Howdy, Stranger!

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





Modern Muscle with Classic Names

1246789

Comments

  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Posts: 1,722
    Honestly I liked the new retro Thunderbird BUT it was just so expensive for what you got (in my opinion). A "luxury" two seater is a bit of a tough sell to begin with, but I just though the price was too high.

    Still like them though.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,590
    the retro T-bird looked more like an attempted revival of the first Corvette than the first T-bird. One problem is that the front-end was raked back like a Vette, whereas the '55-56 T-bird had a bit more of a forward thrust to it, which was emphasized even more for '57. And the way the rear of the retro T-bird tucked down, it looked more like a Vette than a T-bird anyway. The Vette's rear tucked down, while the T-bird had little fins that gave it more of a lift in the rear.

    Proportioning was all wrong too, but this just harks back to what I said about applying retro cues to a modern car, and where all the "hard points" are. The original T-bird had a long hood, small passenger cabin, and a long-ish rear deck. On the revival, the passenger cabin just seemed like it was moved ahead too far, and correspondingly the hood was too short.

    I would liken the retro T-bird to that Bel Air concept that Chevy was parading around a few years ago. It had a few generic retro touches here and there, but unless someone told you what it was trying to ape, it just wasn't readily apparent.

    But then with the T-bird revival, I guess it was overpriced for what you got, and it was more of a cruiser than a bruiser. Most people who want a luxurious 2-seater want some muscle to it, even if the real reason they bought the car is to flaunt their money (or credit). And as I recall, the T-bird revival just wasn't that exotic when it came to performance.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    Interestingly, the Mustang has faced this dilemma before, and its history provides examples of both when it worked and when it didn't.

    Consider the leap from the retro design of the Mustang II (an attempt to get back to the proportions and style of the orignal 1964 1/2 car) to the Euro-futurism of the Fox body. Now that was a bold change...and it worked well.

    But on the other hand, there's what happened in the early 1990s...convinced that the car needed to "get with the times", Ford was developing the next Mustang as a super-aerodynamic fwd coupe with a V6 as the big engine.

    Word got out and Ford was assailed with compliants...so many so that Ford radically changed course and the Mustang SN95 project was begun (it would eventually result in the 1994-2004 Mustangs).

    And what happened to the doomed fwd Mustang? You may remember it as the Ford Probe. :P
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    Just because Ford has looked to the '68 and '69 models as inspirations for the design of the current Mustang, don't try to extrapolate that as Ford must look at the Mustang II for future designs.

    Perhaps what we'll see with future Mustangs will be what the '69/'70 models SHOULD have evolved into rather than the bloated flatback designs of '71/'73 or the Mustang II.
  • When I bought my 05 Mustang, my dealer told me that this current style would only be built for 3 years, then they were going to come out with a 1972 Mach 1 style.
  • socala4socala4 Posts: 2,427
    That's a good summary of the history, so thanks for that. (Yes, I remember the Probe -- the second generation was actually pretty attractive, IMO but by then, the coupe market was heading the wrong direction for that one to work.)

    I'm no stylist, so I am unable to translate my vague mini-rant into a coherent design sketch, but I would think that the basic premise of the car should dictate that a Mustang forever be (a) rear-wheel drive, (b) two-door and/or fastback-hatch-based body style with (c) a small-block V-8 and (d) a "sporty" style, whatever that means, at (e) a reasonable price, i.e. below that of a European sports sedan, and at about the price of a mid-sized family sedan.

    What that means in terms of borrowing styling cues from which generation, I'm not quite sure. But it strikes me that rather than branding these with a corporate face (front end/ grille/ headlight style), as automakers are often inclined to do, the Mustang should stand apart in presenting a unique visage and style to the market.

    IMO, it's important for Ford to find a way to retain positive, distinctive qualities for the car, yet inspire enough potential buyers so that the Mustang brand can move customers to other products in the Ford lineup. While the Mustang seems to do a good job of standing on its own, I wonder whether it's doing much to bring people to the rest of Ford's product line. If the Mustang can move a family car buyer to also crave a Ford sedan, then that would be a successful product.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    "When I bought my 05 Mustang, my dealer told me that this current style would only be built for 3 years, then they were going to come out with a 1972 Mach 1 style."

