UPDATED WITH NEW IMAGES AND TEXT: Monday, November 11, 2013... Tom (See 11/11/2013 Entry)
Not my words... still studying the rendering (below) and trying to recall the Evos concept that I promise to locate and add here* for reference. How soon we forget :confused: Atomic
*NOTE: See Evos concept to trigger your memory with photo, plus text link added below on 10/16/2013
Renderings Hint at 2015 Ford Mustang Appearance: Hate the Evos concept? You'll love this...
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/image-1171.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/image-1171.jpg.html)
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/image-916.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/image-916.jpg.html)
By: Graham Kozak on 10/15/2013
For: AutoWeek
We're still waiting to see what the 2015 Ford Mustang will look like. Spy shots only offer glimpses of undisguised sheet-metal between pieces of heavy camouflage, so until the debut, this set of renderings that appeared on Mustang enthusiast forum Mustang6G.com is the next best thing to an official reveal.
Mustang6G forum member chazcron is responsible for the images, which are said to have been built from the growing number of Mustang spy shots circulating the Web.
The wide, horizontally divided grille we saw up close a few weeks ago is there, but the swoopiness of the Evos concept has largely been banished in favor of clean, straight horizontal lines. The large front and rear overhangs we spied previously have also evaporated, though they were likely a function of Ford's aggressive camouflage in the first place. Fans of the three-bar taillights will be delighted to know that they aren't going anywhere -- and the new 'Stang seems to wear them well.
According to Mustang6G forum administrator JarStang, "One design feature that is new to Mustangs and not yet reflected in this model is a shallow double-bubble roof that would only be slightly visible from these angles. This will be shown on renders to come."
We're eager to see more renderings as they come out, and -- of course -- we can't wait to compare them to the actual vehicle when it does break cover, possibly later this year.
In the mean time, head to the Mustang6G forum thread for a few more renders and some intense 2015 Mustang discussion and speculation.
That is not what the new one will look like. Period.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 15, 2013, 02:27:25 PM
That is not what the new one will look like. Period.
And you know this how...????
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 15, 2013, 02:48:47 PM
And you know this how...????
Because that's obviously a photochopped Infiniti G coupe?
I wish you could hear my laughter hahahahahaha
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 15, 2013, 02:48:47 PM
And you know this how...????
It doesn't even have the same shape as the camo'd test mules...and it looks more 240SX than Mustang.
Looks terrible. Not at all like a Mustang.
Hope not, that looks like shit.
No way
That "rendering" looks like ass and is probably nowhere near what it actually looks like.
yeah it's not as aggressive-looking as the current Mustang, but I can be cool with it as long as the new suspension is well-sorted, and its weight loss translates to an enhanced driving experience.
apparently, this rendering is of the base model, but it doesn't look quite right without that crease behind the door hinting at a faux side-scoop.
If that's it, I think Ford will have another Taurus on its hands.
IT'S NOT IT. The camo'd test mules have a different shape.
Honestly it's a bit hard to tell...
(http://www.themustangnews.com/content/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2015-mustang-spy-2.jpg)
Quote from: SVT666 on October 15, 2013, 02:27:25 PM
That is not what the new one will look like. Period.
Here is Ford's Take with its Evos Concept...
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/image-2071.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/image-2071.jpg.html)
Link: http://www.ecofriend.com/ford-evos-coupe-making-frankfurt-motor-show.html (http://www.ecofriend.com/ford-evos-coupe-making-frankfurt-motor-show.html)
Both Cars Side-by-Side
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/f023e187-f047-4d05-9c32-4409c283f64b.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/f023e187-f047-4d05-9c32-4409c283f64b.jpg.html)
Ford's Very Own Evos Concept Providing Hint at MY15 Mustang Design Theme, Above AND Avid Mustang Enthusiast's Renderings of Upcoming 2015 'stang from His Hard Studying of Countless Spy Shots, Below
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/image-1171.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/image-1171.jpg.html)
NOTE: See Link for Written Text on Evos in Thread Entry Directly Above... Tom
Insiders have said it's a near body double for the Evos. That picture looks nothing like the Evos.
Evos is an obvious harkening to the Camaro's high belt line armored car look (I too doubt that that is what it will look like).
Quote from: GoCougs on October 16, 2013, 10:08:42 AM
Evos is an obvious harkening to the Camaro's high belt line armored car look (I too doubt that that is what it will look like).
It doesn't harken to anything Camaro. :nutty:
The car will look more like this rendering than anything shown in this thread so far:
(http://mustangsdaily.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2015-ford-mustang-01.jpg)
Quote from: SVT666 on October 16, 2013, 10:17:21 AM
It doesn't harken to anything Camaro. :nutty:
The car will look more like this rendering than anything shown in this thread so far:
(http://mustangsdaily.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2015-ford-mustang-01.jpg)
I like that.
This is my favourite rendering so far:
(http://media.caranddriver.com/images/12q4/477962/2015-ford-mustang-artists-rendering-photo-481617-s-1280x782.jpg)
If the car comes out looking like this, then I will be waiting an extra 3 years to buy my next car.
My prediction for this Mustang: when it comes out, I will hate it, and then in 2-3 years, I'll like it. Happened with the last two Mustang designs.
They're gonna have to get away from the reto theme, esp. in the interior.
Retro interiors never work.
Ford's all-new 2015 Mustang is nearly here – the Dearborn-based automaker announced via invites this week that it will unveil the redone pony car at a press event next week.
The 2015 Mustang will be the first all-new version of the pony car since the introduction of the 2005 model. The 2015 update will bring a host of changes, such as a lighter curb weight, more modern styling and an independent rear suspension.
Unfortunately for the general public, the press event will be under a strict embargo, meaning most people will have to wait to see the car until its official unveiling in December. However, embargoes aren't always iron-clad, so it's possible images and details could leak out early.
While we'll have to wait for to see for sure, the 2015 is said to be styled after the Evos concept with a few historical design cues tied in. We've also heard that an EcoBoost four-cylinder with around 350 horsepower will be offered as a step-up to the car's standard 3.7L V6. A 5.0L V8 with 450 horsepower will also be on offer.
Ford will officially lift the veil on the 2015 Mustang in December, with its first public appearance scheduled for the 2014 Detroit auto show. The 2015 Ford Mustang will arrive in dealer showrooms next summer.
This will be interesting. I'm predicting a dead cat bounce unfortunately. Ford just hasn't pulled off a new car well in quite some time.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 17, 2013, 10:22:20 PM
This will be interesting. I'm predicting a dead cat bounce unfortunately. Ford just hasn't pulled off a new car well in quite some time.
Haters gonna hate.
Ford's new cars have all drastically increased sales and landed them at or near the top in sales in their respective categories.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 17, 2013, 10:22:20 PM
This will be interesting. I'm predicting a dead cat bounce unfortunately. Ford just hasn't pulled off a new car well in quite some time.
You almost had me :clap:
Quote from: GoCougs on October 15, 2013, 10:17:42 PM
If that's it, I think Ford will have another Taurus on its hands.
86 Taurus was a game changer and for several year the Taurus was the best selling car in the US.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 16, 2013, 10:17:21 AM
It doesn't harken to anything Camaro. :nutty:
The car will look more like this rendering than anything shown in this thread so far:
(http://mustangsdaily.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2015-ford-mustang-01.jpg)
Well neither that picture nor the one Atomic posted looks as cartoonish as the competitor's offerings, so that's a plus. :ohyeah:
Quote from: MiataJohn on October 18, 2013, 07:53:33 AM
86 Taurus was a game changer and for several year the Taurus was the best selling car in the US.
The first years of the Taurus were ~25+ years ago, which sorta proves my point, but in a different way. Just as Ford mismanaged the Taurus (and Escort, and Ranger, and Explorer) by not moving the needle every ~5-6 years to keep ahead of competitors, so too with the S197 Mustang, letting it sit on the shelf for 10 years, to be out-shined by the Camaro.
None of these concepts move the needle and would likely remain playing second (sales) fiddle to the Camaro. That doesn't mean one isn't the real deal however, as Ford has a legacy of marque mismanagement.
Yep, it's that legacy of marque mismanagement that made me decide to buy a new GM car. I've narrowed my choices down to either a Pontiac GTO or an Oldsmobile Cutlass. :lol:
Quote from: Cobra93 on October 18, 2013, 11:32:30 AM
Yep, it's that legacy of marque mismanagement that made me decide to buy a new GM car. I've narrowed my choices down to either a Pontiac GTO or an Oldsmobile Cutlass. :lol:
Not me. I'm heading for either the nearest Saturn or Plymouth dealership. :lol:
Quote from: Cobra93 on October 18, 2013, 11:32:30 AM
Yep, it's that legacy of marque mismanagement that made me decide to buy a new GM car. I've narrowed my choices down to either a Pontiac GTO or an Oldsmobile Cutlass. :lol:
Ford has the largest brand mismanagement failures in of the last ~30 years - Escort, Ranger, Explorer and Taurus were ALL game changers and HUGE sales leaders, yet Ford ruined each and every one. It's a shame.
Good Morning!! Yet Another Rendering of the VERY SOON to be Revealed 2015 Ford Mustang...
Another 2015 Ford Mustang Rendering Surfaces Online
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2013 CATEGORIES: FORD, FORD MUSTANG, FORD SCOOPS, SCOOPS
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/image-1047.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/image-1047.jpg.html)
We'll concede to being excited for the reveal of the all-new 2015 Ford Mustang, that has just been reported to take place in the month of December (or next week, if you're a selected/trusted member of the mainstream press).
As time goes by, the image of the new 'Stang grows ever clearer, and after recent a so-so rendering we recently posted, we came across upon one that's of higher quality – it's more polished overall, though it keeps true to the forms that have already been highlighted via spyshots and videos.
The rendered car you see above is the work of Josiah LaColla, and it's the artist's way of saying he was not pleased with what had been rendered up until the present moment.
His interpretation has a bit more depth to it, and you can start to see the flaring of the wheel arches better, as well as the design of the front bumper, which was not hard to make out in the latest batches of shots that have been circulating the web.
What do you think, is it getting any closer to the real thing?
I was hoping for something more like a modern day Probe.
Festiva
Quote from: GoCougs on October 18, 2013, 04:41:41 PM
Ford has the largest brand mismanagement failures in of the last ~30 years - Escort, Ranger, Explorer and Taurus were ALL game changers and HUGE sales leaders, yet Ford ruined each and every one. It's a shame.
Saab
Pontiac
Hummer
Saturn
Oldsmobile
Not models run into the ground, entire brands. And then of course you have the individual models themselves. Toronado, Cutlass, 88, 98, Bonneville, Grand Prix, GTO, Firebird/Trans-Am... To name a few of the most storied.
Quote from: Atomic on October 19, 2013, 07:13:43 AM
Good Morning!! Yet Another Rendering of the VERY SOON to be Revealed 2015 Ford Mustang...
Another 2015 Ford Mustang Rendering Surfaces Online
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2013 CATEGORIES: FORD, FORD MUSTANG, FORD SCOOPS, SCOOPS
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/image-1047.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/image-1047.jpg.html)
We'll concede to being excited for the reveal of the all-new 2015 Ford Mustang, that has just been reported to take place in the month of December (or next week, if you're a selected/trusted member of the mainstream press).
As time goes by, the image of the new 'Stang grows ever clearer, and after recent a so-so rendering we recently posted, we came across upon one that's of higher quality – it's more polished overall, though it keeps true to the forms that have already been highlighted via spyshots and videos.
The rendered car you see above is the work of Josiah LaColla, and it's the artist's way of saying he was not pleased with what had been rendered up until the present moment.
His interpretation has a bit more depth to it, and you can start to see the flaring of the wheel arches better, as well as the design of the front bumper, which was not hard to make out in the latest batches of shots that have been circulating the web.
What do you think, is it getting any closer to the real thing?
Now that looks pretty good.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 18, 2013, 09:29:57 AM
The first years of the Taurus were ~25+ years ago, which sorta proves my point, but in a different way. Just as Ford mismanaged the Taurus (and Escort, and Ranger, and Explorer) by not moving the needle every ~5-6 years to keep ahead of competitors, so too with the S197 Mustang, letting it sit on the shelf for 10 years, to be out-shined by the Camaro.
None of these concepts move the needle and would likely remain playing second (sales) fiddle to the Camaro. That doesn't mean one isn't the real deal however, as Ford has a legacy of marque mismanagement.
The only person who doesn't consider the Mustang an equal to the Camaro is you Cougs. Sales don't mean shit. The Corolla was the best selling compact car for years despite being nowhere near the best car in its class. And the reasons for cars being best sellers in different segments vary wildly, so the idea that "the best sells the most" is ridiculous.
