If you could mod one thing?
Cobra Member
Joined: September 8, 2004
Posts: 1,250
Likes: 1
I think that all the rear tail lights really need are one piece chrome bezels. The white back up lights would blend into the chrome bezels and would not stand out as much. The red segments would really stand out more as being segmented.
A black version of the bezels with black tint over the white reverse lights could also work.
These two mods would get rid of the candy cane look of the rear tail lights. I could live with the shape. I love the L E D technology and the fact that they are sequential.
A black version of the bezels with black tint over the white reverse lights could also work.
These two mods would get rid of the candy cane look of the rear tail lights. I could live with the shape. I love the L E D technology and the fact that they are sequential.
Cobra Member
Joined: September 8, 2004
Posts: 1,250
Likes: 1
I like this version of the 2010's rear that was done in the 2010 Mustang photoshop thread. Neico's rear bumper chop
Cobra R Member
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 3
From: Florida
The ribbed tailamp panel is being offered by Ford It was in the Mustang Garage. Can't find the picture, but its around somewhere.
As for the mod to the bottom of the tailamps, remember, the kick up is created by the three-dimensional chamfer from the tailamp back into the trunklid. Flattening this kick up would require two things- 1) moving the trunkline down, as you did and 2) the tailamps would stick out waaaay further than the trunk lid, because they wouldn't angle "in" toward the trunk.
Just remember, the designers don't just draw something and it gets made. There's so much regulatory, financial, safety, and other "muck" that we should be grateful they figured out how to change it as much as they did.
I think everyone is making way too much of the rear end design. Its like trying to decide which is better- the 65-66, or the 67-68. Think about how completely different the 67 looked to the 1+ million people who bought 65-66s. I can just imagine if blogs were around then: "The 67 is all wrong- it looks like someone rear ended the car and dented the back end and tailights!" or "The tailights look too big- they ruined it!"
Clearly, there are plenty of maniacal 05-09 owners, and the last thing they want is to have their baby made old-fashioned. So anything that threatens their awesomeness is met with extreme dissatisfaction. If I remember, when the 2005 was released, SN95 owners had similar reactions. When the history books are written, both the 2005 and 2010 generations will be equally accepted as true Mustangs, just different interpretations.
The worst thing Ford could have done is left the design alone to appease people who already bought one. The automotive media would have trashed it compared to all-new Camaro and Challenger and Genesis and 370Z, letting another product die without updating and modernizing it. And like the latest 911, 370Z, Mini, and other iconic car designs, that is what the 2010 is, a moderninze update, the next evolution. The same discussions here happen in Porsche forums every time a new 911 is released. Change is not easy, but definitely necessary for survival.
As for the mod to the bottom of the tailamps, remember, the kick up is created by the three-dimensional chamfer from the tailamp back into the trunklid. Flattening this kick up would require two things- 1) moving the trunkline down, as you did and 2) the tailamps would stick out waaaay further than the trunk lid, because they wouldn't angle "in" toward the trunk.
Just remember, the designers don't just draw something and it gets made. There's so much regulatory, financial, safety, and other "muck" that we should be grateful they figured out how to change it as much as they did.
I think everyone is making way too much of the rear end design. Its like trying to decide which is better- the 65-66, or the 67-68. Think about how completely different the 67 looked to the 1+ million people who bought 65-66s. I can just imagine if blogs were around then: "The 67 is all wrong- it looks like someone rear ended the car and dented the back end and tailights!" or "The tailights look too big- they ruined it!"
Clearly, there are plenty of maniacal 05-09 owners, and the last thing they want is to have their baby made old-fashioned. So anything that threatens their awesomeness is met with extreme dissatisfaction. If I remember, when the 2005 was released, SN95 owners had similar reactions. When the history books are written, both the 2005 and 2010 generations will be equally accepted as true Mustangs, just different interpretations.
