By on October 15, 2013

2015-ford-mustang-renders-1-1

When TTAC first got the news about the 2015 Ford Mustang’s engineering changes, we were pretty excited about the prospect of not one but two high-revving naturally aspirated V8 engines, and a independent rear suspension. But our source wasn’t so hot on the exterior styling, which he described as being too round and akin to the rather bulbous Evos concept.

The Evos may be a looker, but I much prefer the retro styling of the current ‘Stang. So much so that I thought long and hard about snapping up a current generation 5.0. Although I had the numbers all worked out, Ford decided that they weren’t going to lend me press cars anymore, and I decided that I didn’t feel like giving my money to a company that considered myself, my co-workers and my employer to be persona non-grata.

Since then, a couple things have happened. TTAC and Ford are now back on speaking terms, and some new renders of the 2015 Mustang have been released over at Mustang6G.com. According to our source, they are pretty much accurate, though there are more curves and soft surfaces than the renders can accurately depict. Nevertheless, if this is what the 2015 car looks like, I’m not really sure if I want to snap up one of the final examples of this generation anymore.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

122 Comments on “If This Is The 2015 Ford Mustang, Then Sign Me Up...”


  • avatar

    Oh look, they made a 2009 Accord Coupe in rear wheel drive.

    • 0 avatar
      tresmonos

      with a belt line so low that you can tea bag it standing up. The belt line, along with the raked rear are what makes this thing sexy as hell.

      Call the front end too fusion like, or say it has a bangle butt. But please give me your barbituates if you think this is an accord. Arm chair quarterbacking doesn’t apply if you haven’t stood next to the thing.

      • 0 avatar

        Hey, the Accord was a lot sexier back in 2009 than it had been for a loooong time, including now. It’s not a bad think to look like that. My problem is this car is too familiar. Bad enough the faux scoops where the fog lights are (which seem production ready looking at spy shots) are straight off the first gen Passat CC. Again– looks good, still too familiar.

        • 0 avatar
          Sigivald

          … you are aware this is a *Mustang*, right?

          The entire point is that it’s “familiar”.

          • 0 avatar

            You do aware of sarcasm and that “familiar” means there’s a mimic I’m seeing from elsewhere, right?

            The greenhouse just reminds me of the late Accord Coupe, albeit more tapered (sportier) toward the rear. I think a hockey stick of chrome under the windows and ending at the kink could help set this car off.

      • 0 avatar
        cwallace

        It’s the kink in the side window, and the curve of the A-pillar. The low beltline will also look familiar to anyone who remembers 1991-1993 Honda products.

      • 0 avatar
        Jimal

        Harvey isn’t too far off, at least when it comes to the greenhouse. The first thing that came to my mind when I looked at the picture above was “Accord”.

      • 0 avatar

        Not seeing the Accord here…just because the coupe has a fast back… Gotta squint really hard to see any Accord in it.

        Actually I like this evolution and the way they tied in current Ford styling themes. If the 2015 Mustang looks like this, I think it’s a hit.

        • 0 avatar
          Jimal

          In what I hope is the future commenting system, I could come with a little diagram to show exactly what (I assume) we are thinking about, but the shape of the side windows and the curve of the roofline are very reminiscent of an Accord coupe.

          • 0 avatar
            snakebit

            Ah, but underneath that Accord skin beats the heart and chassis(with promised IRS)of a Mustang. Yahoo, I say.

    • 0 avatar
      tresmonos

      with a belt line so low that you can tea bag it standing up. The belt line, along with the raked rear are what makes this thing sexy as hell.

      Call the front end too fusion like, or say it has a bangle butt. But please give me your barbiturates if you think this is an accord. Arm chair quarterbacking doesn’t apply if you haven’t stood next to the thing.

    • 0 avatar
      stryker1

      +1

    • 0 avatar
      J_Orbit

      Ironically if I had Jay Leno money I would convert an Accord Coupe to RWD. It’s a stunning design, great interior, engine and Honda makes the best 6MT on the planet. If only it were RWD I’d be driving one.

