Camaro Prototype Interior Shots

[02MustangGT]

I loved the tagline, "it is what it was...and more" I remember being 18 years old and waiting for this car to hit the streets. By the way, I have that poster hanging in my garage.

[Mark B. Morrow]

I loved the tagline, "it is what it was...and more" I remember being 18 years old and waiting for this car to hit the streets. By the way, I have that poster hanging in my garage.

 

 

Me too but mine is '641/2 side up. :D

[02MustangGT]

I don't blame you Mark, I rotate mine on occasion! :D

[BlackHorse]

 

 

 

Not even close fellas. Ford can put all the tag lines they want on the car it doesn't make the 94 stang a retro car. Get real.

 

Truth is this car

 

 

has more in common style wise with this mustang

 

 

 

 

 

So tag lines be damned, the 1994 was really just the normal evolution of body design from one generation to the next. It was not by any means a retro Mustang.

[wescoent]

 

 

 

Not even close fellas. Ford can put all the tag lines they want on the car it doesn't make the 94 stang a retro car. Get real.

 

Truth is this car

 

 

has more in common style wise with this mustang

So tag lines be damned, the 1994 was really just the normal evolution of body design from one generation to the next. It was not by any means a retro Mustang.

 

You're right that the 1994 Mustang wasn't retro, but it did play heavily into classic Mustang styling cues.

 

A 1993 Mustang, to me, shared much more with a Tempo than it did any classic Mustang. The first time I sat in a Mustang of that vintage, everything about it REEKED Tempo. There was literally not a single tie to the Mustang heritage in that car aside from the pony tri-bar on the side, and the 302 cui V8 available.

 

1994... we get 3-element tail-lights, the pony badge in the grill, twin-pod interior design... basically returning to the general shapes and cues of original Mustangs. Granted, the exterior design did resemble more Thunderbird now, but that was always the idea with Mustangs.

[Moby Vic]

Here's what Ford was saying in 1994 (excerpts from 30 Years of Mustang: Special Celebration Issue! '64 to '94, a magazine presented by Ford):

 

What Coletti and Muccioli asked Aiken to do was to fashion a clay model—but fast. It had to look like a Mustang, not like the trend of the time, the "jelly bean look," that was pioneered with the original Taurus. While that look was "in" for new cars in '88, the all-American Mustang did not need to have this shape. At that time it wasn't "in" to incorporate a running horse into a grille, as well as design elements such as a simulated rear brake cooling scoop on the rear quarters or tri-bar taillamps. Their mission was to satisfy the legions of Mustang enthusiasts.

 

Here's some info about the interior:

Mark Conforzi, John Doughty, and Dave Rees looked at the previous Mustangs, dating to the '65 model, searching for an interior theme for the fourth generation. Eventually, they chose the original '65 with its dual cockpit layout that in Rees' words was "very, very stiff."

 

Rees further explained, "The '65 had a thin eyebrow look. And, John, Mark, and I gestured with our arms describing a similar interior with this double cockpit swooping into the doors and then down into the console, and that was it. That was the crystal clear direction."

 

Conforzi, Doughty, and Rees hit a home run the first time at bat in designing the interior, mainly because they had the '65 "design signposts" to follow. In fact, Conforzi sketched the interior in a couple of days. Then, it went together quickly and was scarcely changed. In fact, Skunkworks took an interior clay buck to market research in June 1990 in Pomona, California. Acording to Coletti, "The reception was so good, we just locked up the design and we never looked back."

 

Designers did not carry over the Generation Three instrument panel. The dual cockpit dash worked well with the need for a passenger-side airbag, a government requirement for passive restraints in '94 that the '93 Mustang did not have.

[BlackHorse]

So Moby, according to "Ford", this

 

 

was the model for this?

 

 

(Sarcasm follows)

 

Oh yes of course they look so much alike. One can easily see that the 1994 Mustang interior and the 1965 Mustang interior were practically clones. Whatever.

 

 

I especially liked this part.

 

 

It had to look like a Mustang, not like the trend of the time, the "jelly bean look," that was pioneered with the original Taurus.

 

 

So they came up with . . .

 

 

 

 

 

It can't look like a Jellybean boys!

 

Yes sir!

 

So what have you come up with?

 

Mustang Jellybean sir!

 

Brilliant!!!!!

 

Look Ford could say whatever they want about how it's soooo much like the 65 Mustang and blow a bunch of pink smoke to whip up consumer interest in the car. But eyeballs and common sense tell you that this wasn't a retro Mustang in any sense. Just because they incorprated a few styling cues from the old car does not a retro car make. Following that logic BMW has been making retro cars for decades.

[rmc523]

You bring up a good point, aftermarket GPS navis are so common, why isn't there a dedicated spot for one? It's illegal in CA to use the windshield suction cup mount (although I do and so does everyone else I know).

