2015 Photoshop/Rendering Thread
#2061
GT Member
Join Date: October 4, 2010
Location: Columbus
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kinyodas
With concept pics like these - I wonder why Ford even has a design team! They can just go to the "Source."
#2062
GT Member
Join Date: October 4, 2010
Location: Columbus
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GreenCars
When I look at this rendering and a lot of others they all have one thing in common. They all have the S197 Greenhouse! New Edge did not have the same greenhouse nor the fox. Why do all these rendering look like a bad photo shop of a S197? Ford stated it will not be a S197 platform and also will not be retro to any of the older Mustangs. This rendering looks like the Evo's with the S197 greenhouse.
#2063
super quick hack job, just literally smudging some stuff around...
More to follow as time allows.
More to follow as time allows.
#2065
Cobra Member
Yea that's great but you're talking about cars that are 80 grand and up. Why the **** would a mustang GT need to compete with cars that cost at least triple the price, that's like asking my high school football team to keep up with the new england patriots. There are better performing/more comfortable mustangs out there, i.e. Rousch, Shelby, Saleen, Steeda, etc if that's what you want. But hey it's not like I'll have a gun to my head to buy one so I'm good. Just not happy with ford potentially ditching part of the mustang that has made it what it is.
Actually I in NO WAY suggested that the mustang has to compete with any 80k car. I mentioned the Viper only as another example of a MUSCLE (perhaps the ultimate MUSCLE) CAR, which is adding a bit of Euro styling. At no time did I suggest that it must compete with it.
The only car I talked about the mustang competing with is the zl camaro which is in fact priced similarly to the shelby gt500. Mustang hasn't been just a muscle car since the 2005. It's happily moving towards being a great car with muscle. Ultimately that's a good thing.
#2066
#2068
Banned
Originally Posted by eric n
Actually I in NO WAY suggested that the mustang has to compete with any 80k car. I mentioned the Viper only as another example of a MUSCLE (perhaps the ultimate MUSCLE) CAR, which is adding a bit of Euro styling. At no time did I suggest that it must compete with it.
The only car I talked about the mustang competing with is the zl camaro which is in fact priced similarly to the shelby gt500. Mustang hasn't been just a muscle car since the 2005. It's happily moving towards being a great car with muscle. Ultimately that's a good thing.
#2069
Let's see the first Mustang was a secretaries car. A fancy pants Falcon. Ford hired Shelby to make it .....a sports car and he did winning numerous races against tough competition. Then for a couple years they shoe horned some over size over weight V8s into the flexi flier chassis until the hp disappeared and the Mustang became a fancy pants Pinto. So when pray tell did this fierce reputation as a muscle car happen?
I think Ford is right on the money. Cars even sold in the US are held to a world standard either live up to it or die.
I think Ford is right on the money. Cars even sold in the US are held to a world standard either live up to it or die.
Last edited by 908ssp; 8/1/12 at 09:13 PM.
#2070
Yeah, definitions vary but "muscle car" and "pony car" are not synonymous. The Mustang (perhaps excepting some late 60s big blocks and maybe the current GT500s) is a Pony car. I've never understood why some people seem to think the Mustang is and has always been a muscle car.
#2071
Shelby GT350 Member
Well, in response to Mustang handling, the Mustang has out handled its competition and then some even with the 2010 track pack. The 2012 was that much better. So a bathtub with water in it, surely you jest.
Apparently you guys dont remember the Boss 429. A pony car with muscle car qualities, to compete with muscle cars. I feel like its armature hour and I don't even own a Mustang.
Apparently you guys dont remember the Boss 429. A pony car with muscle car qualities, to compete with muscle cars. I feel like its armature hour and I don't even own a Mustang.
#2072
The Boss 429 was an attempt to stuff a NASCAR engine in a Mustang to make a nice quarter-mile car. Results varied but it was one of only a handful of classic Mustangs that I think would qualify as a "muscle car".
#2074
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: November 3, 2007
Location: South Florida
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
,,here's one ,,Attachment 116185,,.
