'15 Mustang revealed????

[30 OTT 6]

Thankfully the '05 Mustang did not take "styling" queues from the FiveHundred.

[grbeck]

But you do realize that was almost 50 years ago, right?

 

Since 1979 till 2004, the Mustang has shared its looks or gotten some of its looks from other Ford products, but its always looked like a Mustang none the less.

It seemed to me it was the other way around...other Ford products adopted styling cues from contemporary Mustangs.

 

The 1979 Mustang was quite radical for a 1970s Ford. Virtually everything else in the Ford Motor Company line-up was styled to look like a miniature Lincoln Continental Mark IV-V, while the 1979 Mustang went its own way. The car's "shovel" nose, glassy greenhouse and lack of ornamentation was a breath of fresh air for Ford at that time.

Edited August 22, 2013 by grbeck

[kstwister]

a Mustang and a Fairmont in the same post....blasphemy! It's true and it's hurts....but I still don't half to like it!

Just a reminder about those early Fox Mustangs.

[silvrsvt]

Slapping the front end of the Fusion on a Mustang no doubt makes the car more modern and strengthens the car's family identity with other Ford products, but at what cost? As Fusions become as common as the air we breathe, styling-wise, the Mustang may risk becoming just another Ford.

 

 

I wouldn't call it slapping a Fusion front end on a Mustang...the only thing similar to the prototype we've seen and the Fusion are 5 point grill (barely) and the narrower headlights (once again just a passing/family resemblance vs the direct copy of the Taurus/Thunderbird lights in 1987)..heck with that beefy looking grill insert reminds me of the the 2007 Super Duty and the current GT500.

 

But to call the '15 Mustang a ripoff of the Fusion/Evos is disingenuous...its has its inspiration from them, but its not an outright copy of either one.

[OX1]

a Mustang and a Fairmont in the same post....blasphemy! It's true and it's hurts....but I still don't half to like it!

 

Not a Fairmont, it is an LTD LX.

[Fordowner]

I don't see how anyone can say it doesn't look like a Mustang. It looks more like the 2013 Mustang than a Fusion.

[RichardJensen]

Not a Fairmont, it is an LTD LX.

 

I thought he was doing a 'thing', where he called the LTD a Fairmont because it was basically a Fairmont with different front and rear clips.

[RichardJensen]

[NickF1011]

It seemed to me it was the other way around...other Ford products adopted styling cues from contemporary Mustangs.

 

The 1979 Mustang was quite radical for a 1970s Ford. Virtually everything else in the Ford Motor Company line-up was styled to look like a miniature Lincoln Continental Mark IV-V, while the 1979 Mustang went its own way. The car's "shovel" nose, glassy greenhouse and lack of ornamentation was a breath of fresh air for Ford at that time.

Having a family look didn't kill the Mustang in the 90's. It won't kill it now. The Mustang's styling then was very much in tune with other vehicles in the lineup at the time like the Escort, Taurus, and Contour. Even the Aspire had similar styling cues.

 

I'm trying to find a picture Ford used to put on the back of all their brochures of that era with every vehicle they offered side-by-side in white. It shows the family look very clearly. Yet the Mustang was still instantly recognizable as a Mustang.

[ice-capades]

The Mustang is recognized universally by design and styling cues that had been established 50 years ago yet have evolved over the years to keep the Mustang current with cars of the time. Think of which design characteristics started with the original Mustang yet have remained pretty consistent over the years... Long hood, short decklid, 2+2 seating, open grille with the Pony logo, rear end treatment, side sculpting, etc. Regardless of the model year, Ford has done a much better job managing the Mustang than any other car model with every generation being instantly recognizable as a Mustang.

 

Being a Mustang enthusiast and having the opportunity to drive a new 2014 Mustang GT every day as my company car, I enjoy reading all the comments here as more spy photos are released. A lot of speculation still but I'll just keep looking forward to seeing the production version when it's unveiled!

 

Probably a coincidence but it's interesting to note that a customer traded in a 2004 Corvette Convertible about a week ago for a 2012 Mustang Shelby GT500 Coupe with 3,400 miles that had been traded in by one of our customer that purchased a 2014 Shelby GT500 that he'd been waiting to arrive. And then yesterday a customer came in looking to buy the 2014 Mustang GT Coupe that I'm driving with his 2002 Corvette Coupe as a trade-in. The deal didn't work as he wanted $10,000 more than we appraised his Corvette for, which had a bad CarFax report. I just find it interesting that we're getting Corvette customers looking to trade their cars in for Mustang's now.

[V8-X]

Not to bad. While you can tell it's an evolution of the Mustang, those headlights and grille appear Fusion/Evo derived. Which is okay, but think they could have received a little more thought and slightly different treatment.

 

I think its progressing nicely. There's lots of negative comments on FB about it though. Many calling it a 2 door Fusion etc etc.

Look at the hood, grille and headlights, has a substantial Fusion feel to it.

 

please, slight family resemblence yes, but considering how the Fusions styling has gone across, could that be construed as a BAD thing????

Yes it could. I can't stand GM, mostly Buick & Chevy, because all have too similar of styling. While I like certain aspects on one vehicle, it may not look as good on another. And too much of similar style provides for a bland styling, as if the manufacturer can't think of new and impressive designs, so they copy cat off existing themes.

