By on January 18, 2008

ford_mustang_vi_ttac_01_02.jpgThe fifth gen Mustang's retro-inspired design was inspired; it was the miracle Ford needed to resurrect the spirit of the 'Stang. The fact that the formula was immediately– well, eventually– replicated by Chrysler (Charger, Challenger) and GM (Camaro) is just one measure of the new old-looking Mustang's success. Aesthetics aside, it's time for some fresh blood; '07 sales of the two-plus-two are (at best) stalled at 134,626, down 19.2 percent from '06. Going with the whole déjà vu all over again only better motif, I imagined the Mustang as the same as it is now, only more so. A 2010 Ford pony should remain a paean to Pony cars. I'm thinking dual air intakes next to the front lights, followed by the turn-signals; clean and simple lines underlining the muscles underneath (with Twin-Force V6 reality). Now, if Ford can find a way to add a few inches and make those back seats usable…

[For more Avarvarii photochopistry, click here.]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

28 Comments on “TTAC Photochop: New Ford Mustang...”


  • avatar
    quasimondo

    As long as they don’t channel the spirit of the Mustang II, it’ll be alright.

  • avatar
    Orian

    Hopefully they will update the interior.

    The last gen Mustang went what, 10 years without a significant overhaul of the interior?

  • avatar
    Sammy Hagar

    So they added the ’70 phony air intakes to the nose and tacked on a bit of Camaro bulge over the rear haunches.

    I think I’ll take the just reviewed Altima 3.5 and save a bit of change.

  • avatar
    HEATHROI

    The outsides fine. Its the handling that needs sorting.

  • avatar
    210delray

    Suddenly, it’s 1970!

  • avatar
    timoted

    I guess as long as you liked the front end of the 1970 model year, you’ll like this one too. I’m not much of a fan of the faux air intakes on the side but, they could have made it alot worse. I hope they upgrade that interior, it’s one of the biggest things that kill the GT version.

  • avatar

    Looks less bulky and massive. (yay!) If they upgrade the interior a la 2009 F150, give it the 3.5L Duratec, put the FRPP suspension on it and we’ll have a strong entry level player in the coupe market.

    Heck just the styling, interior and engine upgrades discussed here are enough to make me want it over any other coupe in its class.

  • avatar
    timoted

    Actually with the 4.6 V8 you’d be able to squeeze more HP out of it and still not affect the weight distribution too much. I think there is only around 100 lbs difference between it and the V6. You start bolting on turbos/superchargers on a V6 you’re weight is gonna be the same as the V-8.

  • avatar

    I can’t swallow this, there’s no fake air intakes on the hood or sides! This is wrong! Where’s the portholes?

  • avatar
    timoted

    Next to the headlights. On the front of the fenders. If you want portholes you gotta buy a T-bird.

  • avatar
    shabatski

    Yes, get that crappy 4.0 outta there and put in the modern 3.5 Duratec!! If I lived in a warm climate I’d actually consider one.

  • avatar
    timoted

    What’s the phobia with the V8?? Duratec V6 265 hp and 250 lb-ft of torque vs 300 hp and 320 lb-ft of torque with the V8. Only 100 lbs difference in weight. Give me any car and I can pull 100 lbs of useless crap out of it.

  • avatar
    Redbarchetta

    Something must be wrong with me but the more I look at that picture the more I see a late 80′s BMW 6-series. I actually saw one that was missing the kidneys in the middle and looked exactly like that except thsi has much better paint.

    I would like to see something more radical and a more substantial evolution than this. I like pulling retro cues but not these almost copies, you kind of pain yourself in a corner doing it without much room move forward with the design and shape.

  • avatar
    carlisimo

    Is a minor facelift like this really enough? I mean… no big deal if the 2010 Mustang looks a lot like the 2005 Mustang, but if it hasn’t changed significantly by 2015 it’ll be the usual domestic story…

  • avatar
    Redbarchetta

    100 lbs. doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things with the overall weight of the car when you add in 400 lbs for driver, passenger and fuel.

    What’s the weight balance on that thing?

  • avatar
    timoted

    55/45 for the 4.0 alumminum V6 and 54/46 for the aluminum V8. Not bad for a v8 rwd.

  • avatar
    Willie Dynamite

    "Heck just the styling, interior and engine upgrades discussed here are enough to make me want it over any other coupe in its class." – Sajeev Mehta Huh? Is this the same guy that wrote the scathing Mustang review last January? What changed from "blunt force trauma facade" and "retro design isn't a warm reminder of past greatness; it's de-evolution."?

  • avatar
    Wagonphile

    Weak, but Ford’s not going to do anything radical. After creating a modern mixture of the ’67-’68 and ’69 ponycars, it’s not surprising that someone might speculate they’d do a 1970 restyle. I’d prefer something more original this time, despite finding the current model attractive (on the outside).

