Blueblood Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Um thats the 10 model..we are talking next next gen Yea, I don't remember why I posted that, I think the next gen is too far off to really know anything, in 99 we didn't know much of anything about the 05 from what I remember.. I was kind of hoping they'd go futuristic by then with some Mustang styling cues.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 (edited) Yea, I don't remember why I posted that, I think the next gen is too far off to really know anything, in 99 we didn't know much of anything about the 05 from what I remember.. I was kind of hoping they'd go futuristic by then with some Mustang styling cues.. Well, I'm glad they went retro. The market was right at the time. I think it may be time to push it back toward the future though. Will be interesting to see where it goes in the next full redesign. I remember seeing a few artists renderings of a "futuristic" Mustang when people were speculating about the '05 early on, and some of them looked pretty darn cool -- and still instantly recognizable as a Mustang. I always thought it would be interesting to see what would happen if there was a way to find a focus group that knew absolutely NOTHING about cars and asked them to put the generations of Mustang in the chronological order they were introduced. Something tells me the '05 would be thrown way back in the order with the 94-98's likely being listed as the most recent. Edited January 11, 2008 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catalepsy Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I don't think you need to go furturistic...To me, at least when I was in art school, furturistic means it will be outdated. Look at the furturistic designs from the 60s & 70s...They are not modern looking to us at all because artist renderings of the future are always conceptions based on their own period. You can go with a timeless design that will be attractive 10, 20, 30 years from now. People can still look at it and say, "That's a nice looking car." classics from the past weren't modern or retro to their period...they were just well designed works of art. Yeah I know, easier said than done. LOL Well, I'm glad they went retro. The market was right at the time. I think it may be time to push it back toward the future though. Will be interesting to see where it goes in the next full redesign. I remember seeing a few artists renderings of a "futuristic" Mustang when people were speculating about the '05 early on, and some of them looked pretty darn cool -- and still instantly recognizable as a Mustang. I always thought it would be interesting to see what would happen if there was a way to find a focus group that knew absolutely NOTHING about cars and asked them to put the generations of Mustang in the chronological order they were introduced. Something tells me the '05 would be thrown way back in the order with the 94-98's likely being listed as the most recent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showpost.php...p;postcount=143 eeeeek, the Mustang got "Bangle-ized".....WAy too much going on there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I love the Giugiaro Mustang..... I think they should go that route; keep evolving this shape. The 911 and the Corvette should be the touchstones; modern yet unmistakably what they are (actually it's more like the Cayenne as true successor to the first 911s, but you get my drift....) love the front love the rear end...but something loses its composure towards the rear 1/3rd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 eeeeek, the Mustang got "Bangle-ized".....WAy too much going on there What is that anyway? Is that a concept or clay model or what is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 What is that anyway? Is that a concept or clay model or what is it? two words....bloody awful! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 (edited) I agree. I was speaking of the 2v mustangs and should have clarified that. Whats sad is that we are in the 08 model year and cant buy a mustang with equal horsepower (GT) of the 98 ls1 f body. Ten fricking years and we are still not up to par. I know all about the special edition stangs and I know the f body has been dead for five years but come on Ford@! You ever hear of the old saying about people who live in glass houses? How long did it take Chevy to equal the Zr1's hp in the Vette?? Edited January 11, 2008 by atomaro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 That picture . . . the A-pillars, the whole roof is different — the car's roof tapers from behind the door, making the greenhouse somewhat narrower IMHO than the current car. The back seat would have even less shoulder width. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 That picture . . . the A-pillars, the whole roof is different — the car's roof tapers from behind the door, making the greenhouse somewhat narrower IMHO than the current car. The back seat would have even less shoulder width. hopefully just a damn awful chop, way too mnay contours and the revered "kickup" has become a tiresome cliche, the current Mustangs styling is admired for its flow and simplicity...this is overkill 101....when did Ford Hire Chris Bangle? or should that be "Bungle" ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 The current Mustang is a great design to build off from. With a few tweaks, it would be sensational. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joihan777 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 (edited) I think the next generation Mustang should keep the overall styling of the current model, but then have it go through a wind tunnel to make it a little more aero. It should still look 'muscular'. The hood, trunk, stance and other classic cues should remain, while trying to give it a little more modern aerodynamics. With the advent of smaller EcoBoost engines, I'd hope the hoods could have a little more rake to them to increase driving visibility. The front should still evoke images of a mako shark or an F-16. I don't quite know how to say this, but the modern Mustang, to me, looks 'alive'. When you see a GT coming towards you there's a split second when the 'face' looks like a dangerous animal.... and then you hear the engine's growl! I have seen other 'sports' car try this, but they just doesn't do it as well as the Mustang. Whatever the future for Mustang, I hope it still is recognizable as a Mustang. Even if it looks more faster and deadlier just standing still. The Giugiaro Concept had some nice points, but it too seemed a bit curvy and not aggressive enough. BTW, just about everybody I've talked to consider the 94-98 Mustangs as the "Girls Mustang." It was way too curvy without being muscular enough. And of course, I HOPE the next Mustang convertible will have a functional, good-looking, integrated rollbar! LINK Edited January 11, 2008 by joihan777 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 hopefully just a damn awful chop, way too mnay contours and the revered "kickup" has become a tiresome cliche, the current Mustangs styling is admired for its flow and simplicity...this is overkill 101....when did Ford Hire Chris Bangle? or should that be "Bungle" ? I agree, way too many