 

I dunno... the last Fox-body model looked very much the cousin to the rest of the lineup. They all had the New Edge thing going on, especially with the grille and headlight shapes.

 

Don't see it with the headlight/grille similarities you speak of. Each looks quite unique. Sure the CV and Stang look similar with wraparound ligths, and the Focus/Taurus with have similar accents, but not sure I could see a great deal similarities.

 

now we call the GC a funny looking Explorer...LOL

Interesting, since personally I think the GC looks much better than the Explorer. IMO would have to say the Explorer looks like the funny GC.

 

The prototype front end still says Mustang to me so I don't understand the trepidation.

Yes there are cues, but seems like a lot of Fusion/Evo cues too. While I think the Fusion front is nice, I don't want all Ford products to have that same style like dang Chevy's have.

 

But to call the '15 Mustang a ripoff of the Fusion/Evos is disingenuous...its has its inspiration from them, but its not an outright copy of either one.

I'd have to say I see as much Fusion/Evo in that front clip as I do Mustang.

[akirby]

Without commonality between vehicle designs you lose the brand identify and you're stuck with a bunch of individual vehicles. The goal is to build brand loyalty rather than vehicle loyalty. And it seems to work fine for all the other mfrs.

[mackinaw]

Without commonality between vehicle designs you lose the brand identify and you're stuck with a bunch of individual vehicles.......

 

What's wrong with that? Yeah, I know I'm an old guy who lives in the past, but when I grew up (50's and 60's) cars, by and large, were unique and had their own identity. Again, look at the Ford lineup for 1965. Every Ford vehicle looked different. I don't see why manufacturers can't do the same thing today.

[RichardJensen]

All depends on where you set your starting point:

 

[akirby]

It costs more to come up with so many unique designs and it makes it harder to keep a lifelong customer since they may only like one of the designs.

 

They want Ford or Lincoln customers, not Mustang or MKZ customers.

[Deanh]

Ive heard something stating the rear end is something special....perhaps thats because its the part most people will see.................

[Hugh]

Ive heard something stating the rear end is something special....perhaps thats because its the part most people will see.................

Are you alluding that the rear end is the part you like to see the most?

[akirby]

Ive heard something stating the rear end is something special....perhaps thats because its the part most people will see.................

 

You mean like J-Lo special?

[mackinaw]

All depends on where you set your starting point:

 

But the deliberate family resemblance lasted only one year. The '59 full-size Fords went there own way and by 1960 you wouldn't even know that the full-size Ford, the Falcon or the T-bird were made by the same company.

 

I still think we've lost something. You don't have to have cookie-cutter styling. Ford, and other manufacturers, have hired talented stylists. I wish they'd use them.

[RichardJensen]

But the deliberate family resemblance lasted only one year.

 

 

You have to squint and tilt your head funny, but read the first sentence of the next-to-last paragraph.

[RichardJensen]

And really, grabbing '65 is a bit disingenuous, as Ford stacked the Galaxie's headlights that year, but didn't stack the Fairlane's until '66.

 

By the time you hit '69, the 500XL & the Torino looked pretty similar:

 

 

And not unlike the Mustang:

 

I mean the Mustang fastback was basically the Torino's fastback shape with a 500XL style C pillar kickup.

 

Don't get me wrong. I love the cars from the 60s, but I think it might be a bit revisionist to suggest that 'family' style at Ford is a recent thing....

Edited August 23, 2013 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

And in '64, Ford was still making the Fairlane look like a miniature Galaxie:

 

 

I mean, where the Fairlane differs most from the Galaxie is where it features a T-Bird inspired C-Pillar.....

[StangBang]

[img=http://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Ford-LTD-II-LX.pg_.jpg]

[img=http://images1.americanlisted.com/nlarge/1983_ford_mustang_glx_14384921.jpg]

Just a reminder about those early Fox Mustangs.

 

The Fox Mustang had that four quad light look with bumper turn signals in 1979 well ahead of the 1983 Thunderbird and LTD. It was a favored aerodynamic Jack Telnack design that lead the Thunderbird and LTD to drop the use of upright grilles and bladed front fenders that monopolized the styling of luxury cars through the 1970's.

[StangBang]

 

Don't get me wrong. I love the cars from the 60s, but I think it might be a bit revisionist to suggest that 'family' style at Ford is a recent thing....

 

Which reminds me the 1968 Torino Fastback and the Mustang Fastback had decklids that looked so similar you would swear they were interchangeable

 

Every decade of Fords shared similar styling elements among all the vehicle models. I think the only decade that was so dissimilar was 2000-2009. Ford started out with the 1996 Taurus exploitation of ovals which later had to be squared off. Then the 1999 Mercury Cougar was an exploitation of triangles. The 2002 Thunderbird exploited circles. The 2005 Mustang came out retro while the Five Hundred exploited the look of an old VW Passat. The 2006 Fusion started the whole three bar grille theme which started leading other Ford models to start again using related design themes.

[StangBang]

[img=http://www.all-classic-ads.com/ford/1956-ford-thunderbird-v-8-fairlane-style-advertisement.jpg]

 

You have to squint and tilt your head funny, but read the first sentence of the next-to-last paragraph.

 

That's so funny considering Ford dug into the full sized Ford parts bin for things like the headlamp bezels and taillamp bezels and lenses to create the Thunderbird... And then they call the full sized Fords as having Thunderbird styling hahahahaha!