Ford Mustang (2005 and Newer)

baggs32 · February 2004

The '94 re-design was considered retro at the time as well. They built upon that theme and came up with what we have today.

The '05 seems to be taking the retro theme to a whole new level and I for one can't wait to see what it evolves into. Like 6thbeatle said, it's like a starting point. Looks like an awful good place to start!

I really like the current model but I'm in awe over the '05.

emmanuelchoke · February 2004

Vinyl top, beige, 14 inch wire wheels with whitewalls, opera windows, cause I'd be embarrassed to be seen in a kid car.

ksuwildcat001 · February 2004

I hope you are kidding!

I highly doubt Ford would do that or I atleast would pray they wouldn't.

6thbeatle · February 2004

does anyone here know what the difference is between the light graphite and the grey paint colours offered on the 2005 mustang? what colour is the car with the two white/silver rally stripes shown at detroit?

blh7068 · February 2004

"The '94 re-design was considered retro at the time as well."

It had one or two styling cues that were considered retro, such as the taillights, and that kinda semicircular dashboard design. The re-desgin as a whole retro? No way.

6thbeatle · February 2004

i don't care what anyone says about the new mustang, i think it's one sick car and i'm gonna get me some in 2006. hopefully by the second year most of the bugs'll be gone, leaving a sugar sweet pony ride. yee ha!

baggs32 · February 2004

"It had one or two styling cues that were considered retro, such as the taillights, and that kinda semicircular dashboard design. The re-desgin as a whole retro? No way."

Articles at the time proclaimed it as retro. I just report what I read.

You also forgot about the "horse in corral" on the grill, the side "hockey stick" molding and a few other small items. The point is, it was more retro than the previous model which was not retro at all. If only having a few past styling cues doesn't make a car retro to you then the '05 shouldn't be either.

fdthird · February 2004

Perhaps rather than retro, the 94 redesign talked about getting back to the Mustang's heritage and yes, my 2000 is much more "Mustang" then was my 88 which could have been any car as there wasn't even a running horse anywhere on the car!

john_324 · February 2004

It *was* odd that the Fox bodies didn't have any pony decoration anywhere on them...

My 2002 however is littered with ponies...they're everywhere it seems.

I'd agree with fdthird about the 1994-1998s...it was about referencing Mustang heritage (in the rounded idiom of the day). The 1999-2004s did the same thing, but with "new edge" cues. The 2005 seems deliberately retro though. That front end alone... : )

Ford is going to have a very good year in 2005 I think. I hope it uses the momentum that the Mustang generates wisely.

6thbeatle · February 2004

retro is fine by me, considering that the '65-'69 mustangs are some of my favourite car designs of all time, along with the '65-'67 GTO, '68 camaro/firebird, and '68-'69 charger. bring them all back i say!!!

john_324 · February 2004

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... : )

6thbeatle · February 2004

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!!!!!

andys120 · February 2004

25th anniversary badge and gluing it to the dash of my '86 5.0 convertible just to remind me it was a Mustang.

tomcat630 · February 2004

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_324 · February 2004

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...

tomcat630 · February 2004

If it looked "new", then by 2007-9, it would be called "outdated", and "looks like every other car".

kenm8 · February 2004

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?

baggs32 · February 2004

"In contrast, would Pontiac/GM resurrect the Pontiac Aztek design on a vehicle 40 years from now?"

I'm betting that they would.

john_324 · February 2004

"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_324 · February 2004

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).

tomcat630 · February 2004

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_324 · February 2004

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.

tomcat630 · February 2004

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_324 · February 2004

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!)

6thbeatle · February 2004

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_324 · February 2004

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!)

6thbeatle · February 2004

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_324 · February 2004

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. : )

tomcat630 · February 2004

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!

kenm8 · February 2004

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?

6thbeatle · February 2004

only if the bad guys were driving away in a black dodge shelby II :P

fdthird · February 2004

I hear what a lot of you are saying about the "retro" look of the 2005 but I think that what Ford is doing is just what's happened a lot during the Mustang's life. The 67-68 was radically different from the 65-66 but there were the Mustang styling cues and I don't think a 67 Mustang could ever be thought to be anything but a Mustang. Same for the 69 thru 73...each was different but still obviously a Mustang. Even the Mustang II from 74-78...a very different car but still obviously a Mustang. The same could be said for the Mustang's cousin from 67-73 the Cougar.

