Front fascia caught uncovered during testing 8/20
Post *****
Joined: February 3, 2004
Posts: 14,160
Likes: 73
Banned
Joined: July 5, 2006
Posts: 505
Likes: 1
Exactly, Everybody loved the fox bodies and the turbo coupe was cool back then too! Nobody had any problem distinguishing the difference between the cars even though a corporate look was used.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: June 16, 2007
Posts: 621
Likes: 12
From: Hagerstown, MD
You don't even know what the car looks like yet. Death of the Mustang...Some of you are being really melodramatic. You sound like some in the SN95 crowd that hated the S197 and thought the "iconic" Mustang was ruined! Turns out they were pretty wrong on that and I'm willing to wager you are as well.
i have owned a 1994, 2001, 2003, 2006 and 2012 (gt/cs & boss)...im sure im not in the "haters" category. to this day i have not owned a fox body for the simple fact it looks like evey other car in the lineup thru those "corporate" years....
i think that is the state of chevy right now and i do not like the outcome...
ford is getting there with the current lineup....i cant tell a fiesta from a fusion from a focus from an escape...(and you know im telling the truth here) i like it when the car was unique....different from the rest...
and also if you read my post i said that i hope that i eat my words on what i say....so im really agreeing with you if you can understand that.
Banned
Joined: July 5, 2006
Posts: 505
Likes: 1
Don't forget about the retro push rod engine and blade(leaf spring like) suspension components. I thought pushrod engines went out in the 80s!
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Joined: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
This. I have always love the Mustang as the flagship.. The car that says Mustang before it says Ford. In fact the S197 only said ford on the rear fake gas cap. I am not saying the Fusion, Focus ST, Fiesta ST are bad looking in fact I quite like them for what they are in the Ford line up and the fact they say FORD in the emblem both front and rear. If this is the look that they were hiding all this time I have to ask you all why did they wait if it was just another Ford line up look. They did not hide the IRS nor did they hide details of the car being sold elsewhere and we were to see a Eco4. It has me really perplexed because this was the biggest guarded secret in the automotive community and then nothing.. zip zilch?? It like waiting to see a Alien from area 51 and he looks just like us... umm again why all the cloak and dagger?? So all you people who say it looks nothing like the Fusion front end have not really I mean really looked and compared the pics.. I have studied them hard in fact I can take the pic of the fusion make it grey, remove the chrome grill etc.. and paste it up and you would see what I am seeing.. Look at the fog light area's the two are identical. The headlights, same the grill opening same, hood lines same.. if you can not see it.. Please read this:
A E F G I Z
A E F G I Z
A E F G I Z
Ahh as I thought you need glasses...
A E F G I Z
A E F G I Z
A E F G I Z
Ahh as I thought you need glasses...
The top of the hood is different, the ridges which define the "power bulge" are more pronounced and set wider apart. The hood shape overall is almost entirely different. The Fusion hood is much shorter, has a continuous arc front-to-back as opposed to this Mustang's larger, flat hood which tapers only at the leading edge.
The Mustang's headlight wells don't kick up to the outside as much, they appear much flatter horizontally. The outside corners have a single upsweep as opposed to the Fusion's which drop down to make a triangle. The headlight covers appear to lean forward with the grille where on the Fusion they actually lean back slightly.
The Fusion's nose is nearly vertical, especially in the grille area, with a very slight lean back. The Mustang's nose appears to lean forward, especially in the grille area. I'd like an overhead shot to say for sure but I'd bet the way the nose sweeps back from the grille to the fenders is quite different.
The Fusion's grille has an arc along its lower edge and a much flatter top, the Mustang's appears quite flat across the bottom with a slight arc across the top. The zoom lens may be throwing it off but it looks like the Fusion's grille is taller and narrower in relation to it's face.
Everything below the bumper is much sharper and more defined than the Fusion's east-to-manufacture valence. The surrounds for the fogs are not only much more pronounced, they appear to be real vents. And there's a real splitter down low as opposed to styling meant to suggest one.
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: October 8, 2005
Posts: 12,395
Likes: 29
From: Medina county, OH
GT Member
Joined: February 5, 2004
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
From: VA
GT Member
Joined: February 5, 2004
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
From: VA
There's no need to insult your fellow forum members simply because your opinion is different. As I said, the familial resemblance is certainly there and it's clear the goal was to muscle up the Ford face for this car. But it's clearly not just a nose they chopped off a Fusion.
The top of the hood is different, the ridges which define the "power bulge" are more pronounced and set wider apart. The hood shape overall is almost entirely different. The Fusion hood is much shorter, has a continuous arc front-to-back as opposed to this Mustang's larger, flat hood which tapers only at the leading edge.
The Mustang's headlight wells don't kick up to the outside as much, they appear much flatter horizontally. The outside corners have a single upsweep as opposed to the Fusion's which drop down to make a triangle. The headlight covers appear to lean forward with the grille where on the Fusion they actually lean back slightly.