Quote from: MX793 on October 19, 2013, 08:05:20 AM
Saab
Pontiac
Hummer
Saturn
Oldsmobile
Not models run into the ground, entire brands. And then of course you have the individual models themselves. Toronado, Cutlass, 88, 98, Bonneville, Grand Prix, GTO, Firebird/Trans-Am... To name a few of the most storied.
None of those had a sliver of the success of the Escort, Ranger, Taurus and Explorer. Each of these four cars came out of nowhere, to lead its class, change its class, or create a new class all together. That is Ford's sin - something no automaker in the last ~30 years has committed - From hero to zero for no other reason than complacency and awful management.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 19, 2013, 08:26:36 AM
The only person who doesn't consider the Mustang an equal to the Camaro is you Cougs. Sales don't mean shit. The Corolla was the best selling compact car for years despite being nowhere near the best car in its class. And the reasons for cars being best sellers in different segments vary wildly, so the idea that "the best sells the most" is ridiculous.
Jesus, your Internetry gets worse by the day, which is quite a feat.
Since April of 2009 the Camaro has outsold the Mustang. In the ~35 years prior, the Camaro (+ Firebird) maybe outsold the Mustang 3 years. This brings to a close your "outshined" education.
Guys, those are all idiot fanboy renderings.
Thank your gods they're not representative of the real thing. They're awful.
Yes they are all hideous and dated.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 19, 2013, 11:52:44 AM
Jesus, your Internetry gets worse by the day, which is quite a feat.
Since April of 2009 the Camaro has outsold the Mustang. In the ~35 years prior, the Camaro (+ Firebird) maybe outsold the Mustang 3 years. This brings to a close your "outshined" education.
Like I said already, the better selling car isn't necessarily the better car. So citing Camaro sales as superiority is pretty stupid. Yet, I'm sure you will respond to this with more Camaro sales figures
Quote from: GoCougs on October 19, 2013, 11:52:44 AM
Jesus, your Internetry gets worse by the day, which is quite a feat.
Since April of 2009 the Camaro has outsold the Mustang. In the ~35 years prior, the Camaro (+ Firebird) maybe outsold the Mustang 3 years. This brings to a close your "outshined" education.
Not true.
Camaro outsold Mustang 7 times by itself and then had another 6 where it was within 10,000 units. I haven't looked for the Firebird sale, but I would pretty much guarantee with the Firebird sales the twins outsold the Mustang at least 17 times. I will look for them tonight when I get back home.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 19, 2013, 12:38:22 PM
Like I said already, the better selling car isn't necessarily the better car. So citing Camaro sales as superiority is pretty stupid. Yet, I'm sure you will respond to this with more Camaro sales figures
Awful.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 19, 2013, 01:34:13 PM
Camaro outsold Mustang 7 times by itself and then had another 6 where it was within 10,000 units. I haven't looked for the Firebird sale, but I would pretty much guarantee with the Firebird sales the twins outsold the Mustang at least 17 times. I will look for them tonight when I get back home.
True. It was all of six years, not three, of 35 that the Camaro outsold the Mustang, and the totals from '67 - '02 were 6.6MM Mustangs vs. 4.9MM Camaros. However, since MY2010, the Camaro has been the better seller and gotten more attention courtesy of the aforementioned sales coup, that it led GM's comeback (or the first of the successes) from the brink of insolvency, and to a lesser extent because of the ZL1 and Z28. The new Camaro has outshined the Mustang by any measure. None of these fanboy renderings would change that IMO.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 19, 2013, 06:40:29 PM
True. It was all of six years, not three, of 35 that the Camaro outsold the Mustang, and the totals from '67 - '02 were 6.6MM Mustangs vs. 4.9MM Camaros.
Not 6, it was 7 and that was just the Camaro by itself. I can't find actual production numbers for the Firebird for some reason, but I found on an F-Body forum a guy posted that the Camaro/Firebird duo outold the Mustang 19 years not including the new Camaro.
The Latest Renderings of the Next Ford Mustang Due Out for MY15
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/image-2358.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/image-2358.jpg.html)
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/image-824.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/image-824.jpg.html)
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/image-1471.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/image-1471.jpg.html)
Test Mule "Spy Shot" of 2015 Ford Mustang Serving as Inspiration, Below
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/image-776.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/image-776.jpg.html)
A Coupe of Questions
(1) Do any of you recall FMC once saying that the next (meaning MY15) Mustang would move away from its current retro design theme and become more contemporary?
(2) Any thoughts to that (^) after seeing the renderings and Ford's very own Evos concept? :huh:
Thnx! Atomic
Based on that camo'd unit, it looks less like a major departure, and more of a blending of the old shapes with their new design language. I like it.
Quote from: MX793 on October 19, 2013, 08:05:20 AM
Saab
Pontiac
Hummer
Saturn
Oldsmobile
Not models run into the ground, entire brands. And then of course you have the individual models themselves. Toronado, Cutlass, 88, 98, Bonneville, Grand Prix, GTO, Firebird/Trans-Am... To name a few of the most storied.
That's all irrelevant. The Camaro is outselling the Mustang. Huzzah!
Car and Driver has a 360 deg render of what they claim is almost definitively the next Mustang.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/2015-ford-mustang-leaked-360-view-and-full-details-news (http://www.caranddriver.com/features/2015-ford-mustang-leaked-360-view-and-full-details-news)
Look very good, except for the side profile, with the cut off front end. Bun then most new cars have that.
I have mixed feelings on the C&D rendering. Taken in a vacuum, it's a nice-looking coupe. That said, I'm not sure it has enough visual impact to turn heads like the Camaro. The rear-end treatment suffers from the same awkwardness of the current model. That's really my biggest criticism.
The whole design looks more evolutionary than revolutionary to me. Looks like they took the current car and threw in some more curves around the haunches and drew the sheet metal a bit tighter, squeezing the headlights in the process. Sort of like what they did with the 2010 refresh. That's not necessarily a bad thing, just my observation.
While I suspect this rendering is pretty close, I hope that the rear fascia and tail lamp treatment is different/better on the real deal. Something more like the Evos.
Looks like a Genesis. Looks like they took an E90 -> F30 approach. Really not what I was hoping for. The only saving grace will be if it's smaller, which will make it look a lot better in the flesh. In isolation it's pretty clean. There are a lot of nice details. This is how the car should have looked in 2005. The theme is getting long in the tooth though and unlike the 911 or 3 series the Mustang's "classic" looks are kind of tired.
I was seriously hoping for a resurgence of the Fox body look + proportions. This would have been big for the Mustang's penetration in Europe, but I guess they figured since Europe is dying anyway they might as well cater to the Americans.
Was hoping for something a little more edgy but this looks good.
Why would you buy a 420 hp model when a 500 hp model is going to be there by the end of the year? They should at least use the boss intake manifold and bump up power on the intro GT. NA 500 hp and 7000 or more rpm is awesome, the fruits of DOHC/VVT and no doubt DI.
I find a 500 HP GT to be unlikely unless they intend to push the price up to GT500 or Corvette levels. Maybe for a new Boss or Mach 1 edition, but not the standard GT.
500HP for... $30K?... just sounds like too much to me.
Wow, about as "all-new" as the recent non "all new" Camry and Accord, which means it's really not - and absolutely nothing like the far more modern-looking fanboy renderings. Very anticlimactic, though I'm sure it will be a better car what with IRS finally.
AND THERE IS EVEN MORE
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/image-1808.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/image-1808.jpg.html)
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/a36ed791-60f3-410d-b8e3-65f22b4567d6.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/a36ed791-60f3-410d-b8e3-65f22b4567d6.jpg.html)
^Reference (Both Renderings, Above)
2015 Ford Mustang 3D Renders Allegedly Made from Official CAD Images [Updated]*
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/image-967.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/image-967.jpg.html)
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/image-2356.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/image-2356.jpg.html)
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/image-274.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/image-274.jpg.html)
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2013 CATEGORIES:
FORD, FORD MUSTANG, FORD SCOOPS, SCOOPS[/b
As one of the oldest and most popular sports car nameplates in America, the Ford Mustang captures the imagination of just about everyone, so it comes as no surprise that there's a lot of interest in every new generation - even more so when the new model promises to redefine the genre and become a global vehicle.
By now, with so many scoop shots and renderings (including our own that was created based on information sourced from people who actually saw the car), you should have a pretty good idea of what the 2015 Mustang will look like. If you don't, here's one more set of 3D computer images for your viewing pleasure.
They are sourced from Mustang6g, which states that, they were created "from CAD images of the actual production car - which can't themselves be posted for obvious reasons".
The same site says that, according to "multiple inside sources", Ford may not wait until next year for the Mustang's 50th anniversary to show the car, providing us a first look as early as this December.
Update: New CAD photos of the 2015 Mustang Coupe have been added to to the image gallery below.
*CarScoops
Photo Credits: mustang6g
The Ford FB page says the car will be revealed on December 5th. Maybe we will get a leak sometime between now and then.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on November 19, 2013, 01:31:39 PM
The Ford FB page says the car will be reviled on December 5th. Maybe we will get a leak sometime between now and then.
Freudian slip?
This car will likely be awesome, but the styling will suck.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 29, 2013, 11:47:48 AM
This car will likely be awesome, but the styling will suck.
If the press reports are right, we should know by the end of next week.
Back end of those renderings is supposed to be all off.
It's supposed to debut on December 5th, on Good Morning America of all places :wtf: Everything I've heard so far on the tech specs...dear god :mask: This is the biggest release for the enthusiast crowd since the BRZ/FR-S.
I don't like the cut off nose. It looks too much like a Fusion Coupe instead of a Mustang. The Mustang should be one of those cars that doesn't have to conform to the corporate design language. Performance wise is likely going to be a monster, but styling wise I'm preparing myself to hate it.
Quote from: MrH on November 30, 2013, 08:04:25 PM
Back end of those renderings is supposed to be all off.
It's supposed to debut on December 5th, on Good Morning America of all places :wtf: Everything I've heard so far on the tech specs...dear god :mask: This is the biggest release for the enthusiast crowd since the BRZ/FR-S.
For the last redesign I think they showed it on Speed Channel, which we no longer have.
Autoweek leaks. I like the front but I don't know about the rear
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/1989uqzo4e8onjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg)
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/1989vbljvxolgjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg)
What is known so far
• Independent Rear Suspension, obviously
• 200-pound weight reduction over the outgoing Mustang, thanks in part to aluminum front fenders
• Two GT Performance Packs, one for the 2.3 Ecoboost and another for the 5.0 V8, includes limited-slip diff; V8 PP cars get 15-inch Brembos with six-pot calipers
• Ford says GT PP faster on track than 2012 Boss
• Standard keyless entry, meaning all cars get a proximity key
• At least some versions have MyFord Touch, but with physical knobs and buttons for HVAC functions
• 10% of production is expected to end up overseas, but Canada will remain second largest market for it
I think those 3D rear lights is something that really needs to be seen in real life to be evaluated.
200 lb reduction? Fenders don't weigh more than 20-30 lbs each though.
Given that the new car is effectively the same size (and probably still riding on the D2C chassis) and has the same engines, removing 200 lbs is a huge $$$ task.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 03, 2013, 12:27:39 PM
200 lb reduction? Fenders don't weigh more than 20-30 lbs each though.
Given that the new car is effectively the same size (and probably still riding on the D2C chassis) and has the same engines, removing 200 lbs is a huge $$$ task.
Old one has its roots in the model that came out in 2005 which was really ripped off of the LS. So that was kind of a 15 year old design. Metallurgy and other stuff relating to weight reduction has moved on quite a bit since then. Plus the current Mustang was pretty damn dense/space inefficient. 200lb is kind of a stretch but it's possible.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 03, 2013, 12:27:39 PM
200 lb reduction? Fenders don't weigh more than 20-30 lbs each though.
Given that the new car is effectively the same size (and probably still riding on the D2C chassis) and has the same engines, removing 200 lbs is a huge $$$ task.
The introduction of an independent rear suspension, not seen in Mustangdom outside of the 1999–2004 SVT Cobra, will improve handling, ride comfort, and packaging. This should address some key Mustang criticisms and lend it credibility when taking on its European contemporaries in markets where the pony-car genre isn't sustained by nostalgia and cheap fuel, as it is here. A new platform—code-named "S550"—will underpin this new Mustang, and through that architecture, Ford is expecting to shed some 200 pounds from the current car's roughly 3500-pound curb weight
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/2015-ford-mustang-leaked-360-view-and-full-details-news (http://www.caranddriver.com/features/2015-ford-mustang-leaked-360-view-and-full-details-news)
And if I'm not mistaken the new car will be smaller.
IDK dudes. If this thing can fit a baby seat, my next ride might be a new Mustang.
I don't think a child will even have enough head room in the back seat.
(http://stblogs.automotive.com/files/2013/12/Leaked-2015-Ford-Mustang-02.jpg)
Quote from: GoCougs on December 03, 2013, 12:27:39 PM
200 lb reduction? Fenders don't weigh more than 20-30 lbs each though.