Now, if you remember where we were in 1979 it was the age of the "European" style. The Granada was a Ford "Mercedes". The sports type cars were also Euro based. I had a Capri in 1979 (Merc version of the Mustang) and that was obviously the styling direction. Now, the '88 Mustang convert that I had was an extension of that '79 and through the end of the Fox bodied cars we were working with that basic '79 Euro design idea.

When the SN95 models came out, I think rather than retro Ford was just getting back to what had been the Mustang's heritage...variations of some very basic original themes (Do you remember the TV ads that morphed back and forth between a classic Mustang and a new one to show the heritage looks?).

My 2000 Mustang convert is not really a retro look, but rather just a Mustang that contains many of those heritage touches. The running house in the coral (finally the horse was back to the Mustang after years of being put out to pasture), the triple segment tail lights, the double cove dash treatment, the side "C" look, and the simulated vents in the rear quarters - these are all classic Mustang elements and true to its original heritage they were re-incorporated in the design.

I think the 2005 carries that even further but honestly I really don't think this is new ground for Ford. As someone who has loved the Mustang since it first debuted on TV the night before the March, 1964 intro date I like what I've seen of the 2005. I can't wait to (1) see one in the flesh and (2) see what the convertible looks like when they roll it out.

Put aside a red 2007 or 2008 when its time to replace my 2000!

harlequin1971 · February 2004

The Mustang is one of a very short list of American vehicles I would consider, and the only one that might sticker south of $30k.

I may not be a true car nut, as I would never actually want to own any pre-90's car, since the maintainance and lack of safety engineering would scare me a bit too much. I like "retro meets modern" as a concept...bring back to life the best of yesteryear and infuse it with the best of now.

I think current design trends are just ugly derivative styling attempts anyways. The BMWs are slipping. GM hasn't built a good looking car in 40 years (Cadillac's new stylings are not grabbing me.) Chrysler's best looking cars are just a little too kitsche for me. The PT Cruiser? The Prowler? The Crossfire? At least most Chryslers have a look...not just rounded corners on a dull 3-box chassis.

The new Mustang looks great, so far. I think Mustang will benefit greatly from this redesign, as will Ford. Ford is doing what Mazda has already started - redesigning their entire lineup into a cohesive theme.

I think the redesign is both classic and contemporary. Only the Mustang could pull off that look without everyone screaming foul, and it is a clearly great looking car.

crispiegee · February 2004

Scarlettstang, I've moderated my position on jingoism, since I recently found myself complaining about the Germans requiring Chrysler to redesign their upcoming (now current) LX cars to accommodate Mercedes suspension parts. I fear the Germans' dictatorial rule of their American subsidiary will wreck Chrysler.

Anyway, the point being, I am slightly more understanding of your sentiment regarding the GTO, although I still think it's a great car. I prefer the name Monaro (and it looks way better without the wing).

You did mention that I was a bit off on Ford history: I'm usually pretty encyclopedic about car stuff, so I'd be interested to know what I was misguided about. (I can't even remember my post anymore.

6thBeatle:

I know what you mean about your keyboard and amp. Whether I get the GTO or Mustang, I'm going to have to re-learn how to cram a drum kit in a sporty two-door. (Current car is a '97 Avenger ES, which can actually fit my rather large kit [Bass drum, two snares, five toms and a half dozen or more cymbals].)

6thbeatle · February 2004

i hear ya. if i go for the mustang, i'll probably have to trade my 65 watt fender deville amp for a little 15 watt blues junior just so i can get all my other gear inside. and here i was thinking about getting a dog...

then again, there's always the hemi magnum, but i'm not too impressed by the interior, kinda cheap lookin. the GTO and mustang kick some serious as far as cool interiors go.

crispiegee · February 2004

I hate to say it, but I'm not much on the Magnum myself. I love the Hemi engine, which is an amazing engine (check out Popular Hotrodding for an article on just HOW GOOD the Hemi is (I'd put the link in, but they have a message forum).

The interior is nice, but the plastic seems a bit lower grade. The exterior just doesn't do much, and you can't see out the bloody windows! Maybe you can find an 80's vintage Ford Country Squire -- I've had two of them, and they were great, other than the stupid 302 engine, with it's notorious oil pump problems.

