2015 Mustang Opinions cars.com
1/22/14, 06:21 PM
#1
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
2015 Mustang Opinions cars.com
Just the messenger! 1 guy likes it the other 3 not so much. Here is the link.
http://www.bankrate.com/partners/cmc...image_headline
http://www.bankrate.com/partners/cmc...image_headline
1/22/14, 10:44 PM
#7
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: July 5, 2011
Location: La Jolla, CA
Posts: 969
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't call it a loser, but I still don't like the design. I certainly do like it better than the new Camaro and Corvette though. The new Camaro looks awful. The C7 Corvette isn't that bad, but the C6 looked much better IMO.
1/23/14, 02:25 AM
#8
Cobra R Member
Join Date: August 7, 2004
Location: Ladner,Canada
Posts: 1,765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here I thought I was harsh on the new design....my knocks pail compared to what these guys are saying.I thought JB really hit the nail with his thoughts about the Mustang looking like two different cars from windshield front/back....
1/23/14, 07:54 AM
#10
Member
Join Date: March 7, 2011
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eh, this is hugely subjective, but those guys also hated on the RC-F, which, IMO, looks quite a bit better than the new M4 :-X. The yellow on black wheel combo didn't help things, as they probably compared it directly with the Z06 sporting the same combo for 2.5x the money.
1/23/14, 08:34 AM
#11
Super Boss Lawman Member
Yes, from that angle it doesn't look like the yellow shows the lines of the mustang too well. NOW, if it was a blue mustang up there it would have won hands down! Lol ;-)
1/23/14, 11:45 AM
#13
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My reaction, to their reaction:
I would agree that perhaps Ford did play it a bit too safe with the 2015 -- too worried they'd alienate the hard-core traditionalist base -- and that something more akin to the EVOS would have truly moved the Mustang forward as a fully 21st century Pony Car. Chevy, following on the Mustang in a year or two with its redesigned Camaro, might well have some opportunity to create that fully 21st century Pony Car if they execute it properly.
As mentioned above, I think a touch more EVOS, especially in the front, would have been a bit better. Their is a bit of stylistic disconnect between the sleeker back and the chunkier front -- I suspect Ford butched-up the front to appeal to the older, more traditionalist core. Back seat room? Not sure it is appreciably smaller and besides, 2+2 sports coupe, who cares really. They are probable no more than 37 people who've actually ridden in the back of a Mustang for more than 3 miles, since 1965.
I have no problem with this supposed "hood drop," whatever exactly that is. If anything, I think a bit more taper -- "drop" if you will -- would have benefitted the design slightly. As for fun to drive, with the new front and especially IRS rear suspensions, I suspect it will be far, far more fun to drive, especially qualitatively, regardless of whatever test track numbers it might post.
As mentioned above, I would agree with this somewhat, but hardly enough to bump it into "Loser" category. The hood length is probably necessary -- there IS a big V8 to house in there -- even if the lines themselves might have been drawn slightly more finely and tightly.
Overall:
None of the complaints noted would have bumbed the 2015 Stang into the "Loser" category, even if though they have some validity. The 2015 was perhaps a bit too safe, Ford being perhaps a bit too worried about alienating their more traditionalist clientel, and thus perhaps having less shelf life freshness than an even more modern, more EVOS-like design might. This might leave an opening for Chevy to exploit with their Camaro redesign, IF they execute it well -- not a given but not to be dismissed either.
I would probably expect the inevitable 2017 refresh to move in an even more modern direction after delicately bringing along those easily ruffled traditionalists with this safer 2015 initial offering. Ford will also likely need to fight fire with fire as the next Camaro will likely be fresh to the showroom floors by then. Dodge, too, will likely have the next Challenger/Cuda arriving by then and early rumors are that it will be far more modern than the current (beautifully done) retro, practically repro, design. Playing it safe to coddle the delicate sensibilities of the Old Guard likely will not be a viable long term option at that point.
