I like those the front could be longer still from the door opening to the wheel well not the from the wheel well to the bumper.

 

The nose is really not too bad. The headlamps need to be vertically wider. That 'squinting' look isn't right. The back end is ok I guess.

 

Nose needs to look more like TN's avatar. Bigger grille, longer hood, etc. A-pillar back its a decent look.

 

Agree

 

I like the slit headlights. I'd like three projector lens's one for low beam, one for high beam and one for fogs all distributed horizontally in that single slit. With the turn signal mounted below in the bumper.

 

Looks like a Civic masquerading as a Mustang. No thanks.

 

 

no feeling it

 

This image is going to set some kind of record for people reviving it. Net PHR employee I meet is getting pimp-slapped.

 

 

Interesting to compare all 3


The original 'chop, as posted by TopNotch:



The M/T version:



And here's the Evos concept they're based on:

 

Found this early image of the Evos.......the rear side window treatment is neater, smaller, more agressive than the final design. Looks much more "production-ready" without the tacked-on lower grey plastic valances all round, and the much less blingy wheels (wouldn't they look nice on a Mustang? LOL)

From this angle, (ignore the rear end) you can definately see Aston Martin-esq styling. That hip is lovely. Get the front and rear styling to more accurately reflect it's Mustang heritage, and I could rock this full fastback look!

 

I like that clay model a lot. Especially the lack of the gray lower moldings and the smaller rear side windows.

Of the three EVos derived pictures i like bits of all three. The slit headlights of the second one, the hood of the top one, the grill with no fogs of the bottom one. I also like that red with black striped one that is one mean SOG.

 

I love this! That is the exact rear quarter window shape that I would like to see on the next Mustang. Also, I like the way the shoulder develops from the front fender line, flows into the door then hops up into the hip of the rear quarter panel. Full fastback is perfect and the tail is nicely blunted off to make the car more compact.

 

Agreed! Perhaps make the side scallop deeper in the rear than the front, creating a bit of the distinctive Mustang "C" Scallop or "Hockey Stick." I do love the slightly deeper hip than on the final Evos while the slightly smaller C window might better fit the Mustang. The full fastback harkens to the '67-'68 and is probably slicker than a greased eel in the wind tunnel. Lower rear valence is a bit fussy and busy though, whatever happened to tight, pert upswept rear ends rather than these bloated, sagging, lumpy ones that seem to be all the rage these days. I get a strange urge to change my kids diaper every time I see a current Stang's derriere.

Add some tri-lights in the rear and I think you have a perfect modern Mustang, one that IS fully modern yet reflects the appropriate Mustang DNA without getting mired in the past about it.

 

Problem is how do you make a convertible out of that? Why is the back end soooo tall? And when you look at the front of the Evos concept wouldn't the engine be pretty far forward? Doubtful it would have a good front/rear distribution.

I do like the wheels, they look like the previous gen anniversary wheels.

 

Top one is hot, quite nice. The middle one has no butt which is bad.

 

I am on the fence on a lot of these rendering

 

Agreed. But I am sure someone thinks it looks to much like the 2010-12.

One thing that has been driving me crazy is the number of people that would just kill all the Mustang Elements for a Whole new design that has Mustang SLAPPED on it. I think the FOX was very close to being just that.
Anytime we add Stang cues some body cries ITs RETRO Bo HO.

I think the problem is that they deviated during the fox years and even during 71-73. Because ford left the path, when they return to it now we are stuck on Retro. As it has been said the 911 is unchanged in its basic proportions shapes and lines. it has gotten leaner and smoother but has NEVER stopped looking like a 911. Funny I don't hear anyone calling it RETRO. but then again THEY never left the path.

Just my thoughts.

 

I agree with you on 99.9%. The only thing I have to add is the 996. It deviated from the "more of the same" formula just enough that Porscheophiles, cried fowl.