By on December 3, 2013

autoweekmustang0

A Mustang forum has gotten their hands on a leaked edition of Autoweek, complete with pictures of the 2015 Mustang.  We’ll have the reveal on Thursday, complete with technical details.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

111 Comments on “2015 Mustang Leaked Via Autoweek Cover...”


  • avatar
    The Soul of Wit

    Home run.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      “Game changer.”

      I just know it, or others at least do – I am confident, despite not actually seeing it, touching it or driving it yet, let alone living with it day-to-day for at least a year or so.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        LOL

      • 0 avatar
        Z71_Silvy

        It’s awful. The Car and Driver render The Car and Driver Render looked worlds better than this lame duck. This looks like the 2005-2009 V6 model.

        Yet more proof Ford employs nothing but talentless “designers”.

        This is yet another half-assed nip/tuck job that someone penned on a used napkin during a lunch break.

        • 0 avatar
          Josh_Howard

          So glad to see you could copy and paste your comment from Autoblog right over here too and get more mileage out of it.

          “It’s awful. The Car and Driver render looked worlds better than this lame duck. This looks like the 2005-2009 V6 model.

          Yet more proof Ford can’t design anything”
          -That Guy

          If you’ve ever designed anything in a company, you’d understand how significant this car is and what they have been able to achieve given the constraints. The look is still distinctive while pushing the car forward with a “One Ford” sort of look. Losing 200lbs in a car is not a “nip/tuck” job. This car is on a very different chassis and is closer to the late 90’s sized Mustangs than the mid 2ks. This car will sell better than the previous models to a more diverse audience. Oh… and btw… this is just the “secretary’s car”. You haven’t even seen the GT or Shelby packages yet so get ready Silvy.

          • 0 avatar
            Z71_Silvy

            Yeah right Josh. Keep guzzling the Kool Aid.

            This is a massive disappointment….. or typical of a Ford vehicle.

            And regardless of whether it’s all new or not, it looks like a reskin. Why go to all the effort of making a new car when all it looks like they did was give it new light housings.

            Ford fails yet again

        • 0 avatar
          raph

          Al Oppenhieser is that you trolling again?

        • 0 avatar
          Loser

          Yes, another utterly predictable, baseless and irrational rant from the troll of many usernames.
          I’m sure the folks at Ford will be losing countless hours of sleep over the educated and well thought-out Mustang critique presented by Silvy .

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          Could not agree more. This is very retro.

      • 0 avatar
        J.Emerson

        “I just know it, or others at least do – I am confident, despite not actually seeing it, touching it or driving it yet, let alone living with it day-to-day for at least a year or so.”

        In hindsight, those were clearly some enviable powers of prognostication he put to bear. Or maybe he just wasn’t hopelessly constrained by ideology.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          Really?

          The Fusion has dethroned the Camry, let alone the Accord or even the now AGES-old Nissan Altima?

          (Has it even dethroned the Sonata? I’m seriously asking this.)

          Do tell about this “Game Changer!”

          • 0 avatar
            J.Emerson

            “The Fusion has dethroned the Camry, let alone the Accord or even the now AGES-old Nissan Altima?”

            In terms of “car that people are most willing to spend actual money on,” yes. But assuming you mean leader in absolute sales numbers, then no. Let it be noted, however, that your definition of what constitutes “game changer” is your own construction. I don’t recall Derek attaching any particular conditions to his turn of phrase. He merely implied that the car would have some significant but unknown effect on its target market. Everything else is rhetorical sandcastles and words inserted into mouths.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            Deadweight’s comments summarized for the future “Your hyperbole is unacceptable and I maintain a general skepticism/cynicism that makes me sound smarter” is that close enough? I know you can have some wonderful insights at times but sometimes the way you try and cut people down just gets old.

            That being said, the mustang looks like a nice evolution of the current car’s looks and it seems to be shedding weight which is always nice.

        • 0 avatar

          Ah, but at the time, I had seen it in person, and the examples trotted out (yes, pre-production) looked nice.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            But your wholesale & premature proclamation about it “changing the game” wasn’t quite…

            …accurate.

          • 0 avatar
            mike978

            D – are all your predictions accurate?

          • 0 avatar

            “Often wrong, never in doubt”

            Certainly not. Chalk that one up to youthful enthusiasm and an underdeveloped sense of skepticism. I feel like I’ve matured plenty in the nearly 2 years since I’ve been here. And there’s plenty more to go.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            I’ve been working on trying not making them, especially of the grand, sweeping “game changer” kind.

