i wonder if the wheels they are using are two different diameters? there are different wheels being used on that car at the track...could mean nothing however and just be leftover wheels to use as beaters.

 

Oh cool. Maybe I'm thinking that of John Holmes.

 

to me it looks like both at 19inches with the fronts being the std boss 302 wheels and the rears being the 10 inch wide rears from the laguna seca package. hopefully this is an indicator that the GT will come with staggered tires... wishful thinking

 

Just by all the concept art, I've been expecting the worst from the new Mustang. I actually like these new pictures though. I think it has potential. It would be great to see the Mustang lose some inches in the rear and even in the front. And it would be even better if they actually put bigger tires on there as well. A Mustang should have at least 275's in the rear, if not a little bigger.

 

This just adds credibility to my theory. I really want the Mustang to still be it's own brand. Historically (past decade or two) the only vehicles in Ford's fleet that remainded visually unique and identifiable from a mile away are the F-150 and the Mustang. This trend won't continue when you pass a 2015 Fusion-Coupe-Stang on the highway going the other way.

You know how easy it is to spot a new Mustang on the road going the other way. Like, super super easy. You can see them from half a mile away.

I still confuse the Escape/Edge/Explorer when I'm standing next to them. Same thing with the Fusion/Focus/Taurus. I don't want the Mustang to blend in with it's family. It's running in the front for a reason. Now it's just going to be part of the pack with this new fascia.

I so hope this thing is for testing purposes only and won't be the final product.

 

This has been my stance as well. I may also add if and just if this was to be the new nose of the Mustang why all the cloak and dagger.

 

Clearly, this person has high intelligence and that's my exact point. It just blends into the rest of the Ford family. Nothing really standing out when going down the road that screams I'm a bad a$$ mustang.

 

Why thank you kind sirs!

 

It's really too late for that. Dies to stamp body panels should have been kicked off months ago. At this point there should be small brackets and stuff left to start tooling on if anything. Most everything should be production tooled by now.

However I agree with you on the appearance of these parts, but I feel they came from the Fusion development junk pile. Or perhaps a mixture with failed ideas for Mustang. I'll be surprised if this is the real look of the car. It may be fusion like, I don't disagree there. I expect a more 'corporate family' appearance, just not this one.

 

When is the reveal date?

 

so anyone who doesn't agree with you is a drooling idiot?

 

I wouldn't say the drooling part. Lmao. JK. No, not at all. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. Its all good bro.

 

I concur.

Given production is really supposed to start somewhere beginning of Q2 2014 then it would be too late to play 'shadow games' but if they do indeed, well then they're pretty **** good at it - OGA style.

 

No one would be complaining if the Fusion did not come out first. If the Fusion came out after the Mustang, everyone would be marveling how the Fusion has the Mustang front end.


Oh and the dang GT500 had a catfish grille opening in 1968 but no one ever complains about that! Matter of fact you can see some continuity of the 68 nose in the 2015 Mustang, including the brow over the headlamps reaching to the upper corners of the grille opening.

 

You may be correct about the '68 Shelby, but how many of them were produced versus the regular front end? I think Ford screwed up by introducing the Fusion first if indeed the Mustang front end is "as depicted". I don't think that it is bad looking, just not unique enough.
This won't dissuade me from potentially purchasing one as I would like to see the whole car first. Kind of like the rear end on the '11 & '12 wouldn't prevent me from buying one.
I think some small tweaks to the headlights (maybe under the black they are), will make it unique enough while still using the kinetic design language.

 

You may be correct about the '68 Shelby, but how many of them were produced versus the regular front end? I think Ford screwed up by introducing the Fusion first if indeed the Mustang front end is "as depicted". I don't think that it is bad looking, just not unique enough.
This won't dissuade me from potentially purchasing one as I would like to see the whole car first. Kind of like the rear end on the '11 & '12 wouldn't prevent me from buying one.
I think some small tweaks to the headlights (maybe under the black they are), will make it unique enough while still using the kinetic design language.

 

 

 

I think the front looks good, but I am worried about the rear. Heck, even the rear on the Focus seems disconnected from the front. Reminds me of all Jags up to the current F-Type...beautiful front and side profiles let down by a poorly design integrated rear. Only mid-nineties Mazda really understood the importance of a good rear end. If Ford steals anything from Aston it should be their recent rear end designs. Heck, Porsche and Audi have.

 

Having to cut and resize to fit, obviously not the same. Similar design yes. But the mustang is wider in the fenders. And the headlights are clearly different. The shape of the grill is similar. But it isn't the same. Lower portion is completely different.