If you don't like the new Mustang........
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
If you don't like the new Mustang........
For those who don't like the new Mustang concept.....I'm just curious....which cars do you like?
Or better yet, what specifically would you change on the Mustang to make it more to your liking?
Or better yet, what specifically would you change on the Mustang to make it more to your liking?
Last edited by Z284ever; Feb 8, 2003 at 05:40 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
I liked the shape it had before alot....it just needed to be lowered and look less bulbous.
What am I liking now...
Cadillac CTS and XLR
Infinity G35 Coupe
BMW Z4
Chevrolet Corvette
New Viper
Pontiac GTO
New Ford F150
I also like the G6 Concept alot
Nissan Altima
Mazda 6
What am I liking now...
Cadillac CTS and XLR
Infinity G35 Coupe
BMW Z4
Chevrolet Corvette
New Viper
Pontiac GTO
New Ford F150
I also like the G6 Concept alot
Nissan Altima
Mazda 6
Last edited by formula79; Feb 8, 2003 at 07:18 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,313
Branden says it look "good", yet he starts a topic on why he hates it
. He says "I will be the first to admit that the concept is tastefully designed and very nice on the eyes...".
I really don't see what's to hate. It's agressiving looking, looks damn good, has a more sophisticated suspension, more power, better quality interior, modern chassis, and the list of improvements goes on and on. Some of the guys look past all this and nit-pick at the obvious retro cues. Styling elements from a historic MUSTANG such as the 67 shelby doesn't make the 2005 any less unispiring or unoriginal. A mustang shouldn't be flamed for trying to look like a mustang.
It's an excellent design.
. He says "I will be the first to admit that the concept is tastefully designed and very nice on the eyes...". I really don't see what's to hate. It's agressiving looking, looks damn good, has a more sophisticated suspension, more power, better quality interior, modern chassis, and the list of improvements goes on and on. Some of the guys look past all this and nit-pick at the obvious retro cues. Styling elements from a historic MUSTANG such as the 67 shelby doesn't make the 2005 any less unispiring or unoriginal. A mustang shouldn't be flamed for trying to look like a mustang.
It's an excellent design.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
Branden says it look "good", yet he starts a topic on why he hates it. He says "I will be the first to admit that the concept is tastefully designed and very nice on the eyes...".
I really don't see what's to hate. It's agressiving looking, looks damn good, has a more sophisticated suspension, more power, better quality interior, modern chassis, and the list of improvements goes on and on. Some of the guys look past all this and nit-pick at the obvious retro cues. Styling elements from a historic MUSTANG such as the 67 shelby doesn't make the 2005 any less unispiring or unoriginal. A mustang shouldn't be flamed for trying to look like a mustang.
It's an excellent design.
Branden says it look "good", yet he starts a topic on why he hates it
. He says "I will be the first to admit that the concept is tastefully designed and very nice on the eyes...". I really don't see what's to hate. It's agressiving looking, looks damn good, has a more sophisticated suspension, more power, better quality interior, modern chassis, and the list of improvements goes on and on. Some of the guys look past all this and nit-pick at the obvious retro cues. Styling elements from a historic MUSTANG such as the 67 shelby doesn't make the 2005 any less unispiring or unoriginal. A mustang shouldn't be flamed for trying to look like a mustang.
It's an excellent design.
My point is...(also the reason you won't see an all out retro Camaro) that this car still has to sell in mass volume 5-9 years after it debuts...something a high volume retro car has yet to do. If the Beetle (which I am gonna say has a much high following among women and non gear heads) can't do it...the Mustang won't.
In short the design looks nice yes...but it is a bad business move for Ford.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,313
Originally posted by formula79
It's a nice design....but ya know what so it the 60's Mustang it was meant to look like.
My point is...(also the reason you won't see an all out retro Camaro) that this car still has to sell in mass volume 5-9 years after it debuts...something a high volume retro car has yet to do. If the Beetle (which I am gonna say has a much high following among women and non gear heads) can't do it...the Mustang won't.
In short the design looks nice yes...but it is a bad business move for Ford.
It's a nice design....but ya know what so it the 60's Mustang it was meant to look like.
My point is...(also the reason you won't see an all out retro Camaro) that this car still has to sell in mass volume 5-9 years after it debuts...something a high volume retro car has yet to do. If the Beetle (which I am gonna say has a much high following among women and non gear heads) can't do it...the Mustang won't.
