through Air Power”, which didn’t come out until after the US was in the war, in March 1942, and was made into a movie by Disney a year later. One of the things Seversky pointed out was that aircraft design, and particularly of bombers, depended on what TYPE of war one’s nation was fighting…was it a war of “possession”, or “elimination”. In the former, less priority was needed for a large strategic bomber force, as you didn’t want to destroy the industry and infrastructure of the country you wish to occupy (enslave). Therefore, the combat capability of the air forces would be prioritized towards “flying artillery”, which both the Germans and the Soviets did, and air defense, which the Germans HAD to ultimately do. But in a war to destroy the enemy’s ability to support its war effort, a large strategic bomber force was crucial, else, a long, expensive war of attrition, to crush the enemy from without, rather than strike a mortal mortal at his most vulnerable points, had to be engaged. Hence why the UK and the USA put so much into heavy bombers, to bomb the shit out of the Third Reich! Well, THAT result was mixed, for several reasons, but it can be said that even if the “round-the-clock” bombing campaign more or less amounted to poking the enemy with a pen-knife and letting it bleed out and gradually weaken, it was tantamount to another “Front”, overhead, as if Germany wasn’t in a desperate battle in the East and West, which Hitler himself had written in “Mein Kampf” was military folly! Where strategic bombing proved its worth was against JAPAN, once we (1) had developed the B-29, which development and production cost MORE than the atomic bomb program, and was VERY troublesome (engine fires) and (2) we’d taken the Mariana islands, which gave the USAAF a base (Tinian) within range of the Japanese Home Islands that had decent flying weather! Seversky had advocated bombing Japan from the Aleutians, and indeed we’d fought a little-known campaign to kick the Japanese out of the most western of those islands. But, as anyone that’s ever gone to the former Shemya AFB can attest, the weather is TERRIBLE, and any B-29 force operating from the Aleutians, never mind the enormous logistics that’d have been need, PLUS diverting Naval assets to protect those bases, would be GROUNDED the majority of the time! The B-29s were cantankerous birds, as more of them were lost due to engine failures than to enemy action! Indeed, backup plans to have the Consolidated B-32 “Dominator” or the Avro Lancaster deliver the atomic bombs were devised if the B-29 couldn’t fulfill the role (and they still had to be modified with the “Silverplate” version before even that could be done), but both required taking at least Iwo Jima and, to ensure success, Okinawa, with both were so bloody that our experience contributed to the decision to drop the A-bomb on Japan! As it was, the second A-bomb mission, on Nagasaki, the bombing aircraft, “Bock’s Car”, had fuel transfer pump problems, which meant their range and loitering time was cut down, with the weight of the now dead weight of unusable fuel on board. To make matters worse, the original target, Kokura, was socked in by cloud cover, After a few futile bomb runs, and getting word that Japanese pursuit planes had been spotted, Bock’s Car went on to Nagasaki, where again, cloud cover frustrated attempts to bomb visually. The CO, Major Charles Sweeny, rather than drop the bomb into the drink, decided to go against orders and drop by radar, as the engineer estimated that they could only make one more run and still make it to Okinawa. At the last moment, the clouds opened up enough to identify Nagasaki, and the bomb, a weaponized version of what’d been tested at “Trinity” in New Mexico but 24 days prior, detonated about 1,650 feet above a point right between two of the most strategic targets available, a steel factory and an arsenal, but, being in the Urakami Valley, most of Nagasaki proper was spared the worst of the fireball and blast effect by the intervening hills, even though “Fat Man” was about 75% more powerful than the “Little Boy” device used on Hiroshima three days prior. Bock’s Car barely made it back to Okinawa, was re-fueled, and got back to Tinian. In the debriefing of Major Sweeny, Gen. Curtis LeMay asked him, “You FUCKED UP, didn’t you, Chuck?”, as Sweeney’s command of the mission was in question, but no further action was taken. Though Sweeny was promoted to light colonel, he left the Army Air Forces in 1946, but later joined the Mass Air Guard, retiring with the rank of Major General.

