Originally Posted by gnat-sum

rhumb, your point is well-said, but your eyes are a victim of the camo. The rear end has actually been reduced in size from the current Mustang. Because the black lower valence is not camod, your eyes are drawn to it. The camo zebra paint's flat finish and the white/black theme hides the shapes and forms of the metal underneath it. The black wheels and half-covered tailamps also add "visual weight" to the rear end.

One of the ways car designers make the body look more "taut" over the wheels is adding black valences, adding plan view ( those chopped corners we all have been talking about- de-squaring those 90 deg corners from top view ) changes in section ( the bread slice through the body ) and enlarging and wrapping tailamps around the corners. ( Big wheels also help- check out a 18" Challenger SE vs. a 21" SRT-8 ) But you ( collectively ) can't see any of this very well through the camo unless you've been in the biz and know what to look for. Not criticizing you, just trying to explain.

Wrap a big sheet of zebra wallpaper around any car and it will look bigger....Once the camo comes off, I believe you will see the complete opposite of what you are describing. This I have been assured by those who have seen it undisguised.

Originally Posted by rhumb

I think the issue of a big butt has less to do with the hips and general body lines but rather, and especially on the '10, the visual mass of the rear bumper and valence. It epitomizes what I deride as the "full diaper" look on too many cars these days, with rather bulbous rear ends and lower bumper areas. This impression is further reinforced by rather flaccid, saggy lines that connote anything other than taut, trim musculature one would hope for from a performance car..

The '05 Stang's generally well-toned rear free of the "full diaper," but it seems that Ford designers could restrain themselves no longer and jumped on that bandwagon for the '10. Rather than taut haunches, raised and ready to pounce, we get a drooping, drag-*** impression. This is further emphasized by the droop of the taillights, giving the impression that they are being dragged down by the visual mass of the bumper and over sized and overly complex valence.

I think, perhaps, that Ford designers were subtly trying to mirror the forward thrusting angle of the front of the car in elements such as the side mirrors and rear end slant. Unfortunately, I think this admirable attempt at overall design cohesion gets lost and sabotaged by various things. Perhaps while concentrating on that subtle thrust angle aspect, they simply overlook the far more apparent impression of soft, drooping mass hung way out back away from the visual CG.