    • 0 avatar
      I_Like_Pie

      If Ford can really make a 2009 Honda Accord Coupe with rear wheel drive and mustang performance for less than $30,000….They have a game changer in the works!!!!

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    For the love of god tell me its a little bit lighter in the curb weight department to go with that IRS… If you are gonna give the car a new suspension let’s make sure that it is light weight enough to dance.

    If this rendering is accurate then I think it’s a good evolution of the current styling. Mustang owners are like Harley owners, fiercely loyal and have their own idea of what the vehicle should be.

    • 0 avatar
      dolorean

      Agreed. This isn’t the first prom the Stang has had with the IRS. 2003-04 Cobras had an IRS that was perfect for the chassis and horsepower from the factory. Unfortunately, and not the fault of the engineers, Stang owners are notorious power junkies and will bolt, slap, glue, paste, wire, boost whatever they can get their grubby little mitts on to force more HP/torques to the pavement. Friends of mine with the IRS Stang quickly began to destroy their IRS as it just wasnt designed for that level of abuse. Many searched the junkyards for the vaunted 9″ rear of the ’95 Cobra or earlier Mustang II’s IOT alleviate this issues.

    • 0 avatar

      +1 about “light weight enough to dance”!

      I also like the current styling. I don’t htink it’s perfect–I’d like a bit less of the Fusion/Astin Martin thing going on–but it’s one of the best looking contemporary cars, and it’s obviously a Mustang from my point of view (I was 11 when the Mustang came out).

      • 0 avatar

        I finally clicked on the Evos. It’s effing gorgeous. It’s far beyond this new Mustang, and far, far, far, far, far beyond the average contemporary car. It would stand up as gorgeous next to anything from the ’50s and ’60s. Why isn’t Ford producing something much closer to it???!

        • 0 avatar
          nrd515

          I would take this over the Evos, anytime. I just hope it really does look like this one. If it’s the Evos clone my friend showed me (He hasn’t been wrong in previewing new vehicles in 28 years), I won’t even go drive the damn thing. The Evos is just another ugly concept car.

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        I still prefer the Mustang from c. 2005–the first iteration of the retro body styling minus the silly full size secondary head lights. The current Mustang looks like it got fat and warped many of its nice, clean lines.

        IDK about this one. It seems too smooth. I like the diminished raised bend at the hips. The front end seems ok, but it could be much better. The tail lights look terrible.

    • 0 avatar
      J_Orbit

      I’ve been told it will be 400#s lighter.

  • avatar
    RRocket

    I’m at the opposite end of this article. If this is the 2015 Mustang, I’ll be truly disappointed. I’d like to see Ford move ahead and away from the retro styling, which takes little imagination and talent. I’d like to see a more modern take. It’s been 8 or so years with the current retro styling, and it has about run the course I think.

    Sad to see Ford continuing to look back rather than look forward.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Ford has been pretty “forward” with all of its other products, although I do understand your point I have to respectfully disagree.

      • 0 avatar
        RRocket

        This what annoys me. They’ve been forward in their other designs….why not this one? If they aren’t scared to go forward with the best selling vehicle (the upcoming re-designed F-150), why can’t they do it with this car?

        I guess I’m the minority who likes their new cars to look….new.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I would say because it can be too polarizing. Ford seems to have hit a home run with Fusion and yet in the same swoop they have seemed to irk many current MKZ owners, and those cars are cut from the same cloth. If Ford were to say go off in left field with the Mustang in styling and say make it 4-cyl only, they risk losing repeat buyers to Genesis, 370Z, or Camaro, not to mention their man card.

        • 0 avatar
          Ubermensch

          See my comment below, but yes, I agree with you. I want something new.

          • 0 avatar
            epsilonkore

            I was considering a convertible version of the EVO’s inspired design, but this is too little change for me. I love the retro design of the last 8 years, and understand why some people want to snap up the last of them while they can. That being said, Fords newer designs on its other cars look bold, slick and edgy without being overwrought… I was hoping for the Mustang to be a part of that. Maybe the in-person experience will be more impressive.

    • 0 avatar
      jhefner

      Goes to show that Ford can’t please everyone; some will think it is too retro; others too far out.

