Why is the 2005 Mustang tagged with the 'retro' label?


Porsche has pretty much kept the basic design of the 911 intact for what? More than 30 years now?

Yet, 911 owners aren't viewed as some kind of fashion slaves selling out to the 'retro' moniker.

I like the design of the 2005 Mustang because, like that of the 911, it is *TIMELESS*. The style and character of our car will be as cool 40 years from now as it was 40 years ago.

There aren't too many car's you can say THAT about.

Most cars today, no matter how spiffy they look in their freshmen year...become 'yesterday's' car within 3 or 4 years.

Not our '05 Mustang.

So, why not let's all drop and discourage the retro label, and publicly denounce it when applied to our car?

Frankly, I'm getting sick of it.

 

people call it retro because it takes styling cues from older mustangs like the rear quarter window or the fog lights in grill to name a few. i dont see what the big deal is with everyone calling the car retro, that pretty well sums up the overall apearence of the '05 mustang

 

I agree. The 05 is all mustang. When I hear RETRO I think of the PT Crusier, which IMO is and fading fast.

Greg

 

Read my post again. I think the 911 borrows a lot more styling cues from it's 60's ancestor than does the '05 Mustang borrows from it's 60's grandfather. But, the Porsche is not called 'retro' in popular media. Why?

I'm starting to hate the 'retro' moniker because peeps seem to throw it around as the only real reason anybody could possibly want to buy our car.

There's so much more to the '05 Mustang than mere 'retro' :bang:

 

I think it's about continuity. The 911 has been evolutionary. You can look at it year-by-year from the 1960's and see the gradual evolution and refinement of the still-familiar shape.

The Mustang on the other hand... left it's roots after only a few short years and wandered off into Pinto-based "Mustang II" land, then through additionally significantly different fox bodies so the press is picking up on the fact that the 05 has SUDDENLY jumped back 35 years in styling: Retro!

If the 911 had changed in the late '60's to the 928, then to the 924/944 body in the 70's, then to the Boxster in the 90's and now introduced an '05 Carrera the media would use the same word: Retro!

The difference between evolution and retro lies in the continuity of the design or the lack thereof.

JMHO,

Steve

 

The Porsche 911 as a whole hasn't changed much at all in 40+ years. The 911 has practically looked the same every year of it's existence. The Mustang has changed drastically since the first ones in 1964. So, now after many years of varying looks, they finally come back to it's roots and retro styling. From the fog lights and headlights, quarter windows, faux gas cap in the rear, etc... the '05 has a definite RETRO look to it. I personally love the fact that it's RETRO. And I'll continue to use the word RETRO, especially now that I know that the word RETRO makes you sick. The fact that the '05 is so RETRO, is one of the main reasons why I bought the car.

 

Which the begs the question...why did Ford ever drop the original winning formula?

Why didn't they refine and evolve the original design over decades like Porsche is still doing with the 911...instead of opting for 'quantum' design leaps (most of which were ill-conceived')?

 

I think they tried to design with the times. A few years ago smooth curves were the way to go for all cars (SN95 94+ era), then sharper lines started to get more popular (SN95 99+), and now more retro style cars are popular (GTO, Mustang, now a charger, etc..)

 

That's cool

But hey, at least I won't be the fashion road kill when 'retro' goes out of style. Instead, I'll continue to enjoy driving my car of 'timeless' design.

 

Now THAT is an entirely different question, but the short answer is the 1974 energy crisis when the world abandoned gas-guzzlers due to 5-hour waits in gas lines, etc. Suddenly the world of Boss 351's and 428 CobraJets was in no way a "winning formula" for a car manufacturerer dependent on mass markets to be profitable. Hence the Pinto-Mustang. From there it was a long journey back to the beginning.

I remember being in the car business in the '70's and seeing people virtually GIVE AWAY early Mustangs, LTD's Grand Marquis's- ANYTHING that didn't get 20-25 MPG and paying over sticker for miserable little Pintos, Fairmonts and Festivas. (All crap of course)

NONE of them stopped to do the math that by taking a $5000 loss on the guzzler and paying a $1000 premium on their econo-crap they'd have to drive the car for like 40 years to earn back the difference in gasoline.

I had a customer trade in a '68 or '69 Mustang with a 390 in it and less than 40,000 miles and BEGGED for $500 trade-in allowance on some econo-crap we had on the lot. It was pathetic. Ford just tried to follow the trends I suppose.

Porsche has never been about "the masses" and anybody who could afford a Porsche (then OR now) doesn't care what gas costs.

That's my opinion in a nutshell,

Steve

 

That's an interesting take, Horseowner.

And what's really interesting is, now that the real Mustang is back...with oil at $58/barrel with more to come, we seem to be on the cusp of repeating 1974...but for very different reasons.

