2015 Mustang design discussion
2015 Mustang Picture framed and signed by J Mays and Moray Callum...
Seriously the Mustang can't survive on it's own platform going forward even without the idea of "One Ford". But seeing as this is the direction of the company the solid axle has to say goodbye. People are frazzled by the quotes of "non retro". Mostly this is about the underpinnings. The car will still very much look like a Mustang should. Going forward this car has to sustain two or more other vehicles. Most likely in 2015, the Falcon will gain from it and be sold to world markets (Fleet/Cop/Taxi Replacement state side). In 2016 you will see a Lincoln variant. If you really want a solid axle Stang, 2013-14 will be your years. The updates fix all the gripes people have about the black plastics/taillights/sync/brakes/etc.
Seriously the Mustang can't survive on it's own platform going forward even without the idea of "One Ford". But seeing as this is the direction of the company the solid axle has to say goodbye. People are frazzled by the quotes of "non retro". Mostly this is about the underpinnings. The car will still very much look like a Mustang should. Going forward this car has to sustain two or more other vehicles. Most likely in 2015, the Falcon will gain from it and be sold to world markets (Fleet/Cop/Taxi Replacement state side). In 2016 you will see a Lincoln variant. If you really want a solid axle Stang, 2013-14 will be your years. The updates fix all the gripes people have about the black plastics/taillights/sync/brakes/etc.
Pretty much agree with Topnotch. A bespoke chassis is certainly NOT in the cards for the 2015 and while a lively axle may have a certain appeal to a specific subset of domestic drag racers, penny pinchers and Luddites, it would represent an immediate DSQ (disqualification) for any platform with shared global and/or upmarket aspirations. An outlier possibility would be some sort of live axle option on the Stang, but I don't see that as very likely at all.
As for styling, as I've mentioned previously, I think the Ford Evos Concept, stretched and tweaked appropriately, will give a good general indication of the far more modern, "evolved" if you will, interpretation of Mustang stylistic DNA will look like in 2015. 2013 will just be a running refresh and updating of the current platform, nothing too major.
Just compare a, say, '69 Stang rear:
Which has me think'n: "Mmmmm, nice tight, taut, pert yet muscular derierre, let's go for a spin."
With the lumpen mass of a 2010:
Which has me think'n: "Whoa, that fat azz sure has a bad case of cellulitis, get thee to a gym."
GTR Member
Joined: October 18, 2006
Posts: 5,553
Likes: 11
From: England
I wouldn't bet against these fellas. When it comes to what's next for the Mustang, they're usually spot on 
Whoa! This is freaky. As I was driving home this evening, I got to thinking about the next-gen car and how worried I was that it may well be an Evos-themed Mustang, losing everything I fell in love with about the S197..........but, then I thought, what if the comments aren't about the looks, more the underpinnings? Whilst I have nothing against the SRA, I do agree the Mustang would struggle as a global product if it kept it post MY '15. So, I have no problem with an IRS, just so long as it drives like it's *** is on fire!
If it means it still looks like a Mustang ('67 Fastback or '69 Sportsroof "clones" for me, Mr May), then the future for Mustang is bright. VERY bright
Oh, and can I get a copy of the signed picture, too
If it means it still looks like a Mustang ('67 Fastback or '69 Sportsroof "clones" for me, Mr May), then the future for Mustang is bright. VERY bright
Oh, and can I get a copy of the signed picture, too
Cobra Member
Joined: July 11, 2007
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
The updates fix all the gripes people have about the black plastics/taillights/sync/brakes/etc.
Swamp Donkey Aficionado
Joined: November 23, 2006
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
Maybe strong, muscular haunches/hips, but the lower rear ends themselves tended to be much tauter, tighter and pulled up -- perkier if you will -- than the lumpy, droopy full-diaper of the 2010+ (and a lot of other cars nowadays).
Just compare a, say, '69 Stang rear:
Which has me think'n: "Mmmmm, nice tight, taut, pert yet muscular derierre, let's go for a spin."
With the lumpen mass of a 2010:
Which has me think'n: "Whoa, that fat azz sure has a bad case of cellulitis, get thee to a gym."
Just compare a, say, '69 Stang rear:
Which has me think'n: "Mmmmm, nice tight, taut, pert yet muscular derierre, let's go for a spin."
With the lumpen mass of a 2010:
Which has me think'n: "Whoa, that fat azz sure has a bad case of cellulitis, get thee to a gym."
Last edited by MARZ; Oct 3, 2011 at 04:04 PM.
Banned
Joined: March 9, 2011
Posts: 16,242
Likes: 6
Originally Posted by rhumb
Maybe strong, muscular haunches/hips, but the lower rear ends themselves tended to be much tauter, tighter and pulled up -- perkier if you will -- than the lumpy, droopy full-diaper of the 2010+ (and a lot of other cars nowadays).
Just compare a, say, '69 Stang rear:
Which has me think'n: "Mmmmm, nice tight, taut, pert yet muscular derierre, let's go for a spin."
With the lumpen mass of a 2010:
Which has me think'n: "Whoa, that fat azz sure has a bad case of cellulitis, get thee to a gym."
Just compare a, say, '69 Stang rear:
Which has me think'n: "Mmmmm, nice tight, taut, pert yet muscular derierre, let's go for a spin."