            I certainly avoid predicting what will be a game changer based on the cover of the book.

          • 0 avatar
            Silvy_nonsense

            One time I said something that a few people gave me a hard time about. Now there’s one total dummy that can’t let it go, even a year or more later. People like that are such pitiful chumps. Sadly, I think the guy is so socially clueless he actually thinks that’s how you build a relationship and end up friends. What a dope.

          • 0 avatar

            I think DeadWeight is obsessesed. Don

          • 0 avatar

            Have to re-post as the site won’t let me edit.

            I think DeadWeight is obsessed. Don’t get e wrong, DeadWeight many times adds to the discussion and says things that have relevance. Except with Ford in general (though he seems to slowly be mollifying this) and Derek’s game-changer comment. I still think Derek has a chance to be proven in the end. The Fusion does not have to beat the Camry, Accord. Altima. It has to get people thinking Ford again. As witnessed by Ford’s growing sales in California, this seems to be the case as California does supply the lead in many, many instances of cultural and societal mores in the greater US later.

            Like DeadWeight says, when the Fusion is working, it’s just better than the Japanese., Consumers eventually catch on.

          • 0 avatar
            jz78817

            ” California does supply the lead in many, many instances of cultural and societal mores in the greater US later.”

            unfortunately, this brings along California’s excessive smug emissions as well as the regiment of useless airhead celebritards who infest the southern portion of the state.

          • 0 avatar
            Athos Nobile

            The bashing of the kid over the “game changer” thing is getting old. And boring.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            If I had foresight / wisdom like DW wishes his free internet content’s authors had, I wouldn’t have banged so many fat and ugly chicks in my life.

            And I’d be a lot worse off for it.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            It’s all in good fun.

            If I didn’t think Derek could handle it I wouldn’t mock him so.

            It’s not as if he proclaimed the Toybaru Twins to be at least the equivalent of, if not superior to, the Porsche Cayman, as some batsh*t crazy Australian “expert” did.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        I don’t know if predicting that a Mustang is going to sell well is a bold proclamation. The car has a huge built-in fanbase. Ford would have to pull an ’86 Eldorado to screw it up.

  • avatar
    pb35

    I like it and am glad they decided to keep it somewhat retro.

    Perhaps there’s even a Mustang in my future? I wouldn’t mind revisiting my 20s again. Not sure where I’d put the twins, however.

  • avatar
    Jack Baruth

    imokaywithit.jpeg

  • avatar
    VoGo

    Expectations are soooooo high.

  • avatar
    racer-esq.

    Can anyone confirm this is it, this still looks shopped.

    It looks ok, I miss the rear fender upsweep line (I cannot think of a better way to describe it right now).

    Price is the big question, since Ford used to claim IRS would jack the price $5K.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      Look at the rear window and how it abruptly sweeps to meet the rear decklid – horrific.

      It nearly looks like it could be an Australian Ute from the profile displayed.

      Is there a short bed in back? That would at least provide some utility when at Home Depot.

    • 0 avatar
      racer-esq.

      “Price is the big question, since Ford used to claim IRS would jack the price $5K.”

      Also, weight.

      • 0 avatar
        Shipwright

        Well, it weighs 200 lbs less partially due to aluminum fenders. If the IRS adds a little weight to the rear, it might produce a near 50/50 front/rear weight distribution.

        As for price, well have to wait and see.

    • 0 avatar
      juicy sushi

      I still see that upsweep, but it’s more subtle than before in the way it kicks up.

    • 0 avatar
      3Deuce27

      Reg; ” rear fender upsweep line (I cannot think of a better way to describe it right now).”

      That would be the ‘beltline’, that in this case sharply ‘peaks’ over the wheel arches and with the body section increase in that area develops a haunch indicative of power or thrust. It declines forward from there to create a ‘stance’.

      A car with a high beltline or waist, and shallow greenhouse, will appear to look purposeful/powerful.

      • 0 avatar
        racer-esq.

        I’m not talking about the beltline, I’m talking about this:

        http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/04/550x309x56-550×309.jpg.pagespeed.ic.L6IOZ_Pk5N.jpg

        Sajeev Mehta said of it “The subtle nod to the original Mustang’s fake vent is much appreciated, especially after we had to endure that awful appendage on the 1999-2004 model in the same location.”

        And now it is gone, and the side profile of the mustang looks like any other other car.

        • 0 avatar
          3Deuce27

          That’s a ‘Bone’ or ‘Character’ line, and, depending on its application in the design process, in dimensional engineering, it is typically called a ‘Swage’ line.

