false. When the II was designed, it was trying to go back to the roots of the smaller 64.5-66 Mustangs since Iacocca was fed up with the behemouth the mustang had become. He was even initially against the enlarging of the mustang in the 67 model year

not that i dislike any of the bigger mustangs, i do in fact love every body style.

The entire design of the mustang II, from the look to the size to a myriad of different things was aimed at going BACK to the first mustangs. Even though II's are not abundantly modern (by todays standards at least, they were plenty modern when they came out) they still are able to achieve the classification "retro" by being designed to show ties to models from the past

anyhow, back to the topic at hand...

 

Just because the Mustang II was smaller than the '73 Mustang in no way means it was "retro" styled. In fact, the concept of "retro" wasn't even a consideration in 1974. Sorry, but for something to be retro styled, it has to have been around more more than 10 years. To say the Mustang II was a retro design is just silly and false.

 

It may not have been referred to as such at the time, nor as blatantly obvious as the S197, but the II was a retro design.

 

Following the 1961-63 "Bullet Birds", the 1964 Tbird restored popular 1958-60 design cues interpeted in a fresher sharper modern fashion. So the Mustang was not the first time Ford reached back towards a design of a past model to infuence a newer one.

The "retro" is more of a modern day concept and use of terms which is really a result of going back to designs that closely replicates cars from decades past. However it was not unusual for car designers to reach back to a recent model year to resume a particular theme. For instance the 1960 full-sized Pontiacs abandoned the 1959 split grille but it was so popular it returned for 1961 with many variations of the same theme ever since.

The Mustang II was never intended to be considered an exact or close duplication or interpetation of the original. It scaled down to get back to a more economical size after the bloated Mustangs alienated it's original customer base. The Mustang II was certainly designed to restore some familar design cues such as the bodyside "C" sculpture, trapazoidal seperate large mouth grille and three element taillamps. I would never call it retro. However it was interpeted using modern 70's Ford styling themes with sculpting and methods similar to what was used on larger Ford cars. If you look at the 1973 Torino fastback you can see some related design with the Mustang II, especially in the rear quarter sculpting and greenhouse shapes. Even the Mustang II looks like a smaller two round headlamp variation of the larger four headlamp Torino theme. The instrument panel also looks like a scaled down version of larger Ford models.

The 1994-04 Mustangs are not what I consider retro either. They incorporate certain classic cues but are applied to completely modern surfacing methods parallel to styling themes used on other Ford models at the time.

The 2005 Mustang comes much closer to looking more like the proportions and shapes of original Mustangs in many aspects but the modern surfacing comes in the way it looks like it was milled out of solid billet material. The latest designs could be considered "retro" or "heritage inspired" though Ford designers probably resent the use of the word "retro" to describe them.

 

I don't disagree with any of your points watchdevil, however the more I think about it, the more I would definitely consider the II a "retro" design. In the truest sense of the word, meaning recalling something from the past. How far back is irrelevant.

 

I do agree that that the word retro has a very literal meaning to go back to a past time or former form. When the Mustang II was created retro was not a term used to describe it as we would use it today.

Retro as a term as it applies to car designs today usually means a very close intereptation of a car made in the past. The Ford GT is perhaps the closest most literal interpetation of a former design, followed by the Dodge Challenger, The general familar 1930's shapes of the PT Cruiser, the familar classic "Bug" shape of the New Beetle and the close design interpetations and proportions of the newest Mustangs and last Thunderbird.

The Mustang II resumed the use of only one discontinued design cue and that was the bodyside "C" sculpting and that was interpeted in a completely different way than the original models as well as other continuously used Mustang cues. The same could be said about the 1994 Mustang resuming former specific design cues interpeted to fit in with modern surfacing and shaping.

 

It also returned to its original form in size, concept and overall philosophy (how successful the attempt was is beside the point.)

And I'm aware that the term "retro" wasn't used at the time. That doesn't change the fact that it's what they were going for.

 

Of course it is relevent. If not, then it would be okay to say that the new bodystyle on the 2008 Batmobile is a retro version of the 2007 bodystyle Batmobile. Just doesn't work that way. The Mustang hadn't been around long enough by 1974 to even be considered a retro design to the original Mustang. In 1974, was the 1964/65 Mustang considered a classic? Of course not. It was just a 10-year old car at that point.

 

Carrying styling cues over and re-implementing them after a hiatus are two different things.

