2015 Ford Mustang - General Discussion

[niky]

What badging would the turbo six wear? Mustang GT?

Ideally, though the natives would be up im arms. Any hot turbo six will probably wear SVO badges.

A turbo six would be easily able to handle 400-500 hp, but the target market would certainly prefer having a V8 GT for reasons beyond actual power output.

 

[sumbrownkid]

The natives will go up and arms about it, but the many kids I came across on campus don't know Mustang history as much as we do. All they care about is that they have a Mustang.

But maybe Ford will play it safe and just shove a SVO badge on it and tell customers it's something entirely new. Want the power of a GT but not its fuel consumption? Why not give a look at the all new 2015 Mustang SVO?

 

[Joey D]

SVO would make sense if Ford stuck with an old naming standards. I wouldn't be surprised if they used ST for it.

 

[Slash]

I wonder if they'll go the 365hp route like the Taurus Sho with this new Mustang's 6 banger.

 

[niky]

ST for the turbo-six, RS for the high horse variant. The natives would not only be up in arms, they'd be storming the keep at that.

ford would have to play it the way that Hyundai did with the Genesis, which has a new 348 hp V6 that's just strong enough to completely whomp the new 275 hp four. Artificially cap the turbo variant and raise the power of the naturally aspirated V8 big time. A five hundred horse naturally aspirated 5.0? Yes, please. And with DI, it may be possible without more than 8000 rpm.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I can't see Ford dropping a turbo four into the Mustang with anything less than the Focus ST's 250hp. I feel like it wouldn't be good for appearances.

The idea of the new car hitting 3200lbs with such an engine though... now that sounds nice.

 

[DeathSmiles]

I like C&D's interpretation alot. Minor things I would do/like to see aside, the shape is what I imagined it should be. Sleeker, longer/wider.

Yes, you can say more Aston/Jag like. IMO some of the most beautiful modern sports cars come from them (Ian), so I have no issue with that, nor do I view it as a negative. As others have said, the retro look should not continue. Let the car evolve. Stagnant design equals stagnant sales.

I was about to buy the 2013 model, but after thinking about it, I'm going to wait and see the latest model ends up looking like first, before I make a purchase.

I currently drive a 2011 [BMW] 335i (+ M Sport Pkg) for an idea of what I like.

http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2012/11/u-spy-reader-spots-whole-bunch-of-ford.html

Another test mule, spotted. ^

And another take on it from them;

http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2012/10/2015-Ford-Mustang.html

Although this one lacks any real shape changes, which I would hope not end up being the case.

 

[OHM_fusion]

^Worst render so far. It looks like something slammed it and pushed the back of the car in. Somehow reminds me of a Camaro overall. Beltline needs to be lower. I thought the point was to make it smaller and lighter, but the one above is a fat box. But yeah, it's just another render anyway.

Yes, you can say more Aston/Jag like. IMO some of the most beautiful modern sports cars come from them (Ian), so I have no issue with that, nor do I view it as a negative.

I view it as a negative. They could build a Ferrari and slap a Ford badge on it, but it wouldn't look like a Ford then, even if it would be considered beautiful (by some people). Every brand should have it's own visual identity, Jaguars and Astons might be good looking, but if all cars looked like that it would be insanely boring.

 

[Exorcet]

Seeing that made me think "Dodge Charamarostang".

I view it as a negative. They could build a Ferrari and slap a Ford badge on it, but it wouldn't look like a Ford then, even if it would be considered beautiful (by some people). Every brand should have it's own visual identity, Jaguars and Astons might be good looking, but if all cars looked like that it would be insanely boring.

I sort of agree with this, though I also think styling should take a backseat to function in general. That would imply some big changes for the Mustang as it was. However, at the same time, I don't really see the CD Mustang rendering as being too discontinuous from the rest of the lineage. There are things that could be changed, especially on the back end, but the front of the car looks like a modern interpretation of the Mustang to me, a proper one and not a lazy retro [opinion of course] attempt. Overall, I like, and I don't think I'd confuse it for much else when looking at it from the front.

 

[buickgnx88]

I like C&D's interpretation alot. Minor things I would do/like to see aside, the shape is what I imagined it should be. Sleeker, longer/wider.

Yes, you can say more Aston/Jag like. IMO some of the most beautiful modern sports cars come from them (Ian), so I have no issue with that, nor do I view it as a negative. As others have said, the retro look should not continue. Let the car evolve. Stagnant design equals stagnant sales.


And another take on it from them;

Funny you should say that, the above rendering looks a lot like a modern version of the 90's Aston V8 Vantage.