Given that the new car is effectively the same size (and probably still riding on the D2C chassis) and has the same engines, removing 200 lbs is a huge $$$ task.
S550 is a new platform.
I have to wait and see better pictures. So far, I'm not overly impressed.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 03, 2013, 12:46:31 PM
IDK dudes. If this thing can fit a baby seat, my next ride might be a new Mustang.
I doubt an infant seat will fit (unless you want the front seat pushed into the dash) but a toddler one likely will.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on December 03, 2013, 12:55:47 PM
I doubt an infant seat will fit (unless you want the front seat pushed into the dash) but a toddler one likely will.
I can guarantee it. That's why I sold my Mustang. The car seat wouldn't fit.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 03, 2013, 01:00:14 PM
I can guarantee it. That's why I sold my Mustang. The car seat wouldn't fit.
When my sister was born in 95 my mom had a 2 door Grand Am. The seat would fit but when you folded the front seats you didn't really get much room to take the carrier in and out.
Hmm, photos of poorly lit photos on a magazine page, laid down at an angle. Yup, definitely have to reserve judgement until seen in either better photos or in real life. I have this feeling that modded ones will be spectacular and that SEMA next year will be full of them.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 03, 2013, 12:46:31 PM
IDK dudes. If this thing can fit a baby seat, my next ride might be a new Mustang.
Wait, have you knocked up wifey?
I also would like to see some new colors. I hope that Grabber Blue and Gotta Have It Green still carry over but I got a feeling darker colors will fit this car better.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 03, 2013, 12:32:22 PM
Old one has its roots in the model that came out in 2005 which was really ripped off of the LS. So that was kind of a 15 year old design. Metallurgy and other stuff relating to weight reduction has moved on quite a bit since then. Plus the current Mustang was pretty damn dense/space inefficient. 200lb is kind of a stretch but it's possible.
The DC2 shared a handful of pieces with the Lincoln LS, "These components include the floor pans, portions of the transmission tunnel, the front frame rails, and basic fuel tank design".
Quote from: mzziaz on December 03, 2013, 01:34:25 PM
Wait, have you knocked up wifey?
Hell no!!!!
But when that happens I will need something I can carry an infant in. Most likely a 335i or the G37.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 03, 2013, 02:20:27 PM
Hell no!!!!
But when that happens I will need something I can carry an infant in. Most likely a 335i or the G37.
Sidecar for the Ninja.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 03, 2013, 02:20:27 PM
Hell no!!!!
But when that happens I will need something I can carry an infant in. Most likely a 335i or the G37.
Do yourself a favour and get a 4 door.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 03, 2013, 02:31:45 PM
Do yourself a favour and get a 4 door.
That will be the most likely outcome.
You're telling me there's no way to strap a car seat to the rear strut brace?
Looks like the beltline went up (or the sideglass got shorter). My big fear is that this thing is going to have Camaro-esque sight lines. I'd like to see some side-by-side image comparisons. The current car's sight lines aren't the best I've encountered, but are worlds better than the Camaro. Hopefully it's an optical illusion caused by the more aggressively raked windshield (and the angle of the photos).
I like the profile shape. I think the back end actually looks better than the current car. The back end doesn't seem quite as vast. I think that the tail lamps that don't taper at the outboard ends help a great deal in masking that. I'm undecided on the front end. It's better than the 2013+ front end, but I'm not sure if I like it better than the '10-'12 front end. The headlights seem a bit small, but that may also be the photo. I'll reserve final judgement for better pictures and/or an in the flesh inspection, but overall I'm liking it.
The front end is too "Fusion" for me. I dig the rear though, but the roofline looks like it will make the rear seat completely useless.
I'm hearing more than 200 lb weight savings.
Quote from: MrH on December 03, 2013, 04:55:45 PM
I'm hearing more than 200 lb weight savings.
Gonna have to see that to believe it. Though there aren't many I can't find any front engine/V8 RWD coupe of any price that is 3,300 - 3,400 lbs save for the C7 at 3,298 lbs. Even many of the V6 coupes - Accord, Altima, Genesis, etc., are above 3,400 lbs. (and they're obviously either smaller and/or FWD plus with lighter motors).
Accord, Altima, and Genesis are all on platforms designed to support larger vehicles. The Accord's platform also supports a minivan, the Altima is platform-mates with the larger Maxima (as well as the Murano crossover SUV), and the Genesis coupe was scaled down from the full-size Genesis sedan chassis (much like the Challenger and Camaro, both of which are quite heavy). Mustang is on its own platform, so they can better optimize the weight.
Current V6 Mustang is ~3450 lbs and the V8 is ~200 lbs heavier. So that would put the new one at around 3450-3500 lbs for the V8, which I don't think it unreasonably light.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 03, 2013, 05:06:43 PM
Gonna have to see that to believe it. Though there aren't many I can't find any front engine/V8 RWD coupe of any price that is 3,300 - 3,400 lbs save for the C7 at 3,298 lbs. Even many of the V6 coupes - Accord, Altima, Genesis, etc., are above 3,400 lbs. (and they're obviously either smaller and/or FWD plus with lighter motors).
Look at it this way. Miata, FR-S, bespoke platforms. They would not gain 500, 600, 700lb just from a V8. 911 is still ~3,000lbs while its competition, even w/6 cylinders, weighs hundreds of lbs more. With smart design and no restrictions/sharing cars can definitely be lighter. There is no reason for my car to weigh ~3300lb for example, but if it were lighter it couldn't be transformed into an SUV.
I'm definitely skeptical as well due to it being a domestic and it being at a very low price point, but it's possible. Ford's been having a good run and the Rustang is a halo car so they can throw some money behind it to show its prowess. Plus the competition has stepped up majorly. Hell, last time we got an all new Mustang its only real competition was the 350Z. So they kind of have to up the ante to stay relevant.
Well the price of the car is going up. I believe the base model will be in the $25k range. I really hope that Ford makes some other cars off of this platform. Lincoln needs a rwd car more than a plant needs sunlight.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 03, 2013, 05:23:42 PM
Look at it this way. Miata, FR-S, bespoke platforms. They would not gain 500, 600, 700lb just from a V8. 911 is still ~3,000lbs while its competition, even w/6 cylinders, weighs hundreds of lbs more. With smart design and no restrictions/sharing cars can definitely be lighter. There is no reason for my car to weigh ~3300lb for example, but if it were lighter it couldn't be transformed into an SUV.
I'm definitely skeptical as well due to it being a domestic and it being at a very low price point, but it's possible. Ford's been having a good run and the Rustang is a halo car so they can throw some money behind it to show its prowess. Plus the competition has stepped up majorly. Hell, last time we got an all new Mustang its only real competition was the 350Z. So they kind of have to up the ante to stay relevant.
That's not a fair comparison though. You can't drop a V8 in a BRZ and say, "look, it didn't gain 700 lbs". There's so much more that goes into than just taking on the extra weight of the motor. Everything goes up in size. Axles, brakes, differential, fluids, gas tank, etc. When you move up in power, everything else must accommodate it too.
Having said that though, given how old the chassis was, I think 200+ lbs off is possible.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on December 03, 2013, 06:13:36 PM
Well the price of the car is going up. I believe the base model will be in the $25k range. I really hope that Ford makes some other cars off of this platform. Lincoln needs a rwd car more than a plant needs sunlight.
Noooooooooooo
Maybe big discounts on the old model?
Quote from: MX793 on December 03, 2013, 05:14:16 PM
Accord, Altima, and Genesis are all on platforms designed to support larger vehicles. The Accord's platform also supports a minivan, the Altima is platform-mates with the larger Maxima (as well as the Murano crossover SUV), and the Genesis coupe was scaled down from the full-size Genesis sedan chassis (much like the Challenger and Camaro, both of which are quite heavy). Mustang is on its own platform, so they can better optimize the weight.
Current V6 Mustang is ~3450 lbs and the V8 is ~200 lbs heavier. So that would put the new one at around 3450-3500 lbs for the V8, which I don't think it unreasonably light.
Platform isn't a chassis though. You're not going to get a materially lighter Altima, Accord, Genesis, etc., at today's tech without significant investment in materials and design, which the price point doesn't support.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 03, 2013, 05:23:42 PM
Look at it this way. Miata, FR-S, bespoke platforms. They would not gain 500, 600, 700lb just from a V8. 911 is still ~3,000lbs while its competition, even w/6 cylinders, weighs hundreds of lbs more. With smart design and no restrictions/sharing cars can definitely be lighter. There is no reason for my car to weigh ~3300lb for example, but if it were lighter it couldn't be transformed into an SUV.
I'm definitely skeptical as well due to it being a domestic and it being at a very low price point, but it's possible. Ford's been having a good run and the Rustang is a halo car so they can throw some money behind it to show its prowess. Plus the competition has stepped up majorly. Hell, last time we got an all new Mustang its only real competition was the 350Z. So they kind of have to up the ante to stay relevant.
Yes, they would gain that much, as evidenced by the Mustang GT, Corvette, E90 M3, and even the V6 coupes like the Genesis V6. In fact I cannot find a V6 or V8 RWD coupe that weighs less than the 3,300 lb C7 at any price point (even the Aston Martin V8 Vantage). Jesus, even the $250,000 mid-engine F458 weight 3,274 lbs. (= There is EVERY reason why your car should weigh what it does.)
Quote from: GoCougs on December 03, 2013, 08:32:23 PM
Yes, they would gain that much, as evidenced by the Mustang GT, Corvette, E90 M3, and even the V6 coupes like the Genesis V6. In fact I cannot find a V6 or V8 RWD coupe that weighs less than the 3,300 lb C7 at any price point (even the Aston Martin V8 Vantage). Jesus, even the $250,000 mid-engine F458 weight 3,274 lbs. (= There is EVERY reason why your car should weigh what it does.)
No 6 cylinder RWD coupes weighing less than 3300 lbs? You aren't looking very hard. The 911 Carrera has a 3000 lbs curb weight. The Cayman is 2900 lbs. BMW 128i coupe is 3200 lbs.
The SN95 Mustang GT weighed 3350 lbs. That was without today's lighter, high strength steel construction or aluminum body panels. Yes, newer safety regulations are going to drive the weight up some, but a 3450 lb V8 Mustang (which is 200 lbs less than the current GT) is entirely believable if they took the effort to optimize it.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 03, 2013, 08:25:35 PM
Platform isn't a chassis though. You're not going to get a materially lighter Altima, Accord, Genesis, etc., at today's tech without significant investment in materials and design, which the price point doesn't support.
Altima, Accord, and Genesis all have commonality with heavier vehicles, which require heavier duty parts or design features (which are shared). They aren't as optimized for their size. Whenever a platform is shared amongst larger and smaller vehicles, the smaller ones always end up heavier than they could be. It's why the original 350Z was such a porker (weighed nearly as much as a Mustang GT of the day) and why the MkV Golf (shared platform with the Passat) was considerably heavier than the other compact cars of that generation. It's why the Challenger weighs over 2 tons and the Camaro is a couple of hundred pounds heavier than the S197 Mustang despite not being that much larger.
Quote from: MX793 on December 03, 2013, 08:49:58 PM
No 6 cylinder RWD coupes weighing less than 3300 lbs? You aren't looking very hard. The 911 Carrera has a 3000 lbs curb weight. The Cayman is 2900 lbs. BMW 128i coupe is 3200 lbs.
The SN95 Mustang GT weighed 3350 lbs. That was without today's lighter, high strength steel construction or aluminum body panels. Yes, newer safety regulations are going to drive the weight up some, but a 3450 lb V8 Mustang (which is 200 lbs less than the current GT) is entirely believable if they took the effort to optimize it.
I stipulated V6 or V8 ;). There are none, at any price point, that I can find, less than 3,300 lbs (well, the 2013 Z06 is 3,150 lbs but that doesn't quite count as it's no longer made). Sporty should stop being dismayed.
The SN95 was a much smaller car sitting on a much lower quality chassis that had roots back into the '70s.
911, Cayman, Boxster, 1 series, and to my surprise my Z and the 370Z are all under 3300 lbs. In the case of the Porsches well under.
Quote from: MX793 on December 03, 2013, 08:57:19 PM
Altima, Accord, and Genesis all have commonality with heavier vehicles, which require heavier duty parts or design features (which are shared). They aren't as optimized for their size. Whenever a platform is shared amongst larger and smaller vehicles, the smaller ones always end up heavier than they could be. It's why the original 350Z was such a porker (weighed nearly as much as a Mustang GT of the day) and why the MkV Golf (shared platform with the Passat) was considerably heavier than the other compact cars of that generation. It's why the Challenger weighs over 2 tons and the Camaro is a couple of hundred pounds heavier than the S197 Mustang despite not being that much larger.
