Its very hard for many on here to understand that not everything has too do with having 9,000,000 rwhp. Its funny that the enthusiasts here who own newer mustangs the main concern is how much HP the car has, how much it weighs and how much boost can the engine hold.

You read the posts from the folks that have mustangs from the 60's and 70's they ain't worried about 52 billion HP. Just because the mustang is a lighter, faster car than a Challenger doesn't negate the the fact its still a beautiful , smooth car. It has a certain look that people want too stare at. Its a bad a$$ modern day muscle car. Is the Challenger heavy, SURE IS! Is the Challenger slower than the 5.0? SURE IS. Can the mustang out handle the Challenger and its heavy a$$ every day of the week. HECK YEAH!

That's not the point of the Challenger. Its
not meant too be a sports car. Its meant to be a modern day interpretation of the old muscle car era and they were spot on.

You don't hear the mustang owners from the 60's and 70's worried about having the best suspension set up. They don't give two craps about their mustang cornering like its on rails, lowering springs, pan hard bar, brembo brakes.

Not everything is about speed and HP. Some people are looking for a certain image and the Challenger is that awesome muscle image.

 

Agree Eric! I do love love the look of the Challenger and as long as it has a V8 and can smoke the rears I'm good to go!

 

Thanks sir. Don't get me wrong, I love the mustang and think they are amazing performance vehicles with modern day muscle.

 

My posts about the Challenger a couple pages back were merely for the fact that he was buying a SRT8....which if your buying that your buying it for the power, because they mostly all look the same.

I get that that not everyone is buying a car for the power but if your clearly going to spend money on an SRT8, you infact are.

 

isn't this another way of saying your buying it for the HP?

 

I agree with you there. It does look better in the darker colors. But then part of me feels that's just the darker colors hiding the lines. I dunno. I like most of it I guess.

 

If it had a better headlight design I'd divorce my wife and marry it in Kalifornia.

 

I saw the CO in Portland 2 weeks ago.

I was luke warm on the design before seeing it I person. My concerns we're mostly around the rear. It didn't seem to fit the rest of the car. It was like they tried to marry a 69 Shelby front (aggressive, big nose ) with a 65 rear (small, almost petite) - and failed miserably.

In person, however, it works. I really couldn't find a bad angle . The stance is perfect, the rear is in good proportion with the rest, and the front! When you look at all the nice lines ripped into the hood, etc., it's a really nice package.

I think it looks smaller than the S197, actually. The wheels, even in the v6 I saw, were aggressively sized. I was very very impressed and pleasantly surprised.

I do wish it were less family-lineage looking in pictures, but when you see the car and how it comes together, you really don't think Fusion. I thought: This car's about to successfully launch it's next 50 years. It's really like no previous mustang to me. I own gens 1, 3, and 5. I could easily see owning a 6G, based on looks alone, even if it performed the same as the S197. The stance, balanced proportions, sharp interior alone make it desirable to me.

Now would I trade my 2012 for it? Hmmm that's a tougher question. That would require a test drive and some additional wow factor.

Design wise: Bravo FoMoCo!

 

Well of course it has to have HP I think the plain jane Challys suck! IMHO. But I just put my .02 in cause I still have a soft spot for the retro look of the Chally!

 

If I was going for "maximum fast" and "maximum twisties," I would have a BMW M3 in a heartbeat. If you spend any time around road-course tracks you know what the NO. 1 car is - and it is not the Mustang GT or GT 500. Even with significant upgrades to the suspension....which I have done (And I do track mine several times per year). But the key for me was the "iconic" look of the 2005+. The 14 Challenger has that look and I think the 2015 mustang looks like "a lot of other cars." I appreciate "the look" everyday and the "track performance" a few times a year.

 

I remember watchin Motor Trends matchup of the 5.0 and M3. Both very solid cars and while the Mustang may be more fun (read harder to manage) it lacks the sophistication of the m3 and thats why i think the M3 is still better. The new mustang with IRS though may gave the new m4 and maybe even new porsche 911 carerra a **** good run for their money at half the sticker price

 

Nothing stays the same. I suspect the 2015 Mustang may be better on the road course, but I am sure BMW M4 will also improve the previous M3 performance
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...17-future-cars

 

Then I re-submit this:

 

I just feel the headlights are too similar to the 2010-2014 models with that. Granted theres not much more in terms of design they could do but maybe have the 3-bar led outside of the housing closer to the grille and have the projector housing with a bit of a chargeresque look to em. Slant the top and make it look pissed off

 

The arrangement of lights can certainly be changed, but there is just no way that anything can be done to make the arrangement forward facing again.

Maybe when Ford does its refresh?

 

Yea maybe for a 2018 refresh change up the face a bit and add some new interior bits. But other than the headlights (which i really dont mind) everything else looks pretty **** good.

 

I think that looks much better. It doesn't have the "girly" look of the 2015 .lights. ...... Even the Chevy SUV has those "girly" headlights

 

Ford, I want a refresh already!

 

^

 

While amusing, there is a video out there that talks about the styling of the area around the headlight assembly and the effect on aerodynamics. Look at time index 1:20 on .

Put on your 3D glasses for added effect!