With the lumpen mass of a 2010:
Which has me think'n: "Whoa, that fat azz sure has a bad case of cellulitis, get thee to a gym."
MOTM Committee Member
Joined: April 17, 2006
Posts: 9,201
Likes: 2
From: SoCal
Mach 1 Member
Joined: May 16, 2008
Posts: 571
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver
I don't think he's talking about performance, just the look. The 69 looks lean and agressive whereas the 2010+ looks bulky...regardless of actual performance. I don't think that was the point.
Banned
Joined: March 9, 2011
Posts: 16,242
Likes: 6
Originally Posted by Clino
I don't think he's talking about performance, just the look. The 69 looks lean and agressive whereas the 2010+ looks bulky...regardless of actual performance. I don't think that was the point.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: July 16, 2010
Posts: 864
Likes: 2
You guys sound so silly arguing about Mustang design. Sorry no Mustang was ever a paramount of design. The original was a low cost version of well used 2+2 European sport coupe and not beautiful just pleasant and sold in large numbers. No mustang will ever be in any list of the ten most beautiful cars make that 100 most beautiful cars. Now beauty is only one attribute Mustang does a lot for little money and does it with a pleasant flare. If Ford can reproduce that they do fine.
Swamp Donkey Aficionado
Joined: November 23, 2006
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
You guys sound so silly arguing about Mustang design. Sorry no Mustang was ever a paramount of design. The original was a low cost version of well used 2+2 European sport coupe and not beautiful just pleasant and sold in large numbers. No mustang will ever be in any list of the ten most beautiful cars make that 100 most beautiful cars. Now beauty is only one attribute Mustang does a lot for little money and does it with a pleasant flare. If Ford can reproduce that they do fine.
Cobra Member
Joined: July 11, 2007
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
I agree with the others. I don't think I've ever ran into anyone who thought the '69 rear, or any vintage Mustang rear, was bulky. Certainly when compared to the current Mustangs, pre- and post-refresh....
Heh, speak for yourself. Speaking for myself, the Mustang is one of the best looking and recognizable cars of the '60s and early '70s.
Heh, speak for yourself. Speaking for myself, the Mustang is one of the best looking and recognizable cars of the '60s and early '70s.
The '69's rear, especially the lower valance area, is certainly less voluminous and massive/heavy looking, and has few if any of the multitude of lumps, bulges, lines and busyness of the'10+. The overall effect, to my eye at least, is of less mass, held more tightly, carried more tautly and just overall a cleaner, leaner visual effect.
The '69's primary visual mass is carried much higher and a bit forward in its haunches rather than low in its butt, giving a much more muscular as opposed to simply massive effect, more like the tensed muscles of a predator ready to pounce on its prey, not a rotund butt settling into a chair ready for another triple cheeseburger.
The '10+ on the other hand, and especially the lower bumper/valance area, is a riot of rather discordant lumps, bumps, bulges and any number of stylistic geegaws rather loosely integrated. Its overall effect is far more voluminous, massive and rather heavy looking, especially given the concentration of visual mass being so low giving it a softer, sagging effect -- what I've long ago labled the "full diaper" look. That soft effect is also enhanced by looking like the bottom is being dragged back by the road like some slug or something.
Of course, this IS all very subjective. As they say, the prettiest thing to Mr. Piggy is Mrs. Piggy. And, as noted, while some Mustang models have been very good and often compelling designs, I, too, wouldn't rank any of them at the very acme of the auto design art. That discussion, however, could go on well into any night and many beers.
Banned
Joined: March 9, 2011
Posts: 16,242
Likes: 6
The 69 has a hunchback. It's front and rear don't belong together. The 10+ has lumps and bumps..what?¿ The 69's gumps are all over the rear in the form of an outer bumper, protruding rear lights, reverse lights, side marker lights. The 10+ is definitely more aerodynamic than the 69, which probably has zero. The total metal used to make the 69 body from the rear quarter windows back could build a complete 65 mustang body. I agree though beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
Last edited by 11SHELBYGT500; Oct 4, 2011 at 09:09 AM.
Cobra Member
Joined: July 11, 2007
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Most any of the fastbacks will have what you call a "hunchback" appearance. That's just the nature of the beast. Sounds like you simply dislike the '69 "Sportsroof" body style/roofline but you should consider there were convertibles and notchbacks that didn't sport this look. I consider the rear of the car to primarily be the tail light panel and lower valence, not just the roofline.
Cobra R Member
Joined: January 10, 2011
Posts: 1,752
Likes: 1
From: Ontario
The '65 fastback's fast back's semicircular integration into the rear deck was design at it's most elegant. it is, IMNSHO, a design milestone.
Last edited by Fenderaddict2; Oct 4, 2011 at 11:09 AM.
Banned
Joined: March 9, 2011
Posts: 16,242
Likes: 6
Originally Posted by Wolfsburg
Most any of the fastbacks will have what you call a "hunchback" appearance. That's just the nature of the beast. Sounds like you simply dislike the '69 "Sportsroof" body style/roofline but you should consider there were convertibles and notchbacks that didn't sport this look. I consider the rear of the car to primarily be the tail light panel and lower valence, not just the roofline.