Rear end Comparison pic
3/15/10, 03:58 PM
#61
Swamp Donkey Aficionado
Join Date: November 23, 2006
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok I'll toss this in
Heres you can see the Chally, camaro and both of the new stangs 05 and 11
The problem with the rear IMO is this
Challenger..absolutly perfect. Angle slide under the bumper giveing the car a raked vibe and no diaper. Just fast undercuts
Camaro... slight diaper action but most angles still lean in on bottom edge still going for that raked look. and fast under cuts
2005 mustang... Probably the best rear next to the Challenger. All angles lean in on the bottom edge for a fast rake. Slight kick out for details sake.
2011 GT500... worst offender of the diaper look. Most of the angles on the bumper/rear angle out on the bottom and lean in on the top..from the side this does not in anyway do anything for the car other than load up the bottom edge of the bumper where they made the crowning glory. A fat fussy black plastic skirt that stick out even further than the rest of the bumper.
From the side even the camaro looks cleaner
But the chally is just magnificent in how they designed that rear end.
Of course this is all subjective..just my 2 cents
Heres you can see the Chally, camaro and both of the new stangs 05 and 11
The problem with the rear IMO is this
Challenger..absolutly perfect. Angle slide under the bumper giveing the car a raked vibe and no diaper. Just fast undercuts
Camaro... slight diaper action but most angles still lean in on bottom edge still going for that raked look. and fast under cuts
2005 mustang... Probably the best rear next to the Challenger. All angles lean in on the bottom edge for a fast rake. Slight kick out for details sake.
2011 GT500... worst offender of the diaper look. Most of the angles on the bumper/rear angle out on the bottom and lean in on the top..from the side this does not in anyway do anything for the car other than load up the bottom edge of the bumper where they made the crowning glory. A fat fussy black plastic skirt that stick out even further than the rest of the bumper.
From the side even the camaro looks cleaner
But the chally is just magnificent in how they designed that rear end.
Of course this is all subjective..just my 2 cents
Say what you want about the rear, IMO, the 2010+ looks so much better -- much more aggressive -- from every other angle than its older S197 brother. The Challenger looks good, yeah, and so does the Camaro, but good Lord, they're huge! Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks, I suppose.
3/15/10, 04:24 PM
#62
Bow Chica Bow Wow
TMS Staff
TMS Staff
Yup I was waiting for the Yeah it's huge comment.
sorry you had to be the one.
I don't see anything aggressive about the mustang rear. It just looks sad to me..like it needs a hug.
Each to his own I guess. enjoy your new stang.
sorry you had to be the one.
I don't see anything aggressive about the mustang rear. It just looks sad to me..like it needs a hug.
Each to his own I guess. enjoy your new stang.
Last edited by burningman; 3/15/10 at 04:25 PM.
3/15/10, 04:24 PM
#63
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good styling analysis, Burningman, pretty spot on if you ask me. While the '10 rear end might look "aggressive," whatever exactly that means (looks more lumpy like a fat girls thighs to my eyes), it doesn't look as good.
In my opinion though, one of the best pony car rear ends was the pre '10 GT500, which was a bit more interesting than the GT but still very trim, taut and muscular; not all fat, flab and cellulite like the current GT500.
In my opinion though, one of the best pony car rear ends was the pre '10 GT500, which was a bit more interesting than the GT but still very trim, taut and muscular; not all fat, flab and cellulite like the current GT500.
Last edited by rhumb; 3/15/10 at 04:27 PM.
3/15/10, 04:26 PM
#64
Bow Chica Bow Wow
TMS Staff
TMS Staff
Good styling analysis, Burningman, pretty spot on if you ask me. While the '10 rear end might look "aggressive," whatever exactly that means (looks more lumpy like a fat girls thighs to my eyes), it doesn't look as good.
In my opinion though, one of the best pony car rear ends was the pre '10 GT500, which was a bit more interesting than the GT but still very trim, taut and muscular; not all fat, flab and cellulite like the current GT500.