The worst thing Ford could have done is left the design alone to appease people who already bought one. The automotive media would have trashed it compared to all-new Camaro and Challenger and Genesis and 370Z, letting another product die without updating and modernizing it. And like the latest 911, 370Z, Mini, and other iconic car designs, that is what the 2010 is, a moderninze update, the next evolution. The same discussions here happen in Porsche forums every time a new 911 is released. Change is not easy, but definitely necessary for survival.
I Personally Love the 2010's rear end just as it is. It's very Sculptural and I love the Faceted Tail Lights.
As for the Ribbed Panel The Factory Piece Looks Like Crap!
It Looses the Concave Shape between the Tail Lights and just loos like Cheap Plastic.
legacy Tms Member
Joined: October 9, 2005
Posts: 2,607
Likes: 77
From: N.E. Ohio
I agree with whats said in here, but (always a but...) I just dont see why going 'away from retro' (hate that term) on the rearend was needed...the nicest thing Ive read comment wise it 'it looks very european'...I dont 'love' the front end yet, but it definitely looks good and says 'mustang' at a glance- however the back end aside from three bulbs is not as 'mustanglike' in my eyes at all (the chamferred corners are something I dont recall ever on a mustang) .
maybe its just 'I fear change' on my part- dont think so, but only time will tell...as much as the oft-forgotten 74-79 mustang was changed for survival, it wasnt 'ugly', and it still looked like a mustang, but simply never got the following of the 65-70, or even 71-73 for that matter...as long as the car survives, its good. as far as the 05, I dont recall many -if any- negative styling comments- it screamed classic mustang more than many had in a couple decades, and was a very respectable new iteration- even the chevy guys liked it...to many folks it wasnt just different, but 'even more appealing' than the 04 to a very broad number of car nuts out there...and they couldnt build them fast enough...I am afraid that wont be the case with that rear end, as I'd say 80% or more comments Ive read were about not loving that back end treatment- the front looks appropriate to me, but the rear just looks like its time for a refresh already to me- with all the less than ecstatic comments, betcha shelby/saleen/cervini/roush,others will put a killer rear bumper on there before 2009 is over
maybe its just 'I fear change' on my part- dont think so, but only time will tell...as much as the oft-forgotten 74-79 mustang was changed for survival, it wasnt 'ugly', and it still looked like a mustang, but simply never got the following of the 65-70, or even 71-73 for that matter...as long as the car survives, its good. as far as the 05, I dont recall many -if any- negative styling comments- it screamed classic mustang more than many had in a couple decades, and was a very respectable new iteration- even the chevy guys liked it...to many folks it wasnt just different, but 'even more appealing' than the 04 to a very broad number of car nuts out there...and they couldnt build them fast enough...I am afraid that wont be the case with that rear end, as I'd say 80% or more comments Ive read were about not loving that back end treatment- the front looks appropriate to me, but the rear just looks like its time for a refresh already to me- with all the less than ecstatic comments, betcha shelby/saleen/cervini/roush,others will put a killer rear bumper on there before 2009 is over
The ribbed tailamp panel is being offered by Ford It was in the Mustang Garage. Can't find the picture, but its around somewhere.
As for the reverse lamp mod, the changing angles of the reverse lamp is due to the concave section of each reverse lamp which matches the section in the trunk.
As for the mod to the bottom of the tailamps, remember, the kick up is created by the three-dimensional chamfer from the tailamp back into the trunklid. Flattening this kick up would require two things- 1) moving the trunkline down, as you did and 2) the tailamps would stick out waaaay further than the trunk lid, because they wouldn't angle "in" toward the trunk.
The problem w/ # 1 is the designers couldn't do it- their are crash regulations about how close the trunk lid can be to the bumper beam ( carryover from 05-09 ) and they couldn't push it further in because there was a regulation on trunk capacity and inserting items ( also govering the with opening, which kills the 2003 concept style full width tailamps unless you pay extra for electrical lamps on the trunk, which is like buying another set of tailamps ( so double the cost- which would most definitely have killed the LEDs and sequential turns. )).