Sure they're optimized. Honda builds 300,000+ Accords a year. Plenty of scale to be able to optimize, and looking at specs, it looks pretty damned good - V6 coupe w/MT at 189" long (bigger than a Mustang) is 3,397 lbs. Some things are set by sharing a platform, such as suspension type or maybe wheelbase, but most everything else is definitely optimized for the application. It has to be, esp. concerning modern design via FEA and costing.
The SN95 was flimsy and had fewer gears and a live axle.
The Challenger and Camaro are heavier because they're big with a LOT of sheet metal. In their current forms designed from the ground up they'd be about as heavy as they are. The large V8 2+2 coupes at far higher price points are 3,800 - 4,000 lbs, though there aren't many.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 03, 2013, 09:21:40 PM
911, Cayman, Boxster, 1 series, and to my surprise my Z and the 370Z are all under 3300 lbs. In the case of the Porsches well under.
Um, add a driveshaft, separate tranny and diff, and V6 instead of a flat 6, to the Porches and they're gonna gain 200-300 lbs easily. Now you're left with very small cars simply a bunch of $$$ in materials that is NOT going to be supported at pony car price points. The 1er is tiny 3.0L I6, and DQ'd under my original premise (V6 or V8). 350Z is ~3,400 lbs and 370Z is ~3,300 lbs depending on options.
You guys think too much about weight.
VQ35DE 350Z is ~3250# max and as light as 3100#.
Weight matters. Lightness goes a long way in generating driving pleasure, unless all you care about is dick stroking performance figures.
Nah, the 350Z is 3,300 - 3,400 in M/T guise. Simply research the myriad road tests that list curb weight.
Weight matters naught. Just enjoy your car.
O I enjoy my car. I have been blasting back and forth between LI and BK all week. It was a real gem on the drive up from NC. The only better mix of grand touring + performance for 10K now was the M3 that slipped through my hands.
But bottom line there are a few V6 (flat six is a 180 degree V) coupes under 3300lb including my Z and various permutations of the current one. So the idea that the Mustang couldn't cut weight is a little absurd. In any case we will see when the specs come out.
You are a bit nuts with this weight thing and it compels you to make things up.
Also, less block material in a flat engine vs. V engine.
What have I made up? You were wrong about the weights of the cars, period... I just corrected you. There are 350Zs that are well under 3200lbs and 370Zs well under 3300lbs. Weight is important. There is no downside, performance wise, to a car weighing less. If I could have bought a lighter car in the same performance envelope I would have. Supercomputers and horsepower can't compensate for low weight, as confirmed by my GT-R drive.
And you are right about the flat vs V, flat engines don't have/need balance shafts. Still though, exhaust piping, balance shafts and a driveshaft hardly account for the hundreds of lbs difference between the Z and Cayman.
Weight is very important, but weight can be mostly offset with suspension and chassis tuning. But, no amount of tuning gets rid of the heavy "feeling" heavy cars have. The GT-R I drove felt heavy and I said so in my review of it. Despite being agile and defying physics in the corners, you feel every pound. I don't like that.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 04, 2013, 05:59:10 AM
What have I made up? You were wrong about the weights of the cars, period... I just corrected you. There are 350Zs that are well under 3200lbs and 370Zs well under 3300lbs. Weight is important. There is no downside, performance wise, to a car weighing less. If I could have bought a lighter car in the same performance envelope I would have. Supercomputers and horsepower can't compensate for low weight, as confirmed by my GT-R drive.
And you are right about the flat vs V, flat engines don't have/need balance shafts. Still though, exhaust piping, balance shafts and a driveshaft hardly account for the hundreds of lbs difference between the Z and Cayman.
The (stock) 350Z has never been anything close to under 3,200 lbs. Put the anxiety aside and just enjoy it:
C&D: 3,322 lb (http://media.caranddriver.com/files/nissan-350z-1.pdf)
C&D: 3,360 lb (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/nissan-350z-35th-anniversary-edition-short-take-road-test)
Edmunds: 3,325 lb (http://www.edmunds.com/nissan/350z/2008/road-test-specs.html)
Why do you ignore things? As I said there's a lot more weight savings in mid/read flat engine mounting than just less metal in the block: no drive shaft and tansaxle is lighter than a separate tranny and diff. Bet your last dollar Porsche is getting ~200 lbs weight savings from it.
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/217470_zpsf87b2638.jpg)
(http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2307&d=1386176482)
Hmmm. They didn't quite know what to do with the retro styling, the inherent trap of such a thing esp. since the 2nd gen Mustang wasn't worth aping. The current car looks better.
I like it. Want to see some other color combos as well.
Yeah, I'm not diggin' it so far. Unless it looks better in person, I much prefer the current car. As far as I'm concerned it needed to be more aggressive and a little more "concept car" like the Camaro was. It looks smaller though, which is a good thing.
Let's put them side by side to get a better idea...
(http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2307&d=1386176482)
(http://www.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2013-Ford-Mustang-GT-review-front-angle.jpg)
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/1989vbljvxolgjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8HZ2YH40890/UOZcLl8-UEI/AAAAAAAAGvo/uQPq9kAKZgw/s640/2013-Ford-Mustang-GT-Premium-back.jpg)
Something doesn't look quite right with that blue Mustang. Big panel gaps on the nose/hood interface, isn't the rear lower valence supposed to be black (?), the tires look small, the wheel offset looks to big in the rear, and there is a lot of negative camber in the front.
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/stang-leak-2_1035_zpsd2d402cf.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/mustang-leak-6_1035_zpseb3be4a6.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/stang-leak-3_1035_zps9f4dfc94.jpg)
Based on those pics, the new one looks better.
Also the 2015 looks like the base model and not a GT, I would expect a bit more dressing on the GT.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 04, 2013, 11:36:08 AM
Something doesn't look quite right with that blue Mustang. Big panel gaps on the nose/hood interface, isn't the rear lower valence supposed to be black (?), the tires look small, the wheel offset looks to big in the rear, and there is a lot of negative camber in the front.
There's nothing off with that car at all. I think you need your eyes checked.
(http://image.motortrend.com/f/roadtests/coupes/1303_2013_chevrolet_camaro_ss_1le_ford_mustang_gt_track_pack/41658737/2013-Ford-Mustang-GT-Track-Pack-front-view.jpg)
Quote from: SVT32V on December 04, 2013, 11:43:22 AM
Based on those pics, the new one looks better.
Also the 2015 looks like the base model and not a GT, I would expect a bit more dressing on the GT.
The front of the new car looks out of proportion with the rest of the car. The current car looks better.
Hmmm. That last shot looks better. They definitely threw in some Camaro tank turret styling. Those look like 20" wheels (the 2014 GT pictured has 19"). Interior looks much better than the current car (WAY toned down if not eliminated the retro stuff, which never looked good).
Quote from: SVT666 on December 04, 2013, 11:44:54 AM
There's nothing off with that car at all. I think you need your eyes checked.
(http://image.motortrend.com/f/roadtests/coupes/1303_2013_chevrolet_camaro_ss_1le_ford_mustang_gt_track_pack/41658737/2013-Ford-Mustang-GT-Track-Pack-front-view.jpg)
LOL at the positive camber in the rear!
What are you talking about?
Hmm just now noticed the gauges on the center of the dash.
I missed that. Nice.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 04, 2013, 11:30:24 AM
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/1989vbljvxolgjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8HZ2YH40890/UOZcLl8-UEI/AAAAAAAAGvo/uQPq9kAKZgw/s640/2013-Ford-Mustang-GT-Premium-back.jpg)
Unless there are more arts and crafts bungalows in that exact shade of blue than I think, I have a pretty good idea exactly where that picture is taken.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 04, 2013, 11:57:16 AM
I missed that. Nice.
I am glad it still has other gauges that most other cars don't have.
I like it.
I like it.
(http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2270&d=1386113305)
(http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2352&d=1386187543)
I really like it from the A-Pillars back. But I really don't like the front. There is something just really wrong with the shape of the hood and the fascia, but I can't tell you what exactly. It's like they're out of proportion with the rest of the car. The headlights and grille opening are too Fusion for me as well. I really like the rest of it, but the front ruins it for me, and I would go with the current car just because of that.
(http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/j5a0896.jpg?w=753)
(http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/j5a0239.jpg?w=720&h=480&crop=1)
Mind you, this is supposedly the Base or V6 version, not the GT or BOSS.
What the hell.... this thing looks phenomenal, if that is just the base version
Though I do want to see it with some airport spec 17s on 55 profile tires
Higher res versions of those:
(http://i.imgur.com/FwMGfN1.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/PV0AC7Q.jpg)
Quote from: GoCougs on December 04, 2013, 11:36:08 AM
Something doesn't look quite right with that blue Mustang. Big panel gaps on the nose/hood interface, isn't the rear lower valence supposed to be black (?), the tires look small, the wheel offset looks to big in the rear, and there is a lot of negative camber in the front.
Nope, that's typical of the '13+ facelift. I'm personally not a fan and prefer the '10-'12 front fascia largely for the reasons noted (obvious gap where the hood meets the grille). The rear valence changed to body-colored for 2013 as well. The wheels are stock. There's a fair bit of wheel gap on these cars.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 04, 2013, 02:19:13 PM
I really like it from the A-Pillars back. But I really don't like the front. There is something just really wrong with the shape of the hood and the fascia, but I can't tell you what exactly. It's like they're out of proportion with the rest of the car. The headlights and grille opening are too Fusion for me as well. I really like the rest of it, but the front ruins it for me, and I would go with the current car just because of that.
I agree. Something's out of whack.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 04, 2013, 02:34:50 PM
What the hell.... this thing looks phenomenal, if that is just the base version
Though I do want to see it with some airport spec 17s on 55 profile tires
18's,19's & 20's are the only offerings according to preliminary info.
Quote from: MX793 on December 04, 2013, 03:24:37 PM
Nope, that's typical of the '13+ facelift. I'm personally not a fan and prefer the '10-'12 front fascia largely for the reasons noted (obvious gap where the hood meets the grille). The rear valence changed to body-colored for 2013 as well. The wheels are stock. There's a fair bit of wheel gap on these cars.
I'm still seeing positive rear camber on both the silver and baby blue Mustangs. Perhaps as they're parked the axle is articulated in a way to show that.
Quote from: ChrisV on December 04, 2013, 02:36:07 PM
Higher res versions of those:
(http://i.imgur.com/FwMGfN1.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/PV0AC7Q.jpg)
I'm starting to warm up to it. They definitely went after the Camaro (and Challenger) high belt line/tank turret look. Dumping many of the retro cues was a good idea.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 04, 2013, 06:44:19 PM
I'm still seeing positive rear camber on both the silver and baby blue Mustangs. Perhaps as they're parked the axle is articulated in a way to show that.
I think it's an optical illusion.
Quote from: MX793 on December 04, 2013, 07:06:20 PM
I think it's an optical illusion.
Hmmm. Makes sense. The car would probably be almost undriveable with that much positive rear camber.
Car looks like a Mustang but it looks modern and fresh. Front looks good to me as well. I think its a nice redesign.
More pics
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/12/04/ford-mustang-2015-styling-chassis-engines/3820457/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/12/04/ford-mustang-2015-styling-chassis-engines/3820457/)
I figured out what I don't like about the hood. I don't like how it's almost perfectly level from the windshield until about 14" from the front and then it suddenly slopes off. It makes the front look larger than it is. A gradual slope from the windshield would have looked better. The headlights are too high as well. If they were a couple inches lower and the hood had a more gradual slope, I would be in love with it because the rest of the car is hot. The rear end is even more retro than the current car, which is ironic since the front is more modern. The roofline is sexy, though that alone will render the backseat useless for anyone but kids.
IMO you're seeing the effect of much more width. Those pics in Catman's link say rear track has increased 3" and the car is lower by 1.5". Looks as big or bigger vs. the current car.
3" is a lot. That would make the track 5" wider than in my old Stang.
This GT picture looks really nice, hard to assess a new pony car based on the entry V6 model.
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/bc961d1dda4d1e5fe1b33dd38b045dc99d743747/c=20-0-4990-3740&r=x513&c=680x510/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2013/12/04//1386182034013-15FordMustang-14-HR.jpg)
The "entry" V6 model had nicer wheels IMO.
Available on the GT I guess:
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/fd30fd71d2de0aaf3735dc5597be60bf24fe91f6/c=1024-0-5202-3142&r=x513&c=680x510/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2013/12/04//1386182034002-15FordMustang-03-HR.jpg)
Took me a while to place. The cockpit/bet line proportions remind me of the 911:
(http://www.parkplacetexas.com/Images/News/ParkPlacePorsche/2013%20Porsche%20911/2013%20Porsche%20911%20Rear.jpg)
Good catch. I agree. Though I like the BBS looking wheels more than the V6 wheels.