But if you get an old wagon, you don't have to worry about gouging up the interior of your Mustang (or GTO). Secondly, you can drive it during the winter too. Where in Canada are you from? I'm in Buffalo, NY... two hours from Toronto. It's a nice idea to have a winter car.

6thbeatle · February 2004

vancouver, three hours north of seattle. it rains a lot here (oct-april), so a RWD car like the mustang or GTO is actually not the best choice for a year round car, being pretty hairy to drive in the wet. also, i snowboard, so traction is an issue going up the mountains.

least i don't have to worry about snow in the city much during the winter. this year was pretty unusual--we had two weeks of snow on the ground before it all got washed away by the rain. had to go buy a snow shovel, but everyone was sold out!

lately i've been thinking of just getting something like a mazda 6 wagon as an everyday driver, because i've already got a '65 dodge for the summer. still, i know if i get a 6, i'll get that empty feeling inside everytime a new mustang GT goes by.

bxd20 · March 2004

Saw the 05 Mustang at the Cleveland Auto Show. Looked great, people were crowding around the turntable.

Things I learned:
0 to 60 in 5.2
1/4 mile in 13.9.
Trunk: 12.5 cu ft.
52/48 weight distribution.
From what I could tell the wheels were 17". C&D mentioned 18" option but maybe that idea got canned because I asked the guy about the options list and he didn't seem to think so. Doesn't matter too much, they fill in the wheel wells nicely the size they are.
300 hp, 315 lb ft torque. 80% of torque available at 1,000 rpms. The guy said you'll peel into 1st and 2nd and then chirp into 3rd.
Extra 150 pounds added to rear end to strengthen it.
Absolutely loaded, $29,999 as a coupe. That has two tone leather, automatic, and the latest Mach (1200? I forget) stereo. As shown, it was a fairly basic GT, with leather, around $26,xxx.

I'm excited. Keep the price down and no embarassing recalls Ford and you'll have a winner.

Brian

ksuwildcat001 · March 2004

I've seen where the 18" wheels are delayed for 6 months from the options list.

lt19c1 · March 2004

Any word from Ford if they will again offer a Special Service Mustang?

Thanks.

Lloyd

john_324 · March 2004

You mean a police interceptor model?

canker · March 2004

80% of torque available at 1000rpms sounds really nice. Thats always been one of the problems with the 4.6l cars. They just don't have the torquey feel like the old 5.0s.

john_324 · March 2004

Yeah, that is true. But I'm still undecided re which I like better. The 5.0s did get pretty weezy at high rpms, whereas you can really wind out a 4.6...

fdthird · March 2004

Its been awhile since they offered one...wnyone know??

john_324 · March 2004

Might be a smart idea for Ford. Camaros were the pursuit vehicle of choice in the 1990s/early 2000s, but with their demise, Ford should step into the breach...

fdthird · March 2004

As I remember, I think Ford put the Mustang forward as a Police vehicle because the Crown Vic wasn't up to the task and business was going elsewhere (GM).

Seems that with the problems you hear about the Crown Vic's gas tank, this might be a good time to re-introduce the Mustang to public service. Might also be a way to get a car back in the line like the 5.0 LXs from the last generation.

A lot of folks talk about wanting a car like that again and I'm sure Police Departments would rather not be seen driving around in Mustang GTs!

andys120 · March 2004

the low fastback roofline macks the new 'Stang impractical for police work. They need a notchback or hatchback to really make it work for the cops.

john_324 · March 2004

Agreed re a de facto return of the hi-po LXs.

But I dunno re the hatchback requirement; pursuit cars don't really need to carry much other than lots of tickets. You've got the regular patrol cars to carry all the equipment.

akirby · March 2004

The only thing you need for a pursuit car is speed and some electronics. This would be for state highway patrol mainly, not for regular beat patrols. But with the public frowning on high speed pursuits lately they may not go that way.

kratas101 · March 2004

Dunno if it's just me and my friends but when I saw the 05 Mustang at the Dallas Auto Show.....it looked pretty bad. Before I saw it in the flesh, I thought it looked cool and really retro but in real life, the proportions seems out of place and the front end design seemed weird for some reason. At least, it didn't look as good as it did in the pics. Not really sure if I would like to have an 05 now or not but im sure there will be plenty on the road when it comes out.

Ford Mustang (2005 and Newer)

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles