fordmantpw Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 It's a mule. Who knows where they got the fuel tank and filler neck from. True, but why not just use it from the current gen Mustang like the rest of the quarter panel? As noted in the other thread, the car most-likely isn't even fueled from there, so why not just stick a blank door on it and be done with it? For the mule with the under-hood shots, it appeared Ford went to great lengths to make the sheetmetal of the current gen car fit to avoid being seen, but yet the fuel door has big, gaudy, camo on it. Why? I know it's a little thing, but it intrigues me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 True, but why not just use it from the current gen Mustang like the rest of the quarter panel? As noted in the other thread, the car most-likely isn't even fueled from there, so why not just stick a blank door on it and be done with it? For the mule with the under-hood shots, it appeared Ford went to great lengths to make the sheetmetal of the current gen car fit to avoid being seen, but yet the fuel door has big, gaudy, camo on it. Why? I know it's a little thing, but it intrigues me. Could the IRS have affected the filler pipe routing and location? Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmalonehunter Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Could the IRS have affected the filler pipe routing and location? Just a thought. ^this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkisler Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Could the IRS have affected the filler pipe routing and location? Just a thought. IRS requires a tearup to the rear. New rear floorpan, new fuel tank, new suspension bits (obviously), new seats, revised exhaust routing, revised filler. At this point, the underbody of this mule likely is pretty well fully representative of the new car, but it is jammed under the exterior sheetmetal of the existing car. Fuel filler routing is one reason. There is a second reason I think. Take a look a the rear fenders of the red Evos pictured earlier, and try to imagine the fuel filler placement. Probably a bit outboard versus the rather flat fender area on today's Mustang. So the filler likely is production representative and aligned to the actual exterior location of the new car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 IRS requires a tearup to the rear. New rear floorpan, new fuel tank, new suspension bits (obviously), new seats, revised exhaust routing, revised filler. At this point, the underbody of this mule likely is pretty well fully representative of the new car, but it is jammed under the exterior sheetmetal of the existing car. Fuel filler routing is one reason. There is a second reason I think. Take a look a the rear fenders of the red Evos pictured earlier, and try to imagine the fuel filler placement. Probably a bit outboard versus the rather flat fender area on today's Mustang. So the filler likely is production representative and aligned to the actual exterior location of the new car. All that makes perfect sense, and maybe they couldn't just throw something together on the fuel system due to all of the sensors and what-not for the fuel system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Just thinking about the open hood shots on the Mule and the new slanted upper rails sections. that new nose is going to make a very distinctive change to Mustang's appearance Good sign in my opinion. The next gen Mustang needs to be as dramatic a departure in styling from the current generation as the 2005 was from the 2004 or the 1994 was from the 1993, etc. The purely "heritage" shape of the current design is old hat now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 All that makes perfect sense, and maybe they couldn't just throw something together on the fuel system due to all of the sensors and what-not for the fuel system. I think it's more likely they wanted to use the production version. Might as well test that as early as possible also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Good sign in my opinion. The next gen Mustang needs to be as dramatic a departure in styling from the current generation as the 2005 was from the 2004 or the 1994 was from the 1993, etc. The purely "heritage" shape of the current design is old hat now. Even though I'm still smitten with the "old hat" design, I'm definitely psyched about a new styling direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) Good sign in my opinion. The next gen Mustang needs to be as dramatic a departure in styling from the current generation as the 2005 was from the 2004 or the 1994 was from the 1993, etc. The purely "heritage" shape of the current design is old hat now. in an interview on Autolinedetroittv with a GM chief, he mentioned that that GM was watching to see what Ford does with 2015 Mustangstyling before committing on styling changes to next gen Camaro. If that's true it means that Mustang will be setting the pace...in terms of styling. Edited November 16, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 It's a mule. Who knows where they got the fuel tank and filler neck from. If it's like the gas tank on the mule with the underhood shots, it's probably not a production tank at all, but a special tank for testing purposes. At least, I'm not aware of any (current) production Fords with fuel dumps on their gas tanks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Even though I'm still smitten with the "old hat" design, I'm definitely psyched about a new styling direction. It's good, but it can't go on forever. And please, please, PLEASE can we finally ditch the quad headlights this go-around? I was really hoping they'd already have gone away with the 2013 refresh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 And please, please, PLEASE can we finally ditch the quad headlights this go-around? I