Refreshed Mustang coming in 2013, All new model in 2015

[bifs66]

While I'm not a "hater" of the 2011 Mustang rear styling; I'm not real fond of it either. IMO, the pictured car's rear is too similar to the controversial styling of the current car.

[NickF1011]

While I'm not a "hater" of the 2011 Mustang rear styling; I'm not real fond of it either. IMO, the pictured car's rear is too similar to the controversial styling of the current car.

 

That's one thing I think that has made the Mustang such a great vehicle over time. There are aspects to its design that can be done very differently from generation to generation (like the 3-bar tail lights) but still have them be instantly recognizable as "Mustang". The side c-channel/scoops are the same.

[RichardJensen]

The greenhouse is one part of the current design I don't mind at all really.

I'm wondering what role the IIHS side impact test is having on belt lines these days.

 

The IIHS test uses a higher bumper height than the NCAP test, and I'm wondering if the higher belt lines that are becoming common is related to engineering for a good score on the IIHS test.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Except for the size of the grill/lower air intake on it, I really like the rendering on the first page. I don't even miss the side C-scoops. From an aero perspective, I'd actually like them to go away permanently, maybe to be replaced with a paint line or something more subtle than the Audi R-8's vertical bar. For the grill, I'd like it to be a little less vertically large and a slight bit more horizontally large. Other than that, I love it.

[timmm55]

The new Mustang is not going to be much smaller than this one. I just can't figure out where people get this alternate reality notion of physics where somehow a passenger compartment, trunk and engine bay can occupy the same space at the same time---like they're made entirely out of bosons or something. If the Mustang is smaller, it will be trivially so.

 

I doubt the 2013 will be smaller at all, but the 2015 will be a bit smaller, an inch here, an inch there......hopefully 200/300 lbs lighter. That's not asking too much!

Edited July 8, 2011 by timmm55

[silvrsvt]

I doubt the 2014 will be smaller at all, but the 2015 will be a bit smaller, an inch here, an inch there......hopefully 200/300 lbs lighter. That's not asking too much!

 

Well I hope the same thing, but at the same time I had my 2006 GT parked next to a 2010 Mustang and I was slightly shocked to see that the fenders really didn't change at in height...they are nearly identical, but when you see the front of the car, it looks smaller. I don't see how Ford can make the car much smaller then it is already with the current hardpoints it has.

 

Which also begs the question...How all new will the 2015 be? I'm assuming IRS and other improvements to the current platform, but how about this for a curveball....could it be massaged so much that its actually going to be the coupe version of a new GRWD platform that comes out right around the same time, underpinning a RWD Lincoln, Ford Falcon and maybe a Ford sedan halo car for North America?

Edited July 7, 2011 by silvrsvt

[Versa-Tech]

All of this banter (Still? Really???) about the current tail-light/rear fascia design just goes to show you why consumers don't get a say in transportation design. You could say it's a matter of preference, but what would be the alternative? S197 Tail-lights?

:beatdeadhorse:

 

It is my professional opinion that the Mustangs' current rear fascia (including those tail-lights) is the most attractive design since the 1969' model.

[V8-X]

Not feeling the rendering in the OP's link, nor the image Harley Lover posted. Simply horrible.

 

Neat rendering I found doing an image search...

 

This ain't too bad, but not feeling that hood and front too much. Small tweaks could improve my thoughts though.

Edited July 7, 2011 by V8-X

[akirby]

It is my professional opinion that the Mustangs' current rear fascia (including those tail-lights) is the most attractive design since the 1969' model.

 

I agree 100%. I think it gives the car an athletic yet slim appearance as opposed to the bubble butt 05-09 rear. I don't understand all the criticism.

[TomServo92]

I agree 100%. I think it gives the car an athletic yet slim appearance as opposed to the bubble butt 05-09 rear. I don't understand all the criticism.

 

I also agree. The 05-09 rear was just kind of boring.

[atvman]

The list of priorities needs to be:

 

1. First and foremost, weight loss. The GT has grown to 3600lb, the GT500 is 3800lb. While not as porky as the Cowmaro, it's still heavier than it needs to be. 200lb across the board would be ideal, but even 100-150lb would be a step in the right direction.

 

2. IRS. The current car handles well and is fairly composed on choppy pavement, but IRS would make it even better as long as it is done right. I'd rather a well tuned LRA than a poorly tuned IRS.

 

3. More power. Not absolutely necessary since the current car is fast enough for me, but I don't expect the competition to sit around. DI would be a good addition to the 3.7L and 5.0L.

 

I really don't care about anything else. As long as the styling looks like a Mustang, I'll be happy. As long as the interior doesn't take a step backwards, I'll be happy. The brakes are fine as-is. Fuel economy is good enough for me. Etc.

[theDuff]

It is my professional opinion that the Mustangs' current rear fascia (including those tail-lights) is the most attractive design since the 1969' model.

 

 

I agree 100%. I think it gives the car an athletic yet slim appearance as opposed to the bubble butt 05-09 rear. I don't understand all the criticism.

 

 

I also agree. The 05-09 rear was just kind of boring.

 

Here here! I never had a lot of love for the 05-09 design. The '10 and up however... love it. The GT500 included

 

Personally, I think the taillights and curved rear filler is the most attractive part.