Itravelalot

I really do not want to sound annoying here, but enough is enough. The attitude from some of the diaper haters is getting old. Why do we not name the rear for other models smelly poo butt or ugly old broken turd? Well probably because it is not nice. Designs change. If you do not like it, fine but let's keep a bit of respect and civility.

cdynaco

Yet you can slam those of us that love the 05-09 S197 because it harkened back to the "last century". That's what retro means. The 05-09 played the key role in the retro move that brought the Camaro & the Challenger. They channeled the "last century" too and look how their sales took off.
I expressed "IMO". Doesn't mean you have to agree - or be bothered by my opinion.

I'm so glad I got to spend time in this during HS:



How about we enthusiasts & customers hold Ford accountable. They are so much more capable than what they coughed up in 10.

rhumb

Well, perhaps I can explain at least my aesthetic perspective and the ample caboose of the '10+ Stang, as perhaps the originator of the "full diaper" epithet I've used regarding the '10+ Mustang and also various other models before it (I'm not just picking on the Mustang in this regard).

It's not at all that I'm pining for some long-gone Stang buttocks from some golden era. Indeed, I have been a bit of a critic of too much retro styling and look forward to the '15 being a very modern interpretation of the Mustang design DNA. My complaints have more to do with:

Too voluminous: the visual mass imparts a sense of heaviness and inertia in-congruent with a performance car which should confer lightness and trimness, particularly at the front/rear ends.

Saggy: the visual mass is somewhat ill defined and saggy rather than toned and trim. Rather than imparting a sense of athleticism and dynamism, it implies sloth and lassitude. The image should be of a runner and sprinter, not a couch potato. A tighter and pert rear would convey youth and vitality, this drooping rear conveys AARP and a Barcalounger, worn springs and a tired chassis.

Fussy: This is a triumph of a lot of design over good design, of quantity over quality. Far better to have a few extremely well drawn lines and elements than simple a body count of a lot of them. I get cross-eyed trying to figure out how many of the design elements relate to and enhance each other. Rather, I think that they don't particularly and if not totally random and isolated from each other, they certainly aren't very tightly integrated.

Lumpy: Rather than conveying images of a ripped and toned thigh muscle, all the soft lumps, bumps and bulges has my thinking cellulite-laden butt instead, not a good impression in my mind.

Incoherent: Touched on above, many of the lines and design elements don't relate to well or tightly to each other, reeking of a committee effort responding to any number of focus groups rather than a tightly focused and coherent artistic effort. Seems like there were too many cooks stirring the pot being told by too many marketing suits how much, fast and what direction to stir.

Unfortunately, the '10+ Mustang is hardly the only perpetrator of these sins and in fact, many other recent designs also reflect the portliness, incoherence and business, often to even greater degrees. I'm not sure what is to blame for this tendency of the past few years. One theory is that new, more powerful CAD systems making it easier to do more complex shapes and volumes that look great in the very artificial renderings but that ultimately don't translate nearly as well in the flesh. An analogy, from my desktop design background, might be someone who just got trained on some hot new graphics/DTP software and just go nuts with all the bells and whistles they can now bring to bear. The result is overly complex, busy, fussy and cacophonous newsletters and the like with no application of deeper underlying design and artistic concepts. Perhaps more emphasis on timeless design basics such a balance, form, line and cohesiveness might be in order.

Another theory is the predominance of numbers-based management seeping into the still very human and artistic realm of product design. Yes, give the designers a well considered brief based on customer research and feedback, but don't go apply a checklist of particular elements based on that, otherwise you get the agglomeration of focus-group elements congealed into some chaotic whole we're seeing more and more lately. "Maximum" Bob Lutz apparently has a new book out decrying this numbers/stats-based management style more broadly but I can see its insidious affect here too.

My hope for the '15+ is for a very modern design but also one that is far tauter and athletic with a clearer, more focused and cohesive overall execution. One that can stand the test of time, not just placate last years focus group and middle-management retreat.

Wolfsburg

I am not a hater of the current "diapered" rear, and even thought the rear of the '05-'09 was a bit bland and overly boxy-looking, but I still think Ford could've done better than the current design. To my eye, being retro or modern doesn't play into it for me in this case. Generally speaking, the '10+ rear simply could've been better executed. It has nothing to do with some refusal to move on with the times and longing for a more "retro" rear.