contours. The greenhouse is tiny, must be for the microcephalic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnostic Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 hopefully just a damn awful chop, way too mnay contours and the revered "kickup" has become a tiresome cliche, the current Mustangs styling is admired for its flow and simplicity...this is overkill 101....when did Ford Hire Chris Bangle? or should that be "Bungle" ? I think these are chop done by Topnotch. I think he is a graphic artist for some after market auto company. I am fairly sure he is not associated with Ford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I agree. I was speaking of the 2v mustangs and should have clarified that. Whats sad is that we are in the 08 model year and cant buy a mustang with equal horsepower (GT) of the 98 ls1 f body. Ten fricking years and we are still not up to par. I know all about the special edition stangs and I know the f body has been dead for five years but come on Ford@! The LS1 was a 5.7 (305-355 HP) , the Mustang is a 4.6 (300 HP a little more in the Shelby GT (325 HP), mostly due to the air box). Not too bad in an apples to oranges comparison. Of course there are 500+HP GT500s that you can buy on the Ford showroom right now. (Super Snake is 700 or so) and 425+ Saleens. As for the refresh I hope it's evolutionary rather than revolutionary since it's keeping the existing 05 roof. The 97 refresh didn't quite mesh with the 94 roof IMHO. As an owner of a 05 Mustang GT, I think they hit the nail on the head....but with the new Camaro coming out there will direct competition. But I'm not worried, the bases are already covered, or are in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 BTW, just about everybody I've talked to consider the 94-98 Mustangs as the "Girls Mustang." It was way too curvy without being muscular enough. I take offense to that. The bulge of the rear fenders on the 94-98 Mustang is something that is MISSING from the current vehicle if you ask me. The slab sides and tacked-on fender flares on the S197 and 99-04 Mustangs just didn't do it for me. The 94-98 had a much more cohesive overall look I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moby Vic Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Yeah, I always thought the New Edge cars were obviously the facelift that they were. The swoopy SN95 roofline never matched the angular body. The New Edge cars had the boy-racer aggressive look that so many crave, though. I personally liked the look of my '91 LX better than my '95 coupe, but the '94-'98 design is thoroughly integrated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I personally liked the look of my '91 LX better than my '95 coupe, but the '94-'98 design is thoroughly integrated. I think the tail lights made a HUGE difference between the 94-95 and 96-98 cars. The 96-98 design was thoroughly retro, bringing back the tri-bar that carries on to this day.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I personally like any Mustang that was made after 1994. I know everybody seems to like the fox bodies, but they were too square for my taste. They didn't really have any design cues on them that signaled previous Mustangs in my opinion - others probably disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 I won't know what I want in a future Mustang until I see the 2010 Mustang. That's the truth. By the way, the 99-04s were styling abortions? To me, they made the 94-98s look more aggressive. The 94-98s were a little bit "soft" to me. They were borderline Japanese soft (minus the Cobra). I agree with you about the 99-04 models, I like them better than the 94-98 models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 hang on Buddy...lets go over a couple things: We have no idea how much a LS3 powered Camaro is going to cost...not to mention that the Camaro outpowered the GT up until its demise....so since when did they stop making Mustangs? Not to mention we already have a 500HP GT500. Ford already has a 777 Boss engine in development, which is a 7 liter Boss that makes 700hp/700ft lb of torque! There is strong talk of a Modular 5.0L engine which I know many people here will call a boat anchor even before it comes out, but I'm sure it will have DI on it and there is even talk of a EcoBoost/TwinForce model that will make people say "LS3 what?" with no problems and get higher MPG and HP. As for the desiel engine for the F-150, expect the 4.4L to come out in the Fall of 2009, not that far away (a year or less after the F-150 launches). Then lets not forget the 6.2L Boss/hurricane which should be out also. Things aren't as bad as you make them out to be, but I'm sure they aren't as good as I might make them out to be..the truth is prob inbetween that That "Boss 777" sounds pretty impressive. Is it true? This is the first I've heard of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 Ugh. I hope not. That just looks like a slightly warmed over GT500. And I really hope they ditch the grille-mounted driving lights with the refresh. They work fine on the current design with its full-on retro flare, but with the next refresh apparently becoming a bit more fluid in its design, I don't think the grille lights will work anymore. For comparison, I submit that the GT500 front end with its slanted headlight bezels and clean grille looks WORLDS better than the GT's upright stance. I don't really like that chop either. I really hope the hood doesn't look like that either. I agree with you about the foglamps. They look good on the current model, but I don't think they'd carry over well to a more 'flowing/fluid' design. I also agree with you about the GT500's slanted look. I also think the GT500KR makes that look even better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 I don't think you need to go furturistic...To me, at least when I was in art school, furturistic means it will be outdated. Look at the furturistic designs from the 60s & 70s...They are not modern looking to us at all because artist renderings of the future are always conceptions based on their own period. You can go with a timeless design that will be attractive 10, 20, 30 years from now. People can still look at it and say, "That's a nice looking car." classics from the past weren't modern or retro to their period...they were just well designed works of art. Yeah I know, easier said than done. LOL When I visited the ArtCenter in Pasadena this past summer, they said I should try to make my designs look more futuristic. I politely said ok (etc.), but in my mind I was thinking, I dont like all that 'futuristic' stuff. I like a simple and classy look, not some outlandish/outrageous thing. Like you said, I want somebody to look at something and say that looks nice, like you said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 love the front love the rear end...but something loses its composure towards the rear 1/3rd I wasn't and still am not a big fan of the Giugiaro Mustang's rear end. i think most of that may be the awkward taillights though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 What is that anyway? Is that a concept or clay model or what is it? I believe it's just a computer rendering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.