In my opinion though, one of the best pony car rear ends was the pre '10 GT500, which was a bit more interesting than the GT but still very trim, taut and muscular; not all fat, flab and cellulite like the current GT500.
3/15/10, 04:43 PM
#65
legacy Tms Member MEMORIAL Rest In Peace 10/06/2021
Join Date: September 16, 2009
Location: Clinton Tennessee
Posts: 3,377
Received 125 Likes
on
101 Posts
I'll be ordering my 11 V-6 Wed. the 17th. I'm sure i'll be saying the 2014 Mustang "is ugly". LOL!!! Things change as time goes by, nothing we can do about it.
3/15/10, 05:47 PM
#67
Swamp Donkey Aficionado
Join Date: November 23, 2006
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is huge, burningman. You don't like the new Mustang's rear; that's your opinion. I think the Challenger is a bloated, bland, two-ton behemoth, albeit a good-looking one. No need to get defensive, man. If you're going to offer your opinion, be prepared to receive one or more in return. That's all.
3/15/10, 05:48 PM
#68
Bow Chica Bow Wow
TMS Staff
TMS Staff
the point is this thread is about design not weight. I'd have no problem with your opinion if it was actually relevant to this thread.
Last edited by burningman; 3/15/10 at 05:50 PM.
3/15/10, 05:49 PM
#69
Swamp Donkey Aficionado
Join Date: November 23, 2006
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good styling analysis, Burningman, pretty spot on if you ask me. While the '10 rear end might look "aggressive," whatever exactly that means (looks more lumpy like a fat girls thighs to my eyes), it doesn't look as good.
In my opinion though, one of the best pony car rear ends was the pre '10 GT500, which was a bit more interesting than the GT but still very trim, taut and muscular; not all fat, flab and cellulite like the current GT500.
In my opinion though, one of the best pony car rear ends was the pre '10 GT500, which was a bit more interesting than the GT but still very trim, taut and muscular; not all fat, flab and cellulite like the current GT500.
3/15/10, 05:50 PM
#70
MOTM Committee Member
3/15/10, 05:51 PM
#71
Swamp Donkey Aficionado
Join Date: November 23, 2006
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3/15/10, 05:56 PM
#73
Legacy TMS Member
+1 That's what I was thinking. I always like the '10 rears better with darker colors...
3/15/10, 05:57 PM
#74
Swamp Donkey Aficionado
Join Date: November 23, 2006
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3/15/10, 06:17 PM
#75
Cobra R Member
Join Date: September 11, 2009
Posts: 1,774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is this still being brought up? Like there were 20+ pages discussions before on this... And it amounted to nothing.
WHO CARESSSS.
If you like it, cool.
If you don't, just as fine.
If you continue to complain thinking you and your 3 friends represent the majority and you're going to change it. You're clearly mistaken.
The 2010 sold over 65,000+ units in one of the worst automotive selling years. Beating that of Camaro and Challenger. Clearly people "like" it.
And it's what I've always said, the main gripe is the plastic wrap around and how that takes away from the 2010+'s. Ok, fine- I get what your saying but don't see it that way... and that's my opinion.
Might I remind you to sit inside your 05-09.... Look around? Scope it out... What do you see... Plastic!!! Like a laundry bin. Usually compounded with gaudy outta place Billett components... But that's fine, right? Not cheap at all, but the molding is- I get it...
The rear isn't changing because 3% of you dislike it. Many of you say you don't like the rear but will buy it anyway... Which is your own undoing... For clearly it isn't as bad as you make it out to be.
This is topic done and dusted lock this thing
3/15/10, 06:20 PM
#76
Bow Chica Bow Wow
TMS Staff
TMS Staff
Tony You are right 100%
But I do beleive if people want to have a discussion about this and stay on topic then it's cool by me as long as it's kept civil.
