I Just Had To Do It Just for Comparison. 1967-68 Compared to the 2010

Here's the best I could do matching angles again.

 

everytime i see that gold 2010 i like the refresh much more. they did a great job

 

the more I see these comparo pics, the less the car looks like the 67-68s to me. It's more of the 69-70 car.

 

I'm tired of all this. You know what it looks like to me? The 2010 Mustang. It's its own design; not a '67, not a '69, a 2010.

 

THANK YOU

 

Agreed!

 

What I DON'T like about the black body cladding along the side is that when the car is in shadow (or at night I'll guess) it looks like it's riding higher off the ground than it actually is. That is not a good look.

 

Agreed, as the 2010 neither looks like the 67-68, nor 69-70. If anything, the 05-09, and 2010 look more like the 65-66 fastback. As the greenhouse on both the 65-66, and 05-09's, clearly do not have full fastback rooflines. Where as both the 67-68, and 69-70 models, clearly do have full fastback profiles !

 

I Was Not Implying that the 2010 Is any of these classics, 67-70, I was just showing Comparison Shots of the Classics that show the similarities Between them and the 2010. I'm just sick of hearing all this crap that the 2010 doesn't look like a Mustang, or The 2010 Looks too Euro, or too... (Insert Description Here) Jeez...

Here We Go Again With this Fastback Crap Again. I Thought I Explained the Difference In the other Thread. A Fastback, Is a Fastback, is a Fastback! Whether it goes to the leading or trailing Edge of the Trunk. One is just more Extreme than the other they are all TRUE FASTBACKS. As I stated in the other thread as well, the True Irony is In Your Screen Name m05fastbackGT

 

yeah but at this point you have to be more specific, which other thread? your threads seem to repeat themselves over and over! happy for the enthusiasm you have but holy crap!!!

 

He's referring to this thread, James.


http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showthread.php?t=474976

 

The previous generation V6 and Shelby GT500 have the same black cladding along the side.

 

Yeah, and I don't like it there either.

 

Rock on Brother 'Bear keep on sharing your enthusiasm. I am enjoying your comparisons and I cleary see borrowed influences from other older models.

Everyone just remember the 1965 Mustang defined the legacy with it's original styling created in the studio by Joe Oros and Dave Ash with styling proposal influences and themes explored that date to work on the 1958 Thunderbird. Everything that follows the original will always be derivative of the original.

 

I'm sure the aftermarket will have an alternative solution for that problem, soon enough

 

I like the black rockers on the side. It keeps my car from looking like a whale... Besides rocker panel add-ons went out of style with the demise of the 1992 Z28. Nothing beats the clean look of classic Mustangs with rolled and tucked under rockers. Imagine some idiot fitting body colored rocker extentions on a classic Mustang

 

As long as there is an aftermarket solution for the 2010 rear end then many of us will be fine...

 

Same here, although it's going to take some time before getting used to the new tailights.

 

The Stang already has enough of a problem with 4x4 ride height from the factory. The black rocker moldings just worsen that problem, IMHO. Makes it look like a silver cross pram. Defeats the whole purpose of lowering your car.

 

And once again Shawn, I'm strictly referring to the difference between the full, more extreme fastback models, over the 2+2 style versions ala 65-66, and current 2005-10 models. I never stated that our cars, were not considered as fastbacks.

That being said, I clearly stated from the very beginning. The current 2005-10 greenhouse neither looked like the 67-68, nor the 69-70 full fastback models, but look more like the 65-66 (2+2) style fastback greenhouse instead.

At any rate, I can definitely relate from your point of view, in which you consider that all fastback models, are true ones !