AB: Loser
The Chevy Camaro is outselling the Mustang with an older design featuring a lower-quality interior, and Ford responds by making a new Mustang ... that looks like the old one? Ford played it too safe with this new Mustang, softening the design of the current one but breaking no new ground whatsoever. The next Camaro is not far away, and I bet Chevy is smelling blood right about now.
The Chevy Camaro is outselling the Mustang with an older design featuring a lower-quality interior, and Ford responds by making a new Mustang ... that looks like the old one? Ford played it too safe with this new Mustang, softening the design of the current one but breaking no new ground whatsoever. The next Camaro is not far away, and I bet Chevy is smelling blood right about now.
I would agree that perhaps Ford did play it a bit too safe with the 2015 -- too worried they'd alienate the hard-core traditionalist base -- and that something more akin to the EVOS would have truly moved the Mustang forward as a fully 21st century Pony Car. Chevy, following on the Mustang in a year or two with its redesigned Camaro, might well have some opportunity to create that fully 21st century Pony Car if they execute it properly.
JW: Loser
I expected to like it more than I did. The silhouette is nice, but overall the combination of new cues with its retro substrate looks awkward. It's chunky in front and shrink-wrapped in back. I'm also bummed that the backseat is less accommodating. Is that a shortcoming in this car type? Arguably not. But the larger backseat was a bonus in the previous generation, especially compared with the Camaro.
I expected to like it more than I did. The silhouette is nice, but overall the combination of new cues with its retro substrate looks awkward. It's chunky in front and shrink-wrapped in back. I'm also bummed that the backseat is less accommodating. Is that a shortcoming in this car type? Arguably not. But the larger backseat was a bonus in the previous generation, especially compared with the Camaro.
As mentioned above, I think a touch more EVOS, especially in the front, would have been a bit better. Their is a bit of stylistic disconnect between the sleeker back and the chunkier front -- I suspect Ford butched-up the front to appeal to the older, more traditionalist core. Back seat room? Not sure it is appreciably smaller and besides, 2+2 sports coupe, who cares really. They are probable no more than 37 people who've actually ridden in the back of a Mustang for more than 3 miles, since 1965.
MH: Winner
I'm not wild about the new front end, particularly how the hood drops at the front of the car, but the fastback roofline looks great, as does the interior. Here's hoping it's at least as fun to drive as the prior generation, which is one of the things that distinguished that car from its competitors.
I'm not wild about the new front end, particularly how the hood drops at the front of the car, but the fastback roofline looks great, as does the interior. Here's hoping it's at least as fun to drive as the prior generation, which is one of the things that distinguished that car from its competitors.
I have no problem with this supposed "hood drop," whatever exactly that is. If anything, I think a bit more taper -- "drop" if you will -- would have benefitted the design slightly. As for fun to drive, with the new front and especially IRS rear suspensions, I suspect it will be far, far more fun to drive, especially qualitatively, regardless of whatever test track numbers it might post.
JB: Loser
I stared at the Mustang for what seemed like an eternity trying to figure out what was wrong. After all, I loved the way it looked in photos. The problem was forward of the cabin where the Mustang is bulky and long, appearing like a different car compared to the windshield rearward.
I stared at the Mustang for what seemed like an eternity trying to figure out what was wrong. After all, I loved the way it looked in photos. The problem was forward of the cabin where the Mustang is bulky and long, appearing like a different car compared to the windshield rearward.
As mentioned above, I would agree with this somewhat, but hardly enough to bump it into "Loser" category. The hood length is probably necessary -- there IS a big V8 to house in there -- even if the lines themselves might have been drawn slightly more finely and tightly.
Overall:
None of the complaints noted would have bumbed the 2015 Stang into the "Loser" category, even if though they have some validity. The 2015 was perhaps a bit too safe, Ford being perhaps a bit too worried about alienating their more traditionalist clientel, and thus perhaps having less shelf life freshness than an even more modern, more EVOS-like design might. This might leave an opening for Chevy to exploit with their Camaro redesign, IF they execute it well -- not a given but not to be dismissed either.
