2015 Photoshop/Rendering Thread
9/15/10, 01:47 PM
#323
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 14, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9/16/10, 11:02 PM
#324
Shelby GT350 Member
Last edited by watchdevil; 9/16/10 at 11:13 PM.
9/16/10, 11:17 PM
#326
Shelby GT350 Member
9/17/10, 01:33 AM
#329
GTR Member
Thread Starter
9/17/10, 10:58 PM
#330
Member
Join Date: September 17, 2010
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9/18/10, 02:21 AM
#331
Shelby GT350 Member
I never wanted a Fox Mustang since it never looked like a Mustang, 5.0 engine or not. Honestly, the Fox Mustang seemed more like a functional Pinto replacement... Which in fact it was in 4-cyl form. It was timed just right as Pinto production ended there was the 4-cyl Mustang to fall back on. It looked like a brick to the 1983 Camaros and Firebirds which had lowe sling and more exotic profiles that were Ferrari-like. I had a few of those F-body cars until 1994. I remember thinking when will the Mustang ever get redesigned? Then 1994 Mustang came and I thought it was the second coming of JC! Finally recognizable classic Mustang styling cues worked into modern Ford styling DNA.
Last edited by watchdevil; 9/18/10 at 02:39 AM.
9/20/10, 06:39 AM
#332
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 14, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even Thunderbirds from 1980 to 87 still had clear identifiable Tbird styling cues as they were accommodated on the Fox platform.
I never wanted a Fox Mustang since it never looked like a Mustang, 5.0 engine or not. Honestly, the Fox Mustang seemed more like a functional Pinto replacement... Which in fact it was in 4-cyl form. It was timed just right as Pinto production ended there was the 4-cyl Mustang to fall back on. It looked like a brick to the 1983 Camaros and Firebirds which had lowe sling and more exotic profiles that were Ferrari-like. I had a few of those F-body cars until 1994. I remember thinking when will the Mustang ever get redesigned? Then 1994 Mustang came and I thought it was the second coming of JC! Finally recognizable classic Mustang styling cues worked into modern Ford styling DNA.
I never wanted a Fox Mustang since it never looked like a Mustang, 5.0 engine or not. Honestly, the Fox Mustang seemed more like a functional Pinto replacement... Which in fact it was in 4-cyl form. It was timed just right as Pinto production ended there was the 4-cyl Mustang to fall back on. It looked like a brick to the 1983 Camaros and Firebirds which had lowe sling and more exotic profiles that were Ferrari-like. I had a few of those F-body cars until 1994. I remember thinking when will the Mustang ever get redesigned? Then 1994 Mustang came and I thought it was the second coming of JC! Finally recognizable classic Mustang styling cues worked into modern Ford styling DNA.
9/21/10, 08:51 PM
#333
Member
Join Date: September 24, 2004
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never once looked at a Fox-body Mustang and didn't recognize it as a Mustang... If there was not a "Fox" Mustang, chances are good you would not have any Mustang today.
Last edited by evil5oh; 9/22/10 at 08:03 PM.
9/22/10, 06:15 AM
#334
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 14, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fox-body was a departure from the Mustang "look", but it was still all Mustang, and very muscular. The Camaro/Firebird looked nothing like their relatives either... Maybe that "exotic" look of the F-body cars is why they sold "so well" -- Camaro/Firebird combined sold half of what the Mustang sold -- that seemed to work well.
I never once looked at a Fox-body Mustang and didn't recognize it as a Mustang... If there was not a "Fox" Mustang, chances are good you would not have any Mustang today.
I never once looked at a Fox-body Mustang and didn't recognize it as a Mustang... If there was not a "Fox" Mustang, chances are good you would not have any Mustang today.
9/22/10, 08:10 PM
#335
Member
Join Date: September 24, 2004
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The GT's weren't the greatest example of successful styling execution, but the 5.0 LX was a win. I have an '88 notch, so I have a soft spot, but I am sure a lot of us can agree if the LX is done up nice they are just plain "tough".
9/23/10, 06:19 AM
#336
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 14, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah the louvers were terrible, but hey, some people liked the "80's"... lol. Those tail lights fit in with most every other crazy fad from that decade that most of us want to forget.
