2015 Photoshop/Rendering Thread
Mach 1 Member
Joined: July 16, 2004
Posts: 851
Likes: 0
From: Greenfield In.
There is hope yet!!!!!! Lots of cool ideas here! These look very promising for the future of the Mustang. I believe that you will find alot of 2010-201? Mustang cues in these drawings. It was that way in 1993 with the 94-99 model and also in the 2004 concept car/drawings.
I hope the next gen is a mixture of what's seen in those GT500 sketches and what we saw with the Guigiaro Mustang concept.
GT Member
Joined: August 30, 2006
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
This was a sketch for the 2010 GT, not the 2005. ( as shown on CarDesignNews.com ) See the George 05 signtaure ( i dont know who added shawn 09, but whatever. ) There is NO WAY a sketch for the 2005 car was done in 2005.....
2005 Mustang sketches were done in 2000-2001. TMS Gallery shows some of them done by other guys named Sid Ramnarace, Rob Geraldi, some guy named Ebel. etc. If my auto design research is correct, George was the designer of the Shelby GR1 at that time, out in CA ( as shown on Rides TV program.) The GR1 was introduced at Pebble Beach in Aug 2004, whereas the 2005 Mustang was introduced at Jan Detroit autoshow 2004.
Sorry, like TN, I follow car design sometimes too closely
Back me up, TN.
2005 Mustang sketches were done in 2000-2001. TMS Gallery shows some of them done by other guys named Sid Ramnarace, Rob Geraldi, some guy named Ebel. etc. If my auto design research is correct, George was the designer of the Shelby GR1 at that time, out in CA ( as shown on Rides TV program.) The GR1 was introduced at Pebble Beach in Aug 2004, whereas the 2005 Mustang was introduced at Jan Detroit autoshow 2004.
Sorry, like TN, I follow car design sometimes too closely
Back me up, TN.Yep, they are official renderings of the 2010 GT500. The image below was an official rendering of the 2005 GT, my point being that this car actually looks more like the 2010 GT. So, following that theory, there's a small chance that the next gen car may look similar to the 2010 rendering (hope you catch my drift 
)
)
Member
Joined: November 2, 2009
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
My 20?? Mustang Concept!!!!!
Hi everybody, I´m from Venezuela. The Ford Mustang has been my favorite car since i was a child.
From 2000 to 2002 my sister owned a 1965 Mustang made for export in pristine condition with only 90K and rare original Rally Pack, Console, Air Conditioner, AM Radio all in perfect working conditions. Here a few pictures: https://themustangsource.com/showthr...03#post5756803
Well.....In 2003 I draw this sketch of a possibly Ford Mustang for 2008 but this year came and went and even it is a very futurist design. My new possibly year for this design will be 2015. I digitalized later with Freehand. wait your opinions. Enjoy it and thanks!
From 2000 to 2002 my sister owned a 1965 Mustang made for export in pristine condition with only 90K and rare original Rally Pack, Console, Air Conditioner, AM Radio all in perfect working conditions. Here a few pictures: https://themustangsource.com/showthr...03#post5756803
Well.....In 2003 I draw this sketch of a possibly Ford Mustang for 2008 but this year came and went and even it is a very futurist design. My new possibly year for this design will be 2015. I digitalized later with Freehand. wait your opinions. Enjoy it and thanks!
Last edited by rafasalas; Nov 2, 2009 at 03:15 PM.
cool, and welcome!
Cobra Member
Joined: July 11, 2007
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
This sums up my thoughts almost exactly. I'd like to see a smaller, more lithe, more nimble V8-powered Mustang that was a little less muscle car and a lot more sports car with the appropiate classic Mustang styling cues. No need for it to look like a spaceship or an armored personnel carrier.
Quite frankly, I don't like very many of these sketches, especially if they proposals for the next generation Mustang. They all look like they're bigger, longer, wider, and heavier. They look like a V6 base model will weigh 4,000 lbs! Its the same mistake made with the 71-73s; trying to be a musclecar when the Mustang is a ponycar.
And can we please get away from the high beltline chopped top Mercury look? Its old already on the Chrylser 300 and one of the big complaints from reviewers about the Camaro (lack of visibility due to the low roof and small windows).
Leave being huge and heavy to the Challenger and Camaro. Make the next gen Mustang smaller & lighter but still leave room for the V8! I want one that is the size of the original '65-66 body. Maybe about the size of the BMW 1 series coupe, which is a bit shorter.
And can we please get away from the high beltline chopped top Mercury look? Its old already on the Chrylser 300 and one of the big complaints from reviewers about the Camaro (lack of visibility due to the low roof and small windows).
Leave being huge and heavy to the Challenger and Camaro. Make the next gen Mustang smaller & lighter but still leave room for the V8! I want one that is the size of the original '65-66 body. Maybe about the size of the BMW 1 series coupe, which is a bit shorter.
Agree 100%!
The slab-sided chopped top look is way passe anymore. Besides, if I wanted to feel like I was sitting in a dark gun bunker, I'd go sit in a dark gun bunker. The Camaro seems to be the illogical extreme of this styling trend and has been duly panned for the resultant horrible outward visibility.
Rather than seeing the 201X Stang plump out like a fat man at a fixed price buffet, I'd rather see the Stang return to its slimmer, trimmer, leaner roots ala the '65 fastback with its lean, low body and airy greenhouse. These are pony cars, not Clydesdales, and ought to be sized and weighted accordingly. Ford should adopt a strict box rule when penning the next Stang: not an inch beyond the dimensions of the '65 fastback and within 200lbs. The Stang should be a trim performance car, not a bloated blunderbuss.
I attribute a lot of the car bloat of the last two decades more to a lack of engineering focus and discipline as much as stricter safety standards and equipment lists. Its an easy recourse for the design team simply to take an a la carte approach to satisfying consumer wants and regulatory demands than to practice real engineering and design rigor.
The slab-sided chopped top look is way passe anymore. Besides, if I wanted to feel like I was sitting in a dark gun bunker, I'd go sit in a dark gun bunker. The Camaro seems to be the illogical extreme of this styling trend and has been duly panned for the resultant horrible outward visibility.
Rather than seeing the 201X Stang plump out like a fat man at a fixed price buffet, I'd rather see the Stang return to its slimmer, trimmer, leaner roots ala the '65 fastback with its lean, low body and airy greenhouse. These are pony cars, not Clydesdales, and ought to be sized and weighted accordingly. Ford should adopt a strict box rule when penning the next Stang: not an inch beyond the dimensions of the '65 fastback and within 200lbs. The Stang should be a trim performance car, not a bloated blunderbuss.
I attribute a lot of the car bloat of the last two decades more to a lack of engineering focus and discipline as much as stricter safety standards and equipment lists. Its an easy recourse for the design team simply to take an a la carte approach to satisfying consumer wants and regulatory demands than to practice real engineering and design rigor.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: February 17, 2004
Posts: 543
Likes: 1
From: Indianapolis, IN
What do you think
I have been messing around with hand drawings for a while. I tried to convert those to photoshop.
Anyway, here is the result?
Anyway, here is the result?
Last edited by jarradasay; Nov 6, 2009 at 12:43 PM.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: February 17, 2004
Posts: 543
Likes: 1
From: Indianapolis, IN
Cobra Member
Joined: July 11, 2007
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Mach 1 Member
Joined: February 17, 2004
Posts: 543
Likes: 1
From: Indianapolis, IN
I read comments where people said the mustang looked to "happy", agreeing with that I thought i'd make it look meaner. The inward tapering headlights do a good job of making cars look mean.
Last edited by jarradasay; Nov 9, 2009 at 06:52 AM.