    :surprise:
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "...then they were going to come out with a 1972 Mach 1 style."

    Oh lord help us.....

    Well, if nothing else, such a move should help prop up the resale values on the '05 through '07 models.....
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,269
    haha.... yes, but it is a rare dealer indeed that does more than blow hot air when it comes to the future direction of their manufacturer(s). ;)
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    "...Mustang forever be (a) rear-wheel drive, (b) two-door and/or fastback-hatch-based body style with (c) a small-block V-8 and (d) a "sporty" style, whatever that means, at (e) a reasonable price, i.e. below that of a European sports sedan, and at about the price of a mid-sized family sedan."

    Don't forget long hood/short rear proportions.

    I could see the next gen being a blockier, more angular version of the current one...think sorta like a modern Shelby Daytona (if people know what that looks like...)
  • The last thing Ford is going to do is significantly alter the look or design of the new Mustang. Why mess with a good, no great, thing? And it took Ford 24 years to change the Mustang in the first place.

    The Mustang is the 10th best-selling car in the US, according to a list posted in one of the discussions in this forum. I find this amazing, considering that it is basically a specialty item, an aggressive sports car, in competition against all-purpose nondescript cars like the Camry (#1) and Accord (#3).
  • "Or I think you could make a "new" style that still has some key design points to tie it into the previous model/Mustang heritage."

    OR... they could lose the retro and move forward with a modern 21 century design.

    No matter how you slice it your just retreading an old design.
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Posts: 1,722
    You say that as if it is a bad thing. I do not believe that it is.
  • The only thing "retro" about the redesigned Mustang are stylistic references to the past, the ethos of the American muscle car. The car is functionally all new, from the ground up, engine, suspension, chassis, brakes, drive train, weight distribution, rigidity, etc etc. It's tight, fast, light on its feet, with very good steering and manual transmission. The V8 engine was named 10 best by Wards. I never even cared much for Mustangs till this one. I certainly didn't buy it to relive old memories. It stands on its own as a new, perfectly modern car.
  • Hello all,
    I am contemplating whether or not to buy my friends 94 camaro 2 door coupe. It is in good physical condition but it has 130,000 miles and eats up oil. Is this a bad decision? And how many miles does a camaro usually reach if taken good care of?
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,590
    What engine does that Camaro have? If it's a V-6, I think that year they were using the Chevy 3400. IIRC they didn't switch to the Buick 3800 until a couple years later.

    Hard to say, really, how long a car can last because it often depends more on how it's taken care of than who originally built it. I've heard it thrown around in general that cars are usually engineered to last around 150-175,000 miles.

    If it's a V-8, I'd say go for it. Even if the V-8 was shot you could easily throw in another. But if it's a V-6 and the engine's shot, would probably be expensive and complex to swap in a V-8. Also, how much are they asking?

    BTW, I'd suggest finding a Camaro topic on Edmund's and post your question there. You'd get a better response.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    I'd agree with Andre...if it's a Z28, might be worth it, but if a V6, probably not.

    Key with pony cars is how well their owners take care of them. Since Camaros (and Mustangs) are relatively inexpensive, they often tend to be really beaten on. So ask alot of questions and check the maintanence records carefully. If it were me, I'd feel alot better considering buying one from a friend like you are.

    I think the 3800 V6 engine appeared in 1995, but I'm not sure.
  • m382m382 Posts: 35
    The 6.1 Liter powertrain that is speculated to be used in the Challenger is the same powertrain that was installed in the 300C SRT 8 and subsequently the Charger SRT 8. Just because it says HEMI on it doesn't make it old. That engine is in fact by no mean "old"...rather...quite the oppposite.
  • Retro
    Ford Mustang-160,975

    Modern
    Infiniti G35-68,728
    Mazda RX-8-14,673
    Pontiac GTO-11,590

    Retro
    Chrysler PT Cruiser-133,740
    Chevrolet HHR-41,011 (introduced mid-year)

    Modern
    Toyota Matrix-109,442
    Pontiac Vibe-64,271
    Scion xB-54,037
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,590
    but I'd consider the xB to be retro. It looks like it's about 20 years old.

    Also, IMO, there's a bit of retro influence in the RX-8. Something about those flared fenders makes me think of 30's and 40's cars.
This discussion has been closed.