    • 0 avatar
      dtremit

      Ford’s claim that IRS would jack the price $5K was accurate but *very* specific to the SN197 model. Much of that cost was other things that would have had to be redesigned in a more expensive way to add IRS on the SN197.

      • 0 avatar
        jz78817

        nitpick- you’re talking about SN95. S197 is what replaced it in MY2005. And I don’t remember the discussions back then on IRS, but as far as I can recall the one SN95 which did have IRS (a Cobra R) was not very well regarded; the geometry dictated by the architecture wasn’t optimal. So yeah, I could see redesigning the Fox platform for IRS would cost a lot.

        Then, of course, there was MN12 (Thunderbird/Cougar) which had IRS but was a bloated leviathan by the standards of the day.

        • 0 avatar
          dtremit

          No, I’m definitely talking about S197. (I may be misremembering the timing of racer-esq.’s quote, though.)

          As I recall, they’d originally hoped to either carry over suspension components from the DEW98 or spread out the costs by sharing parts with a new Falcon. But the DEW98 parts wouldn’t fit on the shorter wheelbase, the Mustang and Falcon rear package requirements ended up being incompatible, and redoing the entire rear end for just the Mustang was cost prohibitive.

          And I know for a fact there were some MN12 engineers on the project, so they knew the lessons of that platform well :)

    • 0 avatar
      Shipwright

      Well, it weighs 200 lbs less partially due to aluminum fenders. If the IRS adds a little weight to the rear, it might produce a near 50/50 front/rear weight distribution.

  • avatar
    3Deuce27

    At first blink… disappointing. But will wait to I see it in the flesh. The dash sure looks like an upgrade from the previous iteration_+10

    Seems part of the design(rear sail/window)harks back to the 65 fastback, a car I quite love, but never owned.

    I did take several test drives of a new ones. After the first test drive of a GT with the hypo 271hp motor, the salesman asked me what I thought of the power… “fun” I said, but those front disc brakes were what impressed me, the car hauled down from speed, in a hurry, something unknown in the world of drum brakes at all four corners(even my 63′ Sting Ray had drums on all four corners). I didn’t buy the 65′ as I felt it was too small for my wife and baby boy, and I did have several sports cars for fun, traded my 64′ 442 convertible in on a new 66′ 442 post coupe and have pined for a the little Ford fastback, ever since.

    Someday, I might find a decent, reasonably priced 65’/66′ fastback to buy and restore.

    • 0 avatar
      Vojta Dobeš

      Did you have those drums custom fitted to your Sting Ray? Or it was some kind of prototype?

      • 0 avatar
        3Deuce27

        ‘Vojta’ “Those drums”

        They were stock as supplied on all 63’/64′ Sting Rays. The Vette didn’t get Disc’s until 65′ and then on all four corners. In those days you could find Corvettes in regular junk yards, so it was common for handy guys to buy the disc brake setups from the yards, cheap, and apply them to your earlier Sting Ray. I upgraded my 63′ in about 67′ and also pulled the dash pods(Instrument panel/glove box panel)from the donor 65′ and replaced my 63′ units with the 65’s. I liked the look of the 65′ dash over the 63′ which had bright aluminum trim. Those parts today are a fortune.

        Note; Brake options were available, severe duty ‘sintered’ shoes were available, as were the very rare ‘Finned’ aluminum drums.

        Another common parts change was the progressive coil springs and the new Gas shocks, from the 64′ and newer Sting Rays, on the front for a much better ride and control.

    • 0 avatar
      3Deuce27

      I have seen better pixs of the new Mustang, and I quite like the look. Looks quite composed and has the vibe of the original Mustang Fastback.

      Go to Motor Authority for a few more pixs.
      http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1088868_2015-ford-mustang-the-real-thing-leaked

  • avatar
    mjz

    Mikey likey. Looks fresh, but still like a Mustang, kind of miss the trademark Mustang side scoop in the rear fender though, and the grille could be a little sharper. But overall pretty nice. Can’t wait for the Lincoln version, MKM?. LOL!

  • avatar
    Boff

    Thumbs up, from this current Mustang owner! I’m still going to watch the reveal on Good Morning America tomorrow, though.

  • avatar

    Hey, lookit! A new Taurus.

  • avatar
    3Deuce27

    It looks like the high sill for side protection has cramped the lights, like the Camaro… Jack B isn’t going to be comfortable with that situation.

