This is a commentary i put on my site....just figured I would post here...

So here we are at my first commentary (dubbed"The Bottom Line"), to start things of in a grand manner I thought I would stir the pot a little and discuss why I hate the new Mustang Concept. I will be the first to admit that the concept is tastefully designed and very nice on the eye, however the problems lay deeper. Lately the retro trend that was at steamroll force just a few years ago has been coming to a halt. We have seen it with New Beetle sales, despite the addition of newer, hotter models each year (turbo/convertible). The PT cruiser has held it’s own, and the platform sharing with the Neon will make it a viable product business wise for a while. The Thunderbird is literally falling on it’s face and may need incentives to sell soon. This to a point is Ford’s fault because the car is heavy, doesn’t handle good, has little utility and the styling is very tiresome. In saying tiresome I mean that it is meant to look like a design nearly 50 years old, and the new car was shown almost two years before the first one was sold making the car passé almost before it hit dealerships. Selling $10-15K above the $35,000 MSRP in the early days also is hurting the car today as many people now assume the car sells for $50K and don’t even consider one. Either way Retro is on the way out, and those riding on it’s coat tails better have a second resort QUICK!

A retro car is cool here and there, it reminds people why they love a brand in the first place and sparks fresh excitement in a competitive market. Heritage is something earned, and few carmakers have as strong a heritage as Ford, I will be the first to admit that, however they seem to have caught a case of retro herpes. I mean we all dropped out jaws in awe when we saw the T-bird concept, it was so radical and so in the image of the original. It was almost unbelievable that Ford would produce a car that harked so much of it’s legendary 40+ year old precursor that it was impossible not to like the car. The closer you looked however you could tell the car wasn’t based entirely on the first generation T-bird and actually stole many cues from other cars in the T-birds golden age, especially the bullet birds. This however matters little to the uneducated buying public who assumed the cars design was meant to be almost a modernistic copy of an original. In other words they simply saw a T-bird that looks almost exactly like the old one. Sadly Ford strapped this car down with too much weight, an engine that adequately moves the car yet has no fun factor at all, and a cheap interior for the price. Soon it became obvious that this car was nothing more than a two-door Lincoln LS convertible with a softer suspension and chassis flex problems. Hopefully the T-bird’s upcoming revision and supercharged version will return some excitement to the nameplate. After that who knows what we will see..Maybe a retro MN-12 looking version? How about a retro Thunderbird Turbo Coupe?

Ford followed the Thunderturd up with it’s Forty-Nine concept, which was about as exciting as a bowl of Grape nuts to me. Lets think here…a car based on a 49 Ford? What is so special about a 49 Ford, I am young here, but I don’t hear collectors talking about these things all the time (least not in my circle), so why make a car based on one? Hell I didn’t even have the faintest idea what a 1949 Ford looked like untill I saw this car and I sure hope the original looks better. Honestly when I saw it I figured it was some ugly tuner Thunderbird or something. Combine that with the fact this car would sit squarely in the same market the T-bird and producing this car would have been moronic. Supposedly Ford was close to actually making it, however they started hemorrhaging billion of dollars and couldn’t afford to.

Next out of Ford’s barely Living Legends Studio was the Ford GT40 concept. This car has zero originality to it, but gives Ford the supercar it needs to compete with the Viper. I honestly think that this car will serve its purpose fine as it’s lines look more new than retro, and I it isn’t intended to sell in volume. Still though a clean sheet design and new name would have been better as each retro reincarnation risks tarnishing a brand’s heritage.

So that brings us to this year and you guessed it the 2005 Mustang Concept. I really don’t know what to say but…”Geee looks like an old Mustang”. I have a saying… “Retro is like pornography, it’s hard to define, but you know it when you see it.”..and I hate to break it to you Mustang boys, but the new Mustang is a steamy XXX flick. It is sad in a way since there are so few original designs out there anymore, it seems almost every car has to have heritage cues now. I mean the new car looks good, but so did the old one it is copy of. I know it isn’t a direct copy of one particular model, but to your average consumer “it looks like an old Mustang”. I don’t see why Ford couldn’t just make the car a new design or evolutionary, I mean is it that hard? If people want a 68 Mustang…let them go buy it…don’t try and make a new version of the old one. All it does is cheapen the mystic that the original had. Also in evolutionary, I mean make a modern car with just enough ties to the past to make people know it’s a Mustang when they see it. The new car screams “Looky looky, I look like a 67’ Mustang, I am cool and look just like a classic”. My question is just how cool will this car be in say 2008 if it has a product cycle as long as the current car?

From a performance standpoint I am sure it will be a competent performer as most Mustangs are. I personally feel that the front end will hinder the car in terms of drag coefficient, gas mileage, and top-end performance. The interior is too retro and overdone, though the mechanical gauges (will these make production?) are a nice touch. I really like the aluminum they use also, however I doubt how much of this we will see in a car that in some models is targeted to sell for less than $20,000. I see Ford running into the same problem with the new Mustang that they did with the 2004 F-150. They improved the F-150 vastly over it’s precursor, however it costs $1,000 more per unit to make. I can see this same scenario happening with the Mustang as Ford moves over the quarter century old Fox platform.

