1966 Ford Mustang Converted into a Tesla with Working 'Full Self-Driving'

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Nature of the Conversion

  • Many note this is effectively a Mustang shell on a shortened Model 3 floor/battery and dual‑motor drivetrain, not a Tesla “swap” into a stock Mustang chassis.
  • Some feel the title is slightly misleading; it’s more “Mustang body kit on a Tesla” than a traditional drivetrain retrofit.
  • The fact that FSD works with camera positions different from stock is seen as a notable demonstration of Tesla’s software flexibility.

Cost, Market, and Precedents

  • The claimed ~$40k project cost is widely doubted once labor, facilities, and custom fabrication are included.
  • Commenters point out EV conversions have been done “forever” with Tesla, Leaf, and even forklift parts, ranging from $5k DIY to $100k+ high-end builds.
  • Some infer a potential market for FSD-capable conversions; others think it will remain a niche, expensive hobby.

Classic Car Purism vs Restomod Appeal

  • Classic-car purists call the build a “destruction” of the car’s original spirit, especially without the original engine sound and interior.
  • Restomod fans counter that 60s Mustangs are plentiful, that new shells exist, and that modern safety and performance justify the trade.
  • Several argue this build is “more Tesla than Mustang,” which for some is the whole problem and for others the appeal.

Efficiency and Practicality

  • There’s skepticism that a boxy 1966 Mustang shell can truly match Model 3 efficiency (258 Wh/mi), especially at highway speeds.
  • Explanations offered: lighter classic body, favorable test conditions, and variability with speed, weather, and tire pressure.
  • Others argue that even inefficient retro EVs are far more energy‑efficient and cleaner than their original ICE setups, and these projects are about fun, not optimal efficiency.

FSD Capabilities and Branding Debate

  • Long, heated debate over whether “Full Self‑Driving” is misleading.
    • Critics say it’s not full, unsupervised Level 4/5 autonomy; promises of “next year” robotaxis and old hardware claims are cited as deceptive.
    • Defenders say it “works” in practice as a supervised system, can drive end‑to‑end with minimal or no user input in many scenarios, and is far beyond basic lane‑keeping and adaptive cruise.
  • Comparisons with other systems (BlueCruise, SuperCruise, Drive Pilot, etc.) are contentious:
    • One side claims others are “nowhere close” because they’re largely highway/geofenced.
    • Another side notes many brands now offer advanced driver assistance and that Tesla is not unique in charging for it.

Sensors and Calibration

  • Several are impressed that FSD still functions with non‑stock camera placement.
  • Others attribute this to self‑calibration software rather than anything inherently “vision‑only”; similar techniques could work with lidar or other sensors.
  • Tesla’s calibration process (factory target alignment plus post‑service on‑road calibration) is discussed; consensus is that Teslas need calibration like any multi‑sensor system.

Modularity and EV Platform Ideas

  • Some wish for a formal market separating body and EV “skateboard” platforms, akin to heavy-truck gliders or early coachbuilt luxury cars.
  • Examples are cited of existing or planned skateboard-based projects and EV conversion companies offering generic chassis for custom bodies.
  • Open, documented commercial CAN buses are mentioned as an enabling factor in fleet/commercial domains; commenters would like similar openness in consumer EVs.

Aesthetics and Emotional Reactions

  • Many dislike the modern Tesla interior and steering wheel inside a 60s Mustang shell, calling it visually jarring and a missed opportunity.
  • Others think the car is stunning from the outside and praise it as “a good-looking Tesla” and likely the safest ’66 Mustang on the road.
  • Several express mixed feelings: technically impressive, economically irrational, but irresistibly cool—akin to vinyl records or backyard steam engines.