  • avatar
    OneAlpha

    There’s a lot of Fusion in that nose and hood, but if this is seriously the real car, this looks pretty good.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    I don’t get the hype – it looks fairly similar to today’s Mustang, whose retro appeal has worn off for me.

    • 0 avatar
      imag

      I agree. I wish they had gone with the more daring styling from the Evos that they had originally intended.

      But I think this was actually a wise move. It looks like a Mustang through and through.

      • 0 avatar
        3Deuce27

        Reg; “I wish they had gone with the more daring styling from the Evos ”

        Yes! I also was hoping for the Evo look, but maybe it was unbuildable given the safety mandates and other issues.

        Still, I wonder how long they can trade on the retro look, especially if this is supposed to be a world car. But, maybe, that is all we have, exporting our cultural icons. Doesn’t matter if they have little substance or are out front in aesthetic design.

        The Mustang could be that cutting edge platform, Ford needs something like that, but apparently they have chosen to lead with the likes of the Fusion instead of a modern Mustang. Call it, the F-150 mentality or gutless, bottom line corporate decision making. Lets just build a safe car that doesn’t threaten the bottom line and all those pick-up profits.

        But, hey… who can blame them, since we all want to buy cars for less then the cost of building and marketing them. Better yet, a free new car for every garage, like a chicken in every pot. Some devious or delusional politician, should campaign on that promise…err… Hope!

        Hey! All of the above doesn’t mean I’m not going to buy one, that door hasn’t closed, yet.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    I always wanted a Taurus 2-door.

  • avatar
    ash78

    Prognostication: Caroline will claim to hate it, but half of her friends will buy one in the next year, thus forcing her to revise the tone of every future editorial.

    Ladies, get out your VISA cash advance checks: THIS IS THE NEW MARK 4 JETTA!!

    Honestly, I can’t get too excited. The current one is great, this will be great, too.

  • avatar
    juicy sushi

    Is anyone else seeing a lot of Infiniti G35 in that greenhouse from the side-profile shot? I’m hoping it’s such a close resemblence just because of the fold in the page…

    • 0 avatar
      Josh_Howard

      Nope… seeing more of this: http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forums/attachments/94-95-tech/44503d1210718947-paint-scheme-my-1994-mustang-gt-07-side.jpg

      That’s what they are trying to emulate is the sleeker appearance.

      • 0 avatar
        juicy sushi

        Sorry, really not seeing that, but seeing a LOT of this in that greenhouse:

        http://www.netcarshow.com/infiniti/2009-g37_coupe/800×600/wallpaper_06.htm

        Even more so than the G35 now that I look closer.

        • 0 avatar
          Josh_Howard

          Just the DLO or side window shape. Not so much the rear slope. The current rear slope is an effort to get the drag cof way down and tighten up the car. The better windows may or may not help with being able to see out as well. Just my two cents having went through car design training.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    I’ll wait to see it in the flesh.

    For some reason (and maybe someone can comment why) it seems many of the new cars look horrible in photographs yet look much better in person.

    The 2014 Impala is a good example of this.

    This looks massively nosed, almost like a Charger (in the sense of massiveness not design) and yet squat, out of proportion. I suspect this works much better in person.

    • 0 avatar
      3Deuce27

      Single dimension photos, tend to distort three dimensional objects, depending on perspective. The front to side(2/3rds view) perspective of the main pic, lends a heaviness to the Mustangs facade and diminishes/flattens the side view as it moves rearward.

      • 0 avatar
        jhefner

        That is where the rotating three view helps:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dl317QTUf0

        It is hard to stop the video at the exact same viewpoint; but doing the best I can and comparing it to the cover photo, the passenger side mirror appears to be profiled differently, and this cover photo seems to emphasize the lower cheat line more than the rotating three view does. The trunk lid and sail panel are washed out in this view; but can be seen in the rotating view; the fact that the rotating view has minimum glare from a light source, and is body-in-white may account for some of the differences in appearance.

  • avatar
    gasser

    Ugly.
    Complete waste of a redesign.

  • avatar
    86er

    It’s 40-50% wheel, but what else is new.

  • avatar
    Prado

    I’m not liking the tiny greenhouse bubble roof which looks out of proportion to the rest of the car which looks rather bulky.

    • 0 avatar
      Wheeljack

      This is my issue with the Camaro – the greenhouse looks like it is out of propotion (too small) to the rest of the car. I like to call it “the pinhead”.

  • avatar
    J.Emerson

    Too glare-y for me to make up my mind. Need to see it in the flesh first. Overall it seems pretty conservative.