Thankfully no gauges in center of the dashboard, that only works in CJs, it fails elsewhere.
Still has the twin cockpit theme from the classic mustang that remerged in the SN-95.
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/bc961d1dda4d1e5fe1b33dd38b045dc99d743747/c=20-0-4990-3740&r=x513&c=680x510/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2013/12/04//1386182034009-15FordMustang-10-HR.jpg)
I hope the shades come standard.
Hmmm. I always though center stack gauges looked good:
370Z:
(http://www.tuning.sk/images/news/nissan_370z_25112008/Nissan-370Z-7.jpg)
One of the gauges is a clock?
I like centre stack gauges. The interior still looks an awful like like the current one, but it looks blockier. Not sure how I feel about that. I wish they had modernized it too and made it sleeker and sportier.
Ford has the site up. Sadly I do not see Grabber Blue
http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/2015// (http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/2015//)
I do like this car in Silver though.
Quote from: SVT32V on December 04, 2013, 09:37:39 PM
This GT picture looks really nice, hard to assess a new pony car based on the entry V6 model.
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/bc961d1dda4d1e5fe1b33dd38b045dc99d743747/c=20-0-4990-3740&r=x513&c=680x510/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2013/12/04//1386182034013-15FordMustang-14-HR.jpg)
Looks good! The further they move away from that retro look (listen up Chevy) the better......
And now you can look at social media and see all of the "it doesn't look like a Mustang" comments. What does that even mean anyway? The Fox Body sure as hell doesn't look like any other generation. My 2002 looks a bit like the 94 but no other generation. I think Ford milked all they could from the 60s design for now.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on December 04, 2013, 11:13:02 PM
Looks good! The further they move away from that retro look (listen up Chevy) the better......
At least Chevy can pull from the 2nd gen Camaro if need be. If they do it right it'd look awesome. But yes, though the new Camaro was a smashing success it can't ride that forever.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 04, 2013, 09:10:44 PM
I figured out what I don't like about the hood. I don't like how it's almost perfectly level from the windshield until about 14" from the front and then it suddenly slopes off.
Yes that is feature that is bad about the exterior. Imo those renderings that Atomic posted magnified that effect, which is why I was worried about them.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on December 04, 2013, 11:13:02 PM
Looks good! The further they move away from that retro look (listen up Chevy) the better......
Funny you say that, because the rear end of this car is more retro than the current car.
OMFG, want so bad...
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1415156_571945239556408_1252895053_o.jpg)
I really like the butt.
WSJ has a video piece on it today. Turbo 4-banger eh. Going after the yoof market :)
Based on C&D's short writeup, it looks like the standard LSD is gone, even on V8 cars, in favor of a brake-based system. V8 performance pack may be the only way to get a true limited slip. Not liking that...
Quote from: SVT666 on December 04, 2013, 11:46:30 AM
The front of the new car looks out of proportion with the rest of the car. The current car looks better.
Same syndrome every new car has. Look at the F30. Because of safety regs, new car noses look terrible.
But, overall, I do like this new Mustang. I don't love it though. But I said the same thing about the last Mustang. And the one before that. And I ended up loving them.
Quote from: ChrisV on December 05, 2013, 05:47:54 AM
OMFG, want so bad...
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1415156_571945239556408_1252895053_o.jpg)
Is that a chop or a real photo? That looks awesome. Might be the first Mustang convertible to look as good as the coupe! This last gen was close, but still, I missed that roofline of the coupe on the verts.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 04, 2013, 10:10:53 PM
I like centre stack gauges. The interior still looks an awful like like the current one, but it looks blockier. Not sure how I feel about that. I wish they had modernized it too and made it sleeker and sportier.
The gauges are part of a performance package, from what I understand. One of them is a boost gauge on the pics I've seen.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 05, 2013, 01:14:17 AM
Funny you say that, because the rear end of this car is more retro than the current car.
I think Chevy has moved away from retro with the 2014MY facelift.
I thought one of the major things about the Mustang redesign was that it was supposed to get smaller.....and it got bigger?
I'm undecided on the new look, but it has promise. I definitely would have liked the interior to go in a different direction, though.
Quote from: Raza on December 05, 2013, 08:16:04 AM
Is that a chop or a real photo? That looks awesome. Might be the first Mustang convertible to look as good as the coupe! This last gen was close, but still, I missed that roofline of the coupe on the verts.
Im gonna say chop
Looks like they lowered it too
It looks good though. I really like those BBS wheels.
It's real. That photo is from Ford's website.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 05, 2013, 09:00:55 AM
It's real. That photo is from Ford's website.
http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/2015/ (http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/2015/)
(http://www.ford.com/global/2015mustang/img/gallery/desert-rear/tiles/TileGroup0/4-4-3.jpg)
Speedometer says "Ground Speed", which is kind of lame, but also kind of cool.
The front end will take some getting used to, but I'm really beginning to like the shape, which is no surprise, as it's very similar to the last model.
(http://www.ford.com/global/2015mustang/img/gallery/diner/tiles/TileGroup0/4-5-2.jpg)
EDIT: Those photos did not post how I thought they would have.
Quote from: Raza on December 05, 2013, 08:16:04 AM
Is that a chop or a real photo? That looks awesome. Might be the first Mustang convertible to look as good as the coupe! This last gen was close, but still, I missed that roofline of the coupe on the verts.
I'll always be a convertible person, but I have the converse opinion; the new coupe almost looks better than the vert. The rear window looks much more elegant than the outgoing model, which looked very tacked-on.
The ass is fat
Quote from: 2o6 on December 05, 2013, 08:20:22 AM
I think Chevy has moved away from retro with the 2014MY facelift.
The 2014 facelift doesn't look nearly as good as the original from what I've seen, IMHO.
Looks nice
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/2015-ford-mustang-3_1035_zpsb9d602a3.jpg)
Better:
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/2015-ford-mustang-3_better_zps85c685fa.jpg)
I bet that sharp slope is to meet Euro pedestrian crash regs. Speaking from my experiences in the last 2 weeks, there is nothing about the Euro pedestrian crash regs that will save a single life or lessen any injuries. It's just feel good bullshit.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 05, 2013, 10:41:21 AM
I bet that sharp slope is to meet Euro pedestrian crash regs. Speaking from my experiences in the last 2 weeks, there is nothing about the Euro pedestrian crash regs that will save a single life or lessen any injuries. It's just feel good bullshit.
That's the modern way - Salvation through Regulation.
O god can we pls keep politics out of this thread. I agree its BS but thats life. The car is finished and aside from the nose issue it looks DAMN good.
For $40K what would you guys rather do. Q60 coupe, 428i or 2015 Mustang GT? I really can't call it
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 05, 2013, 11:44:42 AM
O god can we pls keep politics out of this thread. I agree its BS but thats life. The car is finished and aside from the nose issue it looks DAMN good.
For $40K what would you guys rather do. Q60 coupe, 428i or 2015 Mustang GT? I really can't call it
Q60 is a lame duck. New one probably won't be out for a few years, and if the new sedan is any indication, I wouldn't get my hopes up for something amazing.
Lexus RC350, OTOH...although it's prob. gonna be more than $40k...
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 05, 2013, 11:44:42 AM
O god can we pls keep politics out of this thread. I agree its BS but thats life. The car is finished and aside from the nose issue it looks DAMN good.
For $40K what would you guys rather do. Q60 coupe, 428i or 2015 Mustang GT? I really can't call it
Setting aside the fact that the 428i starts at just over 40K and is a turbo four cylinder and the Q60 is over 40K as well, but at least with a V6 with almost 100HP more than the 428i and presumably 100HP less than the Mustang GT, I'd still go with the Mustang because it's the best looking of them all. Oh, and if you want a Q60 with a stick, say hello to 46K minimum. What a fucking joke, both the BMW's and Infiniti's pricing.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 05, 2013, 11:44:42 AM
O god can we pls keep politics out of this thread. I agree its BS but thats life. The car is finished and aside from the nose issue it looks DAMN good.
For $40K what would you guys rather do. Q60 coupe, 428i or 2015 Mustang GT? I really can't call it
Q60 sucks.
The sudden slope in the hood isn't as noticeable in these photos taken at the launch. If it's not as noticeable in real life, then I could easily warm up to this, but if not, then I still prefer the current car.
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/ford-mustang-reveal-1_1035_zpsbe9a8493.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/ford-mustang-reveal-3_1035_zps3e8d9b07.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/ford-mustang-reveal-2_1035_zps19c4da96.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/ford-mustang-reveal-5_1035_zpsa8dcd503.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/ford-mustang-reveal-4_1035_zps7252ea3e.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/ford-mustang-reveal-6_1035_zps1f5d070c.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/ford-mustang-reveal-8_1035_zps6b183d95.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/ford-mustang-reveal-9_1035_zps00834f6e.jpg)
Damn that ass is hot.
That trunk opening must be absolutely tiny.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 05, 2013, 01:31:40 PM
That trunk opening must be absolutely tiny.
(http://img1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Ford-Mustang-2014-Sperrfrist-5-12-2013-6-00-Uhr-fotoshowImage-d8de8d29-741682.jpg)
Not bad. Not great, but not bad.
Good thing the Mustang has folding rear seats. 2 rolling suitcases barely fit in my car as well as the 2010 model I rented in Las Vegas.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on December 05, 2013, 02:13:33 PM
Good thing the Mustang has folding rear seats. 2 rolling suitcases barely fit in my car as well as the 2010 model I rented in Las Vegas.
The trunk size itself has always been good, it's the opening that has always been a problem. Our Infiniti has that problem. The really short deck looks great, but the trunk opening is horrendous.
The way the nose suddenly slopes down at the front reminds me of a 1st generation BMW 6-series, only with narrower headlights like it's squinting.
Why not make it a hatch back by including the rear window in the trunk lid?
Quote from: Catman on December 05, 2013, 03:08:47 PM
Why not make it a hatch back by including the rear window in the trunk lid?
I love liftbacks, but they are structurally less stiff than traditional coupes (unless a strut tower brace is used like the Nissan Z car, which kind of defeats the added practicality) and suffer from significantly more road noise in the cabin.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 05, 2013, 11:44:42 AM
O god can we pls keep politics out of this thread. I agree its BS but thats life. The car is finished and aside from the nose issue it looks DAMN good.
For $40K what would you guys rather do. Q60 coupe, 428i or 2015 Mustang GT? I really can't call it
Hold on, I've not looked into this. The new Mustang GT will cost $40K?
Quote from: SVT666 on December 05, 2013, 10:41:21 AM
I bet that sharp slope is to meet Euro pedestrian crash regs. Speaking from my experiences in the last 2 weeks, there is nothing about the Euro pedestrian crash regs that will save a single life or lessen any injuries. It's just feel good bullshit.
You killed pedestrians in Europe recently?
Quote from: Secret Chimp on December 05, 2013, 03:25:03 PM
You killed pedestrians in Europe recently?
Go look at the "Rest in Peace" thread.
From what I can tell by working on this junk is it only helps full grown people. Someone small will still get hurt as much as anytime before. And I'm not sold on the fact that it will help you all that much unless the car is going rather slow.
Quote from: Onslaught on December 05, 2013, 03:29:18 PM
From what I can tell by working on this junk is it only helps full grown people. Someone small will still get hurt as much as anytime before. And I'm not sold on the fact that it will help you all that much unless the car is going rather slow.
Urban traffic in London rarely seems to get over 25 or 30. And they looooooooove drinking over there compared to us..
This picture looks amazing!
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/01-2015-ford-mustang-silver_zps666f0a08.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/04-2015-ford-mustang-silver_zpsc5078049.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/07-2015-ford-mustang-silver_zpsd8d9ce53.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/14-2015-ford-mustang-silver_zpsb491845a.jpg)
Quote from: Onslaught on December 05, 2013, 03:22:09 PM
Hold on, I've not looked into this. The new Mustang GT will cost $40K?
A current GT Premium coupe starts at $35K before you add any options and can easily clear $40K if you add on more goodies.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 05, 2013, 03:34:01 PM
This picture looks amazing!
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/01-2015-ford-mustang-silver_zps666f0a08.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/04-2015-ford-mustang-silver_zpsc5078049.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/07-2015-ford-mustang-silver_zpsd8d9ce53.jpg)
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/14-2015-ford-mustang-silver_zpsb491845a.jpg)
I like the Silver. I think that would be the color I would go with.
I think I like the styling. Some side shot really remind me of the GTR from the a pillar until right before the rear bumper.That interior though looks like rubish, which is a shame since the fusion interior is really nice.
That silver looks great. I like this car the more I look at it.
Quote from: Onslaught on December 05, 2013, 03:22:09 PM
Hold on, I've not looked into this. The new Mustang GT will cost $40K?
Optioned up... I am sure it will start around 30 like before.
