Anyone think the the 3rd brake light looks horrible? It looks like a cheap piece of plastic body kit tacked on. I think it really messes up the flow of the fastback design. Especially combined with the satellite antenna "wart". I really wish they put the light behind rear windshield and the wart on the trunk lid. It also seems like they could've built the antenna into the brake light if they're gonna mount it on the outside like that.

 

I actually light the positioning of it. It's easier to see, so people won't ram into you during braking if your car is low.

 

They both look fine. And the antenna is way better on the roof versus on the trunk. Find something else to b*tch about.

 

i like the 3rd brake light location but it would be nice if the sat antenna was some where else. it also appears that they have done something with the radio antenna, maybe they put it in the windshield or something.

 

I like the location too. I've always thought trunk lid/lower windshield mounted lights were kind of dumb, they're not really more visible then the standard brake lights. It would just look so much better if there was clean line running from the roof to the truck. Also I wish was behind the glass because when you live colder parts of the country like I do, things tacked on the outside like that tend to get broken from ice and such. Which is a PITA and will just make the 3rd light look even cheaper. Something folks who are lucky enough to live in warm climates may not be familiar with.

 

I like the spot of it... I don't like the random splash of red though between the exhaust tips.

One thing I really don't like though is how much the back sticks out... I'm still a fan of the '05 Saleen tucked rear end look.

 

Those do look nice and i was hoping for something like that on the 15's

 

I don't mind the "wart" or the 3rd brake light.........I'm really liking everything about the car from all the pics I've seen today. I'm SOLD !! Scott

 

Don't care for the wart.
Don't mind the 3rd brake light a bit.


But, my real problem with it is it just doesn't scream MUSTANG to me. Quite the opposite, I feel like I've seen this car before....

 

I like how BMWʻs use a small fin rather than the wart. Looks alot better. Also i love the rear wnd but i cant stand the lip spoiler back there. A small pedestal or RTR style lip would look alot better

 

I really dont see any resemblance. Care to elaborate on the similarity?

 

the LA show car has no wart (or spoiler for that matter). I guess that it's a base gt. Although it would be nice to have satellite radio be optional. I'm not a big fan of satellite.

http://www.latimes.com/business/auto...g-pictures-012

 

Yeah...only thing similar is they are 2 door coupes. Guess people have to stretch to find reasons to justify why their car looks better

 

The Sirius antenna appears to be smaller and flatter, as well as being painted. It looks much more at home on the back portion of the roof than on the decklid. The CHMSL (3rd brake light) looks great up high. I don't think you'll notice it from inside the cabin at all.

 

I like where the third brake light and wart is. In all my cars (not my 91 F150) since 2007, i have had Satellite radio. I'm glad to see no radio antenna

 

Seriously? You don't see any similarity whatsoever?

Because the only difference I see are some tiny bends in sheet metal. Dimensions are almost identical, basic body shape is almost identical, the Mustang could easily be nothing more than a body kit attached to a G37. Roofline is the same, side windows are the same, rear window is the same, even the mirrors and wheels are almost the same.


I would be willing to bet that if I had edited both pictures to put the same rear tail lights and bumper on both cars you would have had a lot of trouble telling them apart, because with that rear bumper removed the only real difference is a slight hump to the rear fender line and a horizontal crease along the doors. Minor changes in sheet metal, no more difference than an Acura TL vs Honda Accord, which BTW, are the exact same car.


BUT, as they say, people see what they want to see, and most are wilfully blind when shown something they don't want to see. Clearly you don't want to see that the next-gen Mustang is little more than a generic 2 door coupe clone.


I'll also point out the G37 is powered by a 3.7L V6 and a 6 speed transmission. Sound familiar?

 

I'm guessing the radio antenna has been integrated into the rear window. I say this because the convertible still has a mast antenna.

http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/201...tible-top-down

 

Nope....new car is 2in lower, 2in shorter, and 2 in wider. Roof line the same? Not even close. The only thing close to the G37 is the 3.7, the 6sp trans, the 2 doors, 4 wheels and a steering wheel. It looks as close to a G37 as it does to the New Beetle. I don't care what people say it looks like. And really, if you edited the car to change the bumpers and tail lights and change the hump in the rear....then it'll look like the G37? Wow guess it looks like the new Vette too. Change the bumpers, take out a couple seats, and make the hood flip out and taadaaa....

 

LA was a base with Track Pack and Recaros. 19 gloss black wheels. Just the fun stuff haha.

 

Agreed