    Suggestion: keep the exterior as it is and revamp the interior. It’s retro in the cheap-plastics sense.

    As for someone comparing the 3.5 Altima as a possible alternative, most people aren’t going to cross-shop front-drivers. Torque steer is a major problem when hp gets above 225 or so, and when it is dampened, steering feel is terrible. FWD is inherently a flawed setup.

  • avatar
    Qusus

    A new entry level V6 with just a lil more grunt and efficiency would be nice. Keep the V8 though, where else are you gonna get a new 300 HP 8 cylinder RWD car that looks good to boot?

    No way Ford’s gonna update the interior though… they’re pinching pennies on keepin the car at the price it’s at.

    As for the Altima, I actually drove one and it was pretty rockin’ the FWD didn’t detract from the steering/handling feel nearly as much as you would think. I think it looks awful though, just my opinion. Plus, real world prices for the Altima seem like they’re gonna be quite a bit higher than the GT.

  • avatar
    Redbarchetta

    55/45 for the 4.0 alumminum V6 and 54/46 for the aluminum V8. Not bad for a v8 rwd.

    I thought you said the V8 was 100 lbs. heavier, how do they get a better balance when they add more weight in the front? In that case I would definately take any weight out of it because it would most likely come out of the interior and trunk.

  • avatar
    blautens

    Leave the outside alone. Perhaps upgrade the interior. Absolutely upgrade the brakes (and the brakes on almost EVERY Ford). Ditch the 4.0 V6 and use the 3.5 V6 they’re selling in every other car to realize economies of scale.

    Also, make one for the hard core go-fasters on a budget – a V8 based one like the old Mustang 5.0 LX – but leave off fancy trim and costly (and heavy) options that you’re just going to remove anyway.

  • avatar
    Qusus

    Isn’t the GT Deluxe for go-fasters on a budget? They have the same stereo as the base V6, plastic steering wheel, no leather, no power seats etc…

    Plus I’ve seen them sell for less than 23K REAL world. That’s just killer.

  • avatar
    SherbornSean

    Personally, I like Guigiaro’s take, but then I like everything he does.

  • avatar
    geeber

    The latest Mustang spyshots show 1970-style vents located between the headlights and the grille, along with a more curvaceous front end.

  • avatar
    timoted

    I think part of the weight distribution balance comes from the fact that the 5-speed in the V6 is a Tremec T-5. The 5-speed manual in the V8 is the
    Tremec 3650. I’m not sure what the weight difference is between the two but I do know that they are different. I’m guessing the 3650 can handle the additional torque.I would also imagine that the rear end is a little beefier than the V6 unit.

  • avatar
    MS6

    I have always though that one key design feature missing from the new design was the ‘hip’ that started just aft of the door, giving the car’s rear quarter a more muscular appearance. In fact, its this feature, and only this feature, that makes the new Camaro look good. The original Mustang had it, and the ’69 car actually accentuated it, and even the Guigaro car has it. I wonder why Ford would choose to leave this very important feature out. I used to own a 2005 GT and I was very much pleased with the way the car rode, handled and accelerated, especially after a few adders. I’m very excited to see the Ecoboost motors end up in a Mustang soon, and I think the real key to the success of the Mustang is going to be a more aggressive design, class leading power and lowest price. And the special edition cars need to be fewer and further between, with a greater difference to the base car, and far more exclusive.

  • avatar
    rudiger

    MS6: “I have always though that one key design feature missing from the new design was the ‘hip’ that started just aft of the door, giving the car’s rear quarter a more muscular appearance. In fact, its this feature, and only this feature, that makes the new Camaro look good. The original Mustang had it, and the ‘69 car actually accentuated it, and even the Guigaro car has it. I wonder why Ford would choose to leave this very important feature out.“I have been similiarly baffled as to why Ford would leave the quarter panel ‘kick’ off of the S197. It really was an integral styling feature of the original Mustang until it was dropped when the Bunkie Knudson-inspired, horizontal rear-window ’71-’73 behemoth arrived (had to have an engine bay large enough for the Lincoln engine block). The quarter panel ‘kick’ has been noticably absent from all Mustangs ever since.

  • avatar

    I’ve seen other Photochops of the new Mustang; I can only hope it looks like this one, because I don’t like any of the others. I agree, they need to switch out that 4.0 liter 6. Checking fueleconomy.gov, it says that the engine gets only 19 mpg with automatic, which is less than the heavier (and more powerful) Charger with 3.5 liter. Good luck to Ford, I hope they can make the ‘Stang more fuel-efficient; just a couple more mpg out of the base and I would seriously consider it.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States