I don't want an ugly mount glued on my dash.

 

Why is it illegal to use the suction cup? That seems stupid.

 

It sounds like when it comes to California and vehicles, there's a very short list of 'DOS/CANS' and a looooooong list of 'DONTS/CANTS'.

[rmc523]

I happen to like the Mustang dash, and body work. They are pleasing to the eye, and provide some design continuity within the brand and the car itself. Not many can/have done that in a long time.

 

I agree. I think Ford did a great job with the current Mustang, and I'm sure they'll continue that with the new Mustang.

[Moby Vic]

Look Ford could say whatever they want about how it's soooo much like the 65 Mustang and blow a bunch of pink smoke to whip up consumer interest in the car. But eyeballs and common sense tell you that this wasn't a retro Mustang in any sense. Just because they incorprated a few styling cues from the old car does not a retro car make. Following that logic BMW has been making retro cars for decades.

 

1994 wasn't 2007. Name any car from that era that looked to its past for design inspiration. Also, look at a 1969/1970 Mustang dash and look at the '94 dash.

 

Not every car can be as original and striking as the 2009 Camaro.

[BlackHorse]

1994 wasn't 2007. Name any car from that era that looked to its past for design inspiration. Also, look at a 1969/1970 Mustang dash and look at the '94 dash.

 

Nobody in the 1990's was making retro cars, not even Ford, no matter what they might have said at the time. It was a bunch of hype to get people interested in buying the car, nothing more. Also, who cares what the dash in a 69 / 70 Mustang looks like, read what you already posted.

 

Mark Conforzi, John Doughty, and Dave Rees looked at the previous Mustangs, dating to the '65 model, searching for an interior theme for the fourth generation. Eventually, they chose the original '65 with its dual cockpit layout that in Rees' words was "very, very stiff."

 

They modeled it after the 65, not the 69 or the 70, the 65. Only not really because it looks nothing like a 65 so really they just did their own thing and then said "Oh yes the 65 was our inspiration for design." because that's what the folks over at marketing decided would make a good angle to sell the new 94 Mustang. But again, common sense and eyeballs has to figure in there somewhere Moby. Just because that's the way they pitched it doesn't make it true.

 

Also quite frankly the original Taurus was not a jellybean. The 95 redesign was.

[FordFanForEver]

Camaro has such ugly interiors. I wonder of chevrolet hired toyota to do the interior job.....

[joihan777]

I get it completely pal, I'm afraid you're the one that hasn't been paying attention. The Ford radio is a double din, big ass piece of shit in a time when everyone else and the majority of the aftermarket are selling single din radios. I couldn't agree more about having the availability of replacing stock radios with better aftermarket radios but have you priced an aftermarket double din radio lately, if you can find one? If you don't opt for one then you have to buy a single din and a block off plate to go around it and that looks even worse in your dash then the damn junky ass Ford brick. As far as the Mach sound system in the Mustang, I couldn't agree with you more. It's an overpriced piece of junk. For the money you pay for it you could go to Best Buy and buy a complete sound system that just destroys the Mach sound system and probably have some money left over, and it would look better to boot. If anything I think Ford should drop the double din junk and move to a better single din radio in their cars.

 

I think Ford needs BOTH a single DIN and a double DIN slot in their cars. The double DIN unit can go up high on the stack as a NAV/entertainment unit. The single DIN unit would be further below under the HVAC and would house an accessory unit like mobile computer, high-fidelity digital EQ or even a cassette player. Or it can just be a storage slot for extra CD/DVDs. It could even be an iPod socket.

[Watchdevil]

I think Ford needs BOTH a single DIN and a double DIN slot in their cars. The double DIN unit can go up high on the stack as a NAV/entertainment unit. The single DIN unit would be further below under the HVAC and would house an accessory unit like mobile computer, high-fidelity digital EQ or even a cassette player. Or it can just be a storage slot for extra CD/DVDs. It could even be an iPod socket.

 

Ideal would be only an iPhone type touch screen like the VW SpaceUp! Conceptwhich controls most functions of the vehicle.

[Moby Vic]

Nobody in the 1990's was making retro cars, not even Ford, no matter what they might have said at the time. It was a bunch of hype to get people interested in buying the car, nothing more. Also, who cares what the dash in a 69 / 70 Mustang looks like, read what you already posted.

They modeled it after the 65, not the 69 or the 70, the 65. Only not really because it looks nothing like a 65 so really they just did their own thing and then said "Oh yes the 65 was our inspiration for design." because that's what the folks over at marketing decided would make a good angle to sell the new 94 Mustang. But again, common sense and eyeballs has to figure in there somewhere Moby. Just because that's the way they pitched it doesn't make it true.