Either way I will give it to Ford for keeping their pony car alive and making a car most enthusiasts would love to have in their drive way…..just not this one…

 

Interesting points all. But as always, design is matter of opinion, and we all could fill the site with views on good vs bad design, or which design is retro or which isn't.

It's good you pointed out Thunderbird's shortcommings, and I agree with every point you made there. The Thunderbird idea was half cocked. Especially when one realizes that the Bird copied was a competitor to the Corvette in it's day. How much different would Thunderbird's sales & image be if it for the same price could at least equal a modern Corvette in performance & handling.

As for Mustang, I know it's only an opinion, but I don't view it any more retro than the current Mustang. The car looks futuristic despite having a fastback, hoodscoops, round headlights, a frontend that doesn't look like a bullet, and a grill above the bumper.

My own rule of thumb on retro is could the vehicle (minus modern changes for safety regulations) blend in with the timeframe it's seemingly based on. With the Thunderbird, most definately. Ditto the PT and the Mini. The Beetle is more blury. But take the Mustang back to the late 60s, and discount for bumpers & safety changes, and the Mustang still looks like it came from a far away future. Still identifiable, but it certainly wouldn't blend in. It would be like taking a pre '98 4th gen Z28 back to 1977. It would be identifiable as either a Monza or Camaro, but it would still look like it came from the future.

GT40 is another example. Could you take a GT40 back to the 60s (minus today's required changes) and blend it in? Most definately yes. Most definately, retro.

Some people doubt there is anywhere to go once a car goes "retro" or takes cues from the past, but that's way too shortsighted. Car's from the past evolved one way, who's to say these cars won't evolve.

Ford is reaching back to it's heritage for cars that represented defining moments in their history. That's why the 49er came in, and was headed for production till Ford's mealtdown last year. That's why you can expect to see the 427 as the Crown Vic replacement in 3-4 years.

But it seems that while Ford is reaching backwards for inspiration, it's also intent on creating modern classics. The F150 interior is so good & such a neo-classic in and of itself, you have to ask yourself "why is this in a pickup truck & not a Lincoln". The F500 (the Ford 500's production name) is going to have a interior that's just as highly styled. Also evidently, the new Mustang's interior is supposed to be so amazing, that the pictures posted of it some time ago will look like a crude sketch.

Compare Ford's efforts with Chevrolet's brand identification (ie: that chrome bar on everything, whether it looks good or not). All Chevrolet (and GM's divisional cars) will have the same themes. If the interior of the Malibu hint's at the direction of the upcomming Chevrolet cars, there's a problem. Meanwhile, over at Pontiac, although everyone disagrees about the GTO's exterior, everyone's in awe over it's interior. Does GM plan to save the really good interiors for the expensive cars?

Not everyone is going to agree about the direction J. Mays is taking with Ford's so called "retro" designs. But the thing is, Ford will have a showroom full of classicly designed head turning cars that are as meticilously designed inside as well as out, that in all likelihood will become classics in and of themselves.

Beyond speed (and a couple of upcomming niche vehicles), what will Chevrolet have across the line to counter this?

 

Ideally, Chevy will create new "classic" designs and offer them in their showrooms. Like I said a while back, what would've happened if all those now-classic designs from the 60's just liberally borrowed from cars of the 30's and 40's instead of going in new directions? C2 anyone?

Classic car designs are created, NOT re-hashed.

 

*DING! DING! DING! DING!*

Winner!

 

I personally think the whole issue of the new Mustang's styling is a moot point, because Ford could build a radio flyer wagon and put a spoiler on the back and slap the name M U S T A N G on it and sell 150,000 units a year.

Obviously an exaggeration but you get my point. Mustang has developed its own mystique..or subculture if you will. It a part of Americana in way that Camaro and Firebird never were able to be (much to my dissappointment). Its part of what you get for being first, I guess.

And yet its different than Corvette. Corvette is even more a part of Americana than Mustang, but its also relatively unatainable for most people. Corvette MUST be right because when you only sell 30,000 units/year if you get it wrong the car dies. Mustang is affordable enough that the name can sell the product much more easily than for Corvette.

I like the Mustang concept, it is aggressive and recalls the only Mustangs I ever really cared for, but I agree that we're likely to be much less impressed with the production version and it will be very interesting to see how it is updated over the model's lifespan.

 

I respectfully disagree. The Camaro is a very well know name...matter of fact the 3rd most in GM's product portfolio. The problem is the company didn't support the cars the way Ford does..

Ford should have redefined the Mustang.....not recycle styling cues.

 

Yes but the general public does not wax romantically about Camaros like they do Mustangs.

 

http://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/...eID=443&page=2

From the article:

Some may call the Concept's look retro, but to Mays, it's more of a mission to reestablish the lineage between the early Mustangs and the next-generation car. He believes the Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird disappeared because those cars lost their connection with the originals.

