By on December 5, 2013


First off, I want to apologize to our readers for not getting these photos posted in a more timely manner. T’is the season and the Mustang reveal was not the only press event in Detroit today. That being said, the segment of the four continent six city reveal that took place in Dearborn was part new product reveal, part car show and part pep rally and a good time was had by all. In addition to the all new 2015 Mustang up on stage, the lobby of Ford’s conference center was filled with a number of significant customer owned historical Mustangs. Mark Fields, Ford’s COO, did the reveal in Dearborn, aided by soon-to-retire VP of styling J. Mays, and in general the crowd of Ford employees (the allotted tickets were grabbed up in 4 minutes I was told), executives, dealers, members of the media and a number of Mustang club members who drove in for the event had a positive reaction to the new ‘Stang.

I was hoping to get some photos of the new Mustang’s new independent rear suspension, but the car up on stage was a pushmobile. The few actual running prototypes were allotted to other cities in the multi-location event and the Mustang’s hometown got the “leftovers” as one member of the Mustang team told me.

Full gallery after the jump.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

51 Comments on “2015 Mustang: Ronnie’s Live Pics From the Dearborn Reveal...”

  • avatar

    The pictures look good. Just think, at some point in time a guy was standing on a stage preparing to reveal the Pontiac Aztek. Who was that guy? Mark Fields should be thankful he had a better product.

  • avatar

    Looks far better than any JapanInc 2 door.

    Lincoln needs a 4 door coupe made out of this platform.

    • 0 avatar

      Lincoln MKM?

      • 0 avatar

        MKM is reasonable, but the M makes me think of 2 things – Mustang and BMW M. I’m guessing Lincoln wants to distance their brand from “lesser” cars like the Mustang, and as good as the ‘Stang platform appears, is it really good enough to compete with BMW M?

        MKS would be good (S for sports car) but it’s already in use.

        MK GT perhaps? Well, the GT does make me think of the Mustang GT…but it also makes me think of The Continental GT and Gran Turismos in general. The term “Gran Turismo” as describing a car is wasted on cars like the Mustang anyway and should be reserved for more refined, comfortable, smooth yet capable vehicles.

        MKR maybe? To compete with the Jag XKR? Too close for a lawsuit?

        MKC or MKSC, for coupe/sports coupe?

        • 0 avatar

          No more MK horse exhaust, please. Just the exercise in determining what MK it could/should be is a tailbone migraine.

          Give it a looooong sexy hood and short deck and call it a Zephyr. Done.

          BTW, this new Mustang is gorgeous.

        • 0 avatar
          Kyree S. Williams

          MKC has already been reserved for the upcoming Escape-based crossover, which will slot below the Edge-derived MKX. I do hope that Lincoln will abandon its MK- nomenclature if only because it is confusing to customers and there’s no way on earth for the layperson to know which car slots above another car. But a prospective Lincoln coupe would be more of a personal luxury statement, something very fast, comfortable and powerful, but not necessarily hardcore sporty. It would need to be somewhat longer than a Mustang so that it could truly accommodate four or five people. The BMW 6-Series comes to mind, which—even when transformed into the monster that is the M6—can’t really be considered a sports car. The Lincoln in question, then, could wear a more relaxed name like MKL or MKV. Maybe they could even do MK and a number…like MK8.

          • 0 avatar

            I’ve finally realized why they use that stupid nomenclature.

            They’re trying market the idea of “Lincoln”, rather then the individual cars. Lots of othet aspiring luxury makes do the same thing.

            The whole thing backfires among people who pay attention to cars, of course, because we just refer to the Ford platform-mate. Also, I’d argue that, if your marketing depends on selling $50k+ items to people who don’t pay attention…. Well, let’s just say that’s a very specific niche. ..

      • 0 avatar
        Stu L Tissimus

        We all know Lincoln won’t stop using the Mark naming scheme despite the recent China article, but a name that references the Mustang roots would be neat. Lincoln Palomino or something. I guess I just like animal-named cars.

        • 0 avatar
          Panther Platform

          How about Mark IX? Old timers like me would appreciate the homage to tradition, and if it looked modern (I’m sure it won’t have the trunk hump, LOL)it would appeal to youth.

  • avatar

    i’ve been looking at it all day. i’ve decided… i don’t like it. at least not in photos; hopefully in real life it will be better.

    it looks like two different cars were pinched together at the base of the windshield.

    • 0 avatar

      I’m not offended by it, but I don’t care much for it, either. The back end doesn’t work for me.

      From above, it looks like the back end really narrows
      which combined with the sloped tail lights gives me the impression it’s puckering its ass.

    • 0 avatar

      Exactly what I was thinking. The back and front don’t match. It’s very awkward looking.

  • avatar

    That car has a friendly but somewhat tired face, perhaps even bored. Otherwise a really neat design. Too bad I most likely won’t ever see the car in real life.

  • avatar

    It’s hard to assess cars from photos. When I look at the last few threads, it looks more like a Hyundai Genesis or Tiburon than a Mustang. Sometimes you have to sees car on the street or in a parking lot to appreciate it.

