New Popular Hotrodding Mag article
10/26/11, 09:11 PM
#21
Cobra Member
Join Date: July 11, 2007
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10/26/11, 11:37 PM
#23
GTR Member
Okay. "Retro" or not has nothing to do with it. These are just ugly cars and in fact, I would still call these concepts "retro" with the hips, c-scoops, "scowling" front end, etc. Plenty of Mustang cues present, but are just off the mark. I hate the clunky, blocky, heavy look with the Urkel-inspired belt line that some people seem to want to embrace. The Mustang needs to look like the Pony car it is-lean, simple and light on it's feet and not like a big, overwrought, hulking bruiser. I cringe when people call the Mustang a "muscle car" since the term so rarely applies to the Mustang. If I had to choose, the silver concept would be the less objectionable of the two.
The following is purely subjective and I know there will be plenty that will disagree:
I think Mustangs stopped looking really good by '70 and certainly by '73. Plain and simple.
For me the Mustang II is a great example of a Mustang that technically looked like a Mustang with plenty of classic, "retro" cues, but was just "off" aesthetically.
To my eye, Fox bodies have no aesthetically pleasing elements to them at all (about as boxy and '80s generic as you can get) but I think they were the last and most recent example of the true, pure "spirit" of the Mustang. They were light, small, and sported excellent performance for the time with that little 5.0.
SN95s were a great aesthetic improvement at the time, but still were never anything that excited me in that regard. I should say that performance-wise, I respect the SN95s.
When the '05 S197 came around, I was elated that the Mustang once again looked like a Mustang. It was bigger and heavier than I'd like but it looked the best any Mustang had looked since the '70s.
Personally, I really hope the silly overused "retro" term goes away. It either looks like a Mustang or it doesn't. If people insist that "retro" continue to be used, I want the Mustang to be as "retro" as the Porsche 911.
To be sure, these concepts have Mustang elements I like but overall just miss the mark.
The following is purely subjective and I know there will be plenty that will disagree:
I think Mustangs stopped looking really good by '70 and certainly by '73. Plain and simple.
For me the Mustang II is a great example of a Mustang that technically looked like a Mustang with plenty of classic, "retro" cues, but was just "off" aesthetically.
To my eye, Fox bodies have no aesthetically pleasing elements to them at all (about as boxy and '80s generic as you can get) but I think they were the last and most recent example of the true, pure "spirit" of the Mustang. They were light, small, and sported excellent performance for the time with that little 5.0.
SN95s were a great aesthetic improvement at the time, but still were never anything that excited me in that regard. I should say that performance-wise, I respect the SN95s.
When the '05 S197 came around, I was elated that the Mustang once again looked like a Mustang. It was bigger and heavier than I'd like but it looked the best any Mustang had looked since the '70s.
Personally, I really hope the silly overused "retro" term goes away. It either looks like a Mustang or it doesn't. If people insist that "retro" continue to be used, I want the Mustang to be as "retro" as the Porsche 911.
To be sure, these concepts have Mustang elements I like but overall just miss the mark.
Spot on, Wolfsburg, this is very close to my thoughts........although my love of the '71-'73 models has grown relatively recently. As you pointed out though, this is purely a subjective view and everyone will have their own idea of their perfect Mustang.
However, I do respect every Mustang that's been produced since '64, it's just that there are only a few models I lust after and would want to own.
But I do agree I'd like to see the S197 design mature in the same vein as the 911. When you have a winning formular, why change it?
This is along the lines of what I'd want for the 2015MY (although I'd lose the "seperate" bumpers).
Gorgeous
10/27/11, 12:53 AM
#24
Cobra Member
Join Date: July 11, 2007
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I tend to prefer the classics, but the 84-86 SVO was indeed a great looking car IMHO. And to me eyes, the 71 and 72 were much better looking cars than the 70 was, I just never could get on board with what they did to the front end of the car for the 70 model year. On the other hand, I'm not a fan of the SN95 models as a whole and I really don't care for the way the New Edge version of the platform looked at all.
That said, I have generally found a common thread, and something to like (if not love) in every Mustang generation. My only request for the next gen is that it be the best, and best looking, Mustang model ever. IMO that should be the goal, and if they can manage that I don't think we'll see many retro or not arguments whichever path they choose.
I'll agree that the front-end treatment on the '70 was an odd choice on Ford's behalf and something I'm not crazy about, especially coming from the '69 (which I think has the best looking front fascia of any Mustang). I just never could fall in love with the overall look of the '71-'73s and would still prefer a '70 over those, even with that weird face. What's funny too, is that I tend to prefer the New Edge to the "round" SN95s but I'm still generally apathetic towards the looks of SN95s overall.
I agree that if Ford makes a fantastic looking Mustang, hopefully we'll see the end of these "retro" vs. "wave of the future!!!" debates. My hope would be that Ford could from now on be able insert certain unmistakable Mustang DNA identifiers without being lambasted as being "retro". It's not "retro", it's "timeless"...
I should also emphasize that I respect most all Mustangs (even the maligned Mustang II in some regards), but some I just don't think have much going for them visually.
I'm not one that necessarily wants or expects a facsimile of an old Mustang, but I do want one that is well executed and has that undeniably "Mustang" DNA, what some like to loosely call "retro" ad nauseum. I think you can have a fully modern looking Mustang (I think Topnotch's rendering is generally on the right track toward what we'll likely see) but one that also sports these DNA cues. I'd like to see the car sport the c-scoops, "shark-mouth" grille and "glaring" headlights, and tri-bar taillights, preferably in a fastback package but above all, it needs to be well executed. I would prefer not to have something that could be any random coupe that Ford just slapped a running pony on and called a Mustang. It may look amazing, and I may even love it, but I'd never truly think it looked like a Mustang...
10/27/11, 03:17 PM
#25
Just my 2 cents. I think going 'Retro' is what saved the American Muscle car. The fact that they brought back the Camaro with Retro styling is what made it as popular as it is. If they go futuristic I think it will lose its appeal and will lose sales. If they make it a clone of all the other sport coupes on the road why would you buy a mustang over a Japanese or Korean vehicle?
10/27/11, 03:31 PM
#26
10/27/11, 05:02 PM
#27
Originally Posted by slidejob
10/27/11, 05:04 PM
#28
By and large I agree. IMO the ideal blend of heritage design cues and a modern look can be found in the recent Aston Martin designs. Anybody looking at a DB9 or Vanquish can instantly see the similarity to the classis Db4 or DB5 models, and yet the new cars look like they could have been designed yesterday.
To be fair it takes a truly timeless design to manage that, something which I think the 65-69 Mustang models easil were just like the classic Aston Martin models that served as the inspiration for the new crop of models. Now I just want to see DB9-level execution on the design of the Mustang. Thankfully, it typically doesn't cost any more money to make a car spectacularly good looking.
To be fair it takes a truly timeless design to manage that, something which I think the 65-69 Mustang models easil were just like the classic Aston Martin models that served as the inspiration for the new crop of models. Now I just want to see DB9-level execution on the design of the Mustang. Thankfully, it typically doesn't cost any more money to make a car spectacularly good looking.
I'll agree that the front-end treatment on the '70 was an odd choice on Ford's behalf and something I'm not crazy about, especially coming from the '69 (which I think has the best looking front fascia of any Mustang). I just never could fall in love with the overall look of the '71-'73s and would still prefer a '70 over those, even with that weird face. What's funny too, is that I tend to prefer the New Edge to the "round" SN95s but I'm still generally apathetic towards the looks of SN95s overall.
I agree that if Ford makes a fantastic looking Mustang, hopefully we'll see the end of these "retro" vs. "wave of the future!!!" debates. My hope would be that Ford could from now on be able insert certain unmistakable Mustang DNA identifiers without being lambasted as being "retro". It's not "retro", it's "timeless"...
I should also emphasize that I respect most all Mustangs (even the maligned Mustang II in some regards), but some I just don't think have much going for them visually.
I'm not one that necessarily wants or expects a facsimile of an old Mustang, but I do want one that is well executed and has that undeniably "Mustang" DNA, what some like to loosely call "retro" ad nauseum. I think you can have a fully modern looking Mustang (I think Topnotch's rendering is generally on the right track toward what we'll likely see) but one that also sports these DNA cues. I'd like to see the car sport the c-scoops, "shark-mouth" grille and "glaring" headlights, and tri-bar taillights, preferably in a fastback package but above all, it needs to be well executed. I would prefer not to have something that could be any random coupe that Ford just slapped a running pony on and called a Mustang. It may look amazing, and I may even love it, but I'd never truly think it looked like a Mustang...
I agree that if Ford makes a fantastic looking Mustang, hopefully we'll see the end of these "retro" vs. "wave of the future!!!" debates. My hope would be that Ford could from now on be able insert certain unmistakable Mustang DNA identifiers without being lambasted as being "retro". It's not "retro", it's "timeless"...
I should also emphasize that I respect most all Mustangs (even the maligned Mustang II in some regards), but some I just don't think have much going for them visually.
I'm not one that necessarily wants or expects a facsimile of an old Mustang, but I do want one that is well executed and has that undeniably "Mustang" DNA, what some like to loosely call "retro" ad nauseum. I think you can have a fully modern looking Mustang (I think Topnotch's rendering is generally on the right track toward what we'll likely see) but one that also sports these DNA cues. I'd like to see the car sport the c-scoops, "shark-mouth" grille and "glaring" headlights, and tri-bar taillights, preferably in a fastback package but above all, it needs to be well executed. I would prefer not to have something that could be any random coupe that Ford just slapped a running pony on and called a Mustang. It may look amazing, and I may even love it, but I'd never truly think it looked like a Mustang...
10/27/11, 05:35 PM
#29
legacy Tms Member
Not sure where the conflict is there...
10/27/11, 06:54 PM
#30
V6 Member
Join Date: March 7, 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get that this is all a matter of personal opinion, but it still seems so odd that some of you guys only honor 10 years of the cars history. Considering the fact that its been around for almost 50 years. Apparently Ford did something right for the other 40 years or we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
10/27/11, 08:04 PM
#31
Cobra Member
Join Date: July 11, 2007
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get that this is all a matter of personal opinion, but it still seems so odd that some of you guys only honor 10 years of the cars history. Considering the fact that its been around for almost 50 years. Apparently Ford did something right for the other 40 years or we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
10/28/11, 06:01 PM
#35
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what a lot of people in the "retro" camp forget is that most of the successful designs over the years have been successful in spte of their design cues. The II wasn't successful because it had a pony in the grille or a side scoop, it was successful because it came back more generally to what the original car was supposed to be from the 71-73 model.
The same is true for the various Foxes. They are the farthest from the original as far as syling cues go, but they were very succesful as well because they retained more than the superficial cues. They were very close to the original in terms of proportions, character and approach.
Superficial design elements have little to do with the success of the car because they have little to do with what has always made the Mustang appealing. It's not triple tail lights or a side scoop that people really want. They want an affordable fun car that looks great and has some good performance. The bigger design elements are what really makes a Mustang a Mustang such as long hood short deck proportions, RWD, V8, 2+2, available convertable etc. The little details that people tend to get obsessed with really have little to nothing to do with what has made/kept the car successful. I think a lot people tend to overlook that.
The same is true for the various Foxes. They are the farthest from the original as far as syling cues go, but they were very succesful as well because they retained more than the superficial cues. They were very close to the original in terms of proportions, character and approach.
Superficial design elements have little to do with the success of the car because they have little to do with what has always made the Mustang appealing. It's not triple tail lights or a side scoop that people really want. They want an affordable fun car that looks great and has some good performance. The bigger design elements are what really makes a Mustang a Mustang such as long hood short deck proportions, RWD, V8, 2+2, available convertable etc. The little details that people tend to get obsessed with really have little to nothing to do with what has made/kept the car successful. I think a lot people tend to overlook that.
10/28/11, 08:56 PM
#36
GT Member
Join Date: February 8, 2010
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I'll agree that the front-end treatment on the '70 was an odd choice on Ford's behalf and something I'm not crazy about,"
How is it so different from the '69? I can hardly tell the difference, and I had a '69.
How is it so different from the '69? I can hardly tell the difference, and I had a '69.
10/28/11, 11:12 PM
#39
Cobra Member
Join Date: July 11, 2007
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Removal of the highbeam lights altogether
Headlights moved into the grille
Headlight buckets removed and replaced with faux vents
Grille badge moved to the center
Sidemarker lights moved to the fenders and are now diagonal
10/28/11, 11:13 PM
#40
Bullitt Member
Originally Posted by Twin Turbo
Spot on, Wolfsburg, this is very close to my thoughts........although my love of the '71-'73 models has grown relatively recently. As you pointed out though, this is purely a subjective view and everyone will have their own idea of their perfect Mustang.
However, I do respect every Mustang that's been produced since '64, it's just that there are only a few models I lust after and would want to own.
But I do agree I'd like to see the S197 design mature in the same vein as the 911. When you have a winning formular, why change it?
This is along the lines of what I'd want for the 2015MY (although I'd lose the "seperate" bumpers).
Gorgeous
Must have!!!