      As for me, it looks good, fits in with the current Ford family styling; but no mistaking it is a Mustang (I.e. another Probe.) Works for me.

    • 0 avatar
      J_Orbit

      I fail to see anything “retro” in the design. This looks like a throughly modern car that happens to be a Mustang. It’s going to have to utilize some of the heritiage design language otherwise it wouldn’t be a Mustang at all.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    I like it, I’m glad Ford didn’t make a huge mistake.

  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    I dunno, I kinda dig it.

    • 0 avatar
      otaku

      ^ Took the words right out of my mouth. If Ford can keep the curb weight down to an appropriate level, I’ll definitely be checking this one out next spring/summer or whenever.

  • avatar
    Varryl

    I’m seeing a bit too much Mazda6 nose in the front end, and it’s not really appealing to me. It’s like they took the previous model and tried to make it more FT86 like, by squishing it down and making it a bit more swoopy.

  • avatar
    dolorean

    Love it. Want to lick it. MMMMMMM…good car.

  • avatar
    ajla

    Would it really be that hard or expensive to make a Mark IX based on this car?

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    Is the unnecessary watermark an option?

    Its missing the Renault Dauphine side-vent, but otherwise if it keeps the inherent styling we all like about the Mustang that I say go for it, I’m glad the Mustang didn’t turn into some weird Korean Aston Martin like some were predicting.

    My only complaint is that the lower fake “brake vents” look a bit VW-ish, frankly I’m tired of those things on all new cars though.

    • 0 avatar

      That’s the exact same thing I thought about the “brake ducts” when I first saw the spy shots.

      The vents on the side haven’t always been there (Fox Mustangs, for example). If anything it’s less unnecessary drag, if that was ever the case on old Mustangs. At least the ’94 had some “functionality” to theirs.

      • 0 avatar
        Ryoku75

        “Brake Ducts” Almost never keep brakes cooled on modern cars, they’re more so there for fog lights or black walls where the fog lights would be.

        Thats true and they never served any functional purpose apart from the ’94s, with modern cars having slits and fish details everywhere I’m glad the new Mustangs going with a clean cut look.

        The Fox Mustang was just an oddity, the first years had a neat 80′s spin on the old Mustangs tailights while other years got rejected Volvo tailights.

        • 0 avatar

          Some of those rare functional scoops/ducts that come to mind would be… I want to say Mini Cooper S or JCW. There’s also the Evo.

          I will miss the scoopy shape a little bit. Even if it was a slight one like the Mustang II I’d be happy. I totally forgot the ’70-’73 were a clean side, too.

  • avatar
    Land Ark

    I saw a size comparison to the current model on another site which will not be named, and while I appreciate that it is going to be legitimately smaller, I am disappointed. Though that is not to say I am surprised, in fact this is exactly what I imagined it would look like after seeing the Evos.
    Someone needs to take a leap out of the retro-inspired design. Ford took the leap in and they are in a great position to shake things up again. They may not be in such a good place when the next gen comes around.
    People will complain that it doesn’t look like a Mustang if they change it. Just like they complained about the GTO. But what does a Mustang look like? A ’64 1/2 base model? A ’70 Boss? A ’77 Cobra II? A ’93 Notch? A 2003 Roush? Designs evolve, sticking with a design from the “good old days” screams of desparation and fear.

    Edit: After staring at it some more, if this were the model that came out in 2005 I’d say it looked more influenced by 60s/70s Mustang rather than a retro design. I think it is an evolution of the retro style that makes me think it still looks retro – not that it’s actually a retro design in itself. If that makes any sense.

  • avatar
    Ubermensch

    Disappointing. The played out retro styling is what is keeping me from really liking the current Mustang. I don’t mind nods to the past, but the retro thing is getting to be too much. Is it too much to ask for a car that looks like it was designed in this century?

    • 0 avatar
      brenschluss

      Other than the pseudo-Kamm tail which vaguely recalls Mustangs past, what about this is “retro” in any way?

      • 0 avatar
        Ubermensch

        The profile, the forward canted grill, hood creases, and rear styling are all reminiscent of the Mustang fastback. There isn’t a whole lot of original styling here and is overall pretty boring looking to me. Most of Ford’s other designs are much more interesting than this, not a reaction you should get from a model that is supposed to be exciting and sporty. This is probably the most boring looking car in their lineup right now other than maybe the Edge or Explorer.

