Exactly. It is for the same reason that I love the '05+ Mustang....the classic styling that looked so perfect sitting next to a late 60's Mustang. The true retro phase of the Mustang is officially over, as the new car is an attempt by Ford at a "modernized" version of the '05 car.

 

It isn't over. It's a continuation, a refresh. KInd of like a Porsche 911.....it's evolving. Stand still and everyone will pass you by.

As I remember the 05 roll out, it had virtually universal praise: modern with a nod to the past. It was "heritage" styling....not retro.

I expect the next generation to be really new, but still identifiable as a Mustang.

 

Porsche 911 never had a retro phase because the car evolved over time without very subtle styling changes. The Mustang, on the other hand, has run all over the styling map until it went back to its roots in 2005. In that sense, the retro phase is definitely over. The new styling of the 2010 would be hard pressed to be considered retro, but the '05 is nothing if it isn't retro. Look at the New Beetle....definitely retro. Mini Cooper...same thing.

 

Can you really consider something retro if it never changed? They just took the Beetle and modernized it. Heck their production even overlapped between 1998 and 2003.

 

I know Im going to get crap for this but I think the new Mustang is more Retro than the previous 05 and still more modern at the same time. It has a hip again, seperated tail lights, non-boring hood, more of a C-scoop circular and rectangular air vents like the 67 model, sequential tail lights like some ford cars of the 60's and alot of options just like the original. I loved the 05 to death but it is bland and boring sitting next to the 2010. Just my opinion.

 

Yes, the Mustang lost it's styling direction a couple of times (71-73 and 79-93 specifically). The '10 isn't that much different than the '05 as far as origins are concerned. The basic styling cues are a RWD sports coupe/convertible, corral grill, long hood/short deck, 3 element tail lights, side "C" sculpturing.

You haven't made a compelling case as to why the '10 is somehow post-retro. It's a continuation with very subtle changes of the 05-09.

 

Absolutely in this case because they stopped selling them in the U.S. for many years. So when the New Beetle came out it was definitely considered a retro design theme. The 911 has been with us continually over the years, so it's a different story.

 

What about 74? That's about as bad as it gets for Mustang styling.

The reason I think the 2010 is no longer retro is simply because you can't "modernize" a retro design and expect it to still be considered retro. Doesn't make any sense.... The changes are not exactly subtle to me.

 

I don't know why so many people still Hate on the 71-73's. the Mustang II's I can Understand, but I can Appreciate them for what they were as well. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the 71-73's were slowly Bogged Down with Emissions Controls that Reduced their Horsepower. Something Ford or any other manufacturer couldn't help during the early to mid 70's.

The 71-73's Styling was Heavily Inspired by the 69/70 Shelby's. Ford gave the public what they wanted at the time the 71-73's were being designed. So Many People refer to them as Whales and Bloated which I don't see. Especially in Mach 1 Trim. I see a Sleek, Powerful Muscle Car!

Of course part of my Love for the 71-73's has a lot to do with the fact that these are the first Mustangs to have an Impact Directly On My Life, as my Mom bought a Brand New 73 Mach 1 when I was a kid. I also learned to drive in another 73 Mach 1, that my Mom bout as a second car in the 80's. So I have a Big Soft Spot for them.









As for the 2010's I can See how some still call it a retro design simply for the fact that it picks up on so many Mustang styling cues of the 60's and 70's, and considering it is still based on the 05-09 S-197 Chassis, it could still be considered retro. I for one think it is a step toward a newer Modern/Classic look that we can only speculate that the Next Mustang will have. I personally hope they don't abandon the strong heritage of the Mustang but I'm all for Moving Forward.

 

Shawn, I'm still waiting for you to say something I don't agree with.

 

I love the 71 -73 body style. It was a bit too big for my taste, but overall I thought they were good looking cars. My only gripe is with the 74 body style. I will forever think that it was the worse year for the Mustang to date. But who knows what the future holds for the Mustang. Hopefully we never again see the days that Ford turns the Mustang into the equivalent of what the 74 model was back then...