 

That's cool

But hey, at least I won't be the fashion road kill when 'retro' goes out of style. Instead, I'll continue to enjoy driving my car of 'timeless' design.
[/b][/quote]

Dude, what did you smoke tonight? You are saying that the '05 will go out of style? This year Mustang is the most anticipated and probably best selling Mustang since the original. Ok, let me try to understand your thinking here. And forgive me if I'm not high on some illegal substance like yourself and don't see things as "clearly" as you do... but, you are saying that if I go around calling my car RETRO, and you go around calling yours TIMELESS, that is going to make you car stay in style for eternity? While mine becomes fashion roadkill, as you say? Am I getting that right? Retro is a word. It's short for retrospective, and means simply involving, relating to, or reminiscent of things past. Whether you want to admit it or not, the 2005 Mustang that you presently own yourself is retro... it was specifically designed, as said by Hau Thai-Tang, with design cues from the late 60's
Mustangs. That means it's retro. Now, if you have some deal with that word, like maybe it makes you feel old, that' fine. But why start a thread to specifically insult the word retro, and in turn insult the '05 Mustang?

 

Yep... this is going to be interesting to watch unfold. I just saw a group of economists the other day predicting $105 oil which should equate to $4.50 - $5.00 per gallon... much closer to European prices.

Perhaps that will be Ford's cue to introduce the new 2008 Focus-Mustang! :shock:

I'll be keeping my '05 GT however. It's not my "daily driver" so I don't care about gas prices for THIS vehicle. Now my '04 F350 may have to go!

Anyway... for now I'm delighted that America has embraced the "Retro" look of the mustang and the performance/styling/price matrix that Ford has created. The car's a winner... call it whatever you want.

Steve

 

You simply have to learn how to interpret the language.

So if by saying retro you mean "doesn't look like all that rice crap", well then yes, it's VERY retro.

or

So if by saying retro you mean "looks good, unlike Honda", well then yes it's very retro.

or

So if by saying retro you mean "looks a lot better than what I'm driving" well then yes, It IS retro.

 

I just don't understand the fear or dislike of the word RETRO. I see nothing wrong with it. I certainly don't see a reason, even if I hated the word, to start a thread talking about how it makes me sick and trying to tell everyone else to stop using it. I mean, grow up. I am sick of lots of things in this world... sick of the war in Iraq, sick of high gas prices, sick of my boss making me work weekends. No single word makes me sick though. Maybe that's just me though.

 

This is where we differ.

'Retro' implies a *generic* style category. The late model Thunderbird falls into the retro category.

The Mustang's design doesn't fit a category. It IS it's own category.


Next time some passerby walks up to me and sez "Cool...love the retro car", my reply will be "Retro, hmph, hadn't noticed...I bought it for the V8"

 

Ian you nailed the retro definition down. This car will not go out of style for those who love the 60s Mustang styling. The 05 to me anyway is a modern evolution of those style cues.

 

This is a silly thread. Call the car what you want, don't use the word Retro if you don't like it. Why do you care so much about what people call it? You'll never be able to control that so don't let it get to you. There are many reasons for buying this car, the retro look is only one of them. You don't need to explain yourself to these people. If you feel it when YOU drive it and you love it when YOU look at it, then hey you made the right choice! Enjoy that pony!

 

Now THAT is an entirely different question, but the short answer is the 1974 energy crisis when the world abandoned gas-guzzlers due to 5-hour waits in gas lines, etc. Suddenly the world of Boss 351's and 428 CobraJets was in no way a "winning formula" for a car manufacturerer dependent on mass markets to be profitable. Hence the Pinto-Mustang. From there it was a long journey back to the beginning.

I remember being in the car business in the '70's and seeing people virtually GIVE AWAY early Mustangs, LTD's Grand Marquis's- ANYTHING that didn't get 20-25 MPG and paying over sticker for miserable little Pintos, Fairmonts and Festivas. (All crap of course)

NONE of them stopped to do the math that by taking a $5000 loss on the guzzler and paying a $1000 premium on their econo-crap they'd have to drive the car for like 40 years to earn back the difference in gasoline.

I had a customer trade in a '68 or '69 Mustang with a 390 in it and less than 40,000 miles and BEGGED for $500 trade-in allowance on some econo-crap we had on the lot. It was pathetic. Ford just tried to follow the trends I suppose.

Porsche has never been about "the masses" and anybody who could afford a Porsche (then OR now) doesn't care what gas costs.

That's my opinion in a nutshell,

Steve
[/b][/quote]

The Mustang II was never a mistake, it kept the mustang name alive while charger, challenger, javelin, GTO, and a whole bunch more muscle cars died out. Ford could only wish the 05 SOLD IN THE SAME NUMBERS THE 74 HAD! From a sales standpoint the only Mustang better than the Mustang II is the original. And from a performance standpoint the V8 II was competitive with the 289 V8 in the original 1964 Mustang, besides the fact that the Mustang II had much improved handling over the original generation mustang, thats why Hotrods have been using Mustang II front ends for the last 30 years. As for style, the II is as close to the original stang as the 05, maybe closer. About the fact the II was loosely based on the Pinto, who cares! The original 64 stang was based on the Falcon economy car, does that make it a POS?? I don't think so. The II was motor trend car of the year in 74, did the 05 make the cut? No, they gave that honor to the hemi 300. IF IT WASN'T FOR THE II THERE WOULD BE NO 05!

 

IT'S NOT RETRO... IT'S A MUSTANG! Ford didn't look back to the 60's/70's because they wanted to make an old car, the looked back because they wanted to make the best car, and that's when the Mustang was it's best. IT'S NOT RETRO, not unless retro means doing things right! (which would explain they way cars have been the last couple decades)