#2075
Banned
There is clearly a much more varied opinion of what a muscle car is than what I had assumed. I've always though of long hood, short deck, v8, rwd, coupe, and straight lines. Guess I had it all wrong hahaha
#2076
Banned
Originally Posted by 908ssp
Let's see the first Mustang was a secretaries car. A fancy pants Falcon. Ford hired Shelby to make it .....a sports car and he did winning numerous races against tough competition. Then for a couple years they shoe horned some over size over weight V8s into the flexi flier chassis until the hp disappeared and the Mustang became a fancy pants Pinto. So when pray tell did this fierce reputation as a muscle car happen?
I think Ford is right on the money. Cars even sold in the US are held to a world standard either live up to it or die.
I think Ford is right on the money. Cars even sold in the US are held to a world standard either live up to it or die.
#2077
Banned
Originally Posted by Automagically
Well, in response to Mustang handling, the Mustang has out handled its competition and then some even with the 2010 track pack. The 2012 was that much better. So a bathtub with water in it, surely you jest.
#2078
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As already mentioned, the Mustang was originally conceived as a bit of a counter to the "muscle cars" of its era (I don't think the term existed back then), being smaller, lighter, more sophisticated and with a bit more well-rounded performance envelope than the fat, overpowered dreadnaughts of its time.
Yes, there were some big-block Stangs in the late 60's early 70s that did bleed over into to muscle car category, but they were more the exception than the rule and certainly not the iconic Mustang personality.
To want or expect the Mustang to have a more refined and well-rounded suite of performance capability is not in any way to imply that it become soft, plush or expensive. Rather, it is to want to Mustang to become an even more capable performance car in a wider range of driving environments beyond doing some short wind sprints on glassy smooth straight roads. The Stang's current competition is displaying a wide range of performance capabilities, including the direct competitors, the Camaro and Challenger, but also perhaps slightly less direct competitors such as the Genesis Coupe.
Too often, I think, the muscle car mavens try to define the Mustang by muscle car deficiencies such as bad handling, iffy brakes, crude ride, cheap interiors, etc., rather than performance strengths. A car need not be crude and ill handling to be fun, tactile and exciting at the same time. Should one want a "dangerous and wild" car, you can always strap on some cheap narrow bias ply tires, limp shocks and worn brake pads. I'd rather my performance car be capable, not some careening oaf.
Yes, there were some big-block Stangs in the late 60's early 70s that did bleed over into to muscle car category, but they were more the exception than the rule and certainly not the iconic Mustang personality.
To want or expect the Mustang to have a more refined and well-rounded suite of performance capability is not in any way to imply that it become soft, plush or expensive. Rather, it is to want to Mustang to become an even more capable performance car in a wider range of driving environments beyond doing some short wind sprints on glassy smooth straight roads. The Stang's current competition is displaying a wide range of performance capabilities, including the direct competitors, the Camaro and Challenger, but also perhaps slightly less direct competitors such as the Genesis Coupe.
Too often, I think, the muscle car mavens try to define the Mustang by muscle car deficiencies such as bad handling, iffy brakes, crude ride, cheap interiors, etc., rather than performance strengths. A car need not be crude and ill handling to be fun, tactile and exciting at the same time. Should one want a "dangerous and wild" car, you can always strap on some cheap narrow bias ply tires, limp shocks and worn brake pads. I'd rather my performance car be capable, not some careening oaf.
#2079
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, in response to Mustang handling, the Mustang has out handled its competition and then some even with the 2010 track pack. The 2012 was that much better. So a bathtub with water in it, surely you jest.
Apparently you guys dont remember the Boss 429. A pony car with muscle car qualities, to compete with muscle cars. I feel like its armature hour and I don't even own a Mustang.
Apparently you guys dont remember the Boss 429. A pony car with muscle car qualities, to compete with muscle cars. I feel like its armature hour and I don't even own a Mustang.
Rember though, that was only maybe 5 years out of the Stang's nearly 50 year history and likely only a couple percent max of Stangs ever sold. The rest were far more in the Pony car mold.
#2080
Banned
Originally Posted by rhumb
Should one want a "dangerous and wild" car, you can always strap on some cheap narrow bias ply tires, limp shocks and worn brake pads.