  • avatar
    E46M3_333

    Belt line is too high. Looks like visibility out would be poor.
    .
    .

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      Meh.

      Complaining about high belt lines today is like complaining about “hard plastics on touch surfaces.” It’s like a check box to be ticked off the list of generic complaints on any new car/truck/SUV.

      Thank side impact regulations for high belt lines. Designers can only work within the required safety standards.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        The industry could challenge those regs.

      • 0 avatar
        3Deuce27

        Reg; “Thank side impact regulations for high belt lines. Designers can only work within the required safety standards.”

        Oh, come on ‘APaGttH’, its the designers fault. That argument, or statement of fact, won’t get any traction with the nincompoops on this or other car sites.

        I mentioned this fact regarding the Camaro and got the typical gobshite blow back.

    • 0 avatar
      imag

      Yep. Aside from not being able to see, I miss resting my arm on the sill.

      Fortunately, the Toyobaru still has decent proportions and visibility. When the high output version comes, it’s an easy choice for me. I don’t want to drive around in a cave.

    • 0 avatar
      racer-esq.

      I’ve seen reports from insiders that the beltline is low in person.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    It seems as if there’s a semi-consensus view that it looks a lot like the current Mustang.

    I’d just like to add that the rear end, in particular, and yes, this is subjective – is TRULY hideous, from top to bottom.

  • avatar
    arun

    I might be in the minority here but I never believed that the tail lights of the Mustang ever gelled well with the rest of the design – irrespective of the model year. The only recent ones that look remotely good to me are the factory blacked out ones of the ’13 GT. This redesign hasn’t changed my mind one bit

  • avatar
    3Deuce27

    As long as it is lighter and has IRS coupled to a high output turbo four, it could be my next car. It will still have to compete with the FRS/BRZ for my dollars, but the better GT will win as I just need a warrantied long distance cross country trip car, and I don’t want to spend what BMW wants for a new 3-series Touring.

  • avatar
    danio3834

    I’m happy they didn’t stray too far from the existing design. IMO they got the car looking really right in the last few years of this generation. The biggest changes are under the skin, and I’m fine with that.

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    I’m a bit on the fence, I mean its better than most of Fords dull/tacky fox body Stangs, but I don’t exactly like the huge VW-ish fake brake vents, and I will never understand LEDZ. That and the back end is the same flat-butt we’re all used to, better not bump anything!

    Also, is it me or is there some rule in car design where all grilles must have a slimmer upside down one below? Mini, Audi, Dart, and a few others do this. I await the special model that’ll have a black Audi mustache like the SRT Charger.

    Really its not ugly so much bad proportions like the Fusion, too much “AGGRESSIVE SPORTY SLEEEK” .

  • avatar

    Like it, feeling it. All I got to say.

  • avatar
    kvndoom

    I have to see it in person. The white one in the rendering looked better than this.

  • avatar
    Loser

    Not a fan of the rear end but as with most cars I’ll need to see one in person. My wife has been waiting for the new Mustang as a possible replacement for her 4Runner.

  • avatar
    jstanley2

    Granted, these are pictures of a magazine, but I don’t see anything here that makes me desire. The back end looks awful and it seems like they’re trying to make the front look like a face. Why does the steering wheel have what looks like 14 buttons on it? The center stack looks like it was inspired by an early 2000s aftermarket stereo. Everything just looks so… bulgy.

  • avatar
    Pinzgauer

    Not bad but I will be keeping my Boss.

  • avatar
    sayahh

    LOL I thought that the new headlamps will look like the bug-eyed Subaru WRX’s then realized that it was a reflection. (Look at the passenger side headlights.) It would’ve been pretty radical had they done that!

  • avatar
    AMC_CJ

    Well I buy new Mustangs so my opinion should hold some weight….. should.

    Overall I like. Espicially how the side windows are one continous piece, and not the little triangles that our 12′ has.

    BUT

    I’m not sure on the IRS. I know I might be the only person to say this, but I like things to be durable and simple. Also, the interior is WAY too busy. I like in ours how it’s well made, but fairly spartan. Especially the radio; I love the simple radio with rotary knobs.

    Last, on ours, with the back seat down we have can bring our 70lb Husky and luggage for two for a weekend trip to the mountains. This car is suppose to be lighter, and smaller…..

    Much of my verdict well have to wait until I see it in person. I really love our 12′.

