Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Ford Mustang (2004 and earlier)

1161719212269

Comments

  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,749
    that blue sketch doesn't appear to be the production version. The show cars are close to the final version but the production car may have a taller roof and windshield and perhaps smaller taillights. I'm not sure what you want them to do w the hood but that's pretty close to production they say.

    IMHO the show cars look much more fluid than the infamous blue sketch. The Mustang was of my shopping list when I saw that sketch but now it's at the top.

    2000 BMW 528i, 2001 BMW 330CiC

  • argentargent Posts: 176
    The current C&D has the Dodge Hemi hatchback thing on the cover, not the Mustang. It doesn't say anything in particular about the concept except for a one-paragraph blurb in their notes on the Detroit show.
  • While I'm still not a fan of the new convertible, the more I look at the new coupe, the more I like it. The curves on coupe make it look more streamlined than the convertible. Now, if only then can squeeze in the IRS...
  • argentargent Posts: 176
    I was surprisingly pleased by the looks of the concept car except for the taillights, which feel like they were borrowed from some other car -- and not a Mustang or even a Ford product.

    The IRS issue is annoying. I know there are those who don't care if the rear end is vintage ox cart so long as the price tag is low and the horsepower high. I think that to have a live-axle Mustang after Ford has even given the Explorer and Expedition IRS feels cheap and crude. I wouldn't buy a live-axle new Mustang. I'm not looking to build a dragstrip car, and no matter what you do with spring placement, shock damping, and Watts linkages, the live axle has too much unsprung weight and too little articulation to give handling and ride that are competitive with other cars I'd be considering. If I wanted crude and cheerful, I'd get a restored vintage Mustang.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,749
    and it's about time, live axle Mustangs ride like my old (live axle)'66 TR-4 (not a compliment).

    2000 BMW 528i, 2001 BMW 330CiC

  • checkmecheckme Posts: 73
    I think the new Mustang concepts are magnificient. Ford has perfectly captured the classic Mustang look in the new concepts.

    I understand the criticism of opting for a retro design. However, I think there is a difference between "retro" and "classic." A "retro" look is one which attempts to make something dated fashionable again. An example of this is avacado-green kitchen furniture. We all grew up with this furniture. A few years ago, it became cool again. Not surprisingly, it's not cool any more. The brief avacado-retro craze fadead as quickly as it began.

    A classic look, on the other hand, is colonial furniture. It never goes out of style. It might not be to your liking (I don't especially care for it) but it's a timeless look that is always in fashion.

    A classic look has to be done well. One of those $99.95 8-piece dining room sets made of pressboard and covered with tacky white paint is going to look bad, even though it is based on a timeless design. However, exactly the same design will look stunning if it is done in natural cherry or maple and sealed with clear laquer, not painted.

    I think the new Mustang is classic, not retro. Retro would mean bringing back whitewalls and curb feelers. Classic means flowing lines and simple instrument clusters.

    One might argue that a classic look does not appeal to younger buyers. However,I don't think this is the case. First, classic American style is very fashionable right now. It's all over movies and television shows made for children. Prediction: you will see A LOT of American muscle cars in the next "Fast and the Furious". One of the main characters will surely drive one- maybe even the protagonist. Then there's Vin Diesel's car in "XXX", the Trans-Am Firebird on the Mountain Dew commercial, etc.