"Some of the most beautiful Firebirds and Camaros came from the late '60s. I think if they had evolved those cars, they would still be around," Mays explained. "We've made some mistakes with Mustang — the Mustang II is the most notable example. If you dissect the cues that people associate with the Mustang, most people gravitate to the '64 1/2 to the '70 models. Those are the vehicles lodged in people's minds as the iconic Mustangs. We wanted to take those cues and what we fill in between them becomes the modern part."

 

No, I emphatically disagree. Myself and about 1.5 million current Mustang owners/collectors don't want to see the car "redefined". Not at all.
We want the Mustang to stay a "Mustang" - the car with the running horse, 3-bar taillamps, certain body size and proportions, sidescoops, horse in the grill, etc. That is what makes a Mustang a Mustang.

To the above statement, and to Z28Wilson's statement,"Classic car designs are created, NOT re-hashed.", I respectfully say that you guys have missed one very important point. A classic model can only be a classic one time, then it is defined. By that, I mean that you can't (or shouldn't try) to take a classic like Mustang that has defined itself in these specific styling cues, performance, etc, and change it radically trying to re-invent itself into another classic. That just won't work.

If you want to peel off from the established car and head into new directions seeking a new "classic" design... do it with another car. Like Cougar did from the Mustang back in '67. Like Capri did with Mustang in '79. Like Firebird did with Camaro. Like Sunbird did with Monza.

Z28Wilson, I agree... Classic car designs are "created". But IMO, they are only created ONCE PER MODEL NAME. The original shot either catches on and goes, or it dies. It's like my previous example of people's names. To those who know me, I am recognized by my name, my physical appearance/traits, and my personality - that is my "total package". If you go changing these characteristics that make me who I am, people will begin not to recognize me, regardless of whether I improve or degrade with the changes. If you change "the package" that sets something apart, I say change the name too and start all over.

 

That's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've heard Mays say so far.

If this was Camaro and Firebirds problem... how did they last from 1970 all the way to 2002?!?!? Gimme a break!

Likewise, if this is what made the Mustang such a success, how did it survive from 1971 (or even 74) through 1993, and you could even go as far as 2004...

Makes no sense at all... just a bunch of drivel.

 

Off the top of my head, I can think of these two that go against that line of thought:


1963 Corvette
1970 1/2 Camaro

I would say that the 1953-62 Corvette would be considered a 'classic' without a doubt, as is the 1963+, and to be honest, the 63 is probably held in an even higher regard!

The 1967-9 Camaro is without a doubt a 'classic', yet the 1970 1/2 Camaro is as well.

I'd say both of these cars were signifacantly to majorly different than the cars that preceeded them...

 

One thing about retro is that you don't really have anywhere to go in the future. The old designs evolved into something new so the copy of that design can either follow those same evolutions or make a new design altogether. If that is the case, why even do a retro car when you will have to have a new design in the near future. It is just a quick fix and not a solution. Now that Ford bought themselves some time with the 3 million retro cars and concepts, they need to get cracking on some fresh and exciting stuff before these retro designs go really stale.

 

But the '67-'69 Camaro was ONLY 1-2 years old when the '70 came out!!! I'd hardly say the '67 was "a classic" at the age of two?!?!

Likewise, the '53 Vette was only 10 years old when the '63 came out, 10-years-old does not a classic make, IMO. At that point, who knew WHAT these cars were gonna do.

I'm talking 35-40 year-old cars now. The Mustang has been beating the ground 39 years this April. The Camaro 35 last fall. The Vette 50 years. THAT is what helps define them as "classic", IMO.

Sure, tinker all you want with a "new" model car that's just a few years old. But tinkering with a model that has lasted 30+ years is flirting with disaster if you ask me. Stick with what works.

 

Well, I thought you were looking at the cars in the time they were built...

But, If I take this view you now present, I can offer up cars like the 79 Mustang... not sure if the Mustang nameplate was old enough at this point or now to consider the 64 1/2 a 'classic' yet, but it still is a part of the 39 year lineage of the nameplate... that style lasted from 79 to 93... a HUGE portion of Mustang's existance...

 

The new S197 Mustang isn't retro for me. My retro is the 80's Foxbodies. I never grew up in the 60's so I don't have any connection to this new retro style. If anything it alienates me because its seems like its styled by older people for older people.

Part of this is J Mays fault he's from VW and did the new Beetle. All he knows how to to is retro. He has no concept of how to look ahead he's a re-hasher not an stylist. Stylists look forward and blend the old with the new. They only make the blending to recapture some of the past model's glory while keeping the style moving forward. Corvette is a great example.

What to know what retro is: Retro is looking back at previous models for design direction.

True stylists look back at previous models for design inspireation, not direction. There is a difference.

I hope the new Mustang does well because I think only its success will truly send the message that the sport coupe business is anything but dead and GM needs to get back into it. Yet I fear if the actual Mustang comes out too retro it may not have the sales it needs to make the case.