I'm fine with with Mustang becoming more progressive as long as it's well done and still sports the undeniably "Mustang" DNA.

Vermillion06

The two trimmest looking cars in the picture below are the Corvette and the Mustang. Even though no one ever says it, the Corvette is just as "retro" as the Mustang is-- it looks like every Corvette since 1984 but with a few modern styling cues thrown in.

It's hard to see in the picture because the Camaro is black, but the Camaro's "diaper" is taller than the Mustang's. The Corvette's diaper is pretty big too. People focus wayyy too much on hating on one part of the current Mustang. (It doesn't bother me at all).

The only car that doesn't have a big fat "diaper" is the Challenger, but that's because it's already big and fat all over!

Overboost

Charlie beats that "diaper" drum harder than anyone else on the forum. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's not going away anytime soon. Ford's recent vehicles have taken up that whole 'lower black trim' mantra in their design, and it's not half bad. I like the fact that changing the design of the rear bumper just requires a piece of plastic and an hour of your time, instead of sending an entire bumper to paint and spending 4-5x as much for the same effect.

Looking at the 05-09 and the 10+ side by side, the older ones just look dated now. Could the 10+ be tweaked a bit? Sure. But it beats the 05-09 look, and as a complete package, I'd take one any day over the older look.

cdynaco

I resisted for how many posts in this thread before I felt it was time to comment?

Like I posted... Ford won't get a dime out of me ever again for a new Mustang with an abomination of conflict like that. I want lines that flow. I expect much better from Ford than apparently many do.

And I am far from alone on this and many other forums and you know it. And Ford knows it.

You should know better than most of us that Ford could have done a sensationally better job.

Enjoy your diaper my friend. Cause I sure enjoy my 08 B!

cdynaco

The Chally has the best rear design out of all of those hands down. Clean, slopes correctly, consistent lines that flow, no diaper.

And exactly why would I want my Ford Mustang to have anything remotely close to GM's Corvette or Camaro, so that somehow the Mustang is slightly better, so therefore its OK????

IMO

Itravelalot

Last mellenium, we had big chrome bumbers that made all of the cars look a bit square in the front and/or rear. Chrome bumpers gave way to plastic looking ones that were essentially the same shape, but a little more integrated into the car. Now, designs are actually able to get completely away from bumpers and have a safe car without an obvious bumper. The lines can be more free and less tied to the old square or highly angled shapes. It is nice that the back of the Mustang is less aquare than it used to be. It flows more. Newer designs should not always be tied to old shapes.

As for athletic, muscular designs. Current safety standards are responsible for a lot of what I do not like in some newer designs. The cars often have to be more bloated than they would have been without standards that are tighter now than 40 to 50 years ago. New stronger materials might be used to give a less portly look while alowing designers freedom to do even more than they can now.

As for retro, I like the retro in my car, but it has been done already. Now that I have a car that is somewhat retro, I do not need to buy another one that is this retro. The younger car buyers entering the market each year often want designs that speak to them. Since many of them have never really seen too many older cars on a daily basis, the nostalgia factor does not mean as much to them. Time marches on. Most cars are not too retro, and the Mustang can only successfully keep so much of its heritage in each newer model without being too retro. The 13 should be less retro, and the 15 even less. that is fine with me.

I say that many of you are just unconsiously, or consiously tied to old designs. Sure newer materials might make the whole design better, but either way, the '10-'12 is a clear improvement on the 05-09. Could it be even better? Maybe. But going on about how bad it is, just shows that a lot of you have lost perspective and really do not know what you are talking about. Who knows, maybe some of you could actually design one better. It would be nice to see. But in my experience, the ones who are most vocal about designs, mostly do not know as much about actually designing it better.

Pinoy361

I completely understand the fact that safety regulations can affect how a car is designed but honestly there is a very large group of people out there connected to the classis designs of every model from 64 1/2 to 79 or so. There will always be something on the body that harkens back to the good old days. Who knows what Ford has in mind for the '15 model. Either way its gonna be smaller, possibly have IRS, more refined interior, and maybe even have an eco-boost v6 as an engine choice. It could be a modern fox body or new edge design or a modern 69 fastback design. Lets just live with what we have and enjoy it. At least we dont look as bad as all those Camaro's rollin out there

Boost

What part of the Camaro looks bad?
Looks wise I like Challenger, Camaro and then Ford. The other cars just look tuffer than the Mustang.

bt4

Only the parts between the front bumper and the taillights.