  12. It’s a new year, new administration and time for a new propaganda campaign. See
    Zero Hedge article: “Uk Demand For Electric Cars Soars Despite Covid Crisis,” by Tyler Durden….

  13. “You pay $8,895 more up front to drive the not-Mustang about half as far and to wait five times as long – best case – before you can get going again. And people are enthusiastic about this?”

    Yes.

    Because they are not shelling out the money for a car, they are shelling out the money to signal their credentials as virtuous progressives.

    The people who can afford to burn that kind of money just to engage in virtue signaling can all afford to have a $69,000, 16 MPG Toyota Sequoia in the garage for ski trips to Aspen anyway…

    • You know a company and/or industry is going down a death spiral when the bean-counters run things and it’s prime for a hostile takeover by a corporate raider.

  14. I just don’t get it. Who is Ford targeting to buy the Mustang Mach-E? I can’t see Mustang lovers being too excited over a 4 door electric Mustang, can you? Will they view it as sacrilegious? Is Ford targeting virtue signaling Soy Boys? How many will be willing to plop down $44K for this? What does Ford and GM “know” about the future plans of Uncle? Is that why the push for EV’s? Is the Hair Plug Man going to outlaw new ICE vehicles like Kalifornia and some European countries? When the economy lies in ruins in a few months/years, who the hell will be able to afford an EV, or even a “cheap” ICE vehicle? Are Ford and GM cutting their own throat, or will Uncle buy them out when their EV experiment fails?

  15. Sam K is probably my all time favorite comedian. He’d never survive today. Not with cancel culture. RIP Sam, hope you didn’t take it up the tailpipe when you passed on.

    • AUUUGHHH! SAAAAYYYYITTT! AAAAAUUUGGHHH!

      A creative genius who was just simply damned funny, a side-splitter, b/c what he ranted about CONNECTED with the Average Joe. Like John Belushi and Chris Farley…the GREAT ones went YOUNG, dammit!

  16. I saw a video the other day about the worst cars ever made – the mustang 2 was on it, mostly for using the mustang badge and not really being a mustang. I suspect in a couple years it will have competition from the mach – e….

    • Hi Nasir,

      The Mustang II is unfairly maligned. It was rear-drive and could be ordered with a small-block Ford V8. Was it quick as it came? No. But very little was quick in 1974, the year it came out. The GTO had been reduced to a Ventura with a 200 hp 350. By 1975, the Z28 was gone and the strongest engine you could get in a Camaro made 175 horsepower. Even the Corvette barely exceeded that – with its optional L-82 engine.

      So, the Mustang II should be viewed in context. Like its contemporaries, it had lots of potential and in some ways, more potential than earlier Mustangs because it was so much lighter. In a Cobra II, a 300 horsepower V8 would deliver better performance than the same engine in a ’73 Mach I, which weighed several hundred pounds more.

      • You really had to be there to understand the rationale behind Mustang II. This was a market where conditions had people lining up to buy Vegas, Pintos, and Gremlins. (After being burned by those many turned to the Japs.)

        Between Uncle’s increasing demands and the clout of the insurance mafia the traditional America muscle car was forced out of existence. Then we had the phony gas crisis on top of all that, and really the traditional Mustang had grown too large and heavy. Also remember that underneath the original Mustang’s svelte lines there was a lowly Falcon, so basing the Mustang II on the Pinto was a natural progression.

        On the other hand this electric “Mustang” is an abomination. Unfortunately given the incoming Communist regime’s announced intent to pursue a fatwa against fossil fuels we can expect more of the same.

        • It’s sad to think that GM will probably build the “Camaro” version of this hot mess shortly. I’m surprised Mary Barra didn’t beat Ford to the “market” with this loser.

        • The only winning move with regard to these electric or hybrid abominations of the once-great American street machine is NOT TO PLAY.

          Rebuild the OLD, I say, as long as one can “Dodge” (pun intended) the insurance mafia and commie would-be tyrants that do their best to legislate honest-to-GAWD fun out of existence.