        • 0 avatar
          brenschluss

          The grille is pretty much vertical like all other modern Fords; it’s the shape of a Mustang, yes, and it has a creased hood and a Kamm-ish tail similar to the last generation. That last bit though is the only remaining thing that’s directly referential.

          If I had to pick another car that it looks like, I’d say S5. In profile it’s closer to that than an old Mustang fastback.

          Plus, if the beltline is as low as it appears, then this is the most interesting and exciting car I’ve seen in 10 years.

          • 0 avatar
            Zykotec

            I agree, but I think the S5 looks a bit like a mid 70′s Torino though…
            As for the Mustang, it has always had certain features throughout its heritage, trying to come up with something radically new by now would be extremely risky…

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      What would you have done differently?

    • 0 avatar
      jhefner

      Perhaps it is just the old man in me; but when I think of a modern design; I think:

      * High beltlines with gunslit side windows and low roofs
      * Wheels that make it look like a full scale Hot Wheels car
      * Eyebrows across the back, with angry tailights and deep recessed license plate pocket between them.

      Thankfully, this render suffers from none of these.

      Was out on business today, and saw a late 1980s Mustang. I am not an expert on Mustangs by any means, but it was easy to tell it was a Mustang, and it had the large flush headlights that replaced sealed beam headlights in the 1980s, a Taurus/Tempo like panel with the Ford logo between the headlights, and full width taillights in the back. All characteristics of an aero Ford of the 1980s; but still could not be mistaken for anything but a Mustang.

      Fast forward to this car; I see Fusion/Focus/Fiesta in the shape and slant of the grill and headlights, the two creases down the side, and the overall side profile. But the grill, two doors, and tail cap scream Mustang. It will fit right into Ford’s Kenetic Design styling of it’s other Ford products. And that has been the story of the Mustang for much of it’s existance; growing and shrinking with the times, and it’s styling dictated by current Ford styling trends; whether it was larger in the 1960s, smaller with 5 MPH bumpers in the 1970s, aero in the 1980s, New Edge in Y2K, or Kenetic Design today. The base models always look plain, as did the 80s Mustang I saw; except it had that power hood, wide tires, dual exhaust, and “5.0″ emblem on the front fender to let you know this was not a plain Mustang.

  • avatar
    joeveto3

    It looks pieced together and quasi generic like the cars in Grand Theft Auto. It’s “Mustang-Like” without risking copyright infringement.

  • avatar
    bodayguy

    The guy that did the renders says this shows the base model. I think it looks pretty good for that. As a former 2011 GT owner, I want a more aggressive look, but this is a good start.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    Hey look a new Infiniti coupe! Seriously, mentally replace the logo and it’s there. Right down to the honeycomb grille.

  • avatar
    EquipmentJunkie

    These spy photos make me look forward to seeing the 2015 Mustang in-the-flesh. This styling will age very well.

  • avatar
    Waterview

    Forgive me if I should be classified as an imbecile, but I simply don’t see much difference between this and the current version. Could one of you computer savvy-types lay a picture of the existing model up against these for comparison?

    +1 to the independent rear suspension . . . . .

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      A quick & dirty comparison to the 2013 V6 premium:

      http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l634/phytheaux/mustangcomparison.png

      http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l634/phytheaux/mustangcomparison2.png

      • 0 avatar
        jhefner

        This is exactly why I like it. It looks like the 2013 reinterpreted in Ford’s current Kenetic Design styling while still being a Mustang.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        Actually now that I see them side by side the difference makes the 2015 look like it could star in a Weight Watchers commercial. Not only slimmer, but looks as though it’s been working out. Much more impressive when viewed side by side

  • avatar
    stryker1

    It’s a little smooth for my taste… There’s something about the bulky, over-designed-ness of the current mustang that I like better. This looks too much like a Fusion Coupe to me.

