Clino

I don't really get this question. it's not like the 2010 is a bad car, or a step backwards in any way from the 05-09??? I don't really think the analogy works.

I also don't think the 2010 will in any way be a collector down the road either though. Neither the engine nor the body style is unique to that year, just the combination of two common things. I don't think it will be a big deal. It's not like 260s are sought after, or 67's with 289s.

David Young

I think the 2010 is going to be 'a little bit looked over' in the future.

I'm one of the people who bought a new 1976 Mustang II. I thought it was a nice car in every way at the time. With the so called 'gas shortage' going on, it got good gas mileage and was fun to drive.

At the time, its all we had.

crescent_wrench

I don't think the 2010 will be worth any less or any more than any 2005-09 standard GT down the road. Shoot, If I traded my 10 a few years from now, I doubt the dealer would have the smarts to ask what kind of V8 is under the hood.

Adam

Lets not forget the 2010 Mustang GT still get praise over the 2010 Camaro SS.

Adam

I would think the improved aesthetics and interior would yield higher resale than a 2009 GT.

crescent_wrench

Yes, but many people raise a stink about the rear end and the 5.0 motor helps them forget about it. Me.....I like the rear.

2K3 Mach

Considering the 96 4.6 was pretty much equal to the 95 302, it would be like them replacing the 2010 4.6 with the 2011 3.7.

Double-EDad

Sorry, but after having lived with a 2010 GT overnight while my 2011 was at the dealer, I have to say that the 2010 GT is an excellent car in its own right, and should in no way be considered some sort of frumpy "Mustang II" (Boredom Zero, LOL, remember that?).

Most of what makes the 2011 so good first appeared in the 2010.

tom_vilsack

I object to question....the mustangII was the right car for the times...and sold like crazy.....

houtex

I also object.

But then, I've always objected to the II haters anyway, as it's not like it was some albatross like Edsel or something.

/I really miss my II. Your first car does leave an impression, even if it was a POS V6 4speed that broke every 3 weeks it got out of the shop... I *loved* it.
//shoulda done the 5.0 trick. Hell, I'd probably still have the orange thing if that'd happened.

Ltngdrvr

The whole question and premise of this thread is just wrong.

The 74-78 Mustang II was an abomination on the heritage of the Mustang, a glorified pinto at best. The only good thing that came out of those cars was the front suspension that so easily was grafted onto better cars.

The 2010 Mustang is the same basic car as the 2011, the 2011 having had evolutionary improvements made, some of which are to accomodate the new drivetrains, but still the same base platform.

The 2010 may one day be looked upon favorably by collectors as often happens with one year only configurations. It is a great car in it's own right and allowed Ford to transition more easily into the new 3.7 and 5.0 6 speed drivetrain configurations.

fraxum

This is a silly poll. No way is the 2010 like the Mustang II. If that were the case all previous S197s would be M2s as well. The 2010 is the best Mustang ever until this year.

Twin Turbo

In that case, was the original '64.5 - '66 a glorified Falcon at best? OK, with hindsight it's 70's styling hasn't aged well, but it was the right Mustang for the time and sold well. I do wish Mustang enthusiasts wouldn't bash it quite so much

Who knows, without the II, the Mustang may have dissapeared altogether rather like the Challenger and Charger.

However, you're entitled to your opinion

Back to '10 v '11. Again, the '10 earns its position in the great history of the Mustang with it's own unique story to tell

dmhines

Mustang II = Pinto ....

The Mustang II was a completely different platform than the FALCON/MUSTANG/MAVERICK of the 60's and early 70's .....

The 2010 is an S197 ... all the same platform. The 2010 Mustang would have had to be based on the Ford Focus platform to make it the equivalent of a Mustang II.

Ltngdrvr

The Mustang didn't exist before the falcon platform was transformed into the 64.5 Mustang. In that transformation the Mustang improved the platform greatly and became greater than the sum of its parts.

The same can't be said or applied to the Mustang II, it was a cheap out for Ford at a time when they had their priorities out of line. The quality of the cars was horrible, the performance was in the toilet and they just looked wrong.

crescent_wrench

so agreed it's not funny.

Gene K

Its going to be the 1967 Mustang 390. Had to wait until 1968 to get the 428CJ.

Tony Alonso

The times dictated the priorities. Regardless of what one thought of the styling or performance, enough people saw value in them, based on the sales numbers.

I would also question the quality, in general, of many cars made during that time, given all the hoops that manufacturers had to jump through to meet fuel economy regulations.

Ltngdrvr

GM didn't go off the deep end with the cumaro and Firebird, they kept right on building them and sold a butt load of them so Ford could have kept on with a full size Mustang instead of a pumped up pinto. It was a lack of vision and foresight and enthusiasm that lead to the Mustang II.

Quality? Yeah, lots of poor quality at the time.

Fuel economy regulations? Very loose at the time, again sighting GM and their continuing to offer the F-body cars with big motors in them. I had a variety of Firebirds and Trans Am's back then with 400 and 455 motors in them. The great stranglehold regulations at the time was emissions way more than fuel economy.

Tony Alonso

Sorry, meant emissions...
It seems to me that 'foresight' at that time would have also been heavily influenced by the fuel crisis at the time. However, not being a product planner for an auto manufacturer, my opinion is formed by the sales history. It might be interesting to assess the OP's question for the 2010 in those terms.