 

[Slash]

I actually kind of like it, especially since the rear lights are modeled after 1969. In fact, they are nearly identical. The roofline should be raised and extended to the rear but it's not too bad. I like it the most of the renders I think.

vs

 

[G.T.Ace]

'69 Mustang = best car ever!

 

[Slash]

Agreed. The only thing I would change is the '69 tailights. I'd rather have the 1970 tailights on the '69.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I don't like that render, it alternates between being boring and awkwardly proportioned. Honestly, I'm tired of seeing renders of ugly retro mustangs with modern cues, can't they just do something attractive and modern?

Yes, I know that the answer is no, I just wanted to rant.

 

[DeathSmiles]

I view it as a negative. They could build a Ferrari and slap a Ford badge on it, but it wouldn't look like a Ford then, even if it would be considered beautiful (by some people). Every brand should have it's own visual identity, Jaguars and Astons might be good looking, but if all cars looked like that it would be insanely boring.

The problem I see is that people state if it doesn't "look like a Mustang", it's not a Mustang. The car can still look like a Mustang, while not carrying the retro styling, and aging shapes of the past.

What makes a Mustang, a Mustang? Frankly Ford's design language has never been consistent, so that would depend on who you were talking to. Because there's a huge difference in shapes, and design elements between a 60's model, and an 80's model. Hell, the car changed drastically just from 70 to 71!

Funny you should say that, the above rendering looks a lot like a modern version of the 90's Aston V8 Vantage.

Sidenote, but the 90's Vantage is one of my all time favorite cars, Particularly the Le Mans V8 Vantage. Drooling as we type, right now.

I don't like that render, it alternates between being boring and awkwardly proportioned. Honestly, I'm tired of seeing renders of ugly retro mustangs with modern cues, can't they just do something attractive and modern?

Yes, I know that the answer is no, I just wanted to rant.

I agree. Modern and forward thinking in the design, doesn't mean it has to stop looking like a a Mustang. The idea should be, what should of today look like? And that's what Ford is doing. People live in a world of self crippling polar opposites. "If it isn't retro, it wont look like a Mustang". That's poppycock.

 

[Nessy]

What makes a Mustang, a Mustang?

For me, it's 5 elements: 1) the feel of the headlight design, 2) the feel of the grill, 3) the hips, 4) the fastback roofline (though can live with normal coupe style), 5) the rear light feel.

Modern and forward thinking in the design, doesn't mean it has to stop looking like a a Mustang. The idea should be, what should of today look like?

I agree, but at the same time, i love retro design if done correctly. I think the old Foxbody Mustang serves as a good example of what you're explaining...
For it's time, it was a departure from what some expected of the Mustang, i imagine Ford would have thought it was a modern fresh take on what they thought a Mustang of today would look like (paying very little dues to classic Mustang cues)...
Don't get me wrong, i wouldn't actually mind them doing a retro influenced Foxbody design, and i do like the modern looking 'C&D' renders (even if they do remind me of other cars), but i think if we were to look back at Mustang history, the Foxbody (fresh and forward thinking compared to it's predecessor), would actually be the least remembered or desired of the bunch, and today, i fear too much of a departure from classic Mustang looks, at the expense of trying to look thoroughly modern and cutting edge, may/or could possibly have a similar affect.

 

[Slash]

For me, it's 5 elements: 1) the feel of the headlight design, 2) the feel of the grill, 3) the hips, 4) the fastback roofline (though can live with normal coupe style), 5) the rear light feel.

I feel the same.

 

[Tornado]

The problem I see is that people state if it doesn't "look like a Mustang", it's not a Mustang. The car can still look like a Mustang, while not carrying the retro styling, and aging shapes of the past.

A car can have a modern design without relying on any overt retro design cues and still be recognizable as what it is supposed to be. The Car and Driver design wasn't, and the reason people said it "doesn't look like a Mustang" was because it looks exactly like an Aston Martin and they rip themselves off enough. The older Evos design didn't look like a Mustang because it looked like a Ford Fusion coupe.


If Ford wants to introduce a modern Mustang and not messily implement old design cues into a modern shape they don't fit into (like that black thing up the page), they need to make it look like a design people are comfortable with.

 

[analog]

I actually did appreciate the retro-approach Ford took a few years ago whilst I'm normally not very fond of retro styling at all (thought it was well executed and still modern looking), it seemed somehow appropriate to reintroduce the muscle car at that time after the whole concept went wayward for a few decades, I loved the look of the new Mustang (the second one even looks much better) and the Camaro but not so much the Challenger (which seems a bit too literally retro).

But now with the genre firmly back on the map, perhaps it's indeed time to step away from reinterpreting sixties predecessors in a modern way and take it to the next stage, that indeed doesn't mean it shouldn't or couldn't look like a proper Mustang.