 

Read this article from Automotive Design and Production:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=artBody;col1

It mentions the '05 Mustang and retro/heritage design. I agree with the people in the article who say that '05 was the first time Ford made a retro designed Mustang. Either way, it's a good article to read.

 

Its strange, but the author mentions that they can't agree because they are taking different sides, yet they both seem to be saying that the '05 is the first retro/heritage design Mustang. I think maybe he's saying that one of them agrees with "retro" and the other with "heritage" for the '05. Sometimes we use those two terms interchangeably, even if it's not correct to do so.

 

It May Not have been as Successful as the 05-09's in Re-Capturing that "Mustangness" but it was most Definitely Retro, as the Design Target was intended to Bring the Mustang Back to the 64 1/2 Mustangs Design Themes and Size, Although "Retro" is a Modern Term (too Loosely Thrown Around). Some Day the Term "Retro" Will Be a Retro Term It's Self

 

OMG We Agree On Something? It is a Good Article. Even The Worlds Top Automotive Designers Can't Agree What Is Retro or Heritage.

 

IMHO, only the Notchback versions recaptured the roots of the original 64.5-66 Mustangs. As for the Hatchback designs were concerned, other than the front grille, C-scoop sections, and tri-bar tailights. From an appearance standpoint, the Hatchback versions did very little in recapturing the Mustang's original heritage. As far as I'm concerned, they looked far more like stretched out Pinto's than anything else. But then again, they were based off the Pinto platform to begin with lol.

 

IMHO, I look at the 05-09's, as far more than just being Retro. But more as a metamorphosis between modern, and classic design. In which Ford brought the Mustang back to it's original 1960's heritage, by taking it's best design cues from the 1965-70 models. While at the same time, staying clear from attempting to re-duplicate any of It's past models in particular.

On the other hand, I often wonder why Ford didn't just stick with the Mustang's original body design. Like Porsche has with it's 911

 

I think the 911 is one of those rare designs that passes the test of time. It has survived over the years with minimal changes to its basic shape because it was a timeless design from the beginning. In other words, it has never been "out of fashion" like most other cars. As much as I love Mustangs, I don't think Ford could have pulled off the orignal style for 40+ years. Besides, if they did, then the '05-'09 cars wouldn't be as special as they are today. They would just be another Mustang...

 

Excellent points indeed Steven, as I couldn't agree more.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by m05fastbackGT

IMHO, Ford brought the Mustang back to it's original 1960's heritage, by taking it's best design cues from the 1965-70 models. While at the same time, staying clear from attempting to re-duplicate any of It's past models in particular.

As I said when the 05's Debuted after seeing one for myself, It's Like the Mustangs Greatest Hits. I Saw/See Elements from all Mustangs 64 1/2-73 in the 05-09's, but Not A Copy of Any One of Them.

I see the same thing with the 2010. I'll call it The Mustangs Greatest Hit's, Volume II. For those that Didn't Find Their Favorite Mustang in the 05-09's Design. Again, I can still see Elements of All Those Classic Mustangs, I still See Styling Cues from 64 1/2-73, but this time just Different Elements.

 

Count me in as well.

 

Appearance and size cannot be considered individually. The are linked together. The Challenger is a longer, but much lower platform ( LX- Charger/300/Magnum )- it other words, the rear trunklid of the platform doesn't need to be as high.

The Camaro is essentially a 2 door Pontiac G8. It too is a larger car than the Mustang, but also has a higher rear trunk area.

This is why both use the black diffuser at the bottom to reduce the perception of that height. Its a typical thing in car design, seen on Ferrari and Lamborghini as well. Reduces perception of vertical, increases perception of horizontal, i.e. makes car look wider.

I am sure the designers did not want it to stick out past the bumper, but unfortunately, there are regulations of crash and protection they can't change. I bet if we saw the original sketches, it would be the same design, but maybe a little bit different relation of the parts to each other.

The Challenger wasn't designed- it was copied from the 1973 Challenger. The 2010 Stang, on the other hand, is an excellent attempt at making the Mustang look new and modern. What's wrong with putting some shape and creases and stretching/wrapping the rear of the car around, like the skin was stretched over the wheels? The SN95 wrapped the lamps around the corners too. This is another visual trick designers from Audi to Ford to Nissan etc etc use to make overhangs between the wheels and the bumpers look short.

IMO, it makes the 05-09 look like it was built from plywood- everything is so flat with 90 deg corner from side to back. The 2010 body tightly envelopes the wheels, looks very muscular, as a muscle car should.