Hey all, I thought I would post an illustration of how I would like the 2005 Mustang to look. I am not a big fan of the rear spoiler and I am sure I am not alone. Tell me what you think of this photoshopped version of the 2005 Mustang...

Cheers

 

Looks good.

 

very nice like the rims and the brakes.

 

Call me crazy, but the rear end looks kind of like a corvette....

 

Your crazy!!! Stop with that crazy talk! I like the pony but I would want louvers over the quater windows. I agree with you that the new spoiler looks like it doesn't belong. They need a ducktail instead, if ford is going with retro I want to know when did we see spoilers on classic ponies. I own 2 and none of the them have wings or spoilers. This is just my opinion but I dont think they fit on the new Stang.

 

looks good but this should be in the photoshop forum

 

Mach 1's had wings...nice ones too

 

Spoiler/delete + aftermarket rims
This is totally feasable...

 

That's my car except for the wheels.... I like the Bullets! Yes It does need a duck tail for the all important Muscle car look.

 

The lack of a spoiler looks so good on the GT, especially with the extra "meat" on the lower body cladding and rear fascias

Will be done on my car,

 

 

I have to respectfully disagree.

How many of these muscle cars have spoilers?

The 64 GTO (or the later 60's GTOs for that matter).
The 68-70 Mopar B-bodies? (Charger, GTX, RoadRunner, etc)
Fairlane Thunderbolt?
60's Chevelles?
60's Corvettes?
Just about anything from the 60's?

Most of the muscle car era occurred 1964-69, and very few cars had spoilers in 1969 (the Camaro comes to mind)

Considering that the muscle car was dead by the end of 1973, and the peak was in the 68-70 period, it is safe to say that spoilers have very little to do with muscle cars.

They have everything to do with cosmetic packages that they started to add to muscle cars and wannabe muscle cars as they reached the peak of their horsepower wars and needed new ways to differentiate their wares from each other. They also slapped them on EVERYTHING else. Like Vegas and V6 Cutlasses. This styling madness continues through the 70's.

I like the ducktail spoiler concept on this car. But it has more to do with 70's disco and Trans Ams than it has to do with the true muscle car era.

 

Ever heard of the 1970 BOSS 302? Yeah, that had a raised spoiler.

 

I have to respectfully disagree.

How many of these muscle cars have spoilers?

The 64 GTO (or the later 60's GTOs for that matter).
The 68-70 Mopar B-bodies? (Charger, GTX, RoadRunner, etc)
Fairlane Thunderbolt?
60's Chevelles?
60's Corvettes?
Just about anything from the 60's?

Most of the muscle car era occurred 1964-69, and very few cars had spoilers in 1969 (the Camaro comes to mind)

Considering that the muscle car was dead by the end of 1973, and the peak was in the 68-70 period, it is safe to say that spoilers have very little to do with muscle cars.

They have everything to do with cosmetic packages that they started to add to muscle cars and wannabe muscle cars as they reached the peak of their horsepower wars and needed new ways to differentiate their wares from each other. They also slapped them on EVERYTHING else. Like Vegas and V6 Cutlasses. This styling madness continues through the 70's.

I like the ducktail spoiler concept on this car. But it has more to do with 70's disco and Trans Ams than it has to do with the true muscle car era. [/b][/quote]
Tell it like it is have you see 87-93 Mustang GTs they all have spoilers duh

 

69 Mach 1 .... spoiler



Sidewinder


As was mentioned...Boss 302


1970 Mach 1


1971 Boss 351


The above are some of the most famous stangs of all time. All had spoilers. The shelby's obviously had ducktails which looked as good if not better.

 

Somehow I feel it is wrong to be getting aroused scrolling through this thread... yet strangely I am. Is there a 12 step program for that?

 

The nice thing is (at least for the Americans) is that if you don't like the spoiler, order code 13D gets you a GT without one.

if you like the spoiler no problem, you get one standard.

The power of choice is great

You don't need to have a spoiler to have a muscle car. Most of the bargain-basement models did not have them. At the same time, some of the most desireable cars did have them, so it is just a question of taste.

 

Didn't M1Rifle say most cars didn't have spoilers....not all cars and I think he said from 64-69, and after those years they started putting more spoilers on muscle cars. Not trying to defend or anything.
05Mach1---He was talking about the Muscle car era....not 87-93 mustang gt era anyway it's all good! everyone has their own opinion!

 

Since when is an 87-93 Mustang GT a muscle car?

Mustang GTs are PONY cars. That means "performance oriented". As in the original Mustangs from 1964-1/2-1966... they had small V8's, were "sporty" but not sports cars, they were strong but not muscle cars.

You can ~make~ a muscle car out of an 87 GT. But it isn't by adding wings.

Again, there were hundreds of thousands of muscle cars built in the 60's before anyone started tacking on fibreglass wings and spoilers. There were hundreds of thousands of non-musclecars with wings and spoilers that couldn't even run a 15sec quarter.

I stand by my point. Wings don't make a muscle car.

The spoiler delete option doesn't make the '05 GT any less of a pony car either.

 

Actually, I thought M1Rifle was talking about DUCKTAILS on muscle cars, not just spoilers in general.

Correction:
Guess I was wrong.