    Second, younger people have no objection to a classic look. Blue jeans are still popular, and while the little details, like labels and pocket styles, have changed, the basic look has not. The Gap's clothes haven't changed that much in 20 years, either. In fact, I recently bought essentially the same shirt that I had in high school- a white button-down long sleeve shirt with red pencil stripes. Plenty of kids like classic guitars, like Fender Strats, etc. While retro might turn off younger buyers- they don't remember the avacado-green furniture, so it won't make them feel all nostalgic- classic won't. They may even like it.
  • The new 04 model looks like my grandpa's caddy on crack. I love mustangs preferably 88 and up. But this new model makes the Mustang begin to look like every other car on the road. Stop trying to bring back that retro look Ford! Mustangs are supposed to have that outstanding look. One that turns heads. Not this ugly thing. I never thought I'd see the day when a mustang began to look like a regular consumer car. Also the GT emblem looks rediculus. I know I have no say in what this car looks like. But for one thing, I'll never purchase this crap. What a horrible model Ford. You have ruined the Mustang! By the way I have a 98 GT, it looks mean, unlike htis "sporty consumer mobile"
    Sincerly
    Very disapointed
  • checkme, I'm 20 years old and most of my friends all have mustangs, and your right, the 04 stang does turn off younger buyers. (Not like i can afford a brand new car now) but how could you make that a muscle car?? No one i have spoken to comes remotley close to liking it. What i don't understand is why do car companies like to ruin or discontinue beautiful cars. For example: The Toyota Supra, nice car, fast, and stylish, of course they have to discontinue it. But wait, they are bringing it back and now it looks gross. The new Mustangs, Bravo to the 03 b/c she looks gorgeous, but what the heck is the 04? That looks horrible. It makes me mad to think of that car actually on the road. The Chevy is REALLY going to be laughing now. Another car is the 3000GT, nice sprts car but for some reason Mitsubishi decides to discontinue it. The T-bird, what a horrible piece of trash that car looks like right now. It looks like it's for a bunch of Old lady's sipping some tea. Come on Ford!!! If you want a classic Mustang go find one somewhere. Also, stupid Ford has to discontinue the 5.0 engine. But wait they are bringing it back but of course it is a stupid version of it that puts outless power then the 4.6. Somone please tell me what Ford is thinking?
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,749
    Ford is thinking that there's a lot of us that are old enough to remember what a real Mustang looks like. And they're figuring out that unlike
    most 20 year olds they can afford to buy and insure a new Mustang.

    They're right, and so is Checkme.

    2000 BMW 528i, 2001 BMW 330CiC

  • I cannot believe that Ford would show us pictures of this and call it a Mustang. Mustangs go way back for having that "bad a*s" look, they are muscle cars. But this looks more like a cheap luxury family car. I want to keep it short but I have alot to say so my final comment is Ford thinks that they can produce something like this and stick a 5.0 in it and that will be the selling point.
  • argentargent Posts: 176
    Well, there's an easy answer to why the Mitsubishi 3000GT/GTO, Toyota Supra, Mazda RX-7, and Nissan 300ZX all died -- they weren't selling anymore. The makers had gotten into a technology battle that pushed the prices beyond the reach of a lot of their previous customers, into the territory where buyers are more interested in snobbery than necessarily performance or value. (Which is why BMW's Z3, Mercedes' SLK, and the Porsche Boxster are doing just fine even though they're just as pricey.)
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,749
    I love arguing with kids who have no idea what the heritage of a car is and care even less. Apparently you have no idea that the first gen Mustangs (64-1/2-66) did not have even a slighty "Bad-[non-permissible content removed]" look. Most people then and now would consider them "pretty". They didn't have a performance look until the GT-350s came out and they were only a handful of early Mustangs.

    I don't get why a generation that thinks a Tiburon looks hot doesn't think the new 'Stang rocks.

    Everybody's entitled to their opinion.

    2000 BMW 528i, 2001 BMW 330CiC

  • argentargent Posts: 176
    The ironic thing to me about the Mustang's original styling is that the first-gen Mustangs were, at the time, considered somewhat 'retro' (although that word wasn't used) in style. The long-hood/short-deck proportions were deliberately evocative of the big sports roadsters of the 30s. The Mustang's shape was heavily inspired by the respected but commercially unsuccessful 1955-57 Continental Mark II (although the Mark II was a much bigger car), while its detailing was reminiscent of the two-seater '55-'57 Thunderbirds. Although it was obviously popular, it was not considered especially modern-looking in its day. In the mid-60s, Pontiacs were generally the style leader of the American industry, and the original Camaro/Firebird were more 'contemporary' in style than the Mustang. It's interesting that while there were many 'pony car' competitors to the Mustang, and they generally had the long-hood/short-deck motif, very few of them really copied the Mustang's appearance. The only ones that really looked LIKE the Mustang were the original Mercury Cougar -- which of course shared much of the same body and chassis -- and the second-generation AMC Javelin, which did look quite a bit like the rather bloated '71-'73 Mustang hardtop from some angles.
  • "I don't get why a generation that thinks a Tiburon looks hot doesn't think the new 'Stang rocks. "

    It may be just a vocal minority of my generation that doesn't think that it rocks. I drooled over the coupe enough in pictures, but once I saw it in person, I fell in love. The front end that looked questionable in pictures turned out to be aggressive, powerful, well sculpted, and overall "badass" in person. People I overheard who were not too many years older than myself seemed to agree.

