We now have enough info on what the next Camaro looks like.
03-23-2004, 09:04 AM
#151
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 4,306
Originally posted by PaperTarget
No offense, but this is not true. I've seen sillouette comparisons of the 2005 Mustang and it is closer (nearly identical) to the 99+ Mustangs than ANY other Mustang. No rear fender bulges like the 65-70 Mustangs either. In fact, the line from the top of the front fender to the rear fender is straight, JUST LIKE the 99+ Mustangs. Even the wheel well flares are like the 99+ Mustangs.
The interior is quite different too. The instrument cluster is from the NEW F-150! The steering wheel looks SIMILAR to the 67 steering wheel, but it is DIFFERENT! I own a 1967 Mustang, I know. The interior seat arangements are from the LINCOLN LS. Go ahead, compare them, they're the same. There are more things that are not the same.
Oh, there are similarities no doubt. But none are from any one generation of Mustang. This car is not a "carbon copy" as has been posted here. The problem is many people here can't get past certain styling cues to see how modern this car really is.
No offense, but this is not true. I've seen sillouette comparisons of the 2005 Mustang and it is closer (nearly identical) to the 99+ Mustangs than ANY other Mustang. No rear fender bulges like the 65-70 Mustangs either. In fact, the line from the top of the front fender to the rear fender is straight, JUST LIKE the 99+ Mustangs. Even the wheel well flares are like the 99+ Mustangs.
The interior is quite different too. The instrument cluster is from the NEW F-150! The steering wheel looks SIMILAR to the 67 steering wheel, but it is DIFFERENT! I own a 1967 Mustang, I know. The interior seat arangements are from the LINCOLN LS. Go ahead, compare them, they're the same. There are more things that are not the same.
Oh, there are similarities no doubt. But none are from any one generation of Mustang. This car is not a "carbon copy" as has been posted here. The problem is many people here can't get past certain styling cues to see how modern this car really is.
I too like reto cars, but not if they mean the death of the Camaro again. I would like to see a Kris Horton 5th gen, but it wont sell to the level GM wants it too and the Camaro name will be given its last rights....AGAIN. I love the Camaro too much to see it die 2 times in a decade. This is why I would like to see GM come up with something new and inspiring not old and already done. Its like painting yourself into a corner. There is no where to go after the retro design has died off. Now you are left with a less then expected sales along with the question, "now what?" I would much rather have a new, fresh design that will wow people instead of something that will just be a draw for enthusiasts.
03-23-2004, 09:15 AM
#152
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,029
Originally posted by dream '94 Z28
I really don't know what you're looking at. There's too many similarities in those two cars ('68 and '05). The interior is the '68's with new material, right down to the 1960s era lettering on the gauges. The large front grill is the same profile, the driving lamps are in the exact same place. The headlamp bezels are the same. The rear quarter window is the same prfile as the intake/vent thingy on the '68, the three flush fitting vertical tail lamps are the same. If it's not a 'carbon copy', then it's one heck of a 'spitting image'.
I don't know what '99+ 'Stangs you're looking at, but (at least not in this reality or one known to God) by no stretch is the '05 closer to a '99 than a '68. It's not certain styling cues...it's the whole damn car!
I think the problem is people can't get past the fact Ford took a '68 and just added a few contemporary touches.
I really don't know what you're looking at. There's too many similarities in those two cars ('68 and '05). The interior is the '68's with new material, right down to the 1960s era lettering on the gauges. The large front grill is the same profile, the driving lamps are in the exact same place. The headlamp bezels are the same. The rear quarter window is the same prfile as the intake/vent thingy on the '68, the three flush fitting vertical tail lamps are the same. If it's not a 'carbon copy', then it's one heck of a 'spitting image'.
I don't know what '99+ 'Stangs you're looking at, but (at least not in this reality or one known to God) by no stretch is the '05 closer to a '99 than a '68. It's not certain styling cues...it's the whole damn car!
I think the problem is people can't get past the fact Ford took a '68 and just added a few contemporary touches.
I never said the 2005 was closer to the 99+ Mustangs on a whole, just in those things I described. Please READ what I WROTE again.
