I think the 2010's hideous front turn lamps and taillamps are a secret conspiracy to continue to keep the aftermarket booming...

 

I agree, I would have never imagined that the aftermarket would catch on to the 05-09 Mustang like it has. With all the new bodykits, wheels etc. I think a Mustang GT out of the showroom is kinda plain looking. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they continue to do the same well into 2010!

 

Where would you rather have the reverse lights? I know I am going to get flamed for this, but I think today's tailamp looks kind of odd, with two tall bars and one 3/4 tall with white bottom. I also think it looks sorta cross-eyed, with both reverse lamps pointing toward the center. See below:



Now look at the cross-eyed kid on the left:

And, so close to production, it would mean a complete re-do of the lamp design, whether they were in the tailamp assembly or outside of it. Either way, it'd be very very expensive to make this change, and you wouldn't be able to meet the prototype and testing schedule. I just don't see it happening. They need at least a year to make the tooling and do the testing. If Nov is the LA intro, then there is no time.

Trust me, very few cars have reverse lamps separated in the bumper. For cost, easy of assembly, and safety, they are all built as one unit. So I think the 2010's reverse lamps are a clever way of "separating" the tr-bars, like 67-70. I don't like 65-66 since they're connected like 2005-09. Maybe its just me, but I like them better than the current tail-lights.

2005- vs. 1964-66





2010 vs. 67-70

 

I understand your point but I disagree with them being placed where they are. Looks too cheap and thrown together. Ford should leave the lights unchanged. I would rather have them unchanged as opposed to the alternative we've seen so far.

 

The current production taillamp with the back-up lamp placement was a carry over from the 1996-04 theme.

Pictures of early 05 preproduction models showed two thin horizontal red lines over the backup lamps which was changed for production.

 

I agree. All I wanted was a more aggressive looking front end. Similar to the GT500, but not exact.
Hips? - yes! Interior changes? - some. More Horsepower? - of course.

 

Surely we should reserve judgement until we see the final car, without camo?

 

I'd rather see them put back under the bumper, as they were in the '60s. However, for cost purposes, as previously stated, that ain't gonna happen.

How about a horizontal backup light under the three red elements, running the total width of the taillight element? A thin horizontal bar might not look bad, if the proportions were right.

Again, not likely to happen on the '10 at this late stage, unless it were already in the works. But maybe for a mid-cycle refresh, ala the 95-96 change?

 

I think they are taking too long, or they let us see bits and pieces of it too early.

I'm excited to see it though.

 

you crack me up ! all you have seen are bits and peices and already you,ve decide its hideous !
get a life !

 

...Happy?

 

 

Yep, its like seeing a zoomed snapshot of a Playboy centerfold w/ blonde hair and deciding she's ugly because you're current girlfriend is brunette. Wait til you see the entire body, fellas.....you may want to trade in your current girlfriend for the new one , ( even if you prefer your girlfriend's stilettos to the centerfold's sneakers )

Sexist, but true.

 

I don't understand how reverse lights integrated into tail light to create the three classic-looking separate tail lights looks cheap and "thrown together." The 2005-09 looks like they designed the tail light and then went, "oh, wait we need a reverse light" and then "threw it" on the inside lower corner. That looks thrown together to me. Well, to each his own. I am sure the aftermarket will be pleased to sell you a new set to make your 2010 look like the 2005.

But Ford needs to update the car, and leaving the tail lights unchanged since 2005 would not be wise w/ a new Camaro, Challenger, Z, and Genesis on the way....

 

Probably the best resolve.

Says who ... ??? Those body lines are timeless ... just like the 65-66 still looks great. The only "updates needed" are better V-8 engine options and interior options (IMO).

 

Agreed, the 65-66 still looks great, but had they not improved/changed to the 67-68 in with competition from the 67 Camaro/Firebird and Barracuda, Charger, and AM/X, the Mustang might not have stayed out ahead. Same holds true today- Mustang needs to stay ahead of the competition. The worst thing Ford could do is let the Mustang wither away like they did with the Navigator, Taurus, and LS, which by the way, the LS and Navigator did get new interiors and improved engines, but never looked new on the outside, so no one cared.

You may like your 2005-09 car, but how many people will want a 2010 if it looked just like your five year old Mustang while there's a new Camaro and Challenger? You know Ford would have been ripped a new one by every magazine/website etc. You must constantly improve, especially your flagship car. Hopefully we'll get that new 5.0 and a sweet upgraded interior as well.

 

Its strange that kid does somehow resemble those tail lights.

I think I can correct his vision though



these look freakin sweet with a tint on the red and the bottom clear. You can see them in action here

Car Tour #9: Drift Ford Mustang

Nice shot at about 15 seconds in..

 

Not bad, but for me, I really like the three separate vertical bar look of the 2010. I was so excited when I saw they were doing it, especially when it lights up. Can you imagine a sequential aftermarket setup on it? I'm just very surprised that some are so freaked out by and focusing on the reverse lights. Anyway, as you and others have pointed out, the aftermarket will definitely make something to retrofit if you don't like it, just please dont do those euro altezza lights. Nasty

 

I see Bullitt wheels are a carry over . . . . . again . . .

 

That II actually looks pretty cool with those wheels and all.