But if it were a Toyota, Honda or Nissan whatever, they would fall over themselves praising it!!

 

God awful

 

another hater - and no apologies, Ford. 5.0 or no, that rear end's gotta go! Try "flipping the taillights upside down" - maybe it may help, a little? And somehow reduce the "visual weight" of that hideous black plastic piece! (I liked the 'chops done that showed a "corrected" version ) Would it have been possible to mount the mufflers and exhaust tips higher?

IMHO, it's enough to stop me from wanting the car even if I had the money (because that can be worked out) and a 5.0 V8/6spd trans combo. Seriously.

 

If they just left well enough alone. Not Happy with it. To round. What other year had a round rear?

 

It's funny the rear and sides of the Shelby GR1 is really great but the front fascia is weak.

I can see where there rear end of the 2010 Mustang was trying to go but it just fails. I don't even mind the Mustang trying a different look if it is truly attractive. There are some beautiful details in the rear of the Shelby GR1. I even like the balanced trapazoidal shape of the openings in each end of the tail panel which could be used for taillamps. It would look good with three element vertical sections placed within those shapes. On the GR1 there are no strange distorted awkward shapes nor unessessary confusing variations in surfacing. Sure the GR1 rear would need a defined bumper shelf to meet standards but you don't see it sucking in it's butt cheeks like the 2010 Mustang is trying to keep from accidentally pooping.

With the limitations of having to use the existing hardpoints, it's too bad the Mustang could not have used the GR1 full fastback design. Maybe next time.

 

Well obviously, it appears that your not tired of hearing of it. Otherwise you wouldn't be provoking it back up, yet again.



And just for the record, I'm going to say this once again, for the last time. My definition of real/true fastback, are the FULL fastback rooflines that were on the 1967-68 models, and 1969-70's followed by the 1971-73 models. I had never claimed, nor did I ever post anything to imply that our 2005-09 and 2010 Mustangs, were considered as fake or non fastback models.

The bottom line, is it was YOU who assumed that I had. However that clearly was not my interpretation whatsoever. But had clearly stated, that both the 2005-09 and 2010's look more like the 1965-66 (2+2) fastback models, than the 1967-68 FULL fastback versions.

Therefore, if my definition still isn't clear or acceptable enough for you. Then I strongly recommend that you take a refresher course in reading comprehension. In which several of us, had to repeat ourselves over again on a few occasions as it is.


In the meantime, If your sincerely done with rehashing this same old crap. Then just "DROP IT" and "MOVE ON" !!!

 

Funny, I think there are a handful of haters going around complaining endlessly about it. But there should be one more option on this poll for some median value. Love and hate are both strong words

 

Seems to me that there is much more than a "handful" of haters. The poll is pretty lopsided in favor of the haters as of right now.

 

i like it. i will see the car in person at the chicago autoshow and we will see if i like it in person; i'm betting i will.

 

Me too. I think the 2010 looks great in the pics, and I'm betting I'll like it even more in person.

I remember seeing the first pics of the 2005 Mustang from the NAIAS; I was a bit disappointed with the then-all-new 2005 Mustang. As others have said, I felt that Ford had dumbed down the production version too much when compared to the concept. I was also very disappointed in the 2005's front end as it was too upright and vertical for my liking. I then went and saw the car that February at the Chicago Auto Show, and my view completely changed. I actually preferred the production front end, as well as the rest of the car, to the concept version.

 

All-

There is an "ignore" feature you can use if you don't like reading posts by members.

Just because someone doesn't like something doesn't mean he/she is calling into question you as an individual. And if you think so, there are other forums outside of TMS you may want to frequent. As an example Tom posted his dislikes about the 2010 mustang, NOT about those who like the car. Big difference.

Now, if you have issue with someone use the PM feature or contact an Admin/Mod.

 

I agree that the retro phase will not last much longer. It's already starting to get diluted with the more "modern" interpretation of the 2010 Mustang. Eventually they'll have no choice but to go back to a more modern design. But that's okay because it will make the S197 all that more special and unique. I'm just thankful that Ford went retro with the Mustang in the first place because I've always been such a huge fan of the late 60's Mustangs.

 

You and me both, my friend

 

Rash,

It seems he's just so blinded by the shiny new 2010 paint that he just can't comprehend why some of us don't see it the way he does.... LOL.

 

I neither hate nor love the new rear, but I am okay with it. And I felt largely the same about the 05-09 models tush, although I do think the 05 was a bit better out back. That said, rear aside, I think the 2010 is a noticeably better looking car overall addressing several of the 05-09 models shortcomings, but each to their own.

 

The hottest new Mustang accessory next year:

 

hate

 

no likey rubber baby bumper

 

: rofl2:

 

I dislike the rear of the 2010 Mustang but on the street it should not be a problem for 2010 Camaro drivers since they won't have to look at the rear of the Mustang for very long, only long enough to find a passing zone