03-23-2004, 09:24 AM
#153
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,029
Originally posted by Big Als Z
No, this car is a carbon copy. How do you not see this? The nose, the greenhouse, the side pannels, the graphics, the rear deck... they are all a 69 squeezed through the modern machine and bam you got a spiced up modern 69 Mustang. There is no way you can say otherwize. You cannot honestly tell me that this mustang is not a very close carbon copy of the 69. This is not an evolution of the last one, this is a totaly retro design. Im putting the 04 GT and 05 GT side by side and I am failing to see the resemblance other then they are both "modern." There are only 2 more carbon copy cars that are worse then this one, and thats the Tbird, and the GT40.
I too like reto cars, but not if they mean the death of the Camaro again. I would like to see a Kris Horton 5th gen, but it wont sell to the level GM wants it too and the Camaro name will be given its last rights....AGAIN. I love the Camaro too much to see it die 2 times in a decade. This is why I would like to see GM come up with something new and inspiring not old and already done. Its like painting yourself into a corner. There is no where to go after the retro design has died off. Now you are left with a less then expected sales along with the question, "now what?" I would much rather have a new, fresh design that will wow people instead of something that will just be a draw for enthusiasts.
No, this car is a carbon copy. How do you not see this? The nose, the greenhouse, the side pannels, the graphics, the rear deck... they are all a 69 squeezed through the modern machine and bam you got a spiced up modern 69 Mustang. There is no way you can say otherwize. You cannot honestly tell me that this mustang is not a very close carbon copy of the 69. This is not an evolution of the last one, this is a totaly retro design. Im putting the 04 GT and 05 GT side by side and I am failing to see the resemblance other then they are both "modern." There are only 2 more carbon copy cars that are worse then this one, and thats the Tbird, and the GT40.
I too like reto cars, but not if they mean the death of the Camaro again. I would like to see a Kris Horton 5th gen, but it wont sell to the level GM wants it too and the Camaro name will be given its last rights....AGAIN. I love the Camaro too much to see it die 2 times in a decade. This is why I would like to see GM come up with something new and inspiring not old and already done. Its like painting yourself into a corner. There is no where to go after the retro design has died off. Now you are left with a less then expected sales along with the question, "now what?" I would much rather have a new, fresh design that will wow people instead of something that will just be a draw for enthusiasts.
The Camaro isn't even out yet, geez, give it a chance at least. And since no MASS PRODUCED RETRO, non-niche vehicle as been redisgned yet, you're premature in deciding there's no where to go after a retro design. The Mustang could EASILY look like this
in 4 years.
03-23-2004, 09:52 AM
#154
Prominent Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,282
I think the confusion lies in the fact that the new Mustang uses SO many styling cues from the 65-68 era.
It's one thng to take some of the best cues from all gens and try to incorporate them into a new version...ala the C6...it's clearly retro to take as many cues from one period and use them again....ala the T-Bird and to a large extent the new Mustang.
If Ford would have chosen a modern interior instead of nearly a direct copy of the 60's model (I owned a few myself) it might not have been so blatant.
But come on, the headlights, fog lights, grille, roof profile, sail panel windows, (imitation) gas tank filler cap, interior, etc.... are ALL remakes of the 60's car.....even it's "designer" said it was retro.
Is it a bad thing? Only time and sales will tell.
We need to remember, Ford doesn't allow their designs to languish for ten to twelve years (like the F-bodies) without a major redesign....this current Mustang will only look this way for five years or so anyway, so why worry?
I like the new Mustang better than the last 20+ years worth, so maybe it was time to pay homage to the early models.....
Personally, a car with the Mustang and Camaro's history HAS to be recognizable and continue the lineage.
I'm also starting to think that the current sketches by crispey2k are using too many cues from the 1st gens and especially the nose/grille needs to get away from this gen....I love the 69 inspired fender sweeps though....
A second gen influence (split bumper)...which carried on into the last of he 4th gens, needs to be used. It's sleeker and more recognizable.
I'd like to see MB SL500 series style headlight/fog/turn lights used with a lower than belt line, seperate (from the lights) grille....but that's just me...
But the thread on Cheers & Gears started with evok trying to get someone to draw what he "saw" and not a design contest.
It's one thng to take some of the best cues from all gens and try to incorporate them into a new version...ala the C6...it's clearly retro to take as many cues from one period and use them again....ala the T-Bird and to a large extent the new Mustang.