    In my observation, more people in my age group are infatuated with sleek, performance-oriented 2-doors than with the Scions and Elements that are being marketed right at us. The car Ford should expect to be more popular with us, then, is not the practical, Element-ish stuff like the Freestyle, but the new Mustang. If the price is right, it could very well be the car that my generation goes for as soon as they get a decent paying job right after college. Just as my father bought a '65 Mustang new about a year after college, I plan on seriously looking into an '05 once they're out, a year or so after my graduation.

    Ford just might have a winner on their hands, assuming pricing is similar to the current model and the rest of my generation loves it as much as I do.

    Mike
  • "the 04 stang does turn off younger buyers"

    I'm also 20 years old, but I love the way the way the coupe looks. I'm happy their going with a more sleeker look - the '03 mustang GT looks stupid and cheap with all those goofy curves and angles.

    Now the interior of the '04 fails in just about every aspect. I know the production model won't look anything like it, but why would you even show something that looks so dated and useless. My guess is because Ford is still unsure whether to put in a well-finished, well-built interior or the same cheap plastic crap that's inside right now. I hope they go with the former.
  • Oh my god! When I seen this car I about passed out! Ford how could you do this to all us loyal mustang fans out here! You totally ruined the car! What was a great car is now gonna be totally ugly! I just hope when sales don't go well with this you will realize you should go back to the normal stangs we all know and LOVE!
  • riggarigga Posts: 1
    Take a look a the 2004 car not concept pictures. Its modeled after the 1968 Shelby GT 500.look at the lights front and back . The grill and marker light set up,And the hood induction and side scoops behind door. Tell me what anyone thinks after looking at the two in comparison. don't think they ruined this car they just made it updated and they needed to get rid of the fox body.
  • hwyhobohwyhobo Posts: 263
    Now I am going to tick off a few people, but you can't possibly ruin the current Mustang. Whatever you do to it will be an improvement. The current version is misshaped, has big butt, stands too high, has idiotic decorations that belong in a trailer park, has pretentious rear lights, has front fender extensions that *always* look misaligned right from the factory... have I missed anything? Puhlease. Whatever Ford has done this time, it might help shed the "camaro image".
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    All of this discussion about the new Mustang, both among enthusiasts (people here), and the general public makes me wonder if there's *ever* been this much controversy over a Mustang design change.

    The original was very well-received, the 1974 was well-received by the public (and roundly hated by fans), the 1979 marked a welcome goodbye to the unloved II and the retro 1994 was a hit.

    But the upcoming version really seems to have split BOTH the enthusiasts AND the general public. Interesting. Of course, we've never had such mass-communication ability before, so that might have something to do with it, but nonetheless...

    As for the Mustang's taillights, "pretentious" seems an odd choice of word...they evoke the tailight style used on the 1960s models, which I wouldn't think were thought pretentious.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,749
    some see these tailights as very large and ornate
    compared to the small plain tailights that graced most Mustangs. Many(not all) of these people are unaware of certain aspects of the Mustang heritage. The GT concept cars are patterned after the '67-'68 Shelby Mustangs, not the standard Ford Mustangs. Hence they have the full width tailights, roll hoop and racing seats as well as no back seat.

    I'd be surprised if any of those features show up on the base or GT production models. We might see some, or all, on Cobra or Cobra
    R models (not til '06).

    I'm surprised that so many who call themselves Mustang fans dislike the new shape but I'll bet they are practically all under 25 and for some reason partisans of the current (ugh!) design.

    2000 BMW 528i, 2001 BMW 330CiC

  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    It has been said somewhere that those under 25 really only know Mustangs as the Foxes they grew up with, so for them, that's "classic Mustang"...given that frame of reference I can understand their aversion to the current and new style.