was really hoping they'd already have gone away with the 2013 refresh. You mean the grill mounted Foglights? Thats one of the things I like best about the 2005-2014 design 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) You mean the grill mounted Foglights? Thats one of the things I like best about the 2005-2014 design Ick. I guess they just remind me too much of the round PIAA lights I saw do-it-yourselfers throwing on everything in the 90's. Purely circular light bezels just seem so out of place to me on otherwise modern designs. About the only place I think they still work is for foglights (in the lower fascia, like on the GT500), and even there, it's interesting to see some of the LED interpretations hitting the market now instead. Edited November 16, 2012 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OHV 16V Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) I absolutely hate the lights that just use LEDs in place of driving(fog) lamps, useless design. Maybe functional for looking cool, but I'd rather have actual functional lights there. Doesn't matter I guess, cuz if this Mustang looks too much like the Evos, I'll either be ordering a 2014 Shelby or trying to scoop-up a '13 BOSS. The Evos design is cool, but it's too far departed from a Mustang, (doesn't carry enough of the traditional cues) for me. If there ends up being no fog lights in the grill, that's a major letdown, and that gaping maw of a grill with the blue oval above it reminds me of the '96-'98 Taurus, even though this opening is way larger and a dead-ringer for Aston Martin's grill. Again, it's OK, looks alright-enough on the Fusion, but no thanks on my Mustang. Edited November 16, 2012 by OHV 16V 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 You mean the grill mounted Foglights? Thats one of the things I like best about the 2005-2014 design Not me. That's the one design element I dislike the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I absolutely hate the lights that just use LEDs in place of driving(fog) lamps, useless design. Maybe functional for looking cool, but I'd rather have actual functional lights there. Doesn't matter I guess, cuz if this Mustang looks too much like the Evos, I'll either be ordering a 2014 Shelby or trying to scoop-up a '13 BOSS. The Evos design is cool, but it's too far departed from a Mustang, (doesn't carry enough of the traditional cues) for me. If there ends up being no fog lights in the grill, that's a major letdown, and that gaping maw of a grill with the blue oval above it reminds me of the '96-'98 Taurus, even though this opening is way larger and a dead-ringer for Aston Martin's grill. Again, it's OK, looks alright-enough on the Fusion, but no thanks on my Mustang. Sounds like you want it to be 1964 forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Not me. That's the one design element I dislike the most. Agreed! That's one reason the GT500 is so much better looking than the GT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Agreed! That's one reason the GT500 is so much better looking than the GT! Also the reason I would have opted for a V6 w/Pony package. The grille looks so much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Also the reason I would have opted for a V6 w/Pony package. The grille looks so much better. Ditto that...surprise, surprise! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 The front end camo is essentially '13 Fusion cover, hence the misleading proportions. The fuel tank filler is the production part, fitted to test clearance and heat shielding with the new exhaust and IRS.The production fenders do, in fact, fit flush with the filler door as fitted. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 The front end camo is essentially '13 Fusion cover, hence the misleading proportions. The fuel tank filler is the production part, fitted to test clearance and heat shielding with the new exhaust and IRS.The production fenders do, in fact, fit flush with the filler door as fitted. That settles it then...thanks for clearing it up! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OHV 16V Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) Sounds like you want it to be 1964 forever. Eh, I realize the car has to evolve, that's pretty much essential for its survival. But I don't think it hurts to keep some nostalgic cues here and there. Retro design's time is over, but I definitely don't hate the design(s) or think you have to totally pole vault away from it. Especially when dealing with a car that's such an icon with such a rich history. Edited November 16, 2012 by OHV 16V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Eh, I realize the car has to evolve, that's pretty much essential for its survival. But I don't think it hurts to keep some nostalgic cues here and there. Retro design's time is over, but I definitely don't hate the design(s) or think you have to totally pole vault away from it. Especially when dealing with a car that's such an icon with such a rich history. I would prefer some historical cues interpreted in a modern way, much as they did with the 94-04 cars (for the time anyway). Give it the hockey stick on the flanks. Give it a galloping horse in the grille. Keep the long hood/short deck layout. Use 3-element tail lights of some sort. Plenty of things they can still utilize that say Mustang without it being a knock-off of the original. Oh. One other thing i hope goes: the faux gas cap on the decklid. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Ditto that...surprise, surprise! Absolutely shocking! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Oh. One other thing i hope goes: the faux gas cap on the decklid. I get annoyed with mine, it always has water in it...even if it hasn't rained in a while! I pop the trunk and I have water coming out it 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.