2005-2010 Comparison
11/24/08, 01:44 PM
#161
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 22, 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by zzcoop; 11/24/08 at 01:48 PM.
11/24/08, 02:20 PM
#162
11/24/08, 02:42 PM
#163
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 17, 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
No problems reading. Just problems listening to someone who is obviously playing the I'm on the internet, I can be whomever I want to be card.
No one anylonger believes how old you are, how many degrees you have, or any of your babble. Might as well log off and get a new user name. We all have identified one of your degrees. You have a B.S. in BS.
11/24/08, 05:50 PM
#166
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
Perhaps it's just me, but the last I checked. Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, regardless as to whether or not we choose to agree or disagree. So why can't we all just get along and play nice. 
11/24/08, 05:54 PM
#167
GT Member
Join Date: August 30, 2006
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it is fair to compare the Mustang to the 911 in terms of heritage styling. The Mustang went through far bigger styling changes than the 911 throughout it's history. They retained the same basic look, while the Mustang went through different styling changes over time. Not until 2005 did Ford finally bring back the classic styling that was so popular in the 60's. It's just too bad they didn't continue with a true heritage styling exercise for 2010 instead of going with a "modernized" version of it.
This will **** off the Fox owners, but the 2005 and 2010 were created as if the Mustang had remained an evolution of the original ( like the 911 ), instead of adopting the modern look of other Ford models.
If you look at it like this, the 2010 makes a lot of sense.
As for the Mustang II, yes, after the huge 71-73 models they were trying to go back to the smaller, lighting original idea- they even separated the headlamps from the grille again, just like 1964.5-66. They just didnt do as good a job as they did in 1964 -1969.
11/24/08, 06:00 PM
#168
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
IMHO, Ford would've done a much better job on the Mustang II. If they had stuck to their original plans, and had based the car off the Maverick platform. 
11/24/08, 06:20 PM
#169
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 22, 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They also brought back the c-scoop and even tried like hell to emulate the contour of the '64 1/2 - '66 front bumper, the success of which is arguable at best.
11/24/08, 07:09 PM
#171
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 22, 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it was built off the Pinto platform. However, the II was originally intended to share the Maverick platform. Hence the comment "if they'd stuck to their original plans."
11/24/08, 07:36 PM
#174
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
11/24/08, 07:39 PM
#176
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
11/24/08, 07:46 PM
#177
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
11/24/08, 07:46 PM
#178
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 22, 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11/24/08, 07:50 PM
#179
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
11/25/08, 05:44 AM
#180
Banned
Join Date: October 29, 2008
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone said that they had been studying Mustang history and design since BEFORE I WAS BORN. I said that if that's the case, he must be at least 65 years old. Now, do you think that HE started studying Mustang history and design from the day he was born? I think you can figure out the rest.