Last post on Nov 24, 2012 at 7:28 PM
You are in the Ford Mustang
What is this discussion about?
Ford Mustang, Coupe
Feb 12, 2004 (1:15 pm)
They idolize the Fox cars since they were fast and cheap. Never were into their looks. In fact, they brag about enigne mods and all of them look the same with black paint and Cobra R rims. Hardly "innovative" looking.
We all know how Ford tried to appease the "futurists" by making the 80's FWD (which was supposed to on be all cars by 2000) Probe the "New Generation Mustang". Look where it is now, discontinued. If they made an "innovative, futuristic" design, they would have to change it every 2 years, costing way too much. Since the "style critics" in the media call anything over 2 years old, "dated".
Look at how well (NOT) the current Celica and Eclipse are selling, to see how long trendy styling lasts.
Feb 12, 2004 (1:23 pm)
Original Mustangs were thought of as fast and cheap too. And the chunky, angular looks of the Foxes appeal to plenty of people beyond the punk-racer crowd. I love a well-taken care of Fox.
You have to remember demography as well here. One reason why the 1960s Mustangs are so sought after is because baby boomers, who remember them fondly growing up now have the cash, space, etc. to pick them up.
I agree re the Probe, but there's a fine line between trying to be trendy and trying to move forward with styling.
But the Probe died as did a lot of other sportscoupes when SUVs became the thing to have among young buyers. It wasn't a rejection of styling, but rather a shift to another type of vehicle...
I think the Celica isn't selling well because it's quite expensive for what you get, performance-wise. I like the styling of the regular Celica (which is actually reminiscent of 1960s GT racercars)...but the "aero kit" add-on that everyone buys is pretty ugly IMO.
Feb 12, 2004 (1:27 pm)
Mustangs have to sell to more than the Fox 5.0 notchback drag racer crowd to be profitable. (They buy mostly used cars to fix up anyway)
Forgotten is how the 1990-93 Mustangs sold poorly compared to the SN95's. 1994 sales went over 100K for the first time since 1979 or so.
Feb 12, 2004 (1:44 pm)
Very true...I think the SN95 was a great realization by Ford of the market at the time (SUVs were becoming huge and sports coupes had to have *something* unique about them to keep up in the market), and what it had to do to keep people buying Mustangs.
It was also good timing, in that retro was also becoming big at that time, likely because the main buying segment, the boomers, now had disposable cash to buy the kind of stuff that reminded them of the cars available they were young. Ford wisely played to that (though Gen-Xers like me liked it too!)
Feb 12, 2004 (1:50 pm)
a good design is a good design, regardless of when it was penned. the '65-'66, and the '67-'68 mustang fastback had excellent proportions that still capture the imagination to this day.
i don't suppose any of you are architects, but there is something called the "golden rule" which is seen in landmark buildings and in art masterpieces, whereby nearly all great works of art are shown to have the same mathematical ratio in space and design. the spiralling nautilus shell has this exact same ratio in its natural configuration, hinting that beauty is a divine creation which is manifest all around us.
as far as the 2005 mustang goes, it's a pleasant return to a winning formula, but compared to the original '65-'68 designs, the rear overhang is kinda too long, killing that perfect pleasing-to-the-eye ratio and proportion, probably due to federal safety and pragmatic considerations.all in all, i will probably buy one in 2006. cheers!
Feb 12, 2004 (2:30 pm)
Interesting, the "father" of the Mustang Lee Iaococca HATED the 1968 and up design...he called them "fat pigs" : )
I think all of this discussion points to what makes the Mustang so interesting to so many people...no other American car (aside from the Vette) has as much continuous heritage to pour over and debate. People really get worked up about Mustangs, even their detractors...
(Have you noticed that Mustangs have become *the* mid-level performance benchmark? Most car performance on the street is discussed in terms of a car being faster or slower than a Mustang, esp. with the "import tuner" crowd - Gotta love that kind of noteriety!)
Feb 12, 2004 (2:33 pm)
i can see why iaccocca hated the second gen mustang--in comparison to the original fastback (my preference) it WAS bigger and fatter. still, it was a nice design, just not as sleek and simple as the original. i'm still gonna buy one in 2006
Feb 12, 2004 (2:50 pm)
My favorite has always been the 1969-1970 Larry Sinoda design; more menacing than the original, not as bulky/ungainly as what came next.
1968 design also cool, if only because of McQueen's connection with it. : )
Feb 12, 2004 (3:42 pm)
Back in the 60's annual styling change was required. So, the 67+ was "change for sake of change".
Imagine if the 65 styling lasted as long as the 79. It would have looked the same until 1980!
#400 of 2921 Ahh....Proportions
Feb 12, 2004 (6:04 pm)
Anyone remember the Parthenon? The 65-68 fastback had all the correct proportions. Would Bullit have owned/driven any of the later versions of the Stang? Can you imagine Frank chasing the bad guys (in Bullit 2?) in a green Mustang II?