Where did I get that from? There are quite a few of your posts where you are quoting that other guy and referring to him as Steven. It seems logical that A- the other guy's name is Steven, or B- you think he and I are the same person. How hard is that to understand? Do you want me to show you the posts I'm talking about?

 

Who were you quoting in this post of yours? Why are you even bringing my name into this?

 

Um... newsflash.... it's not ME talking about the Celica. Unless of course you think I'm also posting as the fixmejesus guy.

 

Pictures Do Not Lie My Friend. It's Clearly Obvious that the 2010 Mustang looks like all of these Generations of Mustangs. It Is a True Fastback, Yeah, I know the Fastback doesn't go All The Way to the Edge of the Trunk, as it did 67-73, but the 2005-2010's Greenhouse is like the 65-66 Fastback's Not Like the Square Roofed Coupes of the 60's or 70's, With a Vertical Rear Window. And that goes for the Mustang II's as well.

 

My Apologies Steven, I did use your name by accident. I thought you had posted about the Celica thing. I Am Sorry.

 

Sorry, but the 2010 is far from a true fastback. FYI, this is a true fastback:

 

We arent talking about size we are talking about apearence.
Don't compare the challenger's size compare the design of it.
As if it had been based on an equal sized caras the mustang.

The back end of the Chally is a far better designed rear end compared to the 2010

the challenger with no reference to it's size looks like a fantastic design that is completely cohesive..the challengers biggest issue is the interior..it is a let down..just as the 2010 is a let down on the rear end.

Those pics you posted of the 2005 and the 69-70 look way more evolutionary than the 2010 and 69-70

In compairson the 2010 rear look as though some kid found the warp toool in Photoshop.
I'd really like to see what other designs were being considered because if this is the best they can do then they need to fire the knucklehead that green lighted that design.

Oh and the 2010 is no where even in the ball park of a true fast back
Hell my Cobra 2 looked closer to a fast back than this thing is.

 

No problem. I was wondering if you thought I was the fixmejesus guy as an alias.

 

The Challenger is simply beautiful in it's exterior design. No comment from me about the interior because I'm really not that familiar with it. But as far as the exterior design, it is right in its retro appearance.

It's also important to mention the fact that the early Challengers were quite a bit bigger than the Mustangs, so I would expect the new retro Challenger to be bigger as well.

 

If you're familiar with ANY recent Chrysler interior, then you're familiar with that of the Challenger.

 

That's so funny it hurts. It is sad, but true.

 

The thing to me about the Challenger is that it is an Almost Literal Copy of The 70's Challenger, Line for Line. With the exception of the Integrated Bumpers it looks just like it's ancestor. There is Nothing Fresh about it in my opinion, But I digress, we're here to talk about Mustangs, and In My Eyes, I see elements in the 05-09's, and the 2010 from All of the Mustangs of the 60's and 70's, Reinterpreted in a Fresh and Modern Way.
just like the 05-09's the 2010 is Easily Identifiable as a MUSTANG and can't be mistaken for anything else.

 

Well, except for a Celica. But I think that goes without saying.

 

I think this is the main area of our disagreements. See, I like the fact that the Challenger is so faithful to it's retro heritage styling. If Ford made an exacty copy of the '69 Boss 302 with a modern powertrain, I'd be the first in line at the Ford dealership to buy one.

And I guess that's why I'm such a big fan of the '05 to '09 cars....because they look more faithful to the original Mustangs of the late 60's to me.

 

Nevertheless, you can't expect Ford to just leave the design untouched between every major overhaul. They've got to evolve and refine it, and with the 2010 refresh they've done exactly that.

 

Well my friend, if your obviously unable to tell the difference between a true fastback greenhouse ala (67-73) over the 2+2 style fastback (65-66) and current (05-10) models. Then I strongly recommend that you not walk, but run to your nearest optometrist, as fast as you possibly can. For pictures indeed, do not lie.

And btw, if you had carefully read my post. You would've noticed that I clearly stated the 2005-2010 greenhouse, look far more like the 65-66 (2+2) style fastback !

 

You nailed it exactly 100% right on the money, Steven

 

Here's what I was hoping for---

They could have went from '09 to '10 in much the same way they did in '69 to '70. Maybe push the headlights inboard and go with the vents to the outside of the headlights. In the back, make the taillights similar, but convex instead of concave. You know, subtle differences that still stay true to the retro heritage styling. Instead, we get an alien looking 2010 that looks like a Mustang that got abducted by a UFO.

 

The only thing to me that is even remotely out of whack about the 2010 is the shape of the taillights, though not nearly to the extent that it ruins the entire car or even the back end, for that matter. The front end, on the other hand, is still 100% pure Mustang.

 

The rear of my 08 is a nice composite of all the cars below that I love. My car doesn't need a stinkin' diaper with black poo any more than the classic ones.