In short the design looks nice yes...but it is a bad business move for Ford.
. But you do pose good points. However, these points are true in every new design. Every new design is a risk, retro or not. Especially when dealing with high volume performance cars. The F4 wasn't retro and look at it's sales failure. Allot pointed to the styling even though the majority of us here liked it. My point is that EVERY re-style (retro or not) is a risk itself when dealing with high volume cars. About the beetle, what you forgot is that the beetle is no mustang. It doesn't have the loyalty, history, heritage, etc... of the mustang. It's failures has no bearing on the Mustangs future. If Ford keeps on doing what they have done with the Mustang thus far, i don't doubt a succesfull future for the mustang. If they market it, keep the lower models somewhat affordable, offer limited edition models to keep interest alive, and offer multiple engine and trim options from economy to high performance to fit everyone, then the Mustang will keep on selling.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
I hope you're wrong with your doubts. But you do pose good points. However, these points are true in every new design. Every new design is a risk, retro or not. Especially when dealing with high volume performance cars. The F4 wasn't retro and look at it's sales failure. Allot pointed to the styling even though the majority of us here liked it. My point is that EVERY re-style (retro or not) is a risk itself when dealing with high volume cars.
About the beetle, what you forgot is that the beetle is no mustang. It doesn't have the loyalty, history, heritage, etc... of the mustang. It's failures has no bearing on the Mustangs future. If Ford keeps on doing what they have done with the Mustang thus far, i don't doubt a succesfull future for the mustang. If they market it, keep the lower models somewhat affordable, offer limited edition models to keep interest alive, and offer multiple engine and trim options from economy to high performance to fit everyone, then the Mustang will keep on selling.
I hope you're wrong with your doubts
. But you do pose good points. However, these points are true in every new design. Every new design is a risk, retro or not. Especially when dealing with high volume performance cars. The F4 wasn't retro and look at it's sales failure. Allot pointed to the styling even though the majority of us here liked it. My point is that EVERY re-style (retro or not) is a risk itself when dealing with high volume cars. About the beetle, what you forgot is that the beetle is no mustang. It doesn't have the loyalty, history, heritage, etc... of the mustang. It's failures has no bearing on the Mustangs future. If Ford keeps on doing what they have done with the Mustang thus far, i don't doubt a succesfull future for the mustang. If they market it, keep the lower models somewhat affordable, offer limited edition models to keep interest alive, and offer multiple engine and trim options from economy to high performance to fit everyone, then the Mustang will keep on selling.
Think outside the box man
Prominent Member
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,282
Uuuuuhhh.......
Originally posted by formula79
UMM...news flash the Beetle is the best selling car EVER...I think it may be one of the few cars that has more overall appeal and a didicated follwing than the Mustang...I am talking about generall public....not our enthusiast bubble...
Think outside the box man
UMM...news flash the Beetle is the best selling car EVER...I think it may be one of the few cars that has more overall appeal and a didicated follwing than the Mustang...I am talking about generall public....not our enthusiast bubble...
Think outside the box man
Banned
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,954
Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
Every new design is a risk, retro or not. Especially when dealing with high volume performance cars. The F4 wasn't retro and look at it's sales failure. Allot pointed to the styling even though the majority of us here liked it. My point is that EVERY re-style (retro or not) is a risk itself when dealing with high volume cars.
Every new design is a risk, retro or not. Especially when dealing with high volume performance cars. The F4 wasn't retro and look at it's sales failure. Allot pointed to the styling even though the majority of us here liked it. My point is that EVERY re-style (retro or not) is a risk itself when dealing with high volume cars.
RETRO is a temporary movement, and the new Beetle was a tremendous success in redefining the Volkswagen brand in the United States. It brought tons of nostalgic buyers out of the woodwork, many of whom wouldn't have considered a small car, or a VW, before the Beetle. (The Beetle convertible will have a similar effect. It might not be much of a car, but for $21-26,000 it is a good convertible.)
From what I see of the 2005 Mustang, the car is pure 1967 with the proportions of the SN95. The car needed a lower cowl and an even longer wheelbase, like the '64.5 original. My final judgement is reserved until the powertrain selections are revealed, but 300hp isn't going to cut it for a GT. Unless I hear talk about a productionized 5.0 cammer at the current Mach I pricepoint, I just can't take this car seriously.