  • avatar

    Two things:

    It’s got the ‘Taurus dent’ in the quarter panel, and in some photos I’ve seen the tail lights appear angled a bit too much from vertical.

  • avatar

    If I can offer, my opinion only:

    Over all its got a nice stance, I like the shape of the greenhouse. At first, the rear end kinda jangled my senses but seeing it on the convertible, I like it.

    The front end, its just a bit too gawping. And the horizontal planes of the headlight emplacements too straight. A bit of contour to match the droop of the nose over the grill would have helped. I am hoping in person to like the front end more. A good Mustang is good for everyone.

    Last off, in an earlier article, someone mentioned it looks like the Accord Coupe. I can’t un-see that now. I like the Accord coupe though.

  • avatar

    “The few actual running prototypes were allotted to other cities in the multi-location event and the Mustang’s hometown got the “leftovers” as one member of the Mustang team told me.”

    there’s way more than “a few” running prototypes, they’re just mostly testing & validation vehicles which aren’t show-worthy.

  • avatar

    Congratulations Americans and Ford with a damn fine car. As most sales will probably be in the US you guys either end up buying one or seeing one. Since I live in the Netherlands the chances for me to see one is small, although if fuel efficiency is anywhere near decent some may buy it.

    I like how the retro and modern has been combined. The last generation was imho too retro. Using too much of the classic car look to sell. The Fiat 500 is in my opinion another example of too much retro. In styling I’d like to compare this car with the F-type, a classic suave look combined with modern elements.

    Under thos good looks I’ve als been led to believe that some weight has been shedded as well. Again referring to the last generation; it was overweight and the general trend is/should be towards lighter vehicles. Even the fact that it comes with a four banger is in my opinion a good thing. Although a V8 is probably a better engine in terms of almost everything according to mister Baruth, I think a move toward smaller engines is better in the long run. Energy efficiency is the thing of the future and it would be a waste if the US destroyed it’s car industry by archaically holding on to the past. That being said; this generation of 4 banger probably has some issues with reliability and fuel efficiency but I believe in Ford engineers will set it straight in a couple of generations.

    I’ve always liked the first generation Mustang and I think this is a rightful heir.

    • 0 avatar

      “Again referring to the last generation; it was overweight and the general trend is/should be towards lighter vehicles.”

      all well and good, but at this stage all you’re really asking for is smaller, less powerful cars, of which there are plenty. Unfortunately, having to stuff 18 air bags into a car while having to make the roof able to support the weight of a Peterbilt set onto it carries a weight penalty; not to mention whatever IIHS comes up with as the “most common type of collision” next week.

      ” I think a move toward smaller engines is better in the long run.”

      Multiple manufacturers are showing us that smaller, harder-worked engines aren’t necessarily more economical in the real world; or at best are far more sensitive to how they’re driven.

      “Energy efficiency is the thing of the future and it would be a waste if the US destroyed it’s car industry by archaically holding on to the past.”

      You say this as if Ford makes nothing but F-150s and Mustangs.

      • 0 avatar

        “Multiple manufacturers are showing us that smaller, harder-worked engines aren’t necessarily more economical in the real world; or at best are far more sensitive to how they’re driven.”

        Good point.

        1. Engines are becoming increasingly flexible. Want 300hp and 35mpg? No problem! Oh, but you can’t have them simultaneously.

        2. Americans are trained to think in terms of MPG. As mpg ratings increase, even small changes in consumption are perceived to be large. x% change in consumption is more noticeable if your car is capable of, say, 50mpg vs a truck that is only capable of 22mpg. The hybrid driver may gasp at a 5mpg difference, but the truck driver may not even notice it or consider it insignificant because it’s just 2mpg.

        • 0 avatar

          We would do better to rate fuel consumption the way the Europeans do, that is, quantity to go a given distance. Because they use the metric system, they measure consumption in liters per hundred kilometers. We could use gallons per hundred or thousand miles.

          2 mpg out of 22 is bigger deal than 5 mpg out of 50. The problem is that you need math skills and, often, a calculator to figure this out. Rating fuel consumption by quantity/distance reduces the calculation to simple subtraction.

          • 0 avatar

            I completely agree with you, but in America “bigger is better” so advertising big numbers is more effective. Fundamentally, though, MPG is not a direct measure of consumption. Cars consume gallons not miles.

            The country is more spread out than Europe, so we naturally we are more concerned about how many miles we can travel instead of how many gallons we are consuming. Gas is also relatively cheap so we aren’t as sensitive to consumption as Europeans are. That being said, if gas went to $8/gal overnight, you can bet that we would all start looking at our fuel consumption much closer.

          • 0 avatar


            2 out of 22 is 9%
            and 5 out of 50 is 10%

            I am not a mathmatician, but how is 9% a bigger deal than 10%?

          • 0 avatar

            Pie, I think JZ is saying that overall fuel consumption increases more when going from 22mpg to 20mpg.