    • 0 avatar
      crtfour

      I’m kind of viewing from the opposite side of things. I’ve always liked Mustangs but never enough to buy one. But this one is sharp and I’d consider it for a daily driver. I also think the continuous side window looks better.

      As for the rear suspension, I’m kind of with you. I like simple and durable, but times are changing. I didn’t like the idea of body on frame SUV’s going crossover, but guess we’ll have to accept it.

  • avatar
    crtfour

    I’m kind of viewing from the opposite side of things. I’ve always liked Mustangs but never enough to buy one. But this one is sharp and I’d consider it for a daily driver. I also think the continuous side window looks better.

    As for the rear suspension, I’m kind of with you. I like simple and durable, but times are changing. I didn’t like the idea of body on frame SUV’s going crossover, but guess we’ll have to accept it.

  • avatar
    jhefner

    I have a display in a table case in my office of Fords from the Sierra of 1982 to the present; it started out with just the Taurus and Fusion, but has since grown; and in the light of the comments about the 2015 Mustang, I have expanded it to include the Mustang and most other Ford models. (You are welcome Ford haters for making you lose your lunch.)

    Most of them are roughly 1:64 scale diecast, but I built a few paper models to fill in some of the missing gaps, and save money once or twice. I wish I had that CAD model that was used to do the 360 spin video; I could import it into my modeling program, seperate the panels, rotate them so they are horizontal, apply a flattening routine to them (and unwrap the tire treads), add build tabs, and end up with a paper model before the real thing and the diecasts come out. (I went through this whole process to create a model of the Ford Probe II concept car.)

    But I don’t, so I had to settle for scaling and printing the side view from the video, and comparing it to the Mustangs in my collection. (I am still working on the 1982-1998 range, but have the last 15 years.)

    Those of you looking for a smaller Mustang won’t see much smaller; my best guess is 183 inches long compared to 187.6 for today’s model. The wheelbase will be longer; guessing 110 versus 107.1 for today’s model. Frankly, returning to say Fox Mustang size may throw it in a different, higher mileage bracket; regulations favor keeping it large and using aluminum and technology to meet the future, stricter mileage standards. The hood is about the same length, but slightly taller; so I expect few major changes in the layout under the skin except for maybe IRS. The greenhouse appears to be the same size; but with the rear window merged with the front window.

    Today, Ford’s Kenetic Design styling falls into three different catagories:

    * Conservative, as done on the current Taurus and Mustang
    * Wild, as done on the Focus, Fiesta, Ka, and Explorer/Kuga
    * Middle of the road, as done on the Fusion.

    I think Ford was wise going with the Fusion-like stlying; the Taurus/Mustang are looking too conservative for a sporting car, while the Focus is too wild for much of its target market. Looking at the 2013 Fusion in my display case; Ford did a good job pulling it off on the Mustang; which is much a lower car than the Fusion, and has a longer hood.

    I too was thinking it should have fake fender vents; but have changed my mind. This design pays homage to the Mustang styling without tacking on a fake vent piece. Let Pep Boys stock a stick on one on the ailse next to the portholes instead.

    Kenetic Design calls for a wedge shape; which makes the car appear to be moving even when standing still. The trunk does appear to be taller than the current model; which probably resulted in a taller gap between the tail light strip and the bumper. It does look a little awkward; it is amazing how much the rear panel has grown in height since the original Mustang.

    I have said it before and still think that it is a well executed interpretation of the Kenetic Design styling on a Mustang shape. Despite what Z71_Silvy thinks, it is clear from looking at my Fusion model it was more than just slapping a Fusion nose cap on a Mustang; and not as easy as he thinks.

    • 0 avatar
      3Deuce27

      107″ Wheelbase is pretty much locked in for a number of reasons. Length, probably about the same. I expect it to a bit lower for drag reasons. And from the pixs, it looks to have a bit wider rear track.

  • avatar
    3Deuce27

    From MLive.

    Over the summer, MLive took to the Woodward Dream Cruise’s Mustang Alley to find out what current owners want out of the next-generation Mustang. The responses were mixed, but overall owners agreed they wanted a new vehicle that pays tribute to its predecessors without looking “too retro.”

  • avatar
    MRF 95 T-Bird

    As a former Mustang owner (70 coupe) I like it. It’s evolutionary not revolutionary with just enough retro. After all it should look like a Mustang the same way a Beetle should look like a Beetle not say a Golf. I find that the broad rear shoulders give it definition with a bit of Aston and the proposed Volvo coupe thrown in. Hopefully Ford would have some sense and use this platform for some Lincoln models.


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