i hate those red rear fog lights, they blind you when you're behind one.

are they suppose to only come on during certain conditions like rain?

 

Nope, only thick fog when visibility is greatly reduced.

Too many idiots use them when it's raining though. I only use them if the conditions are dangerous. If there's a car behind me, I switch them off.

Mind you, I NEVER have to use them in the Mustang as it never goes out in bad weather

 

oh so you can control them yourself.. that's why i could never figure out why they're on sometimes when it's perfectly clear out

 

Yep......which is why most of them are on when they shouldn't be. User error


Back to the '15 tail lights........the second fella has described them as being like a modern version of the '69 lights.......so each of the 3 vertical section "stick out" rather than being flush

 

So what photoshop was most similar to this description?

 

I'm on my iPhone and can't post a pic at the moment but he said the one that most resembled the 2015 was of a photoshop of a green mustang. Wish I could post it right now. It was a nice render tweaked my TopNotch.

 

he thinks the green one at the bottom is closest..
i like the one right above it better

 

Which might still be pretty far off, if the others are on the moon

 

Isn't the point of these so that people behind you can better see your car in reduced visibility situations? If so, wouldn't it be when someone was behind you that you would want them on?

 

Depends on traffic conditions. I travel to work at 5am each morning, so traffic is pretty light. If it's VERY foggy and visibility is poor (ie, down to a few metres, so you struggle to see anything in front), I'll put the rear foglights on. However, if a car gets close enough that I can see them in my rear view mirror, then they'll be able to see me without the added use of the foglights. Those lights are BRIGHT. I hate being behind a car with them on as it's then very difficult to see if/when the brake lights go on. Both are similar power and both are red. Sometimes, if misused, they are more of a danger than a benefit.

 

Jalopnik just picked up the story...

http://jalopnik.com/5949026/the-2014...ything-we-know

 

Why do they only let idiots with a vocabullary poorer than that of a mentally impaired horse into focus groups? Seriously, reading his description of the car and looking at his drawing gave me a headache.

 

^That's probably part of the plan. Get honest feedback and reduce the risk of an articulate person being able to convey what they have seen.

That said, I read his description of the tail lights a half dozen times, and this is all I can muster based on what he said.

 

I was going to do a "meanwhile in Bulgaria" joke but the orgazmo theme song lyrics stopped me..

oh what the heck!

 

^^^
Hahhaha, You my dear Sir deserve a hat tip for that one!

 

Here is a great collection of what we know/have heard so far over at Jalopnik:

http://jalopnik.com/5949026/the-2014...ything-we-know

 

Can anybody here describe the changes from a 1965 to a 1967 Mustang so that we can accurately visualize the differences?

I doubt it, but would like to see someone here give it a try.

 

Well, the wheelbase was held at 108 inches, but overall width increased by 2.7 inches. A half-inch height increase improved headroom. Overall length tacked on two inches, most of it via a tidier nose with a more aggressive grille benefit of the flanking "gills." Designers exaggerated the rear hop-up a little. They also made the tail panel concave, as well as larger, and finally won approval for the more-expensive individual taillamps they'd long desired.The side scallop got deeper and the grille and rear panel were enlarged. They also applied thin bars to the back panel and designed a longer hood with wide, longitudinal recesses suggesting air vents. The turn-signal repeater lights nestled at the vents` forward ends, easily visible to the driver. The 2+2 was the basically the most radically refreshed '67 Mustang, with its "true" full-fastback roofline inspired by that of the GT40. The fastback retained flow-through ventilation but had the air ducted through a dozen rear-quarter roof louvers instead of five vertical slots. I`m too tired to talk about the interior changes, but I`d give it a try sometimes maybe.

But this really isnt that fair, as I`ve spent hours looking at design changes through the generations, unlike the guys at the focus group. I simply wanted to point out that it would be nice if he had explained the changes more accurately and in a more detailed manner. But nonetheless I am really appreciative of the fact that he shared his experience with the forums and decided to not keep us completely in the dark!

Cheers!

 

Reading now, and I like that render, especially the rear quarter window treatment.

One thing in the article I found scary by itself; ''Would you pay 8,000 dollars over the 4 cylinder to get a V8'' - IMO that depends on what your getting? If the 8k V8 option is analogous to the current Boss package relative to whatever 4 cylinder trim package its similar too ( base or loaded) then yeah but if your talking just to get into an entry level V8 car.... eh.... let me go check the price delta over at Ford's website before I commit to an answer

Also looks/like the dimensions are about the same which if Ford is serious about the Mustang losing weight then it appears a lot of high strength steel and lighter weight materials are in play.

Don't know how the size issue bodes for the Mustangs broad market appeal in Europe if it stays about the same size? Folks who like American muscle probably don't have a problem with it but when 3 series BMW is the gold standard for size it might be problematic?

IMO, I'm fine with it for all the reasons I've posted before.

 

Integrated rear fog backup light. Our puny US lights are no match for European fog.