If Ford would have chosen a modern interior instead of nearly a direct copy of the 60's model (I owned a few myself) it might not have been so blatant.
But come on, the headlights, fog lights, grille, roof profile, sail panel windows, (imitation) gas tank filler cap, interior, etc.... are ALL remakes of the 60's car.....even it's "designer" said it was retro.
Is it a bad thing? Only time and sales will tell.
We need to remember, Ford doesn't allow their designs to languish for ten to twelve years (like the F-bodies) without a major redesign....this current Mustang will only look this way for five years or so anyway, so why worry?
I like the new Mustang better than the last 20+ years worth, so maybe it was time to pay homage to the early models.....
Personally, a car with the Mustang and Camaro's history HAS to be recognizable and continue the lineage.
I'm also starting to think that the current sketches by crispey2k are using too many cues from the 1st gens and especially the nose/grille needs to get away from this gen....I love the 69 inspired fender sweeps though....
A second gen influence (split bumper)...which carried on into the last of he 4th gens, needs to be used. It's sleeker and more recognizable.
I'd like to see MB SL500 series style headlight/fog/turn lights used with a lower than belt line, seperate (from the lights) grille....but that's just me...
But the thread on Cheers & Gears started with evok trying to get someone to draw what he "saw" and not a design contest.
Last edited by Doug Harden; 03-23-2004 at 10:13 AM.
03-23-2004, 10:15 AM
#155
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,646
Originally posted by PaperTarget
You're focusing only on the SIMILARITIES! Did you read anything I wrote? Go download some pics of 65-70 Mustangs and then compare them to the 2005. Notice more than the similarities if you can. Notice the lines, the shapes, etc...there's a lot of the late gen Mustang in there. And the front grill profile is not the same either, they're SIMILAR, not the same. Trust me, I know, I have a 1967 Mustang (basically the same as a 68). I can EASILY see the difference.
I never said the 2005 was closer to the 99+ Mustangs on a whole, just in those things I described. Please READ what I WROTE again.
You're focusing only on the SIMILARITIES! Did you read anything I wrote? Go download some pics of 65-70 Mustangs and then compare them to the 2005. Notice more than the similarities if you can. Notice the lines, the shapes, etc...there's a lot of the late gen Mustang in there. And the front grill profile is not the same either, they're SIMILAR, not the same. Trust me, I know, I have a 1967 Mustang (basically the same as a 68). I can EASILY see the difference.
I never said the 2005 was closer to the 99+ Mustangs on a whole, just in those things I described. Please READ what I WROTE again.
Your saying this is a '68 with the silouhette of a '99? That's still retro. Yes, we are all focusing on the simularities...that's why we think it's retro. There a ton of them (simularities).
03-23-2004, 10:25 AM
#156
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,029
Originally posted by dream '94 Z28
I've read, I've looked. I still don't understand your arguement.
Your saying this is a '68 with the silouhette of a '99? That's still retro. Yes, we are all focusing on the simularities...that's why we think it's retro. There a ton of them (simularities).
I've read, I've looked. I still don't understand your arguement.
Your saying this is a '68 with the silouhette of a '99? That's still retro. Yes, we are all focusing on the simularities...that's why we think it's retro. There a ton of them (simularities).
03-23-2004, 11:19 AM
#157
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Originally posted by Doug Harden
I think the confusion lies in the fact that the new Mustang uses SO many styling cues from the 65-68 era.
It's one thng to take some of the best cues from all gens and try to incorporate them into a new version...ala the C6...it's clearly retro to take as many cues from one period and use them again....ala the T-Bird and to a large extent the new Mustang.
If Ford would have chosen a modern interior instead of nearly a direct copy of the 60's model (I owned a few myself) it might not have been so blatant.
But come on, the headlights, fog lights, grille, roof profile, sail panel windows, (imitation) gas tank filler cap, interior, etc.... are ALL remakes of the 60's car.....even it's "designer" said it was retro.
Is it a bad thing? Only time and sales will tell.
We need to remember, Ford doesn't allow their designs to languish for ten to twelve years (like the F-bodies) without a major redesign....this current Mustang will only look this way for five years or so anyway, so why worry?
I like the new Mustang better than the last 20+ years worth, so maybe it was time to pay homage to the early models.....