I would probably expect the inevitable 2017 refresh to move in an even more modern direction after delicately bringing along those easily ruffled traditionalists with this safer 2015 initial offering. Ford will also likely need to fight fire with fire as the next Camaro will likely be fresh to the showroom floors by then. Dodge, too, will likely have the next Challenger/Cuda arriving by then and early rumors are that it will be far more modern than the current (beautifully done) retro, practically repro, design. Playing it safe to coddle the delicate sensibilities of the Old Guard likely will not be a viable long term option at that point.
1/28/14, 05:47 PM
#15
GT Member
My 2 cents on the 2015 Mustang
First the disclaimer: I am an old guy that grew up in the 60's when muscle cars were not classics but what many were running. Owned a few myself; 67 GTO; 60 Charger; 65 Impala supersport; 64 Buick skylark. More recently owned a 2001 Corvette.
Ive read some stuff on the new Mustang put out by Ford. Interestingly enough they claim have put in the IRS (Independent rear suspension) to appeal to the world Market. They claimed they did not keep the IRS after the few years of the Cobra's as most Americans wanted the solid rear axles for drag racing. Ford hopes to bring the Mustang more global thus the supercharge 4cylinder and the design changes that more reflect other Ford models like the Fusion.
For myself my current Mustang, 2013 was purchased because I liked the retro look. Now that I have owned it for a while I have learned to appreciate what Retro means. To me it has the feel of a Pony Car, which is what Mustang started as. (I remember friends with their six cylinder 64 and 65 mustangs) It means a fun car, a sharp looking car, a peppy car if not a genuine muscle car cause its only six cylinder. Its style and details pay respect to the originals, but its updated mechanics make is modern and make it drive better than the originals.
All that being said I think the 2015 Mustang is probably a great mechanical car, even the 4 cylinder. It is not as retro as the last generation. Is worse or better ? Neither really, just different. Like the newest generation of the Corvette its evolved and modernized to a point that, in my opinion has lost some of the classic lines and designs that Mustangs and Corvettes were known for.
Of course I don't like I phones either so take my opinions with a grain of salt. Old NJ Guy
Ive read some stuff on the new Mustang put out by Ford. Interestingly enough they claim have put in the IRS (Independent rear suspension) to appeal to the world Market. They claimed they did not keep the IRS after the few years of the Cobra's as most Americans wanted the solid rear axles for drag racing. Ford hopes to bring the Mustang more global thus the supercharge 4cylinder and the design changes that more reflect other Ford models like the Fusion.
For myself my current Mustang, 2013 was purchased because I liked the retro look. Now that I have owned it for a while I have learned to appreciate what Retro means. To me it has the feel of a Pony Car, which is what Mustang started as. (I remember friends with their six cylinder 64 and 65 mustangs) It means a fun car, a sharp looking car, a peppy car if not a genuine muscle car cause its only six cylinder. Its style and details pay respect to the originals, but its updated mechanics make is modern and make it drive better than the originals.
All that being said I think the 2015 Mustang is probably a great mechanical car, even the 4 cylinder. It is not as retro as the last generation. Is worse or better ? Neither really, just different. Like the newest generation of the Corvette its evolved and modernized to a point that, in my opinion has lost some of the classic lines and designs that Mustangs and Corvettes were known for.
Of course I don't like I phones either so take my opinions with a grain of salt. Old NJ Guy
1/29/14, 12:15 AM
#16
These guys all liked the new Chrysler 200 but not the Mustang, that tells me everything I need to know. I do agree with the "winner" guy, the Mustang does taper too sharply at the headlight area. That could have been done much better.
1/29/14, 04:39 AM
#17
Shelby GT350 Member
Personally, I love the new design and I want to own one...but these guys did make good points and they coveed the acpects of the design that are my least favorite. Oh well... It stinks to see someone criticize something you like but I can't argue with them.
The Chrysler 200 is a knock out for a midsized sedan...almost as pretty as the '14 Mazda6, IMO.
The Chrysler 200 is a knock out for a midsized sedan...almost as pretty as the '14 Mazda6, IMO.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post