Vermillion06

Slopes? What slopes? IMHO,the current Challenger is shaped like a slab, in the front, rear and sides, and has the proportions of a Checker cab, unlike the original Challenger, which had a curved, sleek fuselage-like shape.

And the rear bumper is HUGE. The top edge of the rear bumper is taller than the Mustang's. In fact, whole car is huge.

But I guess that's what happens when you quickly stuff a full size sedan chassis into a pony car shell to keep up with the Joneses (Fords) to try to get a slice of the pony car pie.

Kind of like trying to fit a middle aged 500lb woman into her high school cheerleader uniform. Again, IMHO.
The thing is, the rear bumper design with the blacked out valence at the bottom between the exhausts is a modern design cue that is common to nearly all current cars with sporting intentions and nobody complains. It is not just the '10-up Mustang that has it. Heck, you'll find it on $300,000+ Ferraris and nobody complains.

99mstng

Holy Hell! There is way to much back and forth on why your design mustang sucks and mine is better here . . . can we agree that ALL of this is personal preference???

You can't prove to me why my car looks bad and I can't prove to you why yours does. I love all mustangs because they are different and a part of the history of the Ford Mustang. Does that mean I like everything about all of them, no, but I'm sure as **** not going to go on a mustang forum to rip on a disign that I don't "LIKE".

Suggesting ways you think the new design can be better is fine but don't go ranting on about your dislikes of past or current mustangs.

Back to this topic - I think the 2013 will tell us little of what to expect from the 2015's. I hope the 2015 blows everyones mind, and I think it will, but Ford is surely going to do all it can to keep that a secret until it's unveiling.

Twin Turbo

Well said that man!

Waaaaaaaaaay too much hatin' going on!

I'm looking forward to whatever Ford comes up with for both the '13 and '15 MY. Will that make them better than anything that's gone before? That, can only be a personal thing, so lets just enjoy what we currently have, and what's just around the corner.

rhumb

I too certainly understand how safety standards and advancing engineering to meet those demands have affected modern car design. However, my criticisms of the current Mustang's rear end design (and some other aspects, too) are unrelated to that and are solely based on the design execution. Indeed, I welcome and hope for an even more advanced styling for the '15 Mustang and am hardly an advocate or wistful for a return to earlier design paradigms.

Again, my criticisms are related to more basic elements of a design in that I find the Mustang's rear end to be, visually, too massive, heavy, lumpy, fussy and not very cohesive overall. In terms of being a more "modern" or "retro" design, I would say the '10+ is a bit more "retro" in a Baroque sense than the cleaner, tighter and more cohesive '05-'09 rear.

While the various cars illustrated -- Mustang, Camaro, Vette, and to a lesser degree, the Challenger -- have, very broadly speaking, a black lower valence, the quality of execution of this general design is very different with the result that the Mustang's seems to be the least elegant of the four. Ironically, it is the physically much larger Challenger that, IMO, has the best executed design overall and in its rear end -- being the cleanest, tightest and most cohesive -- regardless of it being a retro design.

2 Go Snake

I really like the design of my 2007 Mustang GT. It took me quite a while to get to like the rear end design of the current Mustang because it was not what I expected from Ford. I still do not really like the rearend design of the current Mustang, but the new design does seem to make my 2007 GT look less sophisticated for some reason. I would buy one of the newer Mustangs if there would be a horsepower increase. I am more into a need for more horsepower than a need for a knockout design. I can live with the design as long as the car has a nice interior and good horsepower numbers.

99mstng

Hey now, you caling my rear end massive, heavy, & lumpy is where I draw the line!!!

I respect that you don't like the design of the rear of the current mustangs however I love the look. Please talk all you want about what you want to see but enough of the negative comments relating to past or current mustangs.

I bought a 99 then a 2012 for a reason. I didn't personally like the generation in between however I'm not going to rant on why I didn't because I respect those who own and lover their cars.

xlover

im guessing the only thing the 2013 design will tell you about the 2015 is that some will like it, some will hate it, but there will be alot of useless argument over personal taste....

Topnotch

The reason why Ford blacked out the rocker panels and rear bumper "diffuser" was to make the car look smaller...maybe they'll paint it body color again for '13-'14 to make the '15 look even smaller...