Personally, a car with the Mustang and Camaro's history HAS to be recognizable and continue the lineage...
But the thread on Cheers & Gears started with evok trying to get someone to draw what he "saw" and not a design contest.
I think the confusion lies in the fact that the new Mustang uses SO many styling cues from the 65-68 era.
It's one thng to take some of the best cues from all gens and try to incorporate them into a new version...ala the C6...it's clearly retro to take as many cues from one period and use them again....ala the T-Bird and to a large extent the new Mustang.
If Ford would have chosen a modern interior instead of nearly a direct copy of the 60's model (I owned a few myself) it might not have been so blatant.
But come on, the headlights, fog lights, grille, roof profile, sail panel windows, (imitation) gas tank filler cap, interior, etc.... are ALL remakes of the 60's car.....even it's "designer" said it was retro.
Is it a bad thing? Only time and sales will tell.
We need to remember, Ford doesn't allow their designs to languish for ten to twelve years (like the F-bodies) without a major redesign....this current Mustang will only look this way for five years or so anyway, so why worry?
I like the new Mustang better than the last 20+ years worth, so maybe it was time to pay homage to the early models.....
Personally, a car with the Mustang and Camaro's history HAS to be recognizable and continue the lineage...
But the thread on Cheers & Gears started with evok trying to get someone to draw what he "saw" and not a design contest.
Though the new Mustang's design is entirely modern (it simply doesn't look like a 1969 Mustang when parked side by side) there has no doubt been a whole lot of styling cues from the past put on what is IMO a modern body. (BTW: J. Mays resented using the term "retro" regarding the new Mustang, and simply began using the term because he got tired of defending himself on that). To me, Thunderbird, PT Cruiser, HHR, and SSR are all "retro styled" cars in that they look like they came from another age.
I put the new Mustang in the same catagory as the Corvette and the 4th gen Camaro in that cues from the past are done on a modern car. The 4th gen till '98 had a front end that looked like a modernized '79 Monza, taillights that looked like a modernized post-'74 Camaro, and a body that looked like a modernized version of that same car. Corvette looks like a modernized version of the 1969. The new Mustang has the grille & headlights lights from the 60s, rear quarter windows that are modernized versions of Shelbys, and the fake gas cap out back. Everything else on the car is either all new, or has more in common with the current Mustang than anything from the 60s.
Also, as Doug points out, Ford doesn't tend to let their cars languish without restylings (save the current Taurus). It seems it would be very easy to update the Mustang's body (as opposed to the PT, T-Bird & the Beetle or Mini).
The reason I made light of the "Retronoia" of some here is because they are throwing threats of not buying another GM (etc...) without having even seen the car yet!!! This is completely absurd.
If the people who have seen the car say it ISN'T, I think it's pretty dumb for people to label it before they even see a real picture of it.
03-23-2004, 11:20 AM
#158
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,958
Originally posted by AdioSS
3. Look at what has come from the I think it's called GM360? small-midsize truck platform. First, Trailblazer & Envoy, then the extended versions, then the SSR. I think the Colorado is a shrunk down version, but I'm not sure.
3. Look at what has come from the I think it's called GM360? small-midsize truck platform. First, Trailblazer & Envoy, then the extended versions, then the SSR. I think the Colorado is a shrunk down version, but I'm not sure.
03-23-2004, 11:57 AM
#159
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,029
Originally posted by guionM
I think you hit alot of things on the head with this post.
Though the new Mustang's design is entirely modern (it simply doesn't look like a 1969 Mustang when parked side by side) there has no doubt been a whole lot of styling cues from the past put on what is IMO a modern body. (BTW: J. Mays resented using the term "retro" regarding the new Mustang, and simply began using the term because he got tired of defending himself on that). To me, Thunderbird, PT Cruiser, HHR, and SSR are all "retro styled" cars in that they look like they came from another age.
I put the new Mustang in the same catagory as the Corvette and the 4th gen Camaro in that cues from the past are done on a modern car. The 4th gen till '98 had a front end that looked like a modernized '79 Monza, taillights that looked like a modernized post-'74 Camaro, and a body that looked like a modernized version of that same car. Corvette looks like a modernized version of the 1969. The new Mustang has the grille & headlights lights from the 60s, rear quarter windows that are modernized versions of Shelbys, and the fake gas cap out back. Everything else on the car is either all new, or has more in common with the current Mustang than anything from the 60s.