  • avatar
    mnm4ever

    I like it, and I think as we see more of the details of the real one instead of a rendering, then it will become more attractive. I also think that Ford might be putting a little more style into the GT and Shelby versions, and this could really be the base model as described. The higher models may get more aggressive fenders and nose to set them apart.

    I disagree with the “anti-retro” comments too, I don’t really see any retro cues to this one at all. It doesn’t look any more like a 1960s-1970s Mustang than any other RWD sporty coupes do. This is the style of that type of car; long hood, short deck, fastback profile, big grill, sweeping side windows, etc. If anything I would like it to have more retro design styling. There are a dozen sporty coupes to pick from that look “new” for the sake of looking new. I want my Mustang to look like a Mustang.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    I doubt that Ford will move away from the “retro” looks of the Mustang until us baby-boomers stop buying them. It is rare to see a under 50 dude behind the wheel of Mustang, Camaro, Challenger etc.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      Not around here, it isn’t…

      Seems like most of the Boomer types are buying Corvettes.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        There are Corvettes around in my part of the Great White North too but the older guys with the cash tend to buy European badges over the Vette. The rest with shallower pockets get the Mustang or Challenger. I don’t see too many Camaro’s. They seem to be more favoured by the 30 and under crowd. Thank you Michael Bay ;)

    • 0 avatar
      old5.0

      Since Mustang sales have been circling the crapper for years, it would seem that you baby-boomers stopped buying them a long time go.

  • avatar
    Styles79

    I’m seeing a lot of Nissan S15 Silvia in that glass house, anyone else with me?

  • avatar
    3Deuce27

    Nice clean design, but it still isn’t the advanced, modern, design I was hoping for, but it expresses the Mustang lineage well, without carving out new edgy, sporty design language.

    As long as it has IRS and a potent Turbo 4-cyl( 275hp)with handling nearly on par with the BRZ/FRS, I will bite.

    Will this design bring customers into the showrooms with checkbook in hand(?), the loyal Mustang fans with their blinders on, but I think a lot of potential customers will look for something more dynamic.

    I have been waiting for this car before I pull the trigger on a new, fun, warrantied trip car, and this won’t have me at a Ford dealership cash in hand, unless it has a great chassis, IRS, and a great dash/instrument cluster and weighs around 3,100 pounds with a V-8.

    Close on the heels of the 2015 Mustang, will be the new Camaro, and possibly a new Challenger/Cuda. Ford won’t garner much market against that competition, serving up the same old car with new paint and maybe IRS being the only attraction.

    But I do like the rendering’s G35/37 roof line.

    My last personal Mustang was an SVO, which I still consider the best Mustang ever made.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      IRS is overrated. In luxury cars, it’s a must, but performance cars are stiffly sprung with 30 series tires. They’ll dance around on rough/uneven pavement regardless. IRS will dance around even more at the braking and turning limits. This is why supercars are getting embarrassed by pony cars. Most of their weigh in over the IRS and they have to be extra stiff. The SRA unsprung (mass) rebound can be tamed with shock tuning.

      • 0 avatar
        J_Orbit

        I agree somewhat. I’ve got a 2011 stang with eibach suspension all around and it is really planted. I haven’t had the rear step out on me since adding the LCAs and panhard.

      • 0 avatar
        White Shadow

        LOL….really? I have a performance car with IRS, 30-series 19″ factory wheels/tires, and it doesn’t dance around anywhere near what a solid axle Mustang does. Not even close. You can’t get away from the fact that a solid axle is just that–solid. Nothing independent about it….this is pretty basic stuff that everyone should easily understand. BTW, pony cars are not embarrassing supercars. Never have and never will.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @White Shadow – Seriously though. Give a LRA Mustang excellent shocks, equal HP/Tq/pwr band, power to weight ratio, low center of gravity, etc, as a Lamborghini and it’ll embarrass it any time any place. Live rear axle and all.

          IRS is overrated because at one time, tires were as tall as they were wide. IRS would kill LRAs any time, any place. Now that tires are super wide and with barely any side walls, it’s about impossible to keep IRS tires firmly planted in anything but static ride height. Great for spirited driving, but push an IRS sports car to the limit of braking and cornering, and it’s barely putting down a decent contact patch.