            Assume you travel 15,000mi/year and gas is $3.15/gal.

            22mpg = 682gal, $2,148
            20mpg = 750gal, $2,362
            difference is 68gal, $214

            50mpg = 300gal, $945
            45mpg = 333gal, $1,050
            difference is 33gal, $105

          • 0 avatar


            Anyone who thinks “Europe” is less spread out than the US doesn’t own a globe. Individual European countries are small, Europe as a whole is not, and with Schengen it might as well be mostly one big country.

  • avatar

    It seems like history has repeated itself and Ford has followed up their retro first generation Mustangs with a barge recalling the 1971 model. If there’s another Mustang, it will have a Roman numeral and teeter around on a Focus chassis.

    • 0 avatar

      Actually Ford’s done a good job of slimming the car down visually at least ( check Mustang6g for a direct comparison shot ) .

      I really don’t think were going to see a smaller Mustang for a long time to come, well at least until all the horse jockeys bitching about big cars and fat ‘muricans flip out and start murdering everybody over 5’ and 120 pounds.

      There just isn’t much of a/market for a V8 powered S2000.

  • avatar

    There is no two ways around it. This car is horrendous. Once again, Ford gives us a car that looks like it was designed by five different committees that never talked to each other until the reveal.

    One committee got inspiration from a cat fish. Another from a 40+ year old 911. Another from a Camry, etc.

    Ford had a chance to really go all out and really make this car something special. But instead, they rolled out a nip/tuck job on the terribly styled ’05 to ’09 cars with crappy, gas guzzling egoboost engines and IRS.

    Ford’s incompetence is astounding. Thank God J Mays is retiring. Good riddance.

  • avatar

    I’m a huge Mustang fan, and I was really worried about how this could go. I understand the need to get away from the “retro” themed design of the ’05 to ’13 cars. I realize that they needed to make this more of a global car to help ensure the future of it, and with that they had to make it more of a fresh design while keeping the Mustang loyalists happy (and brand DNA intact).

    With that being said, I think they did a great job on the car. I like the lines from a top 3/4 view, I like the Front end of the car, hell I like the whole design, and think that the design team(s) need credit for this car. And we all need to say THANK YOU loud and clear for the IRS (FINALLY)!

  • avatar

    The decklid area seems like a bit of a mess, but from most angles the thing looks great to me. Almost a little too “flowy,” akin to all of the most recent Infiniti re-designs (that is, too many compound curves). I’ve liked just about all of J Mays’ designs over the years. This one should look pretty nice in person and I bet it will age well, and that it will appeal very broadly to both US and worldwide customers. It doesn’t seem to have the obnoxiousness that has characterized a lot of US designs over the past decade, especially in muscle cars.

    I’m keeping my Ford stock for a long time.

  • avatar

    Looks hot – I am a fan of the car. Now with an IRS it will the the go to car instead of a M3. I’d love to see some more practical variations based on this platform. I live in California and don’t care about ‘cold weather driving.’

  • avatar

    Ok, the Silverado is a better sports car than the new Mustang GT. There, I said it. What a DB. In other news the 2014 Camaro has been shown to cure cancer.

  • avatar

    I like the back end a lot. I wish it were a hatchback. It would make the car a lot more useful.

  • avatar
    White Shadow

    I’m disappointed. It’s not a horrible design, but it’s not that good either. The nose of the car could have been done a lot better. The back end manages to look modern and aggressive while retaining modernized Mustang styling cues.

    We can only pray that Ford doesn’t do what they always do give this generation of Mustang a 4×4 look with huge gaps between the tops of the tires and the fender lip. The reveal car seems to sit perfectly–not too high and not too low. And I like how the wheels/tires seem to be nearly flush with the body, which is another thing that Ford has always screwed up with the Mustang.

    • 0 avatar

      Would you buy a Camry instead if it was the most beautiful car in the world? Looks are subjective and what matters is how a car makes you feel from the time you get in and start it, to when you stop and get out. The satisfaction you get, the uncontrollable smile to the giggles you get from tossing it into an off-camber, decreasing radius and exiting on a 4-wheel drift.

      I’m not saying Ford didn’t come short of an all-out sexy, beautiful car, but they point is to keep the cues subtle enough to appeal to a broad audience. In that sense, they hit a home run.

      The Camaro has a stunning, striking design, but you eventually get sick of looking at its bold, exaggerated lines.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Dave M.: Who is “they”? Your HOA? Check state law. In many states solar panels are covered based on user interest,...
  • Inside Looking Out: Of all those cars I like the most Merc Grand Marquis. Definitely cool looking classic American...
  • Dave M.: Good on you. I’m enamored with the Maverick…just deciding whether I need the pickup bed or just do a RAV4...
  • WalterRohrl: “What’s more likely, at least for a few years to come, is that people will buy nearly as many gallons of...
  • WalterRohrl: Yes, Solar doesn’t necessarily make sense for everyone and the connection fee doesn’t go...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber