NYT teases "future Mustang"
Team Mustang Source
Joined: January 31, 2004
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 2
From: NYC
The rear 1/4 windows are sweet now but when the 2014 rolls around that design would be 10 years old already...they can tweak it some more to keep it new but if they do a 69/70 style rear window they should do it rimless and seamless...no c-pillar...One up on the Camaro/Challenger which both have thick C-pillars and ruin the flow. All these pony cars had that look in the 60's/70's. It can be done...
Last edited by Topnotch; Mar 8, 2010 at 12:25 PM.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: September 10, 2009
Posts: 956
Likes: 0
From: Boston
The rear 1/4 windows are sweet now but when the 2014 rolls around that design would be 10 years old already...they can tweak it some more to keep it new but if they do a 69/70 style rear window they should do it rimless and seamless...no c-pillar...One up on the Camaro/Challenger which both have thick C-pillars and ruin the flow. All these pony cars had that look in the 60's/70's. It can be done...
GTR Member
Joined: October 18, 2006
Posts: 5,553
Likes: 11
From: England
Nice 'chop, TN. However, I'd prefer the side window to be a little smaller and more raked, just like the '69/'70. Heck, I'd like the entire 2014 Mustang to be a modern clone of the '69/'70 
I was always a fan of this chap's work, too. Again, love that window line.
I was always a fan of this chap's work, too. Again, love that window line.
Last edited by Twin Turbo; Mar 8, 2010 at 02:04 PM.
Now make it a retractable hardtop! 
Cobra Member
Joined: July 11, 2007
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Well, I stand corrected. I didn't realize any modern cars lacked a b-pillar. It'd definately be cool to see the next Mustang sport something like this.
The rear 1/4 windows are sweet now but when the 2014 rolls around that design would be 10 years old already...they can tweak it some more to keep it new but if they do a 69/70 style rear window they should do it rimless and seamless...no c-pillar...One up on the Camaro/Challenger which both have thick C-pillars and ruin the flow. All these pony cars had that look in the 60's/70's. It can be done...
Member
Joined: October 19, 2004
Posts: 15
Likes: 1
From: madtown
I take issue with any car manufacturer that puts out a concept design of a sports car/muscle car that is usually far more bad-***, far more aggressive than what we end up getting. Case in point, one of the classic muscle cars,, the Pontiac GTO of the late 60's, early 70's.......One photo is a concept that they should have went with. It looks bad-*** and that front is intensly agressive and intimidating.
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: February 5, 2008
Posts: 2,339
Likes: 3
From: Chattanooga
Originally Posted by seaclam 
I take issue with any car manufacturer that puts out a concept design of a sports car/muscle car that is usually far more bad-***, far more aggressive than what we end up getting. Case in point, one of the classic muscle cars,, the Pontiac GTO of the late 60's, early 70's.......One photo is a concept that they should have went with. It looks bad-*** and that front is intensly agressive and intimidating.
I take issue with any car manufacturer that puts out a concept design of a sports car/muscle car that is usually far more bad-***, far more aggressive than what we end up getting. Case in point, one of the classic muscle cars,, the Pontiac GTO of the late 60's, early 70's.......One photo is a concept that they should have went with. It looks bad-*** and that front is intensly agressive and intimidating.
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: May 16, 2004
Posts: 5,206
Likes: 18
From: Bristol, TN
IIRC, to make sure they got the overhangs and wheelbase looking right, GM had to seriously strengthen the area forward of the cowl adding 30 or more pounds (may have even been 60, but I dont think so).
GT Member
Joined: October 13, 2004
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Well, for me if it takes a little more to "see", so be it. The design comes first. I would submit, by the same argument made to me, no one here should be buying these cars as they get terrible gas mileage. These cars by their very nature are as impractical as they come, particularly in these times. For me, less than adequate viewing, less then good gas mileage mean jack squat! They are things that only other people worry about when looking for a "sensible" car. Build a car with a wild, mean design and a good amount of horsepower. That's all I want. Throw practicality out the window, that's for people with Camry's.
Cobra Member
Joined: June 25, 2004
Posts: 1,076
Likes: 0
From: Ohio
Well, for me if it takes a little more to "see", so be it. The design comes first. I would submit, by the same argument made to me, no one here should be buying these cars as they get terrible gas mileage. These cars by their very nature are as impractical as they come, particularly in these times. For me, less than adequate viewing, less then good gas mileage mean jack squat! They are things that only other people worry about when looking for a "sensible" car. Build a car with a wild, mean design and a good amount of horsepower. That's all I want. Throw practicality out the window, that's for people with Camry's.
I dis-like the cheap interior. I dis-like the interior design. I could go on & on.
Nice car, but not for me.
The Camaro is a hot white trash stripper. The Mustang is the cute college girl(who is wild in bed) that you marry!
GTR Member
Joined: October 18, 2006
Posts: 5,553
Likes: 11
From: England
I'd forgotten about the images below. They are, allegedly, Ford renderings. Could it fit the proportions of the clay model?
Last edited by Twin Turbo; Mar 21, 2010 at 10:55 AM.
Swamp Donkey Aficionado
Joined: November 23, 2006
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
) . I hope they do something different with that front end, though. 
Last edited by MARZ; Mar 21, 2010 at 11:30 AM.
Swamp Donkey Aficionado
Joined: November 23, 2006
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