Quote from: r0tor on December 05, 2013, 05:25:01 PM
I think I like the styling. Some side shot really remind me of the GTR from the a pillar until right before the rear bumper.That interior though looks like rubish, which is a shame since the fusion interior is really nice.
Speaking of GTR similarities, I just noticed that there are GTR-esque toggle switches on the center console that appear to operate the TCS/ESP system and others.
My feelings on the interior are mixed. The console seems a little cluttered and the shape is a little awkward. Just doesn't seem to have much flow to it.
I also just noticed that the third brake light is mounted at the top of the rear windscreen, inside of the cabin. Smart. Trunk lid mounted 3rd brake lamps are typically one of the first spots to start to rust.
Interior could have been a little less blocky. Its OK though.
Quote from: Catman on December 05, 2013, 06:20:01 PM
Interior could have been a little less blocky. Its OK though.
Not as bad as the Camaro, which looks like it was designed by Lego.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on December 05, 2013, 06:26:47 PM
Not as bad as the Camaro, which looks like it was designed by Lego.
Yes I hate the Camaro interior.
Alan Mulally will be on Colbert Report tonight to talk about the car.
Sienna Miller with the new car
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLermMNy-_M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLermMNy-_M#ws)
Wow it looks big.
I definitely like the wheel selection.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 05, 2013, 10:22:55 PM
Wow it looks big.
No way. An FR 4 cylinder car the size of a 5 series with what will probably be a useless back seat and trunk makes complete sense.
Quote from: MX793 on December 05, 2013, 03:39:47 PM
A current GT Premium coupe starts at $35K before you add any options and can easily clear $40K if you add on more goodies.
Good lord, I never thought I'd see the day that a normal Mustang cost that damn much. But then again I never thought a fucking F-150 could cost as much as they do now too.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 05, 2013, 10:22:55 PM
Wow it looks big.
I don't know, she's still think looking to me.
As for the car, I think it looks good. I'm not sure about the interior however.
Quote from: Onslaught on December 06, 2013, 06:17:48 AM
Good lord, I never thought I'd see the day that a normal Mustang cost that damn much. But then again I never thought a fucking F-150 could cost as much as they do now too.
:hesaid:
Quote from: Onslaught on December 06, 2013, 06:17:48 AM
Good lord, I never thought I'd see the day that a normal Mustang cost that damn much. But then again I never thought a fucking F-150 could cost as much as they do now too.
Not surprising that a 400+ hp fully modern V8 car costs $35K when a V6 family sedan (camcord) can easily cost that or more.
Quote from: SVT32V on December 06, 2013, 07:13:55 AM
Not surprising that a 400+ hp fully modern V8 car costs $35K when a V6 family sedan (camcord) can easily cost that or more.
That's an exaggeration; with every option checked, a fully loaded Accord V6 is $34,000.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on December 05, 2013, 06:26:47 PM
Not as bad as the Camaro, which looks like it was designed by Lego.
True, but this car is planned to head to europe where it will not have the advantage of an eager fan base willing to overlook its flaws. The european press is going to slam the car based on interior quality alone.
Quote from: ifcar on December 06, 2013, 07:30:02 AM
That's an exaggeration; with every option checked, a fully loaded Accord V6 is $34,000.
I checked every option on a camry and got $37K. So $34K for a uber volume fwder vs a low vol, reasonably optioned 400 hp rwd coupe camaro SS/Must GT.
The point is prices for cars are expensive, a 370Z is more with less performance and hot hatches approach or exceed $30K, why is a $35K mustang/camaro SS expensive.
Quote from: Onslaught on December 06, 2013, 06:17:48 AM
Good lord, I never thought I'd see the day that a normal Mustang cost that damn much. But then again I never thought a fucking F-150 could cost as much as they do now too.
Inflation dude. Plus the cars are just better. IT's not like you are paying $40K for a rattle trap 15 second Fox body. Compared to something with similar performance from 10, 20 years ago Mustang is a hell of a bargain.
Quote from: r0tor on December 06, 2013, 08:04:41 AM
True, but this car is planned to head to europe where it will not have the advantage of an eager fan base willing to overlook its flaws. The european press is going to slam the car based on interior quality alone.
Interior quality is bad?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 06, 2013, 08:23:26 AM
Inflation dude. Plus the cars are just better. IT's not like you are paying $40K for a rattle trap 15 second Fox body. Compared to something with similar performance from 10, 20 years ago Mustang is a hell of a bargain.
Compared to something with similar performance today the camSS/MustGT are a bargain.
Quote from: Onslaught on December 06, 2013, 06:17:48 AM
Good lord, I never thought I'd see the day that a normal Mustang cost that damn much. But then again I never thought a fucking F-150 could cost as much as they do now too.
. Back in my day you could buy a coke for a nickle
Quote from: SVT32V on December 06, 2013, 08:50:35 AM
Compared to something with similar performance today the camSS/MustGT are a bargain.
Exactly. A Boss 302 outperforms an M3 and costs $25K less.
Quote from: r0tor on December 06, 2013, 08:04:41 AM
True, but this car is planned to head to europe where it will not have the advantage of an eager fan base willing to overlook its flaws. The european press is going to slam the car based on interior quality alone.
Pretty sure Ford doesn't care about Europe despite what they say. It plainly wasn't designed with Europe in mind.
Quote from: Catman on December 06, 2013, 05:50:46 AM
I definitely like the wheel selection.
I like Sienna Miller.
Quote from: ifcar on December 06, 2013, 07:30:02 AM
That's an exaggeration; with every option checked, a fully loaded Accord V6 is $34,000.
And very few buyers opt for a fully loaded V6 Camcord...
Quote from: Catman on December 06, 2013, 08:48:42 AM
Interior quality is bad?
Doesn't matter to the European press....it's American, therefore the interior is bad.
According to various sources, length shrinks by less than .25". Width is up 1.5". Rear track increases by nearly 3". Height is down by 1.5". Rear deck height dropped 2.8" and hood dropped 1.3".
Quote from: GoCougs on December 06, 2013, 09:53:49 AM
And very few buyers opt for a fully loaded V6 Camcord...
Eh, most mustangs and camaros are $20something V6s, most don't opt for $40K loaded GT or SS models.
Quote from: r0tor on December 06, 2013, 08:04:41 AM
True, but this car is planned to head to europe where it will not have the advantage of an eager fan base willing to overlook its flaws. The european press is going to slam the car based on interior quality alone.
Bear in mind that all of the photos thus far are of an early prototype or pre-pro example. The interior is likely not 100% final or as polished as the final product will be.
Quote from: SVT32V on December 06, 2013, 10:20:47 AM
Eh, most mustangs and camaros are $20something V6s, most don't opt for $40K loaded GT or SS models.
Actually, pony car V8 take rate is big - ~50% for the Mustang and ~40% for the Camaro. For the Camaro at least, the single largest model seller in 2011 was the fully loaded 2SS, and the 2nd largest seller in 2012 (http://www.camaroz28.com/forums/2010-2014-camaro-news-sightings-pictures-multimedia-61/2011-2012-camaro-build-counts-871311/). In fact the loaded model (2SS) hugely outsells the stripper(ish) model (1SS) by ~6:1. This backs up my anecdotal experience too. Rarely see a cloth-equipped Camaro SS.
The S197 Mustang's interior was pretty meh - far too retro what with the old school gauge font and AL panels. This interior looks much better.
But c'mon, do enthusiasts care about interiors? I thought that fad about "soft touch" materials and "panel gaps" and "mold flash" had come and gone...
Quote from: GoCougs on December 06, 2013, 10:52:50 AM
The S197 Mustang's interior was pretty meh - far too retro what with the old school gauge font and AL panels. This interior looks much better.
But c'mon, do enthusiasts care about interiors? I thought that fad about "soft touch" materials and "panel gaps" and "mold flash" had come and gone...
Yes, I do. If I spend $30K+ on a car it better have a fucking nice interior unless it's a track car. I'm not 100% sold on "soft" materials seeing that they scratch up too easy however.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 06, 2013, 10:41:39 AM
Actually, pony car V8 take rate is big - ~50% for the Mustang and ~40% for the Camaro.
Since when is 60% not most.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 06, 2013, 10:52:50 AM
The S197 Mustang's interior was pretty meh - far too retro what with the old school gauge font and AL panels. This interior looks much better.
But c'mon, do enthusiasts care about interiors? I thought that fad about "soft touch" materials and "panel gaps" and "mold flash" had come and gone...
I never used to, but as I get older, I want them to be nicer.
Quote from: SVT32V on December 06, 2013, 10:55:29 AM
Since when is 60% not most.
Never really. The weighted sales price average for the Camaro and Mustang is far higher than the Camcords. But it's always been like that really - a loaded family sedan about the same price as the average V8 pony car but far more of the latter are sold.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 06, 2013, 10:52:50 AM
But c'mon, do enthusiasts care about interiors? I thought that fad about "soft touch" materials and "panel gaps" and "mold flash" had come and gone...
Big time. GM wouldn't have upgraded the C7's interior. Porsche wouldn't be able to charge $2K for a painted gearshift console :lol: Just like with performance, the interior quality game has moved forward. No more excuses.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 06, 2013, 11:26:34 AM
Never really. The weighted sales price average for the Camaro and Mustang is far higher than the Camcords. But it's always been like that really - a loaded family sedan about the same price as the average V8 pony car but far more of the latter are sold.
Must be new math, 60% is most, price weighted or not
But yeah, you agree with my original point, a loaded mainstreamer family sedan is the average price of a V8 pony car.
Quote from: Onslaught on December 06, 2013, 10:55:13 AM
Yes, I do. If I spend $30K+ on a car it better have a fucking nice interior unless it's a track car. I'm not 100% sold on "soft" materials seeing that they scratch up too easy however.
30K isn't a lot anymore. 30K is a mainstream midsize sedan these days or 3 grand short of a barebones luxury compact.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 06, 2013, 10:52:50 AM
The S197 Mustang's interior was pretty meh - far too retro what with the old school gauge font and AL panels. This interior looks much better.
But c'mon, do enthusiasts care about interiors? I thought that fad about "soft touch" materials and "panel gaps" and "mold flash" had come and gone...
Not a fad at all. The amount OEMs spend on interiors has sky rocketed in the last 5 years and doesn't really show any signs of slowing down.
Quote from: SVT32V on December 06, 2013, 11:46:14 AM
Must be new math, 60% is most, price weighted or not
But yeah, you agree with my original point, a loaded mainstreamer family sedan is the average price of a V8 pony car.
No. I think you and others are simply forgetting the effect of inflation too. Pony cars aren't any more expensive in relatively or absolute than they used to be.
Quote from: MrH on December 06, 2013, 11:54:05 AM
Not a fad at all. The amount OEMs spend on interiors has sky rocketed in the last 5 years and doesn't really show any signs of slowing down.
I wasn't stating that they weren't improving; every aspect of the modern car improves by the year; just the nitpicking over it, esp. in auto mags. For a time there blabbering about cup holders was a Real Thing.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 06, 2013, 10:52:50 AM
But c'mon, do enthusiasts care about interiors? I thought that fad about "soft touch" materials and "panel gaps" and "mold flash" had come and gone...
In Germany panel gaps are serious business.
Just some random photos of test from the countries largest car magazine Auto Motor and Sport.
(http://img4.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Kia-Optima-Kia-Rio-Schiefe-Leuchte-fotoshowImage-3d2111a-586080.jpg)
(http://img3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Opel-Insignia-Opel-Corsa-Handschuhfach-fotoshowImage-667204ec-586089.jpg)
(http://img2.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Opel-Insignia-Opel-Corsa-Lack-fotoshowImage-594190ea-586091.jpg)
(http://img4.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Peugeot-508-Peugeot-208-Fuge-fotoshowImage-7e49d095-586097.jpg)
:lol:
Quote from: Raza on December 06, 2013, 11:49:22 AM
30K isn't a lot anymore. 30K is a mainstream midsize sedan these days or 3 grand short of a barebones luxury compact.
Yes, but almost all these cars have very nice interiors now. Even "cheap" cars like the Mazda3 have better interiors then good cars from 10 years ago. If they charge that much for something it better be nice inside.
Quote from: Onslaught on December 06, 2013, 12:44:13 PM
Yes, but almost all these cars have very nice interiors now. Even "cheap" cars like the Mazda3 have better interiors then good cars from 10 years ago. If they charge that much for something it better be nice inside.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for a 30K performance car to have less interior quality than a 30K mainstream car. X amount of dollars has to be split Y amount of ways and all.
Quote from: MX793 on December 06, 2013, 10:31:27 AM
Bear in mind that all of the photos thus far are of an early prototype or pre-pro example. The interior is likely not 100% final or as polished as the final product will be.