Another thing is that even the original Mustang wasn't exactly cutting edge regarding styling at the time (nor its engineering for that matter), it simply was the right thing for the right time in the way it looked and the way it was priced.
I wonder if they can do that trick again without heavily relying on the nostalgia of the older customers who were young in the sixties but without losing them as well.

 

[Slash]

We shall see. But a nearly 300hp V8 back then was unspeakable, let alone 400+ 5 years later.

 

[homeforsummer]

What makes a Mustang, a Mustang?

For me, it's 5 elements: 1) the feel of the headlight design, 2) the feel of the grill, 3) the hips, 4) the fastback roofline (though can live with normal coupe style), 5) the rear light feel.

I'll give you an alternative, and it ain't all about styling:

1) Affordable performance
2) Eye-catching
3) More wieldy than full-fat muscle cars
4) Ideally, a V8 engine (can be replaced in the modern world with a high-performance alternative)
5) Degree of personalisation

Those are all the factors that made the very first Mustang the car it is. They're also the reason the current version works. The modern ones may now have a "Mustang look", but take that look away and the car still has all the attributes that made the original such a success.

 

[niky]

Personally, the current Fusion is the way the Mustang should look. My issue with most of the renders is that they don't identify the proper styling cues needed to separate the Mustang from the Fusion.

Give it a Fusion front-end, recess the grille and give it a stronger brow, instead of punching the grille out to megamouth it, and it's a modern Mustang.

And lose the damn porthole. I hate it. It's amazing how a sleek sports car like the Genesis can feel so much less claustrophobic than a big burly Mustang or Camaro merely through proper greenhouse design.

Heck, have combined windows and a frameless door window, and I'll be happy.

 

[Nessy]

I'll give you an alternative, and it ain't all about styling:

1) Affordable performance
2) Eye-catching
3) More wieldy than full-fat muscle cars
4) Ideally, a V8 engine (can be replaced in the modern world with a high-performance alternative)
5) Degree of personalisation

Those are all the factors that made the very first Mustang the car it is. They're also the reason the current version works. The modern ones may now have a "Mustang look", but take that look away and the car still has all the attributes that made the original such a success.

I don't disagree with any of those 5 points, i just thought we were talking specifically about the Mustang styling, had i expanded my points to cover other aspects aswell, i would have most likely included some of the above points. I will point out though, that point 1) is pretty much a generic requirement of most muscle cars, or so iv'e always believed (could be wrong).

 

[Zenith]

I wouldn't argue that a Mustang needs specific elements in its styling to stay true to form. Trying to associate things like specific headlights, taillights, or other features keeps the car from evolving. Instead of having certain features, the Mustang should give off a certain vibe. IMO, a Mustang should have an aggressive presence without being too muscular that it is brutish.

I'm not looking for the sunken headlights or haunches of the classic models, just an overall feel from the car. The term "Mustang" is used to refer to an object/being that has a layer of refinement applied over a core of wildness. The car should be that.

I think that HFS' analysis of the overall attitude of the car is accurate.

 

[analog]

You know, I think it's a mistake to think incorporating recognizable Mustang elements is by definition retro or stands in the way of progress.
For example BMW has retained basically the same formula for most of their cars since the sixties ('kidney'-grille, Hofmeister-kink), even during the revolutionary Bangle-years and you wouldn't call those retro.
Ford did move away from that for a few decades and only achieved huge successes again with the Mustang when people could connect it again with the original.
You can create a truly original car whilst still retaining some key Mustang elements.

 

[homeforsummer]

Does the Mustang have any definable Mustang characteristics though? I.e. attributes that have remained constant through every generation?

Grille and rear lights have been similar I expect, but beyond that...

BMW does indeed keep some touches throughout its range, but it's not done in a "retro" way - a 3-Series doesn't really look anything like its ancestor the 1602/2002. Even the kidney grille is different, and there's only the merest hint of round lights with the now-square "angel eyes". The last truly retro BMW was... what, the Z8 maybe?

 

[Nessy]

I think the question is: How do we define the meaning of 'retro'?. For me, it's something that is reminiscent of the past... not necessarily a carbon copy of past things.

 

[Joey D]

Retro in the auto industry typically means making a design that looks like something old but with modern flair.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I think a Mustang is really a Mustang when the car in question captures the basic tenants of what made it special.

Affordability, usability, a right mix of excitement and comfort, and above all just a down right great purchase.

I don't really care how the Mustang ends up looking so long as it accomplishes what the Mustang brand stands for.

 

[Nessy]

@ sumbrownkid. I don't disagree (except for the looks bit) ^, but is Mustang a brand or a name?