The Fusion's nose is nearly vertical, especially in the grille area, with a very slight lean back. The Mustang's nose appears to lean forward, especially in the grille area. I'd like an overhead shot to say for sure but I'd bet the way the nose sweeps back from the grille to the fenders is quite different.
The Fusion's grille has an arc along its lower edge and a much flatter top, the Mustang's appears quite flat across the bottom with a slight arc across the top. The zoom lens may be throwing it off but it looks like the Fusion's grille is taller and narrower in relation to it's face.
Everything below the bumper is much sharper and more defined than the Fusion's east-to-manufacture valence. The surrounds for the fogs are not only much more pronounced, they appear to be real vents. And there's a real splitter down low as opposed to styling meant to suggest one.
The top of the hood is different, the ridges which define the "power bulge" are more pronounced and set wider apart. The hood shape overall is almost entirely different. The Fusion hood is much shorter, has a continuous arc front-to-back as opposed to this Mustang's larger, flat hood which tapers only at the leading edge.
The Mustang's headlight wells don't kick up to the outside as much, they appear much flatter horizontally. The outside corners have a single upsweep as opposed to the Fusion's which drop down to make a triangle. The headlight covers appear to lean forward with the grille where on the Fusion they actually lean back slightly.
The Fusion's nose is nearly vertical, especially in the grille area, with a very slight lean back. The Mustang's nose appears to lean forward, especially in the grille area. I'd like an overhead shot to say for sure but I'd bet the way the nose sweeps back from the grille to the fenders is quite different.
The Fusion's grille has an arc along its lower edge and a much flatter top, the Mustang's appears quite flat across the bottom with a slight arc across the top. The zoom lens may be throwing it off but it looks like the Fusion's grille is taller and narrower in relation to it's face.
Everything below the bumper is much sharper and more defined than the Fusion's east-to-manufacture valence. The surrounds for the fogs are not only much more pronounced, they appear to be real vents. And there's a real splitter down low as opposed to styling meant to suggest one.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: June 6, 2012
Posts: 963
Likes: 0
From: SC
There's no need to insult your fellow forum members simply because your opinion is different. As I said, the familial resemblance is certainly there and it's clear the goal was to muscle up the Ford face for this car. But it's clearly not just a nose they chopped off a Fusion.
The top of the hood is different, the ridges which define the "power bulge" are more pronounced and set wider apart. The hood shape overall is almost entirely different. The Fusion hood is much shorter, has a continuous arc front-to-back as opposed to this Mustang's larger, flat hood which tapers only at the leading edge.
The Mustang's headlight wells don't kick up to the outside as much, they appear much flatter horizontally. The outside corners have a single upsweep as opposed to the Fusion's which drop down to make a triangle. The headlight covers appear to lean forward with the grille where on the Fusion they actually lean back slightly.
The Fusion's nose is nearly vertical, especially in the grille area, with a very slight lean back. The Mustang's nose appears to lean forward, especially in the grille area. I'd like an overhead shot to say for sure but I'd bet the way the nose sweeps back from the grille to the fenders is quite different.
The Fusion's grille has an arc along its lower edge and a much flatter top, the Mustang's appears quite flat across the bottom with a slight arc across the top. The zoom lens may be throwing it off but it looks like the Fusion's grille is taller and narrower in relation to it's face.
Everything below the bumper is much sharper and more defined than the Fusion's east-to-manufacture valence. The surrounds for the fogs are not only much more pronounced, they appear to be real vents. And there's a real splitter down low as opposed to styling meant to suggest one.
The top of the hood is different, the ridges which define the "power bulge" are more pronounced and set wider apart. The hood shape overall is almost entirely different. The Fusion hood is much shorter, has a continuous arc front-to-back as opposed to this Mustang's larger, flat hood which tapers only at the leading edge.
The Mustang's headlight wells don't kick up to the outside as much, they appear much flatter horizontally. The outside corners have a single upsweep as opposed to the Fusion's which drop down to make a triangle. The headlight covers appear to lean forward with the grille where on the Fusion they actually lean back slightly.
The Fusion's nose is nearly vertical, especially in the grille area, with a very slight lean back. The Mustang's nose appears to lean forward, especially in the grille area. I'd like an overhead shot to say for sure but I'd bet the way the nose sweeps back from the grille to the fenders is quite different.
The Fusion's grille has an arc along its lower edge and a much flatter top, the Mustang's appears quite flat across the bottom with a slight arc across the top. The zoom lens may be throwing it off but it looks like the Fusion's grille is taller and narrower in relation to it's face.
Everything below the bumper is much sharper and more defined than the Fusion's east-to-manufacture valence. The surrounds for the fogs are not only much more pronounced, they appear to be real vents. And there's a real splitter down low as opposed to styling meant to suggest one.
It was called humor.. not insulting anyone. I cut each part out and laid it over.. Everyone is entitled to feel as they do. I am not saying it won't sell and it may end up after finishing very good. Just far removed from what I hoped after all the cloak and dagger.
