I agree, the '99-'04 Mustangs were/are far more appealing cars to me. They look so much better, the new Mustang is so retro that it's just plain stupid, the thing looks like a damn brick. I don't understand why people are so excited about, it's like borderline ugly, and yes when I got near one and road in one, the thing just appears huge, (not from inside). Overall, I don't like the new styling on the exterior or the interior for that matter. I thought the dash on the '96-'04's was ugly, boy was I wrong. Besides the leather on the seats, wheel and shifter the whole interior is crappy, hard, ugly plastic. It's completely repulsive looking with some stupid piece of plastic that runs on top of the dash, almost as if it were tacked on as an afterthought. I know I'm getting off topic with this, but when you sat in it, it gave you the impression that you were in family sedan, and the super squishy suspension, (it was a 'vert), didn't help that feeling. I came away from the car thinking how much nicer my '97 Z/28 was and wondering why the hell everyone is so excited about these cars. If the new Camaro is remotely like them, I will not be buying one. It's too bad that so many people love the Mustang, I've never been much impressed by them, (at least from the factory), and this new one sets that bar at an all time low as far as I'm concerned. To me it's just another poor excuse for a Camaro/Firebird

 

I think that has a hell of a lot to do with it. When I was really into that car I wnt to a couple mustang shows and saw some of the great early years it takes from like 69' and 64'. They look worlds better, and they are tiny. I don't think the look translates to well, although it has its angles...

But I remember the episode of Overhaulin where they built a scale model of the Deora, the hot wheels car, and they mentioned several times how you can't simply scale something up and expect it to look good.

 

Darth, I think the wheels make it sit slightly higher (being 18s and all) and the ground effects make it seem bigger as well. It just seemed to dwarf my 3rd gen in comparison. The spoiler might be part of it too, like you said.

 

The reason the Mustang and most newer cars look bigger is the higher roof and waist line. Cars have gotten taller in recent years, a look I really don't care for. Low and wide is how I like my cars.

 

I agree.

 

The car is not too big at all. If anything the last M*stangs could've used to be the size of that new thing. I do agree that it's too high though. I don't find high cars sporty.

 

I'm just waiting for the next complete ground-up makeover and hoping they go back to a modern look. I can't stand this retro crap look they have now... especially in the interior.

 

The only thing that kept me from buying a 2005 Mustang instead of the 2004 Cobra I currently own was HP. Had their been an 05 Cobra with the new chassis and a 2004-like engine, I'd of been all over it. I love the new style. I certainly don't like the extra weight, but everything else is appeals to me.

 

Problem is, the Cobalt SS is simply a big car. Not really big but it is based on the Saturn which is a mid-size by today's standards. I looked at the car and it really is large. Domestic automakers seem to be having a hard time getting away from size.

BTW, the latest rumor I have heard is that the new Camaro will be based on the Solstice platform. BOMBSHELL: [i]and possibly so will the next FIREBIRD.

GM, it is rumored is not happy with the way the Solstice and the GTO have been received in the market. They're going to be killed.

Just rumors mind you folks. Just rumors.

 

Of course the thing that appeals to you most is that it's a Ford, of which you are a die-hard groupie. But on a more sober level, I like the styling of the Mustang. I dislike the chinsey interior. With the 5.4 next year it should be a very, very appealing car.

But it's big. Really big. About four inches higher than the F-body. That's too high for a sporty car in this day and age. And it's damn heavy. And that fat ***, gawd that has to go. I mean, I know they didn't want anymore of the exploding rear ends like the '04 had, but that's just crazy to have three feet sticking out the back. Makes it look downright ugly sometimes.

 

hmmm...thats the pot calling the kettle black

on another note, IIRC bigger and taller was the direction automakers were going because people were getting taller on average. At 6'3" and being dwarfed by several people(still a minority) I can agree. As for the weight, packing the steel on does two things increases rigidity and crash worthiness. The latter a BIG selling point with the fraidy cats. Hell if Ford wanted to triple mustang sells all they would have to do is pronounce they car absolutely the safest vehicle in north america.

and with that

As we have seen (AMG anybody) big and heavy can perform and be considered sporty.

 

I think those are real reaches...

GTO, I suppose I can undertsand if they are thrilled so far, though the 05 is going to sell out and reach it's max build... it still gets beat on by some who think it needs to look exactly liek a 1966 GTO to be a "real" GTO. :blah:

The Solstice, though, has been wildly popular, and it hasn't even come out yet... they has THOUSANDS of pre-orders!!

 

FIREBIRD.--->insert machine gun emoticon here<--- don't waste the development money on two cars. Camaros will be be much better if they dont have to share the funds.

I like Firebirds, I really do (well Formula birds atleast), but they need to stay dead and buried instead of leeching off of the Camaro.

 

Well, if they sold enough to begin with, we wouldn't have to worry about cutting costs on them. Plus the fact that Pontiac is now only going with 4 cars or whatever instead of producing that ugly minivan.

 

I dont see it as a cost cutting, I see it more like scrapping the last little bit of jelly out of the jar and trying to spread it over an entire loaf of bread. Or put another way, you can make one really good camaro or one half-assed camaro and one half-assed firebird.