SilverSS for president.

 

I think this is one of those occasions where everyone has an opinion, and everyone is correct both at the same time.

Camaro and Mustang buyers I think are very different. When I bought my 85 5.0, I didn't consider Camaro at the time. Mustang was quicker at the time, but honestly, I don't think that was the reason I bought it. I think it was more because of the idea of a very simple, very quick, and spirtied piece car, meanwhile Camaro was more of a budget Vette. It was wide, low, buttoned to the road, and serious.

Later, when I wanted a serious low slung land missle, I bought a Z28.

I think that's were the difference is: fun vs serious. Mustang and Camaro have in my view, equally strong histories, equally committed enthusiasts, but have become such different cars, that it's arguable that they even appeal to the same crowd anymore, even though they've cost roughly the same.

Mustang design is all about heritage & history. The canted front, the hockey stick side scoops (except the '71-'73 & 'fox' versions), while Camaro has been the serious car, continuously progressive, continually evolving.

J. Mays is speaking from the Mustang point of view about Camaro. He is 100% Correct, but only in relation to Mustang. Camaro isn't about tradition. Branden's comments are from a Camaro point of view about Mustang, and he's 100% correct. But if each were in charge of developing the other's car, each would alienate the other's base of customers by loosing what each car represents to it's fans.

Consider the possibility that Camaro is in a class all it's own, and most other points become moot.

 

A true and valid point. But even I would say that that was a risky move going to the '79 design. It started out - like most freshenings - on a tear with 369,936 units sold in '79, but was down to 181,552 units by '81, and sunk to 120,873 in '83 and that included the hype of the "all new GT" intro in '82 too. The Mustang had it's worst EVER production years in '92 and '93, falling below 100k units for the first time since production began.

My point there is not that the cars weren't "successful", or that the 5.0 isn't destined for status as a "classic" in 10 more years, but by the numbers, one has to admit that the Fox-body didn't exactly yield the best sales of the car's history. And too, these were the years that saw Mustang almost turned into MAZ-tang and PROBE-tang.

If you force me to, I'll admit that the Fox-bodies did well overall, but not without saying that they almost lost it all trying that path.

 

Very interesting thought. Well put too. Instinctively, I agree.
But I need to maul this over for a bit.

 

IMHO, I think the fox Mustangs represented what Mustang was initially about more than any Mustang since. It had a clean look, and was very quick & lively compared to everything else on the road at the time.

1981 sales sank because we were in a recession, and by the time the terrible sales of the '92 & '93 came along, the fox Mustang was going on 14 years old! Another thing about the 1981 Stangs was the top V8 was a 255ci version that put out 119hp!.

I remember in the 70s, mid-late 60 Mustangs were a dime a dozen, but they still became classics. I think the same will hold true once Fox Mustangs start becomming more rare. It'll just take longer because they don't rust out as fast as they did in the 60s.

 

eh, I don't know about that... Back in high school (I graduated HS in 1990) my buddy had 2 mustangs... A 1979, and a 1982... BOTH CARS had two have 2x4's under the seats to hold them in place because the floor pans rotted out so fast!

I remember noone wanted to sit in the back seat in the winter, because you got a lapfull of SNOW!!!

 

I agree wholeheartedly. With the sole exception of the post-1987 GT (which I like anyway), the Fox-platform Mustangs were very simply styled. The fox Mustang was "retro" in the sense that it was true to the basic concept of the '64.5 original, but the design was truly comtemporary. A 1988 Mustang LX 5.0 hatchback w/T-tops is my idea of what a Mustang should be.

 

I just look at the C2 and how unbelievably radical it must have been when it came out. For the first ten years, the Corvette was the laid-back, uptight boulevard cruiser. Then all of the sudden in '63 along comes this shark-like ground pounder....that still wore the name Corvette. And you know what? It worked! It takes a lot of guts to do what Zora and others, who I would call TRUE legends of automotive design and engineering, did. I saw someone say that J Mays would be a legendary designer. Harley Earl was a legendary designer. J Mays has borrowed heavily from what legendary designers have done. He's done a nice job doing that, but that fact remains.

I'm not arguing against cues that link a new car to its past. Cues. Not the entire shape, roofline, spot-on front and rear ends, etc. Maybe that's a fine line to most but it really isn't to me.

 

Why not? The 1965 Mustang was a classic in 1965. Everybody knew that then...

 

i think that the coupe looks really good and the convertible is not so great, i was also impressed at the cars design in the engine bay where things such as the power steering and heater box were hidden

 

This argument is tiresome and has been beaten to death and back a billion times. Everyone can agree to disagree. It really doesn't matter.

Ford has given the enthusiast something to be excitied about. A more sophisticated suspension, a modern chassis, styling cues from some of the most ultimate mustangs, and more power and performance. In this day and age of 4cyl fwd sport compacts, the mustang is still doing well and the 2005 concept has been a big hit thus far. To me, that's all that matters. Retro or not, if it's good, i'm not going to bag on it.

After all these years of looking at all these concept cars with their hard edged (and ugly) futeristic styling, one with classical good looks is welcoming. You've seen these so called futuristic designs, can you honestly tell me most of them look good? The 2005 is both retro and new. It's a distinctly modern car.

As for the restyling or refreshning of the 2005 mustang 5 or 6 years down the line, it can't be that hard. It's just like any other car. Keep some of the basic styling/shape of the 2005+ while adding new elements. I'm sure a 100 year old company the size of Ford has thought of this and can easily work their way around it.

Retro, unoriginal, whatever...the GT40 and Mustang have been 2 of the biggest hits in the 2002 and 2003 Auto show. Again, that's all that matters. Kudos to Ford for building exciting cars ones again.

Frankly, i don't know what the big deal is. Maybe i'm just too simple of a man.

 

Like I always say, with cars you gotta have a nice even blend of CUES with NEW. The new M*****g is a done over, all cues design with practically no new. That is not gonna appeal to the younger dudes that have been buying the current design. There's nothing like the real thing, and the 05 is not a 67 M*****g. Many don't wanna hear that their new car looks like a 60's M*****g, unless its the real thing!!

I really don't know what some of you are talking about. Both cars have changed alot in looks since their originals and 1st Gen cars, sometimes for the better, while keeping certain cues. The Camaro just became as Guion said, more serious than the M*****g, and IMO, thats a good thing. But its always been that way. You wanna be able to look at a car and see things that make the car what it is. But you also wanna see some things that gives it it's own identity and makes it something special in itself compared to the previous models. I agree that the 4th Gen strayed way too much. Newer M*****gs are easily "M*****g" when you look at them. So IMO, for F**d, there's no reason for this complete "way back" design on the 05 car.

 

the intent of the concept and production car will be to bring the car back in line of what it was and then strayed away from.ford got it right the first time and then moved in another direction,j mays wanted to bring it back and then evolve from there,like a porsche 911 or a jeep wrangler,from here on out,this is the shape of the mustang,if it's right,it's right,a '70 911 is different in detail from a '03 911,but the shape of the body,the shape of the doors,the headlights,how the taillights are laid out,it's basically the same or the same idea.this is what mays intended and i think it's great,a jeep will always look like a jeep,a 911 will never look like anything other than a 911 and from here on out a mustang will always look like a mustang,call it retro or whatever,but i simply call it a mustang.

 

Hey IZ28....it's okay to spell both FORD and MUSTANG.

Oh hell, maybe you're right! I've got this to say:

******** **** *** ***** **** ****** ***** ** ***** *** *** ********* **** **** *** *** ** ******** **** **** **** *******!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There! I said it!

 

yeah that gets annoying.