Howdy, Stranger!

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





Ford Mustang (2005 and Newer)

11617192122141

Comments

  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    Not to get too off topic, but tell me a new Camaro with a 1968-1969 look wouldn't be awesome? Mustang's gonna need a competitor... : )
  • my last commandment is to love one another and bring back the camaro! absolutely!! i love the 1968 SS/RS with the hidden headlights (i luv all the '68-'69s really) and want to see GM bring back something along those lines. and bring back the stripes and crazy colours too. now if only dodge would build that 1999 concept charger with the supercharged hybrid engine, we'd be set for a new millenium modern muscle showdown: mustang vs camaro vs charger. yee ha!!!!!
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,593
    25th anniversary badge and gluing it to the dash of my '86 5.0 convertible just to remind me it was a Mustang.

    2000 BMW 528i, 2001 BMW 330CiC

  • Some whine about the 2005 looking "too retro". Well, the 05 makes the 1987-93's look like boring Tempos. Sure they were fast, but the bodies were poorly made and are now even more dated looking.

    Better it have classic lines, than boring "any car" looks.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    But *is* it better for a car to have "classic" (ie "done before) lines than something new?

    After all, the original Mustang wasn't a "modern version" of a 1940s/1950s coupe...it was something very very different.

    I always liked the purposeful look of the Foxes...and the styling was very much a product of the age, as with pretty much every Mustang before it. Still think they look good myself...
  • If it looked "new", then by 2007-9, it would be called "outdated", and "looks like every other car".
  • kenm8kenm8 Posts: 71
    Perhaps the 65-69 Mustang fastback is a “timeless design” in that it has endured the test of time favorably. The 05 model is an evolution of that design. Consider all versions from 70 to 2004 as not of that lineage. Notice how the current Porsche 911 body has evolved year by year and is connected to the original 911 of the 1960s? Most people would say that the 911 is an elegant and a timeless design. Ford is wise to link the 05 Stang back to the original design. In contrast, would Pontiac/GM resurrect the Pontiac Aztek design on a vehicle 40 years from now?
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,210
    "In contrast, would Pontiac/GM resurrect the Pontiac Aztek design on a vehicle 40 years from now?"

    I'm betting that they would. :)
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    "If it looked "new", then by 2007-9, it would be called "outdated", and "looks like every other car".

    I'm not sure...by that logic, innovation in style should be shunned, and there's the arbitrary decision that Mustang design will *never* be better than in the mid-1960s. It may well not be, but we don't know and will never find out if new designs aren't tried.

    And apply that to the car industry generally, and we'd all be driving around in cars that look like Hudsons right now.

    And I've not heard people generally complaining about the Fox bodies "looking like every other car" available at the time. In fact, younger Mustang fans who were kids in the 1980s idolize the Foxes, as to them, that's what a Mustang should look like.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    the 911 isn't really the best example in this case I think...

    The market for 911s is significantly smaller than for Mustangs, and a lot more finicky. 911 devotees (I'm one) are very resistant to change...the change to a liquid-cooled engine in 1999 is still a touchy subject, as is the new gauge cluster and (gasp!) the addition of cupholders. So Porsche has to move veeerry slowly by necessity.

    But the Mustang caters has to a much much broader audience, if only to continue its production. So changes in design to accomodate the times (and sell to the mood at the time) are necessary, even if those changes are later derided by so-called "purists" (case in point: the Mustang II).

    And to say that Mustangs from 1970 to 2004 aren't in the same lineage as the original is, well, controversial to say the least (in fact, the Mustang II in 1974 was an attempt to get back to the original concept).
  • They idolize the Fox cars since they were fast and cheap. Never were into their looks. In fact, they brag about enigne mods and all of them look the same with black paint and Cobra R rims. Hardly "innovative" looking.

    We all know how Ford tried to appease the "futurists" by making the 80's FWD (which was supposed to on be all cars by 2000) Probe the "New Generation Mustang". Look where it is now, discontinued. If they made an "innovative, futuristic" design, they would have to change it every 2 years, costing way too much. Since the "style critics" in the media call anything over 2 years old, "dated".