          There’s so little ‘give’ with rough riding sports cars on wide rubber-band tires that it doesn’t matter if they’re independent. Fat swaybars also communicate travel from one side to the other. If there’s any advantage to IRS on rough and or, uneven pavement, it’s not much. But LRAs absolutely kill IRS on race courses, all things equal.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @White Shadow – A real example of the prowess of LRA is the BMW M3 vs. the Boss 302. They have a very similar layout, power, weight, balance and acceleration . Put them on the same, highly technical course and the Boss leaves the M3 in the dust, wondering what just happened.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxEhnugwzCc

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBbQfc3m4dk

          It’s not a race Top Gear is willing to touch. Their silence in deafening.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            Those videos show some really smooth pavement. Let’s see them run on tight curvy New England roads over frost heaves.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            What makes you think ‘frost heaves’ are a picnic in IRS cars? The stiffer the suspension/tires/swaybars are, the worse it gets, regardless. With frost heaves and other poor road conditions, the difference in IRS and LRA is minimal, if at all. It’s not a good scenario for either.

            This video is of the GT500 on a surface transition on the “Carousel”.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7_Ge2gWXmM

            Not the most graceful, but here’s a Merc SL hitting the same spot.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83Il6HEeI_c

            Not much better, but here’s the Camaro Z28.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyRHF1RNsU8

            These were shot in the 2010 season and the Carousel has been fixed since then, but you’re basing your info on old wives tales.

  • avatar
    rpol35

    I like what I see in this image; I think Ford is trying to keep a certain “Mustang-ness” about their Mustang to maintain a general product/model identity while trying to advance or modernize the look.

    That said, I’d need to see it for real. I find in more recent times that reality is a let-down compared to the advance rendering.

  • avatar
    Numbers_Matching

    I like it. Retro, but also moving onwards.
    For those who criticize ‘retro’ – remember who the demographic is for this car and others like it. Boomers and early Gen-Xers still identify with the styling cues used.

  • avatar
    brenschluss

    I bet this is going to be a really nice car. Most curious about the interior.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    What? You think a wide, bulky Mustang resembles an Accord or an Infinity or has a touch of Fahrvergnügen? Maybe. Ford builds these for someone who wants a distinctly American car. Wide, bulky, and loud is how Mustang buyers like their ride.

  • avatar
    bumpy ii

    Ewwwww. The FR-S greenhouse does not work with the blocky undercarriage at all. This thing will definitely need a Vellum Venom evisceration when it comes out. See the S15 Silvia for how to do this right.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Remember, Mustangs have to not alienate the chick demo and smaller drivers. I know a gal that wanted the new Camaro badly, but couldn’t gauge where hood ended, plus bad rear visibility. She’s 5’1″ and went with the ’10 Mustang.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    For the crap fords been producing as of late, this is a breath of fresh air. The evo concept was doa, looked outdated even in pre design pictures it was surely a mustang II successor.

    This is actually a killer design, the chance of ford building a strong enough IRS though slim, should be easy enough to change it to a SRA for anyone who actually uses the car with performance in mind. Hope they don’t kill the whole thing by offering turbo 4 or 6.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    It’s perfect. Don’t Change a thing. I never totally warmed up to the retro look or the ’94+, but as long as it comes with an available HO V8 and manual, I can accept whatever styling they decide on. I do miss the V8 (and GT go fast goods) available on the clean base Mustang.

  • avatar
    AMC_CJ

    I wasn’t thrilled with the 13′, definitely not liking this. I’ll hang onto my 12′; now I just wish maybe I had sprung for the GT, not that the V6 is bad by any stretch, but the V8 is a bit more special.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    Well, I like it, but must see one up close and personal.

  • avatar
    darrinkaiser

    Saw this on I-75 NB by Flint yesterday in full fluffy camo. Roofline is right though. When I slowed down next to it, my first thought was Nissan 370Z from beltline up. I’m good with it. I’d like to see a notchback again, just to be different.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I like this design, more of an evolution of the Mustang with still the classic Mustang look. The Fusion is a great looking car, the fact it looks more like an Aston Martin in the front is a positive. If anything Ford has done an excellent job with all their cars.