 

You mean perfect for the times? An astronomical seller? Car of the Year? Underpowered weeniemobile?

 

1974? Yeah, Ford really goofed with that one--to the tune of 385,993 units sold. I'll bet Ford would hate it if they 'goofed' that badly with the 2010.

 

The difference between then and now is that ugly cars don't sell now. Choices were much more limited in 1974. And the cars basically all sucked back then anyway, due to increasingly stringent emission controls. IMO, the 1974 model was ugly and painfully underpowered. Two things that should never have been in a Mustang.

 

While I'm not disputing the validity of your argument, I will disagree with you on the "ugly cars don't sell now" thing. I know looks are subjective, but I know I see a crap-ton of ugly cars driving around these days. Somebody's buying them.

 

The '69 and '70 Shelbys were sleek, and muscular looking; the '71-73 look like a '69-'70 Shelby that had been hitting the donuts and beer too hard.
It's like the difference between the '68 comeback special Elvis and the 1977 Elvis:
1968 Elvis



1977 Elvis

 

When I say ugly, I'm talking about seriously ugly. Aztek ugly.... Subaru Tribeca (with the fugly nose) ugly... the kind of cars that manufacturers quickly restyle or pull the plug on because nobody is buying them. Today's new car buyer is a bit more sophisticated and demanding than in the mid-70's. Like I said, the choices were much more limited in those days.

 

Point taken, however I wouldn't go so far as to lump the II into that same category. The hardtop really isn't my thing, but I really think the hatch is a neat looking car.

But, as I've said before, I've got a strong pro-II bias.

 

I'm not sure I'm following you here. Looks are subjective--you don't like the 74 psuedo-stang. I can follow that (and even concede that it is not my favorite Mustang). But, a lot of people did like it--nearly 400,000 units sold. That is a number Ford would love to see from any of its cars today. (And a number unlikely to be matched by the newest Mustang.) As far as choices being more limited then? Define limited.

As of today the Mustang and the Challenger are the only pony cars around. (Throw in the 350Z, if you want. The Camaro is not on sale until next year.) There is no Firebird, no GTO, no Plymouth, no Buick, and no more AMC. Now think of 1974. Camaro, Firebird, Javelin, Challenger, Barracuda, to name the head-to-head domestic pony car competition. And, most manufactuers still offered muscle car offerings in 74, like the Plymouth Roadrunner, the Dodge Charger, and Ford's own Gran Torino GT (remember Starsky and Hutch). GM still offered a 454 in the Chevelle SS (Laguna S3) and a Nova with an SS package. GM also offered an Olds 442 H/O package and a Buick GS. And although it was on its way out, Pontiac still offered the GTO in 74. There was also a Toyota Celica GT, and Datsun 240Z to name a couple of imports. In point of fact, the 74 Mustang II faced considerably more competition in its time than the current Mustang. (There are very few RWD V8 coupes in today's market.) Like it or not, the 74 did very well against considerable odds. Few of its competitors survived.

 

Mustang II buyers were not necessarily "pony car" fans. In fact, since the car was basically neutered in 1974 (powerwise), I think it's fair to say that the '74 Mustang appealed to a completely different audience while abandoning the true musclecar enthusiasts. Sure, you can say that today more V6 Mustangs are sold than V8 Mustangs and that's true, but it still misses the point. Look at the incredible number of choices for today's car buyer. Not just pony cars, but all kinds of sporty cars are available and competing with cars like the Mustang. Back in '74 that was not the case, as the choice of cars was MUCH more limited. The only reason the Mustang II was successful at all was because Ford was able to get it out early enough to satisfy people who were basically looking for an econobox that still retained a little bit of sportiness, mostly due to the Mustang name/heritage. I'm fairly confident that if you polled 1,000 Mustang fans, more than 90% of them would name the '74 as the worst body style of all time. Yes, looks are subjective, but with a majority like that, I think it's fair to declare the '74 as the red-headed stepchild of Mustangs.