J.Mays Hints at Next Mustang in 2014...
10/5/10, 02:00 PM
#61
So what would you consider necessary cues that we would expect?
I can think of tri-bar taillamps as one. I'd love to see a modernized running pony finally replace the logo like it started to in 2010.
I can think of tri-bar taillamps as one. I'd love to see a modernized running pony finally replace the logo like it started to in 2010.
10/5/10, 02:21 PM
#62
GTR Member
Yep, the tail lamps are a given.
A shark-nose forward sloping front end.
Round headlamps. Happy for them to be more modern.......but still round.
Full fastback (as per '69/'70)
A c-scoop is obvious. Personally, I'd prefer a feature line that runs from the front fender into the rear hip (yep, just like the '69/'70).
The current rear side window is a pretty unique Mustang styling cue....but the time might be right for the '69/'70 side window treatment.
Yeah, the '69 is my favourite Mustang
A shark-nose forward sloping front end.
Round headlamps. Happy for them to be more modern.......but still round.
Full fastback (as per '69/'70)
A c-scoop is obvious. Personally, I'd prefer a feature line that runs from the front fender into the rear hip (yep, just like the '69/'70).
The current rear side window is a pretty unique Mustang styling cue....but the time might be right for the '69/'70 side window treatment.
Yeah, the '69 is my favourite Mustang
10/5/10, 02:26 PM
#63
GT Member
Join Date: June 10, 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada, eh
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to see them continue with the complete modernization of the technical and engineering side. I would like to see the car get shorter (6") narrower (3"), lower (3") and lose weight (3200lb for V-8 model.) I think they have found the right styling DNA and should continue to evolve the car in that regard (a la 911.)
10/5/10, 03:29 PM
#64
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: November 3, 2009
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion, the general public (not Mustang enthusiasts) should be able to recognize the car as a Mustang from 50 feet away without any badges. I'm going to **** some of you off, but here it goes. From 1971 through 2004 this was not true. Those cars had their merits. Some were great (Terminator Cobra). But, none looked enough like a Mustang to be recognizable to the public without badges.
Mays admits the styling lapse in the video. If they make the 2014 look like a Genesis Coupe with three bar tail lights, they will kill it.
Mays admits the styling lapse in the video. If they make the 2014 look like a Genesis Coupe with three bar tail lights, they will kill it.
10/5/10, 03:40 PM
#65
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: April 11, 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to see them continue with the complete modernization of the technical and engineering side. I would like to see the car get shorter (6") narrower (3"), lower (3") and lose weight (3200lb for V-8 model.) I think they have found the right styling DNA and should continue to evolve the car in that regard (a la 911.)
10/5/10, 04:01 PM
#66
Team Mustang Source
Thread Starter
Wait for the next one...It will be lighter and the dimensions will be smaller...and the coyote will be have a little more bite!
10/5/10, 05:18 PM
#67
Shelby GT350 Member
I think the Genesis Coupe is a bad reference and we should probably release that image from our minds about the future Mustang.
Genesis Coupe is fine in its own right. I don't think the Mustang is going to be a Genesis coupe.
Does anyone remember in 1994 when the Mustang brought back the tri-bar tail lights and tied it to the Mustang heritage? Though it didn't take them long just to turn them right side up and make it more recognizable.
Edit: Even better!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE4xTt8SEFw
Genesis Coupe is fine in its own right. I don't think the Mustang is going to be a Genesis coupe.
Does anyone remember in 1994 when the Mustang brought back the tri-bar tail lights and tied it to the Mustang heritage? Though it didn't take them long just to turn them right side up and make it more recognizable.
Edit: Even better!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE4xTt8SEFw
Last edited by Automagically; 10/5/10 at 05:28 PM.
10/5/10, 05:22 PM
#68
I know the 2010+ rear has been a point of complaint, so I hope some thought goes into the new one. Long hood, short rear deck (no fastback because of the convertible), nice wide muscular rear haunches, move the wheels out further to the corners, and put some solid tech into it.
10/5/10, 05:25 PM
#69
Shelby GT350 Member
I know the 2010+ rear has been a point of complaint, so I hope some thought goes into the new one. Long hood, short rear deck (no fastback because of the convertible), nice wide muscular rear haunches, move the wheels out further to the corners, and put some solid tech into it.
Just like that.
The only reason I thought a possible fast back is that it could pull off the muscular rear haunches and wider rear frame better. That's my thinking. Though I see where you are going with the convertible. Though there are hatches that are convertibles as well. So it's still doable.
10/5/10, 05:38 PM
#70
legacy Tms Member
In my opinion, the general public (not Mustang enthusiasts) should be able to recognize the car as a Mustang from 50 feet away without any badges. I'm going to **** some of you off, but here it goes. From 1971 through 2004 this was not true. Those cars had their merits. Some were great (Terminator Cobra). But, none looked enough like a Mustang to be recognizable to the public without badges.
Mays admits the styling lapse in the video. If they make the 2014 look like a Genesis Coupe with three bar tail lights, they will kill it.
Mays admits the styling lapse in the video. If they make the 2014 look like a Genesis Coupe with three bar tail lights, they will kill it.
of course, 65-70 and 05-09 following too
as for J Mays, I'm still upset about him saying it was on track till about 69...that was 'THE' mustang to me, and I believe a high percentage of folks would agree the 69 fastback-especially the bosses- were the most recognizable and best looking of them all. if Fords lead stylist didnt like the 69 fastback I cant see that as being a good thing in any way regarding the future designs...I'm hoping(seriously) he said that to throw off the GM guys- if the camaro looked more like a 69 RS instead of the hodgepodge looking thing it turned out as, Mustang coulda had some good looking competition.
Last edited by ford4v429; 10/5/10 at 05:39 PM.
10/5/10, 07:36 PM
#71
Team Mustang Source
Thread Starter
BAM!
Just like that.
The only reason I thought a possible fast back is that it could pull off the muscular rear haunches and wider rear frame better. That's my thinking. Though I see where you are going with the convertible. Though there are hatches that are convertibles as well. So it's still doable.
Just like that.
The only reason I thought a possible fast back is that it could pull off the muscular rear haunches and wider rear frame better. That's my thinking. Though I see where you are going with the convertible. Though there are hatches that are convertibles as well. So it's still doable.
10/5/10, 08:05 PM
#72
MOTM Committee Member
10/5/10, 08:10 PM
#73
BOSS Member
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to see them continue with the complete modernization of the technical and engineering side. I would like to see the car get shorter (6") narrower (3"), lower (3") and lose weight (3200lb for V-8 model.) I think they have found the right styling DNA and should continue to evolve the car in that regard (a la 911.)
10/5/10, 08:23 PM
#74
Cobra Member
Join Date: February 10, 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im excited to see what they come up with. I love the fox body days, hopefully somewhere along the lines of looking like a 2014 fox body like design with few changes.
10/5/10, 09:32 PM
#75
Cobra Member
Join Date: July 11, 2007
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10/5/10, 11:02 PM
#78
Cobra R Member
Join Date: August 7, 2004
Location: Ladner,Canada
Posts: 1,765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion, the general public (not Mustang enthusiasts) should be able to recognize the car as a Mustang from 50 feet away without any badges. I'm going to **** some of you off, but here it goes. From 1971 through 2004 this was not true. Those cars had their merits. Some were great (Terminator Cobra). But, none looked enough like a Mustang to be recognizable to the public without badges.
Mays admits the styling lapse in the video. If they make the 2014 look like a Genesis Coupe with three bar tail lights, they will kill it.
Mays admits the styling lapse in the video. If they make the 2014 look like a Genesis Coupe with three bar tail lights, they will kill it.
about same size as a fox..nice and light...and a modern 5.0
10/6/10, 04:00 AM
#79
GT Member
Join Date: September 8, 2009
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know, I get the feeling they were lacking some objectivity there. They are no doubt engineering the final Falcon, but Blue II and Wescoent have both indicated that platform development is being done in Dearborn. The article also kinda contradicts itself, saying no decision is being made on Falcon until next year (or 2012) but they're nearing a design freeze right now.
2 new RWD platforms, or one really flexible one, would be great. We'll see.
2 new RWD platforms, or one really flexible one, would be great. We'll see.
However, we need to remember that with Falcon doesn't "need" to be redone until 2016, so effectively they're at a point in time where they haven't chosen the finer detail of it's design.
This is what Mulally said “We are going to have great rear-wheel drive platforms, and the vehicles that we have them on are on global platforms."
That's more than one platform. But they'll be sharing a lot.
10/6/10, 04:39 AM
#80
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: April 11, 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6" SHORTER? And 3" LOWER? That would be almost like a go-kart. 6" shorter would reduce headroom to almost nothing. Even bringing it down 1/4" is a big deal. And 3" lower would have zero ground clearance. It might sound good on paper but in reality that would never happen. That is almost Corvette low.