 

Also quite frankly the original Taurus was not a jellybean. The 95 redesign was.

 

Nobody was calling them retro cars yet. Compared to any other car on the road in 1985, the Taurus was a jellybean. You are looking to the past with current eyes. Back in that time, the Taurus was a jellybean and the Mustang had retro design cues.

 

The excerpt from the article is one paragraph. The designers looked at all the old Mustangs. There's an obviously extremely heavy influence of the '69/'70 dash (and some '60s Corvette dashes) on the '94 design.

 

But at least you agree that the '93 Camaro looked like a big fat Geo Storm, so I know you're not completely insane.

[WizBang]

Oh man thats retro gone wrong .....

But one thing I did notice was a VE Commodore SS ute on the as well as other right hand Commodores .

If GM is looking at getting utes of there ,then ford should bring over the Falcon ute as these piss all over the Commodore's one and is better looking too......oh well one can only hope

[BlackHorse]

Oh man thats retro gone wrong .....

But one thing I did notice was a VE Commodore SS ute on the as well as other right hand Commodores .

If GM is looking at getting utes of there ,then ford should bring over the Falcon ute as these piss all over the Commodore's one and is better looking too......oh well one can only hope

 

Ford NA will never bring over their Aussie ute because it would be like having to admit that their American design teams couldn't cut it or couldn't come up with something people want. Hell, people have been after them for years to bring in the C1 Focus here and when they did it sure as hell didn't get a blue oval.

[timmm55]

(Sarcasm follows)

 

Nobody in the 1990's was making retro cars, not even Ford, no matter what they might have said at the time.

 

Of course you know better than the people who made the 94 Mustang! Your arrogance, sarcasm and mere opinions don't trump reality.

 

They modeled it after the 65, not the 69 or the 70, the 65. Only not really because it looks nothing like a 65 so really they just did their own thing and then said "Oh yes the 65 was our inspiration for design." because that's what the folks over at marketing decided would make a good angle to sell the new 94 Mustang. But again, common sense and eyeballs has to figure in there somewhere Moby. Just because that's the way they pitched it doesn't make it true.

 

Duh, the 67, 69 dash was losely based on the 64 twin cockpit design....as was the 94, if you look at a 64 Falcon (where the gauge cluster came from) notice the differences. I tried to keep it very SIMPLE for you.

 

 

Also quite frankly the original Taurus was not a jellybean. The 95 redesign was.

Wrong again. The 86 was called the "jelly bean" from the beginning. The 96 was the "overly oval" design LOL.

 

There's so much BS that you post.....the only one dazzled is yourself.

[BlackHorse]

Of course you know better than the people who made the 94 Mustang! Your arrogance, sarcasm and mere opinions don't trump reality.

Duh, the 67, 69 dash was losely based on the 64 twin cockpit design....as was the 94, if you look at a 64 Falcon (where the gauge cluster came from) notice the differences. I tried to keep it very SIMPLE for you.

Wrong again. The 86 was called the "jelly bean" from the beginning. The 96 was the "overly oval" design LOL.

 

There's so much BS that you post.....the only one dazzled is yourself.

 

 

Right, Ford wouldn't blow a bunch of BS up everyones butt to sell a car. Whatever. The 1994 Mustang is obviously sooo much like the 65, only not !!!!

 

But blackhorse, we put a fake rear brake cooler recessed in the rear fender just like we did in 65!!!

 

Oh well that nails it. It's obviously a retro car then.

 

Like I said, if the 94 was a retro mustang then BMW has been making retro cars for decades.

 

Just because Ford stuck a couple of little styling cues on the car doesn't make it. . . .

 

The '94 Mustang was retro long before Chrysler imitated a '37 Ford with the Prowler and morphed it into a tiny Mexican minivan.

 

And I still love the bit about how they weren't going to make it a jellybean, only that's exactly what they did.

[timmm55]

Whatever.

 

One of the few things you've said I agree with.

But you're still wrong. The 79-93 Mustangs had the least "heritage" styling.....why? Because Ford was going to make the Mustang FWD, if you remember the Probe....it was to be the next Mustang and they were intentionally making a break with the past. Maybe you remember the clamor that raised? The result was the 94 Mustang...with the styling cues back in full view, an unabashed attempt to recapture the thousands of Mustang loyalists.

[rmc523]

One of the few things you've said I agree with.

But you're still wrong. The 79-93 Mustangs had the least "heritage" styling.....why? Because Ford was going to make the Mustang FWD, if you remember the Probe....it was to be the next Mustang and they were intentionally making a break with the past. Maybe you remember the clamor that raised? The result was the 94 Mustang...with the styling cues back in full view, an unabashed attempt to recapture the thousands of Mustang loyalists.

 

IMO, Mustang would've gone the way of Camaro, etc. had they switched to FWD.