The GT's weren't the greatest example of successful styling execution, but the 5.0 LX was a win. I have an '88 notch, so I have a soft spot, but I am sure a lot of us can agree if the LX is done up nice they are just plain "tough".
The GT's weren't the greatest example of successful styling execution, but the 5.0 LX was a win. I have an '88 notch, so I have a soft spot, but I am sure a lot of us can agree if the LX is done up nice they are just plain "tough".
I always thought the 5.0 LX was the way to go. A buddy had one he called "Die Rock" it had under drive pullies and a few other adds. That thing was NASTY.
Last edited by Brewman; 9/23/10 at 06:24 AM.
9/23/10, 07:42 AM
#337
Shelby GT350 Member
I am Batman!
9/23/10, 07:55 PM
#338
Member
Join Date: September 24, 2004
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, it is really unfortunate we don't have that option any more.
I would love to see a new 5.0 or future Mustang without all the "bells and whistles" No power options, no navigation coupled with crazy stereos, a no A/C option, no fancy interior "mood" lighting, minimal sound insulation, plain jane bumper covers, etc. You could really have a nice, lightweight car with less luxury add ons to fail.
The problem is most of this stuff is standard now. We are in this vicious cycle of magazines, Consumer Reports, testers, and the media, telling people they "need" all this extra stuff. People buy into it, and you have a car that is maxed out with all this junk we actually don't need. As soon as all these "new" options are available on every other car, all the above mentioned info outlets tell people they need the next latest and greatest contraption -- and the cycle starts over.
Unfortunately it would now cost more for Ford to build a stripped down, light weight, mass produced Mustang than it is to build it with all the "features"
I would love to see the next gen Mustang to have a low buck "sleeper" option, but I doubt it will ever be in my lifetime. That takes me back to the original Fox-body conversation -- I will settle for that because it secured mustangs future for a long time -- too many options or not.
I would love to see a new 5.0 or future Mustang without all the "bells and whistles" No power options, no navigation coupled with crazy stereos, a no A/C option, no fancy interior "mood" lighting, minimal sound insulation, plain jane bumper covers, etc. You could really have a nice, lightweight car with less luxury add ons to fail.
The problem is most of this stuff is standard now. We are in this vicious cycle of magazines, Consumer Reports, testers, and the media, telling people they "need" all this extra stuff. People buy into it, and you have a car that is maxed out with all this junk we actually don't need. As soon as all these "new" options are available on every other car, all the above mentioned info outlets tell people they need the next latest and greatest contraption -- and the cycle starts over.
Unfortunately it would now cost more for Ford to build a stripped down, light weight, mass produced Mustang than it is to build it with all the "features"
I would love to see the next gen Mustang to have a low buck "sleeper" option, but I doubt it will ever be in my lifetime. That takes me back to the original Fox-body conversation -- I will settle for that because it secured mustangs future for a long time -- too many options or not.
9/24/10, 06:12 AM
#339
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 14, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other thing is I understand that the Fed. GOV. makes the auto maker test the cars with all possible option combinations. This means BIG Money for the auto maker if they don't lock in set Packages. The more packages they offer the more testing they have to do.
As far as the extras you can order most are deal ad-ons now and as long as they fall below a certain percentage they don't have to retest the cars for cash and emissions.
I believe that is what delayed the aluminum dash trim package on the S197s. A lot more buyers took the option that Ford thought would take it and they had to retest the Air bag deployment to be sure the trim did not interfere with the air bag.
If I am wrong about this someone please tell me.
As far as the extras you can order most are deal ad-ons now and as long as they fall below a certain percentage they don't have to retest the cars for cash and emissions.
I believe that is what delayed the aluminum dash trim package on the S197s. A lot more buyers took the option that Ford thought would take it and they had to retest the Air bag deployment to be sure the trim did not interfere with the air bag.
If I am wrong about this someone please tell me.
Last edited by Brewman; 9/24/10 at 06:17 AM.
9/24/10, 11:23 AM
#340
Team Mustang Source