A base VW golf will put this interior to shame in the euro market. They can polish the design all they want, but a poorly executed retro feel interior is not what thus car needed and in no way reflects the exterior.
Quote from: Galaxy on December 06, 2013, 12:41:36 PM
In Germany panel gaps are serious business.
Just some random photos of test from the countries largest car magazine Auto Motor and Sport.
(http://img4.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Kia-Optima-Kia-Rio-Schiefe-Leuchte-fotoshowImage-3d2111a-586080.jpg)
(http://img3.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Opel-Insignia-Opel-Corsa-Handschuhfach-fotoshowImage-667204ec-586089.jpg)
(http://img2.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Opel-Insignia-Opel-Corsa-Lack-fotoshowImage-594190ea-586091.jpg)
(http://img4.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Peugeot-508-Peugeot-208-Fuge-fotoshowImage-7e49d095-586097.jpg)
:lol:
Oh good grief... that kind of crap seems more up the alley of people who obsess over how clean their car is vs how it is to drive.
Thats fucking nuts lmao.
Quote from: Raza on December 06, 2013, 12:53:19 PM
I think it's perfectly reasonable for a 30K performance car to have less interior quality than a 30K mainstream car. X amount of dollars has to be split Y amount of ways and all.
I don't agree.
Quote from: Secret Chimp on December 06, 2013, 01:57:49 PM
Oh good grief... that kind of crap seems more up the alley of people who obsess over how clean their car is vs how it is to drive.
I obsess about both.
Quote from: Galaxy on December 06, 2013, 12:41:36 PM
In Germany panel gaps are serious business.
Just some random photos of test from the countries largest car magazine Auto Motor and Sport.
<snip>
:lol:
I get that we'd rather not have these but it really doesn't affect the reliability or performance.
FWIW, I snapped pics of quite a few such issues last time I was at the Tesla showroom...
Quote from: r0tor on December 06, 2013, 01:29:27 PM
A base VW golf will put this interior to shame in the euro market. They can polish the design all they want, but a poorly executed retro feel interior is not what thus car needed and in no way reflects the exterior.
Except the back half of this car is more retro than anything Ford has done yet with the Mustang. Having said that, I was hoping the interior would have had a sleeker look to it.
Quote from: SVT666 on December 06, 2013, 03:30:22 PM
Except the back half of this car is more retro than anything Ford has done yet with the Mustang. Having said that, I was hoping the interior would have had a sleeker look to it.
It does mimic the rear end of Mustang I, however it also manages to look very modern, imo, since the individual sections are so "3D" for lack of a better term.
Quote from: Galaxy on December 06, 2013, 03:44:13 PM
It does mimic the rear end of Mustang I, however it also manages to look very modern, imo, since the individual sections are so "3D" for lack of a better term.
They did an amazing modernization of the 60's Stang's rear end. It looks modern, but you also know exactly which Mustang was used for inspiration. It's a brilliant rear end. I love it.
Love the overall shape
Love that it has a Coyote 5.0 V8
Love that it has IRS finally
Love the rear end
Hate the headlights
Hate the interior
I dont ever want to hear Wimmer bitch about CR again. They don't break out the feel gauges
I just noticed that Ford has yet again flip-flopped the locations of the tach and speedometer. The '05-'09 cars had the tach on the left, the '10-'14 cars have it on the right, and now the '15 has it on the left again.
Not a huge fan of the interior, although I do think it's better than the current one. The exterior is great though (in the grey with the black BBS wheels...)..wish they had actually made it smaller though.
I got my Autoweek yesterday and it was an interesting adventure. I read through all the Mustang pages and get a bit enthusiastic. I flip a few more pages back and read about the S3 and suddenly the Mustang thoughts almost completely disappear. Great styling, sort of nice interior (A4 much nicer), good power and performance, 4 doors and will fit 4 adults - $40k price! Wow, I start thinking about a future purchase....
Then I flip a feW more pages back and the Boxster S appears and I begin dreaming of what body parts I can sell to buy one. The S3 still seems reasonable though, and the Mustang already out of my mind entirerly.
The lack of a proper manual gearbox for the North American market kind of ruins the S3 for me.
Quote from: MX793 on December 07, 2013, 07:54:41 AM
I just noticed that Ford has yet again flip-flopped the locations of the tach and speedometer. The '05-'09 cars had the tach on the left, the '10-'14 cars have it on the right, and now the '15 has it on the left again.
Pretty easy to adapt to, though.
Quote from: MX793 on December 07, 2013, 10:09:46 AM
The lack of a proper manual gearbox for the North American market kind of ruins the S3 for me.
Yup, I wouldn't go that route without a stick either.
S3 is def not fast enough for an auto
Quote from: Raza on December 07, 2013, 01:21:00 PM
Pretty easy to adapt to, though.
I just find it more interesting that they keep flipping which side the tach and speedometer are on. Particularly when the basic layout of the gauge cluster has been pretty much the same since 2005 (not like they've switched from a centered speedometer or tach). I'm curious what criteria leads designers to put it on the left vs the right or if it's random.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 07, 2013, 04:46:42 PM
S3 is def not fast enough for an auto
Midish 4 to 60 and a low 13 in the quarter mile is too slow?
Quote from: r0tor on December 07, 2013, 09:58:05 PM
Midish 4 to 60 and a low 13 in the quarter mile is too slow?
That's with the magic launch. From a roll it's probably a second slower on both specs. Not really the speed I would say warrants a DCT. It's borderline.
2015 Mustang dimension differences from the current Mustang:
Width = +1.5"
Wheelbase = +0"
Hood height = -1.3"
Rear Deck height = -2.8"
Roof = -1.5"
Headroom = +0.5"
Quote from: SVT666 on December 12, 2013, 02:07:47 PM
2015 Mustang dimension differences from the current Mustang:
Width = +1.5"
Wheelbase = +0"
Hood height = -1.3"
Rear Deck height = -2.8"
Roof = -1.5"
Headroom = +0.5"
Length is the same?
I don't know.
Yes.
Overall length is .2 shorter, so essentially the same.
Looks like a 9 inch solid axel will be available for the next Cobra Jet or though the Ford Racing Catalog
http://joborras.kinja.com/ford-racing-to-launch-body-in-white-program-for-2015-mu-1485016837 (http://joborras.kinja.com/ford-racing-to-launch-body-in-white-program-for-2015-mu-1485016837)
Forward to 15:38
http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/cars/50-years-of-mustang-with-lee-iacocca/index.shtml#item=309289 (http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/cars/50-years-of-mustang-with-lee-iacocca/index.shtml#item=309289)
Quote from: Cobra93 on December 30, 2013, 08:25:22 AM
Forward to 15:38
http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/cars/50-years-of-mustang-with-lee-iacocca/index.shtml#item=309289 (http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/cars/50-years-of-mustang-with-lee-iacocca/index.shtml#item=309289)
Methinks somehow that car will end up in Jay's garage.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on December 17, 2013, 01:45:46 PM
Looks like a 9 inch solid axel will be available for the next Cobra Jet or though the Ford Racing Catalog
http://joborras.kinja.com/ford-racing-to-launch-body-in-white-program-for-2015-mu-1485016837 (http://joborras.kinja.com/ford-racing-to-launch-body-in-white-program-for-2015-mu-1485016837)
That's handy, because clearly there's no way else to get a 9 inch rear end from any other place cheaper.
Don't the trucks use a 9 inch?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 30, 2013, 10:40:29 PM
That's handy, because clearly there's no way else to get a 9 inch rear end from any other place cheaper.
Sounds like it's more than just the 9" rear end. Sounds like Ford Racing intends to develop a complete IRS-to-Live Axle conversion for the 2015 cars. I don't expect that swapping the IRS to a live axle in the new car will be as straight forward as with the last IRS Mustang.
Quote from: MX793 on December 31, 2013, 07:07:07 AM
Sounds like it's more than just the 9" rear end. Sounds like Ford Racing intends to develop a complete IRS-to-Live Axle conversion for the 2015 cars. I don't expect that swapping the IRS to a live axle in the new car will be as straight forward as with the last IRS Mustang.
Just weld on a couple of shackles. Bam, leaf springs. Like a Corvette. Don't forget the slapper bars.
I remember all the retards on the internet getting upset that the new car came with IRS. I guess Ford should dig through their Model T parts bin and see if they could instal a hand crank.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on December 31, 2013, 12:18:02 PM
I remember all the retards on the internet getting upset that the new car came with IRS. I guess Ford should dig through their Model T parts bin and see if they could instal a hand crank.
Lots of dumb on the internets
Its amazing how many super cars out there can launch superbly with an IRS... solid axle is worthless
Quote from: r0tor on January 01, 2014, 05:09:43 PM
Its amazing how many super cars out there can launch superbly with an IRS... solid axle is worthless
A solid axel is only good for drag racing. If someone is taking their new car to the drag strip every weekend they have more money than I have.
Quote from: r0tor on January 01, 2014, 05:09:43 PM
Its amazing how many super cars out there can launch superbly with an IRS... solid axle is worthless
Eh, most supercars aren't that fast in the quarter mile.
Quote from: r0tor on January 01, 2014, 05:09:43 PM
Its amazing how many super cars out there can launch superbly with an IRS... solid axle is worthless
Aren't most of them AWD now?
Quote from: FoMoJo on January 01, 2014, 07:07:01 PM
Aren't most of them AWD now?
Naw, they just have big tires and launch control. I would actually argue that AWD is useless in a supercar....
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on January 01, 2014, 05:23:02 PM
Eh, most supercars aren't that fast in the quarter mile.
lol - super cars (and cars that are far less so such as the GT-R and 911 Turbo) are now breaking into the 10s...
Quote from: r0tor on January 01, 2014, 05:09:43 PM
Its amazing how many super cars out there can launch superbly with an IRS... solid axle is worthless
Solid axle = cheap out.
I'm not sure what Ford's problems are with IRS. First, the Mustang is 10 years late to the party, and now that it has arrived, somehow Ford couldn't do it without adding ~3" to rear track making the car look bit like a turtle.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 01, 2014, 07:25:05 PM
Naw, they just have big tires and launch control. I would actually argue that AWD is useless in a supercar....
Is that meant to be sarcastic?
I hope so.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on January 01, 2014, 09:54:11 PM
Is that meant to be sarcastic?
I hope so.
Messes up the balance, adds weight, interferes with steering feel. No thx
Quote from: r0tor on January 01, 2014, 05:09:43 PM
Its amazing how many super cars out there can launch superbly with an IRS... solid axle is worthless
Solid axles still work better for drags. But, by the time somebody has built a drag car fast enough for it to matter, they've done a crap load of fabricating already (and likely needed an IHRA chassis sticker too).
Guys that go to that length; well, they don't give a damn about ordering bolt in parts from Ford.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 01, 2014, 08:17:20 PM
lol - super cars (and cars that are far less so such as the GT-R and 911 Turbo) are now breaking into the 10s...
Which puts them- on a drag strip- in the same class as Bubba with his fo-fiddy-fo Nova down the street.
Quote from: r0tor on January 01, 2014, 05:09:43 PM
Its amazing how many super cars out there can launch superbly with an IRS... solid axle is worthless
The stresses put on the driveline are quite different for an AWD with traction control on street tires than on a RWD on wrinkle walls where traction control is outlawed.
Plus, there's the fact that internal parts for the nine incher are plentiful and relatively easy to change, right down to the gear ratios. I can understand why a serious weekend racer would want one, I just don't see why he'd care whether he got it from Ford or from any of the many dozens of shops that build race axles that are going to offer it anyways.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 02, 2014, 05:50:36 AM
Messes up the balance, adds weight, interferes with steering feel. No thx
We're talking about supercars here, right? No one who buys them cares about that shit. They want autopilot, but will settle for "race bred" automatic transmissions and stability control for the time being.
Quote from: Raza on January 02, 2014, 08:49:44 AM
We're talking about supercars here, right? No one who buys them cares about that shit. They want autopilot, but will settle for "race bred" automatic transmissions and stability control for the time being.
And nobody here cares about your beef with supercar owners.... yet, you persist.
Paddle shift gearboxes DO enable drivers to get way more out of high performance cars on the track. Stability control does the same as well. Your philosophical conflicts with those technologies don't change that. If you want a no holds barred whatever build a Factory Five Cobra. Ferrari, Lambo, Porsche owe you nothing.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 01, 2014, 08:22:35 PM
Solid axle = cheap out.
I'm not sure what Ford's problems are with IRS. First, the Mustang is 10 years late to the party, and now that it has arrived, somehow Ford couldn't do it without adding ~3" to rear track making the car look bit like a turtle.
What makes you think the increase in track was an unintended consequence of the IRS?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 02, 2014, 09:58:52 AM
And nobody here cares about your beef with supercar owners.... yet, you persist.