    I like the taillights on my '02, and I suppose I thought the size increase was mostly due to evolving safety considerations over the years. But I can see the point raised. Still, I'd say they're better looking than say the slit-ed taillights on the early 1990s Fox GTs.
  • checkmecheckme Posts: 73
    I don't care for the taillights either, but so what? They're a minor detail. We'll all forget about them in about a week. The rest of the car is fantastic!
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    A very good point. I've always been of the mind the true Mustang ethos is conceptual. Styling details are just that...details.

    As long as a Mustang has:
    -long hood/short deck 2+2 body style
    -rwd
    -more performance relative to most cars out there
    -an affordable price point

    it will do well regardless of other issues like the styling cues, colors offered, etc. And all of us will (more or less) in time come to accept it as a proper Mustang.

    But then again, these debates are part of the fun of having an iconic car with a continuous production and storied heritage. I doubt anyone gets that worked up over Taurus redesigns... : )
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,749

    2000 BMW 528i, 2001 BMW 330CiC

  • sphinx99sphinx99 Posts: 776
    "I doubt anyone gets that worked up over Taurus redesigns... : )"

    You'd be surprised. The '96 Taurus is what kicked off the string of ineptitude that's characterized Ford decision-making for the last five years. No company on the planet understands better than Ford the importance of styling a mainstream vehicle correctly.

    Earlier I said that I didn't like the concept. I'm less sure now. Take a look at some of the new cars coming out. Mercedes has adopted some interesting angular styling cues on the CLK, ditto BMW on the 7-series, and Honda's been pushing this envelope for a few years now. Scoops and sculpting have disappeared from stalwarts (even the WRX is looking more polished) while aerodynamic considerations have led to refined and gentle front cowls. Wheels are being pushed out to the corners, and cars are taking on a heightened substantialness, almost like a slight puffing out of the sheetmetal. Quirky headlamps are now vogue. The hatchback style is now a premium look. These trends are real, I think, and they paint a picture of what futuristic vehicles will look like.

    The Mustang concept IMO actually does a servicable job of keeping some of the nuances of the Mustang while offering a very modern interpretation. The current Mustang's styling is nice, but I think it's threatened to start looking VERY archaic over the next few years, given what everything from Tiburons to Accords to Stratuses to CLKs to 350Zs are starting to look like. The concept suggests a car that will age much more gracefully when surrounded by a field of cars like the ones I just mentioned.

    So maybe Ford has something going here... just my opinion.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    "The Mustang concept IMO actually does a servicable job of keeping some of the nuances of the Mustang while offering a very modern interpretation."

    I couldn't agree more...that's what I've always thought should be the goal of redesigns for cars with significant heritage. Retro is useful to bring a straying concept back to its roots (the T-bird), but a Mustang just doesn't need that.

    But for godsake Ford, bring back the fastback style!

    As for the Taurus, you're right...I HATED the look of the '96 version. I esp. disliked the way Ford dealt with the SHO version, leading to the ignominious demise of a (once) really cool car.
  • And the hockey stick on the side door, B Mayes says all the Mustangs have had the hockey stick pattern! It is a Mustang signature.
  • jmarinojmarino Posts: 19
    Hello guys thought Id chime in here for the first time. Ive been reading the other posts and have picked up some valuable information off here. Well I just bought a 2001 GT Premium (Red),all leather, Mach sound system, all highway miles, owned by and older dude, it has the Bullitt wheels also, used with 40,000 miles for $13,999 I couldnt believe the price I had to have it. I have owned 3 GT's over the past 15 years. Also owned 2 Monte SS's and just traded a Camaro in on this GT . I had to buy a automatic though so the wife can have an occasional drive, (The only way she'd let me borrow the $$ to but it )I have never really had any of my cars modified though so Im not real good at this. I would like to get the K@N filter and also a superchip for the car. My question is where is the best place to buy these items and can any autoshop install these or do I need a specialist ? Thanks for the help and enjoy those ponies !
  • My advise... 'skip the chip' You can get a K&N from any auto store like Pep Boys or Advanced. Look to pay around $40 for it.
Sign In or Register to comment.