          • Hi Doug,

            If the left consolidates power, as I expect it to – because the right is impotent – I expect that the left will impose exorbitant registration fees and then outright bans on cars that aren’t electric within the next five years. It’s either resist – or accept.

            • They will probably just restrict the access to fuel, like this story in England shows.

              https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-55544616

              Steam trains facing shortages of coal, not because there isn’t any, but they won’t allow it to be mined anymore. So they will be forced to import it, well, until that “option” gets cut off too. (And yes, envirocrazies want to park the few remaining working steam trains left, even museum pieces)

              We will see new restrictions in fracking for the “sake” of the environment. Local government will restrict the construction and improving of gas stations. And whatever else they can think of. Even if you have the money to overpay, it will not be available.

              Then they can claim they never banned your vehicles like they never “banned” the making of large cars of the since the 1970’s. Just make it impossible to do it.

        • have to remember this was after the oil embargo crisis of 1973 when, suddenly, gas mileage became very important. And yes – it began the heyday of Datsun, Honda and Toyota….

      • I had a Mustang II. First car I ever bought. It was a 74 I think. 4cyl, stick shift. I remember later thinking it was hatched due the OPEC issue. People wanted cars that used less gas after the embargo and you suddenly saw a lot of cheap little econoboxes everywhere instead of the huge hoopties most families had. I remember gas going up to $1.49/gal and my parents being apoplectic over that. Ha! Imagine.
        But 10 years later, this cheap sort-of Mustang was a good choice for a 17 year old getting her first vehicle. The best thing I can say about it is it was cheap and easy to push. (and it had to be pushed a lot, but I got really good at popping the clutch – a dubious “life skill” I still possess.)

        • You could do worse than cutting your motoring teeth on a stick shift sub-compact that at least retained some FUN in driving.

          It’s true that the primitive emission controls of the 70s, with all that Gott-damned PLUMBING and clusterfuck add-ons that took away power, fuel economy, and RELIABILTY, were a royal pain is the ass to maintain, which is why as these rides aged out, they became ridiculous. Once it was no longer required, due to age (usually about 30 years in most EPA “attainment” areas), IF you had one of these “smog” beasts with a decent body, frame, and interior, you could get rid of all that smog crap and keep it SIMPLE, maintainable, and RELIABLE once again!

      • Eric, I always dug the looks of the “Stang, part Deux” and wondered why it was so decried in its time. If anything, Lee Iacocca’s vision of the original “Stang” was intended to get by with the 200 CID “Thriftpower” Six (a four-barrel version with solid tappets and a hotter cam was developed which, using premium gas, put out 155 ponies, it still got as good fuel economy as the base engine), but the “suits” insisted that the pony car have the Windsor V8 (then available as a 260 only) shoe-horned in as it was more profitable; once it was bumped up to the famed 289 Ford had a honest-to-GAWD street machine for not too many bucks! It was when the pony car “grew up”, and the 71-73 models, which do have the looks, especially in the Bond film “Diamonds are Forever), but also too much weight and “comfort” to be taken seriously as performance cars. Yes, I know those years have their fans as well, but I see them as an example of how Detroit got fat and LAZY.

        Even in the once-Golden State of Cali(porn)ia, one could still land a ’74 or ’75 Mustang II, and drop in a well-built 302 or even 351, and have a decent pony car with looks and some “giddy-yap!”, and not be ham-strung by getting past the “Dragon” (i.e., “Smaug” or SMOG requirements).

        • Ditto and amen, Doug –

          I always liked the Mustang II as well. What I especially liked about it is the potential it has because it is so light. The same basic V8 as an early Hi-Po, only needing a cam, 4BBL, Headers and some tuning to wake ‘er up!

          • It had the basic things there (like my 76 Chevelle did). Unlike both of the cars today. Outside of that Rich Repairs guy on youtube, who is stuffing a V8 into a Tesla, few will even try. Nobody is going to upgrade those electric cars, because what do you do with them outside of doing with Rich Repairs is doing (basically replacing the entire drive train).

LEAVE A REPLY