  • avatar
    GoFaster58

    It doesn’t matter what Ford does to the Mustang there will still be those who are unhappy with it. But it will still sell. However, where’s the side scoop? I can understand losing the side window/false scoop but the side scoop ahead of the rear wheels?

  • avatar
    Nick

    I like everything but the headlights. Having straightforward, round lights is a welcome relief in a sea of Close Encounters agglomerations.

  • avatar
    AoLetsGo

    Put me in the +1 camp. It is cleaner and updated but still looks like a Mustang. Those that want to make it look like a jelly bean car are dead wrong. If you want one of those cars there are many out there to choose from. Ford almost screwed this up in the 90′s but changed directions at the last moment and released that mistake as the Probe.

  • avatar
    Pinzgauer

    It looks a lot better than I expected but looking at it makes me glad I have my ’13 Boss.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I wonder if the Mustang will come out with the bored out 2.0 litre Focus Eco-Boost? It’s supposed to develop about 300hp.

    In Australia we are supposed to get only V8 Mustangs from Ford. This is great, but I would also like to see the 2.3 Eco Boost as well.

    Times are changing, at least Ford are using 1970s technology for the rear end with IRS.

    http://www.dailytech.com/FourCylinder+Engine+to+be+a+EuropeanOnly+Option+for+2015+Ford+Mustang/article30062.htm

    • 0 avatar
      3Deuce27

      Daily Tech article, states, that TGear hosts say… that Europe will only get the 4cyl engine, no V-6/V-8.

      I’m afraid that a 270Hp 4 pot will be to close to the V-6′s 300+hp, so will probably be closer to 250hp. I just hope there is a high performance 4-cylinder option for NA.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @3Deuce27
        I would think the 2.3 Eco Boost would handle much better than a heavy V8.

        Also and AWD version with the 2.3 Eco Boost wouldn’t go astray. This would work better in your icy and cold Northern Hemisphere climates.

        Ford could then state they are building a truly modern vehicle and match some of the Euro cars for performance.

        It has the looks to sell well.

  • avatar
    Grunt

    A face only a Ford mother could love. The aerodynamics of a Peterbilt

  • avatar
    imag

    Thank gawd they kept the beltline low (in modern terms).

    I also like the bit of DBS that they slipped in there. If it really does come in 400 lbs lighter than the current model, I might even get one. It should look great in GT trim.

  • avatar
    GeoFLL

    Give her round head lamps. True to her heritage , and she’ll be the only one on the road with round eyes! It’s okay that the 50yr old Porshe 911 looks the same , but what is wrong with the ‘stang keeping her historical looks and moving forward tech-wise ? And where is the rag-top ???

  • avatar
    Dave M.

    1. No doubt it’s a Mustang.
    2. No doubt it’s new.

    Mission accomplished. Look forward to a modern interior. The ’13 IMO is gorgeous in the right colors but chunky-looking in others. This looks smaller but airier.

  • avatar
    Igoaround940

    It’s nice enough for what it is but, It’s not quite the automotive porn I hoped it would be. It seems kind of generic, if you ask me. To think of all the millions it cost to develop it perhaps Ford would do best to make the current one better.

  • avatar
    MRF 95 T-Bird

    I like it. When you look at it you know it’s a Mustang from the styling cues yet it has a modern Aston like flair which would go over well in the Euro market. Hopefully Mopar will take some cues from this and lose some bloat when the next gen Challenger or new Cuda is introduced.

  • avatar
    mkirk

    Lighter than the model it is replacing, IRS, not over styled, and windows you can see out of, yet there are still people complaining.

    • 0 avatar
      Ubermensch

      Yes, because if a model is improved in any way then no one should complain about anything else ever. Ford should have slapped on bias-ply tires and a 3-on-the-tree in it since no one should be able to complain about those things cause “It’s LIGHTER yo!”

    • 0 avatar
      rpol35

      I think you are right, the aspects that you mention are important. As to whether the car will be really improved or modern or whatever, who knows for sure; the details in the article are light and there is only the image to go on. Seems like a good start however.