Just remember, the designers don't just draw something and it gets made. There's so much regulatory, financial, safety, and other "muck" that we should be grateful they figured out how to change it as much as they did.
I think everyone is making way too much of the rear end design. Its like trying to decide which is better- the 65-66, or the 67-68. Think about how completely different the 67 looked to the 1+ million people who bought 65-66s. I can just imagine if blogs were around then: "The 67 is all wrong- it looks like someone rear ended the car and dented the back end and tailights!" or "The tailights look too big- they ruined it!"
Clearly, there are plenty of maniacal 05-09 owners, and the last thing they want is to have their baby made old-fashioned. So anything that threatens their awesomeness is met with extreme dissatisfaction. If I remember, when the 2005 was released, SN95 owners had similar reactions. When the history books are written, both the 2005 and 2010 generations will be equally accepted as true Mustangs, just different interpretations.
The worst thing Ford could have done is left the design alone to appease people who already bought one. The automotive media would have trashed it compared to all-new Camaro and Challenger and Genesis and 370Z, letting another product die without updating and modernizing it. And like the latest 911, 370Z, Mini, and other iconic car designs, that is what the 2010 is, a moderninze update, the next evolution. The same discussions here happen in Porsche forums every time a new 911 is released. Change is not easy, but definitely necessary for survival.
As for the reverse lamp mod, the changing angles of the reverse lamp is due to the concave section of each reverse lamp which matches the section in the trunk.
As for the mod to the bottom of the tailamps, remember, the kick up is created by the three-dimensional chamfer from the tailamp back into the trunklid. Flattening this kick up would require two things- 1) moving the trunkline down, as you did and 2) the tailamps would stick out waaaay further than the trunk lid, because they wouldn't angle "in" toward the trunk.
The problem w/ # 1 is the designers couldn't do it- their are crash regulations about how close the trunk lid can be to the bumper beam ( carryover from 05-09 ) and they couldn't push it further in because there was a regulation on trunk capacity and inserting items ( also govering the with opening, which kills the 2003 concept style full width tailamps unless you pay extra for electrical lamps on the trunk, which is like buying another set of tailamps ( so double the cost- which would most definitely have killed the LEDs and sequential turns. )).
Just remember, the designers don't just draw something and it gets made. There's so much regulatory, financial, safety, and other "muck" that we should be grateful they figured out how to change it as much as they did.
I think everyone is making way too much of the rear end design. Its like trying to decide which is better- the 65-66, or the 67-68. Think about how completely different the 67 looked to the 1+ million people who bought 65-66s. I can just imagine if blogs were around then: "The 67 is all wrong- it looks like someone rear ended the car and dented the back end and tailights!" or "The tailights look too big- they ruined it!"
Clearly, there are plenty of maniacal 05-09 owners, and the last thing they want is to have their baby made old-fashioned. So anything that threatens their awesomeness is met with extreme dissatisfaction. If I remember, when the 2005 was released, SN95 owners had similar reactions. When the history books are written, both the 2005 and 2010 generations will be equally accepted as true Mustangs, just different interpretations.
The worst thing Ford could have done is left the design alone to appease people who already bought one. The automotive media would have trashed it compared to all-new Camaro and Challenger and Genesis and 370Z, letting another product die without updating and modernizing it. And like the latest 911, 370Z, Mini, and other iconic car designs, that is what the 2010 is, a moderninze update, the next evolution. The same discussions here happen in Porsche forums every time a new 911 is released. Change is not easy, but definitely necessary for survival.
I think the rearend is the "biggest" problem with the design of the '05-'09 and '10 models. In order to get the "short" rear deck they made the bottom edge stick out so much further than the top of the trunk than it looks like its carrying dead weight behind the rear wheels.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
FromZto5
2010-2014 Mustang
61
Sep 30, 2015 05:28 AM
tj@steeda
2015 - 2023 MUSTANG
0
Sep 8, 2015 10:45 AM