BORG Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Here she is, and it's a little surprising since it reveals the dimensionality of the new rear-end. http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-mustang-future.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02MustangGT Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 I see a little '94-'98 Mustang in the edge of the decklid as it curves down towards rear inner panel for some reason. I have a feeling this might be the best Mustang ever...oh wait, I sound like a marketing executive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 I see a little '94-'98 Mustang in the edge of the decklid as it curves down towards rear inner panel for some reason. I have a feeling this might be the best Mustang ever...oh wait, I sound like a marketing executive. Whoa. Let's not get carried away here. I'll say that it's the best mustang since 1969. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted November 13, 2008 Author Share Posted November 13, 2008 Whoa. Let's not get carried away here. I'll say that it's the best mustang since 1969. If this is the best, what's the worst Msutang? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02MustangGT Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 No doubt '69 was a good year for Mustangs. I would love to own one, however, the 2010 will be THE BEST MUSTANG EVER. As for the worst, most people say Mustang II, I say '71-'73 as far as body styles go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justinc1973 Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 I wouldn't say there was ever a "bad" Mustang design: 1964.5-1966- The car that started it all 1967-1968- Improvements to a classic 1969-1970- Balls to the wall muscle 1971-1973- Beginnings of modern design elements 1974-1978- The car that saved the name 1979-1993- The Mustang revolution 1994-1998- Reborn classic, beginnings of "retro" design 1999-2004- Edgy retro 2005-2009- Modern retro 2010-?- Car for the times, attractive, snappy, and REMEMBERED I honestly don't see the Mustang disappearing, it has been able to adapt for the markets tastes. The Camaro and Challenger on the other hand............................. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 I wouldn't say there was ever a "bad" Mustang design: 1964.5-1966- The car that started it all 1967-1968- Improvements to a classic 1969-1970- Balls to the wall muscle 1971-1973- Beginnings of modern design elements 1974-1978- The car that saved the name 1979-1993- The Mustang revolution 1994-1998- Reborn classic, beginnings of "retro" design 1999-2004- Edgy retro 2005-2009- Modern retro 2010-?- Car for the times, attractive, snappy, and REMEMBERED I honestly don't see the Mustang disappearing, it has been able to adapt for the markets tastes. The Camaro and Challenger on the other hand............................. I disagree. In my professional opinion: 1964.5-1966: The petite classic, started it all 1967-1968: The almost-perfect mustang 1969: The playboy bunny of mustangs 1970: The supermodel of mustangs 1971-1973: A sad interpretation of the '69 GT500 1974-1978: The best they could do for the years style forgot 1979-1986: Great engineering, horrible styling 1987-1993: A huge improvement on the original fox styling 1994-1998: A car not deserving of the mustang name 1999-2004: Proved that shit can be polished 2005-2009: A step in the right direction 2010-????: Almost makes me want to get back into the industry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 If this is the best, what's the worst Msutang? Now I happen to love that car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted November 14, 2008 Author Share Posted November 14, 2008 Now I happen to love that car. As a kid, I use to think this was a Ford Pinto. I can't believe they called this Mustang, it looks like a K-car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005Explorer Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 (edited) As a kid, I use to think this was a Ford Pinto. I can't believe they called this Mustang, it looks like a K-car. I think it looks like a Fairmont with a more aerodynamic nose. Edited November 14, 2008 by 2005Explorer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 I think it looks like a Fairmont with a more aerodynamic nose. If that's aerodynamic, then I am no aerodynamicist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02MustangGT Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 I think it looks like a Fairmont with a more aerodynamic nose. I had a '81 Fairmont "Futura", '85 & '86 Mustang "Sedan" and I have to agree. My favorite "fox body" of them all was the LX 5.0 sedan, second was the '85 and '86 GT's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 The rear end looks pretty damn good...I like it...pretty interesting looking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005Explorer Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 If that's aerodynamic, then I am no aerodynamicist Actually that was pretty aerodynamic in 1979! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 Dang, that is some good work done in clay, folks. When you find people that can work in three dimensions like that, you have got to keep them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 then I am no aerodynamicist I dunno. Maybe you're not an aerodynamicist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 (edited) I sure hope those people work similar magic on future Fusion and Taurus models, it feels like Ford may be heading into a renaissance of good design - a breath of fresh air!! Edited November 14, 2008 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005Explorer Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 I sure hope those people work similar magic on future Fusion and Taurus models,it feels like Ford may be heading into a renaissance of good design - a breath of fresh air!! Well they are certainly capable. Never forget that this is the company who gave us the 1986 Taurus and Sable. At that time they truly were revolutionary compared to everything else out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
97svtgoin05gt Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 I've had many Mustangs through the years but I really love the look of the '05-'09. I'm not sure I'm going to like the '10 as much but we'll see. It's all a matter of personal taste and we're all different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 I disagree. In my professional opinion: 1964.5-1966: The petite classic, started it all 1967-1968: The almost-perfect mustang 1969: The playboy bunny of mustangs 1970: The supermodel of mustangs 1971-1973: A sad interpretation of the '69 GT500 1974-1978: The best they could do for the years style forgot 1979-1986: Great engineering, horrible styling 1987-1993: A huge improvement on the original fox styling 1994-1998: A car not deserving of the mustang name 1999-2004: Proved that shit can be polished 2005-2009: A step in the right direction 2010-????: Almost makes me want to get back into the industry You have got to be kidding. As an owner of a 1997 Cobra, I can tell you it's every bit a Mustang as any other. It's quick, it's nimble, it has all of the traditional Mustang styling cues. If the 94-98 isn't a Mustang, none of them are. I actually prefer them to the 05-09's and certainly over any 79-93 Fox body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefstang Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 You have got to be kidding. As an owner of a 1997 Cobra, I can tell you it's every bit a Mustang as any other. It's quick, it's nimble, it has all of the traditional Mustang styling cues. If the 94-98 isn't a Mustang, none of them are. I actually prefer them to the 05-09's and certainly over any 79-93 Fox body. Uh oh. Someone peed in his Wheaties. Seriously, I love the '94-'98 cars for the most part. The six cylinders were hideous with their three spoke wheels and all, but the '95 Cobra R is one of my favorite 'Stangs of all time. The Fox bodies crushed them, though. Too heavy with the same drivetrain until '96 when the motor went straight to shit for a couple of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 The Fox bodies crushed them, though. Too heavy with the same drivetrain until '96 when the motor went straight to shit for a couple of years. I'll give you the 4.6 2-valve as being a heap from 96-98, but the 4-valves were a thing of beauty and one of the more sophisticated engines of the period. I much prefer the 96-98 tail lights over the horizontal 94-95 ones also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford-150 Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 You have got to be kidding. As an owner of a 1997 Cobra, I can tell you it's every bit a Mustang as any other. It's quick, it's nimble, it has all of the traditional Mustang styling cues. If the 94-98 isn't a Mustang, none of them are. I actually prefer them to the 05-09's and certainly over any 79-93 Fox body. well i was not very attracted to them, they were Mustangs though and deserve the name and IMO are better than the god awful F-bodies and LT-1 Camaros i think it was a different time of the Muscle car, both GM and Ford were trying to go modern....GM went way too modern and never liked the back end of the F-bodies in your case i like it....of those years i only show interest in the Cobra/Mach 1 variants Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefstang Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 well i was not very attracted to them, they were Mustangs though and deserve the name and IMO are better than the god awful F-bodies and LT-1 Camaros i think it was a different time of the Muscle car, both GM and Ford were trying to go modern....GM went way too modern and never liked the back end of the F-bodies in your case i like it....of those years i only show interest in the Cobra/Mach 1 variants Mach1??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 Hmm, looks okay. Need to wait and see the entire vehicle without all the camo before I decide. Certain elements are turning me off, while others look kind of exciting. 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.