Paddle shift gearboxes DO enable drivers to get way more out of high performance cars on the track. Stability control does the same as well. Your philosophical conflicts with those technologies don't change that. If you want a no holds barred whatever build a Factory Five Cobra. Ferrari, Lambo, Porsche owe you nothing.
I never said it did nor did I say that they did. Supercar makers are building cars for their target audiences, most of which don't get the "true" benefit of those technologies. You say faster shifting at the track--the reality is that they take less concentration to drive on the road and you never stall and look silly. You say stability control gets you faster lap times--in reality it keeps people from spinning because they're driving a car that's way more capable than they are. But I wouldn't ask companies to build cars that wouldn't sell.
Nor will I refrain from voicing an opinion because it annoys you.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on December 30, 2013, 10:40:29 PM
That's handy, because clearly there's no way else to get a 9 inch rear end from any other place cheaper.
:lol:
Quote from: MX793 on January 02, 2014, 10:34:05 AM
What makes you think the increase in track was an unintended consequence of the IRS?
Increasing track by ~3" adds weight and decreases aero.
Quote from: Raza on January 02, 2014, 11:01:01 AM
I never said it did nor did I say that they did. Supercar makers are building cars for their target audiences, most of which don't get the "true" benefit of those technologies. You say faster shifting at the track--the reality is that they take less concentration to drive on the road and you never stall and look silly. You say stability control gets you faster lap times--in reality it keeps people from spinning because they're driving a car that's way more capable than they are. But I wouldn't ask companies to build cars that wouldn't sell.
Nor will I refrain from voicing an opinion because it annoys you.
No, the reality is still faster shifting at the track and faster lap times. Whether or not the buyers of the cars use these capabilities in their element is another matter, but more importantly not really relevant to this thread/discussion. AFAIK all Mustangs will still be available with good old 3 pedal manuals, along with pretty much every car you will ever want/be able to afford. So to ask why you are bringing up completely unrelated cars/buyers/gripes in this thread seems like a pretty valid query. Not to mention the fact that your gripes are a little silly.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 02, 2014, 12:09:28 PM
No, the reality is still faster shifting at the track and faster lap times. Whether or not the buyers of the cars use these capabilities in their element is another matter, but more importantly not really relevant to this thread/discussion. AFAIK all Mustangs will still be available with good old 3 pedal manuals, along with pretty much every car you will ever want/be able to afford. So to ask why you are bringing up completely unrelated cars/buyers/gripes in this thread seems like a pretty valid query. Not to mention the fact that your gripes are a little silly.
I didn't start the discussion on supercars--you were the one who made a comment about balance, weight, and steering feel on supercars, so don't act like I brought them up out of the blue. Then you challenge me as to why I
responded to your claim? Come on, Sporty, that's starting an irrelevant argument than dismissing a counterpoint because the argument was irrelevant to begin with, even though you're the one who started it. You're being ridiculous.
And the reality of the matter is exactly as I stated it. Yes, if you were to, for example, add bluetooth to a dildo, you could sync your phone up to your dildo, but in reality, it's still just something you stick in your pussy when you're lonely and horny. Doesn't make it any more versatile. Unless you can control it with your phone....hmm, business idea....
But that's what we're talking about. You're saying it
can do something, I'm saying what it really does. I have never once disputed that fancy automatics shift faster than a manual--not once--though your arguments hinge on pretending that I have.
Before you attempt to berate me for discussing something again, you should make sure that you're not the one who brought it up.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 02, 2014, 11:43:48 AM
Increasing track by ~3" adds weight and decreases aero.
And there are a dozen different reasons for them to do so. Assuming that had to because of the IRS is silly.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 02, 2014, 12:20:25 PM
And there are a dozen different reasons for them to do so. Assuming that had to because of the IRS is silly.
Adding 3" to rear track so altered the look and size of the car that I don't buy that it was anything but an unintentional byproduct:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZobmkVziR9Y/Up_vT7lcN5I/AAAAAAAPVcA/mwr33NQ4n6k/s1600/2015-Ford-Mustang-Coupe-13.jpg)
There are plenty of RWD IRS cars with significantly narrower rear tracks. The idea that it was a byproduct and not intentional is ridiculous.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 02, 2014, 12:33:58 PM
Adding 3" to rear track so altered the look and size of the car that I don't buy that it was anything but an unintentional byproduct:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZobmkVziR9Y/Up_vT7lcN5I/AAAAAAAPVcA/mwr33NQ4n6k/s1600/2015-Ford-Mustang-Coupe-13.jpg)
Or, an intentional styling decision. Or, it simply handled better being a little wider. Ford has made narrower IRS vehicles in the past. Really, it's ridiculous to think they couldn't have made a narrower track IRS vehicle. This is the only domestic manufacturer with an extensive Formula One history, and I don't see many live axle F1 cars around.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 02, 2014, 11:43:48 AM
Increasing track by ~3" adds weight and decreases aero.
They added the 3" in track for cornering stability. Everything is explained here:
Talking 2015 Ford Mustang! Wide Open Throttle Ep. 90 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySz5GWMWRuE#ws)
Nailed it - it's an integrated link style IRS, which has the suspension links bolted to a sub carrier rather than the car, which says it's a parts bin special, and at present any Ford car with powered IRS is big - MKZ, Aussie Falcon, etc. Mustang forum scuttlebutt points to new MKZ/Fusion as the donor.
Or they widened the track to ensure they could fit the car with sufficiently wide tires. As it stands, the Mustang is under-tired compared to the Camaro (by at least 20mm, comparable model to comparable model). The GT500 with 600+ hp has only 285 width tires on the rear whereas the ZL1 is wearing 305s. Camaro SSes have 275s while the widest you can get on a Mustang GT is 255. And the current Mustang's rear track is an inch or more narrower than the Camaro's.
Or maybe they did it so they could dial in tons of positive camber like they did on the S197's live rear axle ;)
Quote from: MX793 on January 02, 2014, 02:20:33 PM
Or they widened the track to ensure they could fit the car with sufficiently wide tires. As it stands, the Mustang is under-tired compared to the Camaro (by at least 20mm, comparable model to comparable model). The GT500 with 600+ hp has only 285 width tires on the rear whereas the ZL1 is wearing 305s. Camaro SSes have 275s while the widest you can get on a Mustang GT is 255. And the current Mustang's rear track is an inch or more narrower than the Camaro's.
I'm gonna guess probably not for wider tires, as there are cars of similar or smaller size to the Mustang that have similar or smaller rear track widths and same or wider rear tires; Corvette (62.9", 285), Viper (61", 355), e9x M3 (60.6", 255). Also, the Camaro has a 1.5" narrower rear track than the 2015 Mustang (63.7" vs. 64.9").
Ford chose tires for the S197 Mustang for a holistic reason, and it wasn't because they couldn't fit bigger meats.
Quote from: Cobra93 on January 02, 2014, 03:39:14 PM
Or maybe they did it so they could dial in tons of positive camber like they did on the S197's live rear axle ;)
So you know what suspension camber is? I would like for you to explain how that's gonna happen with a live rear axle.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 02, 2014, 04:15:06 PM
So you know what suspension camber is? I would like for you to explain how that's gonna happen with a live rear axle.
Maybe you should go back to the eleventh post on page 5 and get back to me on that one.... :ohyeah:
Quote from: Cobra93 on January 02, 2014, 04:21:26 PM
Maybe you should go back to the eleventh post on page 5 and get back to me on that one.... :ohyeah:
Do you know what a live rear axle is?
Quote from: GoCougs on January 02, 2014, 04:25:14 PM
Do you know what a live rear axle is?
I believe there's one located between the rear wheels of this car.
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h308/Standman38637/PC_zpsccf30565.jpg)
LOL at the positive camber in the rear!
First shot of the 4 cylinder
(https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1012229_10152719007271091_1657396725_n.jpg)
Wow, trying too hard to ape the Camaro's tank turret styling, and it didn't come out too well:
(http://www.brimg.net/images/carsdotcom/2014-detroit-auto-show-winners-losers/8-2015-Ford-Mustang.jpg)
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the tiny windows. I will take a current Stang thank you.
Yeah that only looks right at a glance, then it looks like the greenhouse is 2/3 scale to the rest of the car.
I think I have to see in person. I kind of get the impression that it looks smaller than in these photos.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 22, 2014, 10:31:39 PM
Wow, trying too hard to ape the Camaro's tank turret styling, and it didn't come out too well:
(http://www.brimg.net/images/carsdotcom/2014-detroit-auto-show-winners-losers/8-2015-Ford-Mustang.jpg)
Bad photo. Accent lines are not visible.
Quote from: Rupert on January 23, 2014, 01:30:50 AM
I think I have to see in person. I kind of get the impression that it looks smaller than in these photos.
The trunk is 3" lower than the current car and the roof is almost that much lower, and the hood is over an inch lower. Apparently it looks fantastic in person, but the windows actually look smaller than the Camaro's.
I think the rake of the a pillars tends to make the side glass look narrower as well. The current car's a pillars are more upright.
The trunk is 3" lower than before while the hood and roof are both an inch and change. Based on that, the side glass shouldn't be much shorter than they are now.
(http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3461&d=1389622540)
(http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3492&d=1389629201)
(http://www.velocityjournal.com/images/org/2014/651/fd2015mustang65160451.jpg)
(http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3498&d=1389629201)
(http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3493&d=1389629201)
(http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3494&d=1389629201)
(http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3499&d=1389629201)
(http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3501&d=1389629240)
(http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3929&d=1390591348)
(http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/deadwayt/IMG_20140114_082004_zpsc9e161ac.jpg)
The only minor complaint I have with the style is the angle of the tail light enclosure...although I can see why it's done that way.
(http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3929&d=1390591348)
Are there any pictures of the rear lights at night?
I wonder what it would have looked like if they'd canted the tail lights the other way (like a shark nose only in the back, a la the '68 fastback)?
I would also really like the see a picture of someone sitting in the car to see where the window sill ends up relative to their head and shoulders. Based on the numbers, the side glass should not be much shorter than the current car, but it looks like it is noticeably shorter. Looking at the current car, I notice that the window sill line is flat, or perhaps even slopes a little downward, as you move from front to back before the kick-up just aft of the door. The new car no longer has the kick-up line at the rear quarter window, which makes me wonder if they raised the window sill.
I think a lot of those pics from the auto show are suffering from some wide angle lens distortion which make it look longer/lower
From the side it looks like the front is alittle too "blunt", I'm guessing due to the pedestrian safety standards.
Also looks like too much metal above the front wheel(from the side view), this also doesn't help the bulk of the front end IMO.
This car looks way better in person
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 17, 2014, 05:32:57 PM
From the side it looks like the front is alittle too "blunt", I'm guessing due to the pedestrian safety standards.
Also looks like too much metal above the front wheel(from the side view), this also doesn't help the bulk of the front end IMO.
I think that's because the hood is flatter over the mid-section (for pedestrian safety, I'm sure), only tapering down in the front 1/4 of the hood. My car's hood starts sloping downward right at the base of the windshield, resulting in less metal between front wheel and hood at the point where the two are the closest.
I missed out on a chance to see one in the flesh last month. Every year there's an auto expo locally; hosted by the local auto dealers. It's usually just a display of cars that are currently in production and on sale, provided by local dealers, and maybe a few local classics or show cars. Not like any major car show with concepts and manufacturer reps. Nothing too exciting, so I never bother to go. I was looking through some photos from this year's show and saw that there was a '15 Mustang on display, so I'm kicking myself for not going.
I saw the new Mustangs at the local Auto Show a month or so ago. Gorgeous. There was an entry level one on display with the only option being a special green paint. Oddly, it was the least expensive car in the entire Ford display...including all the Fiestas, Focuses and C-Maxes. Around $Cdn.25K. A real bargain for what you get.
Quote from: FoMoJo on March 17, 2014, 07:19:12 PM
I saw the new Mustangs at the local Auto Show a month or so ago. Gorgeous. There was an entry level one on display with the only option being a special green paint. Oddly, it was the least expensive car in the entire Ford display...including all the Fiestas, Focuses and C-Maxes. Around $Cdn.25K. A real bargain for what you get.
What engine did the car have?
Quote from: MX793 on March 17, 2014, 06:15:35 PM
I missed out on a chance to see one in the flesh last month. Every year there's an auto expo locally; hosted by the local auto dealers. It's usually just a display of cars that are currently in production and on sale, provided by local dealers, and maybe a few local classics or show cars. Not like any major car show with concepts and manufacturer reps. Nothing too exciting, so I never bother to go. I was looking through some photos from this year's show and saw that there was a '15 Mustang on display, so I'm kicking myself for not going.
That's where I saw this one. Was silver with black multispoke wheels. I wanted to hate it but I couldn't
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on March 17, 2014, 09:15:33 PM
What engine did the car have?
Considering the only option it had was paint I'd assume it was the 3.7L