If it goes down this road any further I'll lock it myself.
But I do beleive if people want to have a discussion about this and stay on topic then it's cool by me as long as it's kept civil.
If it goes down this road any further I'll lock it myself.
3/15/10, 07:33 PM
#79
Bullitt Member
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-09 = simple clean purposeful lines (Admittedly not the best looking rear out there, I remember hearing about how much it was made fun of by owners at a Corvette forum and how little it would sell when these photos leaked:
)
I think that I've heard the 10+ described around here as a designer's vision that did not quite make it from concept to production without the noise of the corporate bureaucracy getting in the way.
Top Notch posted this sketch of how the 2010 was originally envisioned:
I think that I've heard the 10+ described around here as a designer's vision that did not quite make it from concept to production without the noise of the corporate bureaucracy getting in the way.
Top Notch posted this sketch of how the 2010 was originally envisioned:
Last edited by jadedpony; 3/15/10 at 07:35 PM.
3/16/10, 12:17 AM
#80
Legacy TMS Member
Well, I for one am glad THAT blocky thing didn't make it right out... I see where the tail lights came from though...
---
I still can't get behind the 10+ behind. It just doesn't look right. That sketch doesn't look right. It almost makes me physically ill. It's really weird, people, my reaction to it. It's so... visceral. Why? Why am I so... well, instinctively opposed to them? I hadda figure it out, so...
I was looking at a 96's lights... a 2003's lights... a 93 LX lights... heck the 93 GT's... and of course the 05-09's... And to a one, they all say Mustang in their own way, and aren't unattractive. The 94-95 tail lamps, even though they were wrongly divided horizontally, still said Mustang... just you hadda turn your head to the side. But it wasn't totally 'wrong'... just 90 degrees. Hell, even the Mustang II had a certain amount of 'Mustangness' to the lamps.
The 10+ just simply... doesn't. In my opinion, of course, that's obvious. And I think I know why...
Think about all Mustangs before the 10, with the exception of the '94s and '95s. What do they have in common? Flat across, segmented lights. NONE of them before the *last* segment out start going 'towards the front'. I don't mean bending about in the vertical... some have that. IIs angle at the top, following the car's lines. 67s bend concave in the panel they're in. I'm talking about the wrapping of the ends around from the back to the side.
In the '79-93 series, it's just a trick to get the red reflector on the side, so you "unprotect" the end of the lamps and stick a reflector on it. It's cleaner than the separate light/reflector lower down... For the 94 through 04s, similar, just the blinking side, they have a reflector elsewhere. Doesn't distract or detract, it still is good.
But even more importantly, absolutely none of them before '10+ has some sorta shape on the bottom... Not one. Unless I remember wrong... and I did a Google image search to be sure... they all seem to be 'flat bottom' lights. The tops get rounded, angled maybe 72s and 03s come to mind... but flat across the bottom of the lamp is the theme, even if the segments themselves are separated and/or even angled like an 03.
Both of these design cues are NOT present in the 10+. They are both not flat bottomed, and also bend to the front. And it is these two elements, combined, that makes that entire rear end alien to me. The big diaper and the pushed up cheek look that it all comprises does not help... but it really all starts with the lights. You might could have gotten away with the V shape, OR the angle wrap at the inner segment... but not both at the same time.
And as such, as a design element, in relation to the Mustang series overall, in my opinion... Ford Screwed It Up. Just like they did the 94 and 95. In 96, the SN95s got new, "right" tail lamps. And I seem to recall those weren't supposed to be on that body until 97 or 98 model year, but Ford moved it up... it didn't hurt they also came in with the new 4.6, so it was just so very spifferific. Perhaps I'm mistaken about that timing, or I had bad info at the time... but that's what I recall.
The bad part about these lights is that there's no way to just 'plug in' new ones for this issue... they're stuck with it until 2014, unless they retool...well, everything back there. Trunk lid, quarter panels, bumper cover, structure, and possibly the spoilers. Or, the could go back to a 94-95 type setup, turning the segments on the sides... don't think it'd help though.