Also, as Doug points out, Ford doesn't tend to let their cars languish without restylings (save the current Taurus). It seems it would be very easy to update the Mustang's body (as opposed to the PT, T-Bird & the Beetle or Mini).
The reason I made light of the "Retronoia" of some here is because they are throwing threats of not buying another GM (etc...) without having even seen the car yet!!! This is completely absurd.
If the people who have seen the car say it ISN'T, I think it's pretty dumb for people to label it before they even see a real picture of it.
I think you hit alot of things on the head with this post.
Though the new Mustang's design is entirely modern (it simply doesn't look like a 1969 Mustang when parked side by side) there has no doubt been a whole lot of styling cues from the past put on what is IMO a modern body. (BTW: J. Mays resented using the term "retro" regarding the new Mustang, and simply began using the term because he got tired of defending himself on that). To me, Thunderbird, PT Cruiser, HHR, and SSR are all "retro styled" cars in that they look like they came from another age.
I put the new Mustang in the same catagory as the Corvette and the 4th gen Camaro in that cues from the past are done on a modern car. The 4th gen till '98 had a front end that looked like a modernized '79 Monza, taillights that looked like a modernized post-'74 Camaro, and a body that looked like a modernized version of that same car. Corvette looks like a modernized version of the 1969. The new Mustang has the grille & headlights lights from the 60s, rear quarter windows that are modernized versions of Shelbys, and the fake gas cap out back. Everything else on the car is either all new, or has more in common with the current Mustang than anything from the 60s.
Also, as Doug points out, Ford doesn't tend to let their cars languish without restylings (save the current Taurus). It seems it would be very easy to update the Mustang's body (as opposed to the PT, T-Bird & the Beetle or Mini).
The reason I made light of the "Retronoia" of some here is because they are throwing threats of not buying another GM (etc...) without having even seen the car yet!!! This is completely absurd.
If the people who have seen the car say it ISN'T, I think it's pretty dumb for people to label it before they even see a real picture of it.
I've been saying this from the get go but you give Doug credit for it? 
LOL, not that I care But you're saying what I've been saying since day one, just more eloquently. This is a modern car. It has many styling cues from the past. I think the Camaro, if it comes out as a Camaro, will be very similar in theme though with fewer cues from the past than the Mustang. Surely my message is getting through to someone 
03-23-2004, 12:59 PM
#161
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,313
Originally posted by number77
and what happened to GM swearing off retro styling?
and what happened to GM swearing off retro styling?
. Anyways, those who criticize the 05 mustang for being a "carbon copy" of the original really need to see it in person. Your opinions may not sway a 180, but you'll see how modern it looks despite some of the 60's cues. This car is far from being a "carbon copy".
Heck, the most retro part of the car is the front end, and even that has a distinctly different shape, proportion, and appearance than the 67 which it is supposed to emulate. *See pics*
Front of 67 mustang GT: http://www.acsracing.com/images/67_GT_mustang_front.jpg
2 Front shots of 2005 Mustang GT:
Pic 1
Pic 2
Having "cues" and being a "carbon copy" are two very different things, and some here fail to note this simple fact.
Last edited by RiceEating5.0; 03-23-2004 at 01:09 PM.
03-23-2004, 01:13 PM
#163
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,029
Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
Anyways, those who criticize the mustang for being too retro really need to see it in person. Your opinions may not sway a 180, but you'll see how modern it looks despite some of the 60's cues.
Anyways, those who criticize the mustang for being too retro really need to see it in person. Your opinions may not sway a 180, but you'll see how modern it looks despite some of the 60's cues.
Personally I'd love to have something like this
I've always wanted a convertible and this car looks like it might be my first. We'll see, there are so many nice cars coming out this year and next.
03-23-2004, 01:21 PM
#164
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,313
Originally posted by PaperTarget
Personally I'd love to have something like this I've always wanted a convertible and this car looks like it might be my first. We'll see, there are so many nice cars coming out this year and next.
Personally I'd love to have something like this
I've always wanted a convertible and this car looks like it might be my first. We'll see, there are so many nice cars coming out this year and next.
. Personally, the weight issue has me shying from drop tops.