    Look at how well (NOT) the current Celica and Eclipse are selling, to see how long trendy styling lasts.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    Original Mustangs were thought of as fast and cheap too. And the chunky, angular looks of the Foxes appeal to plenty of people beyond the punk-racer crowd. I love a well-taken care of Fox.

    You have to remember demography as well here. One reason why the 1960s Mustangs are so sought after is because baby boomers, who remember them fondly growing up now have the cash, space, etc. to pick them up.

    I agree re the Probe, but there's a fine line between trying to be trendy and trying to move forward with styling.

    But the Probe died as did a lot of other sportscoupes when SUVs became the thing to have among young buyers. It wasn't a rejection of styling, but rather a shift to another type of vehicle...

    I think the Celica isn't selling well because it's quite expensive for what you get, performance-wise. I like the styling of the regular Celica (which is actually reminiscent of 1960s GT racercars)...but the "aero kit" add-on that everyone buys is pretty ugly IMO.
  • Mustangs have to sell to more than the Fox 5.0 notchback drag racer crowd to be profitable. (They buy mostly used cars to fix up anyway)

    Forgotten is how the 1990-93 Mustangs sold poorly compared to the SN95's. 1994 sales went over 100K for the first time since 1979 or so.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    Very true...I think the SN95 was a great realization by Ford of the market at the time (SUVs were becoming huge and sports coupes had to have *something* unique about them to keep up in the market), and what it had to do to keep people buying Mustangs.

    It was also good timing, in that retro was also becoming big at that time, likely because the main buying segment, the boomers, now had disposable cash to buy the kind of stuff that reminded them of the cars available they were young. Ford wisely played to that (though Gen-Xers like me liked it too!)
  • a good design is a good design, regardless of when it was penned. the '65-'66, and the '67-'68 mustang fastback had excellent proportions that still capture the imagination to this day.

    i don't suppose any of you are architects, but there is something called the "golden rule" which is seen in landmark buildings and in art masterpieces, whereby nearly all great works of art are shown to have the same mathematical ratio in space and design. the spiralling nautilus shell has this exact same ratio in its natural configuration, hinting that beauty is a divine creation which is manifest all around us.

    as far as the 2005 mustang goes, it's a pleasant return to a winning formula, but compared to the original '65-'68 designs, the rear overhang is kinda too long, killing that perfect pleasing-to-the-eye ratio and proportion, probably due to federal safety and pragmatic considerations.all in all, i will probably buy one in 2006. cheers!
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    Interesting, the "father" of the Mustang Lee Iaococca HATED the 1968 and up design...he called them "fat pigs" : )

    I think all of this discussion points to what makes the Mustang so interesting to so many people...no other American car (aside from the Vette) has as much continuous heritage to pour over and debate. People really get worked up about Mustangs, even their detractors...

    (Have you noticed that Mustangs have become *the* mid-level performance benchmark? Most car performance on the street is discussed in terms of a car being faster or slower than a Mustang, esp. with the "import tuner" crowd - Gotta love that kind of noteriety!)
  • i can see why iaccocca hated the second gen mustang--in comparison to the original fastback (my preference) it WAS bigger and fatter. still, it was a nice design, just not as sleek and simple as the original. i'm still gonna buy one in 2006
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    My favorite has always been the 1969-1970 Larry Sinoda design; more menacing than the original, not as bulky/ungainly as what came next.

    1968 design also cool, if only because of McQueen's connection with it. : )
  • Back in the 60's annual styling change was required. So, the 67+ was "change for sake of change".

    Imagine if the 65 styling lasted as long as the 79. It would have looked the same until 1980!
  • kenm8kenm8 Posts: 71
    Proportions, proportions

    Anyone remember the Parthenon? The 65-68 fastback had all the correct proportions. Would Bullit have owned/driven any of the later versions of the Stang? Can you imagine Frank chasing the bad guys (in Bullit 2?) in a green Mustang II?
Sign In or Register to comment.