Seeing the pics of the '68 and the '05 like that should help everyone else see that it is not a carbon copy. As the owner of a '67 I could see the differences quite easily. Good post RiceEating5.0

 

It's a carbon copy.

 

Then you're blind!

 

Ok, I didn't read some of the posts but I will add my 2 cents. To answer the question "where do you go from here", I think that there are only 2 options: you either follow the styling that the nameplate took as it evolved(like doing a retro version of the 70' Mustang, up later to the Fox body, ect) or you have to come up with a new design. The first is not very smart or likely to happen so what you are left with is the second point where the designers are just delaying the enevitable, which is a fresh new design. All Ford did was buy them some time with all of these retro cars until they come up with some fresh stuff or accuire new people that can actually design cars that don't all completely draw from 40 years ago. So by this logic, which I believe is correct, retro is a dead end no matter what. Either you repeat the evolution of the past or you come up with a new design when the new model is ready, either way they are dead ends.

 

I was just going to post that link... saying that I really like retro designs for low volume production vehicles, as their visual value would be spared due to the fact that they arent at every corner. As for other cars, I dont know... Im really tired of the PT cruser, Im tired of looking at the Dodge Rams... I still like the Beetles though...

and as far as the old/new comparison pics... you can clearly see that they modeled the car off that particular generation of mustangs... take an 80's mustang or a 90's... you can look at them and you can easily say this is a classic mustang cue here and here is another, but you cant really say this mustang looks alot like this older one...
now take the 2005 mustang... different story

 

They'll just keep making retro designs after a other previous models until they have to make a modern design. If they're still making M*stangs by then.

 

Exactly, and they admitted as much. the 2005 is a SPITTING IMAGE of the '68. Even the dash design is blatant retro (as the previous gen was an evolutionary heritage theme).

But I'm blind to these things

 

So a 4th gen Camaro is a carbon copy of the 3rd gen Camaro???

 

I don't agree that the '05 is a 'carbon copy'. I do say it is retro though. The beetle isn't a 'carbon copy' but i consider it retro. If any one else out there sees the beetle as retro, then i don't see how you can NOT see the mustang as retro. I see more late '60s mustang in the '05 then i do see '94 - '04 mustang. Just my opinion though. And i'm talking about body design, not motor, not chassis etc...of course those are modern!

 

No, it is a forward moving evolution in design... they followed eachother chronologically so. Its normal for a car to carry on a lot of cues from its last generation. Now theoretically if the 8th gen camaro looks like the 3rd gen, as the 3rd looks to the 4th, then it would be a copy.

 

How does a 4th Gen look anything like a Third beyond their size and the LT1 Camaro's front bumper?? Other than that they look nothing alike and share no lines whatsoever. Same goes for interior, which to me looks more 2nd Gen. LS1's look more like early 2nd Gens with their hoods and front bumpers also. The 4th Gen was the complete opposite of retro, another reason why it too didn't work. If you design a car to look like it's from 40 years ago or 40 years ahead, usually that nonsense ends up not working.

 

No. It shows obvious examples of evolutionary styling (smaller lamps, steeply raked windshield, bullet like front end). It is clearly not going backwards.

Perhaps my use of 'carcon copy' is being taken too literally, or I'm using it to liberally. I don't think it's an EXACT copy, but they did not stray far from the original. I still think if you just smooth out the flanks of a '68 you'll end up with a 2005.

Everything is the same or very, very similar. The roof line, hood profile, fog lamps, flat twin 'pod' dash, rear windows/louvers. It's a heavily and blatantly copied '68.

Being a product designer I'm am very passionate about aesthetics, and no, not a fan of retro.

 

Look at the side, roof, rear, and general profile of the 05 and tell me you don't see Sn95 in it. Thes cues aren't limited to one generation only. Look at this pic and tell me the side profile is more 68 than sn95.
http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/05mustang17.jpg
http://s87571217.onlinehome.us/musta...ide%20View.jpg
http://s87571217.onlinehome.us/musta...***%20Side.jpg

In all honesty, the only exterior part that screams 67 mustang is the front, and it too has a different proportion/shape/look than the 67's as this pictures shows.
http://s87571217.onlinehome.us/musta...0View%20BG.jpg
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forum..._23_wl-med.jpg

Guess we see the pics differently. You guys say blantant carbon copy, i say a mix of the old and the new.

 

Putting the SN95 roof on a '68 still makes it retro to me...and all the more unoriginal.

 

So it isn't a "carbon copy" of the 68 after all since the hood on back has a lot of sn95 cues? .