Team Mustang Source
Joined: January 31, 2004
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 2
From: NYC
I guarantee the majority of enthusiasts will fall in love with the 2015 Mustang. This car will have the upscale look and feel of cars twice its price. The performance will outshine any Mustang that came before it. Ford has really outdone itself this time. On a tech front it will amaze. I daily drive a 2006 Fusion were the mp3/6 disc was cool at the time.
Recently I spent 10 days in an Escape...The EcoBoost 2.0 is awesome. The Sony system...NAV...Self Parking...hands free liftgate...etc all take it to another level. Even the touchfeel points are better...the guage/mood lighting high class. No worrys on Mustang going back to halogens...all cars are LED. This is gonna be big...I was there for the 2005 launch but his will be bigger/better. I will always have a soft spot for my old 1993 Coupe...the Terminator...the 08/09 Bullitt...the Boss redo...but if and when the time comes this next one should be a keeper.
Recently I spent 10 days in an Escape...The EcoBoost 2.0 is awesome. The Sony system...NAV...Self Parking...hands free liftgate...etc all take it to another level. Even the touchfeel points are better...the guage/mood lighting high class. No worrys on Mustang going back to halogens...all cars are LED. This is gonna be big...I was there for the 2005 launch but his will be bigger/better. I will always have a soft spot for my old 1993 Coupe...the Terminator...the 08/09 Bullitt...the Boss redo...but if and when the time comes this next one should be a keeper.
Last edited by Topnotch; Aug 21, 2013 at 07:40 AM.
Definitions vary but in a nutshell, muscle cars tend to be mid/full sized cars with big blocks. The Mustang is a pony car. This isn't rocket science. The only Mustangs that might could be considered a muscle car by any stretch of the definition are the big block cars from the '60s and possibly the modern GT500s.
With the demise of true muscle cars for the most part in the 70's and 80's, the remaining RWD V8 coupes, whatever size or configuration, essentially filled that semantic gap, even if, in reality, cars like the Mustang, Firebird and Camaro were still essentially pony cars. As mentioned, some of the big block Stangs and other pony cars did creep more into the muscle car side of the definition with big blunderbuss engines and abysmal vehicle dynamics, but they were far more the exception than the rule.
As for the 2015, it seems to be returning to and solidifying its Pony Car roots, what with a trimmer overall size and a well balanced performance envelope rather than the single-minded focus on off-the-line acceleration typifying true muscle cars.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: February 5, 2012
Posts: 560
Likes: 10
From: Connecticut
I will never refer to a mustang as a pony car.
Sounds tacky and gay just by saying it. Muscle car , hot rod, classic car, lowrider etc. Those names have a very good and pronounced meaning to them, pony car sounds like a god **** 1800s wagon that gets pulled by horses.
But that's just me
Sounds tacky and gay just by saying it. Muscle car , hot rod, classic car, lowrider etc. Those names have a very good and pronounced meaning to them, pony car sounds like a god **** 1800s wagon that gets pulled by horses.
But that's just me
Shelby GT500 Member
Joined: November 26, 2011
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 4
I have to totally agree with this forum member. Just based on these following front fascia pictures, I'm glad I have my 2011. Not liking these pictures and very well my 11 could be my last mustang. Assuming this is the real front and key word is ASSUMING, Ford really missed the mark to make the next generation stang amazing looking. Of all the beautiful next generation rendition stangs created , this is the best Ford engineers could come up with. Wow, they should be fired.
Cobra Member
Joined: October 23, 2009
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 2
From: NW Minnesota
I can't believe there's all this consternation because the grill has the same basic shape as the Fusion's grill. The grill on the 2005-2009 Mustang is essentially a rectangle, just like Cavaliers, Sentras, and Camrys of the past, as well as a million other cars. Did you think the 2005-2009 was a styling bust because it didn't have a unique enough grill shape?
I Have No Life
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 10,446
Likes: 12
From: Canada
You can count on it as much as the sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening.
People will love it, hate it, and everything in between.
They will lose fans, they will gain fans.
There will be people on the fence and will warm to it, and there will be people who won't.
But I'd rather wait in seeing the whole thing in a nice polished up paintjob before making a decision and not some snap judgement based on seeing less than a quarter of the car.
That'd be the, ya know, sensible part of me.
Last edited by Boomer; Aug 21, 2013 at 09:07 AM.
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: April 20, 2010
Posts: 2,121
Likes: 3
From: Dallas
This basically. It was indeed the Mustang that defined the Pony Car category -- Mustang > Pony Car > get it? That said, the term "Muscle Car" is not a strictly defined one and is fuzzy at the boundries.
With the demise of true muscle cars for the most part in the 70's and 80's, the remaining RWD V8 coupes, whatever size or configuration, essentially filled that semantic gap, even if, in reality, cars like the Mustang, Firebird and Camaro were still essentially pony cars. As mentioned, some of the big block Stangs and other pony cars did creep more into the muscle car side of the definition with big blunderbuss engines and abysmal vehicle dynamics, but they were far more the exception than the rule.
As for the 2015, it seems to be returning to and solidifying its Pony Car roots, what with a trimmer overall size and a well balanced performance envelope rather than the single-minded focus on off-the-line acceleration typifying true muscle cars.