Well. That's what I feel about it. I'm sorry for those who like the 10+ rear end treatment if I offend ya in some way... I'm just talking about the design and how it makes me feel.
/Since we're rehashing this. Might as well go all in.
//oh, and overall thread: tl,dr. So if someone else came up with that... well, great minds and all that.
///I will admit to the 10+ lights looking great at night... where you can't see all that design problem... they're disembodied.
---
I still can't get behind the 10+ behind. It just doesn't look right. That sketch doesn't look right. It almost makes me physically ill. It's really weird, people, my reaction to it. It's so... visceral. Why? Why am I so... well, instinctively opposed to them? I hadda figure it out, so...
I was looking at a 96's lights... a 2003's lights... a 93 LX lights... heck the 93 GT's... and of course the 05-09's... And to a one, they all say Mustang in their own way, and aren't unattractive. The 94-95 tail lamps, even though they were wrongly divided horizontally, still said Mustang... just you hadda turn your head to the side. But it wasn't totally 'wrong'... just 90 degrees. Hell, even the Mustang II had a certain amount of 'Mustangness' to the lamps.
The 10+ just simply... doesn't. In my opinion, of course, that's obvious. And I think I know why...
Think about all Mustangs before the 10, with the exception of the '94s and '95s. What do they have in common? Flat across, segmented lights. NONE of them before the *last* segment out start going 'towards the front'. I don't mean bending about in the vertical... some have that. IIs angle at the top, following the car's lines. 67s bend concave in the panel they're in. I'm talking about the wrapping of the ends around from the back to the side.
In the '79-93 series, it's just a trick to get the red reflector on the side, so you "unprotect" the end of the lamps and stick a reflector on it. It's cleaner than the separate light/reflector lower down... For the 94 through 04s, similar, just the blinking side, they have a reflector elsewhere. Doesn't distract or detract, it still is good.
But even more importantly, absolutely none of them before '10+ has some sorta shape on the bottom... Not one. Unless I remember wrong... and I did a Google image search to be sure... they all seem to be 'flat bottom' lights. The tops get rounded, angled maybe 72s and 03s come to mind... but flat across the bottom of the lamp is the theme, even if the segments themselves are separated and/or even angled like an 03.
Both of these design cues are NOT present in the 10+. They are both not flat bottomed, and also bend to the front. And it is these two elements, combined, that makes that entire rear end alien to me. The big diaper and the pushed up cheek look that it all comprises does not help... but it really all starts with the lights. You might could have gotten away with the V shape, OR the angle wrap at the inner segment... but not both at the same time.
And as such, as a design element, in relation to the Mustang series overall, in my opinion... Ford Screwed It Up. Just like they did the 94 and 95. In 96, the SN95s got new, "right" tail lamps. And I seem to recall those weren't supposed to be on that body until 97 or 98 model year, but Ford moved it up... it didn't hurt they also came in with the new 4.6, so it was just so very spifferific. Perhaps I'm mistaken about that timing, or I had bad info at the time... but that's what I recall.
The bad part about these lights is that there's no way to just 'plug in' new ones for this issue... they're stuck with it until 2014, unless they retool...well, everything back there. Trunk lid, quarter panels, bumper cover, structure, and possibly the spoilers. Or, the could go back to a 94-95 type setup, turning the segments on the sides... don't think it'd help though.
Well. That's what I feel about it. I'm sorry for those who like the 10+ rear end treatment if I offend ya in some way... I'm just talking about the design and how it makes me feel.
/Since we're rehashing this. Might as well go all in.
//oh, and overall thread: tl,dr. So if someone else came up with that... well, great minds and all that.
///I will admit to the 10+ lights looking great at night... where you can't see all that design problem... they're disembodied.
Last edited by houtex; 3/16/10 at 12:22 AM.