  • avatar
    Jimal

    I was personally hoping for a clean break, but 1) I’m in the minority and 2) I’m not buying a Mustang anytime soon.

    If you think about it, Ford has only done one real “clean sheet” design language change with the Mustang in its entire 50 year existence, and that was in 1979 with the introduction of the Fox chassis. Before that there were certain styling cues that all Mustangs shared, even the forgettable Mustang IIs. The new styling direction carried until 2005 when the S197 debuted and all those familiar styling cues returned.

  • avatar
    anti121hero

    The styling is rather “meh” and I’m not a fan of the super-sized chip Foose rims. But fondant make a retro mustang forever and I suppose this is a hood start to making something that still incorporates retro details while moving into a modern design scheme. Once people are familiar with this change they will probably have more wiggle room to design something (hopefully) better for a refresh or next generation. Also, PLEASE SOMEHOW FORD HEAR MY CRY, MAKE A LINCOLN MARK IX ON THIS PLATFORM. I finally got my electrically possessed mark viii back in my possession after two years and I forgot how this car makes me never want to drive anything else.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    Anyone else see the Mazda 6 in the front quarters?

  • avatar

    There is no disputing style since everyone has their own view of what is attractive but as a “world” Mustang this works, I think. I am actually a potential buyer of a Mustang and was considering a 2011/12 GT (I don’t like the front end of the ’13 as much)but the offer of IRS, a more modern interior, enhanced visibility, reduced weight and maybe even a shifter as good as those on the Focus/Fiesta STs looks pretty nice from here. I think it is still recognizable as a Mustang although the rendering makes the car a bit generic. Let’s see if it will be priced to be as good a value as the current cars are.

  • avatar
    3Deuce27

    “I would think the 2.3 Eco Boost would handle much better than a heavy V8.’

    Yes, it would. Handle better, better fuel mileage, and performance to boot. The SVO was a sweet handling car compared to the GT. Plus its huge brakes and new for the time 16″ wheels/tires, not available on the GT, just added even more slip angle capability.

    The original 2.3L Turbo SVO, was, initially, even faster then the GT V-8, so Ford engineers decided to put on a heavier flywheel to slow it down a tenth or so, too give the V-8 a slight edge in 0-60mph performance. The heavier flywheel also helped manage the explosive power bursts.

    The tools Ford used to slow the SVO were easily negated when we did a few little adjustments to the SVO after delivery. Then, the little 2.3 just blew by the GT and just about anything else available at the time, including the new C4 Corvettes, until drag evened out the contest

    The GT’s advantage, was, linear, controllable power delivery. Something most OEM turbo applications have dealt with in the past 30 years. Thank you hot metric tuners, and Mazda, BMW.

    Give me a hot Turbo 4-pot, with less weight on the front end, and, hopefully, IRS, with an all up weight of less then 3,000 pounds, you could have a very sweet handling car that still gets good mileage, and maintains high altitude performance.

    • 0 avatar
      otaku

      I agree with most of what you’re saying, although I’d be shocked if they managed to get even the turbo 4cyl version under 3,000 lbs. I mean, doesn’t the smaller FWD Focus ST weigh in at somewhere around 3,200 lbs?

  • avatar
    George Herbert

    Reminds me some of my ’98 Mustang, with about 1 foot on the nose and tail from the current retro gen ones.

    Not such a bad idea.

    Have to see how it flows in person, though. And weighs. And handles.

  • avatar
    afflo

    I see a LOT of FR-S.

    I do note that the wheels look too large for the body – they seem to have slimmed down the bloated appearance of the ’05-’14 models, and the larger wheels don’t compliment the lines.

    I like it.

    The True Believers™ will gnash their teeth about it, but they’ll buy it if it says Mustang and has a My-Little-Pony emblem on the grille. Overall, it seems to do a good job of mixing the heritage styling cues (Long hood, side crease, long door pushed as far towards the rear tires as possible) with more modern lines to the roof.

    I love the rear passenger window, with the accentuated hoffmeister kink – it really sets it off. Overall, it’s a very sleek looking car. The Mustang hasn’t been sleek looking to me since 2004 – I just never warmed up to the aging baby-boomer version


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

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India