You can clearly tell that Aston designers were brought in to design the Mustang. And frankly, I like it more now that it has the "European" look. I'm not an American car guy myself, minus modern Corvettes and older muscle cars. It's personal taste, really.
Break out the torches and pitchforks... Lol but all Ford did was replace the chiseled lines, which were reminiscent of the iconic first generation (and really every subsequent generation but the 94-99), with bubbly curves, turning the car into just another post-90s "pill-shaped" American coupe.
The whole body is new. Nothing in the current Stang was carried over to the 2015. Independent Rear Suspension. What more could you ask for? Flat Crank V8? Yes. (Sounds like it anyways...)
It's the best Mustang because it finally looks like a modern car and incorporates modern design. They're finally catching up, if the 4cyl turbo model becomes the main model I'll like it even more.
now if only they would learn that there are bumps on a road far mightier than the ones on that track that are slowly grinding the bumper down.
The whole reason most people like the mustang is because of its classic looks. If you want an economy, European styled car, buy an economy European styled car. Don't take our mustang.
You're right, you'd think this picture was taken in the 60's from the amount of classic styling oozing from every panel
More like 1971-2004. Although I'm not dissing on the 1979-1993 foxbody, those were sweet little cars.
Well seeing as that is a 26 year gap (1974 is when that model started) covering different 3 generations. That means that since the beginning of production back in 1965 the mentioned years have taken up a higher percentage of the Mustangs overall life than the others combined. This means that overall a "true" mustang would be one based within those years as that is what it has been longer than anything else...
The only Mustangs I don't like are the 1994-1998's. Even the Mustang II has great potential. Lightweight+V8=Fun. That is with tuning of said V8... 139hp cough.
The 80s was just ford trying to get their shit together. I don't really count that. And the 90s mustangs were just so melty. They were still cool cars but damn they were ugly.
You must be blind. (imported from here) Also, while we're on this topic: I absolutely adore the new Mustang, but the way they designed the rear bumper and numberplate positioning just makes it look (imported from here)
Not disagreeing but... I honestly don't know where or how else they could have done it... It looks better than the plastic of the old one though....
Guys, I can settles this argument very quickly. It's shitty because it's a ford. Fastest muscle car ever made. End of story.
I own and drive a 1997 Ford Thunderbird LX, I live in the US, and the odd thing is, I kinda like European styled cars, and the Holden UTE or whatever that thing is is cool as well, although that is Australian, but GM, they need to bring that to the US. I saw a lot about the 2015 mustang in this thread, and my opinion on that design is that it looks like the car had eaten too much and got way too fat, I hate the way the rear is flared out so much and the front end could have come right off of a fusion with a face-lift. Also on the MPG standpoint, my Thunderbird gets about 17 mpg combined, it has the 4.6L SOHC 2 valves per cylinder, 201 HP, 380 odd ft-lb torque big american V8, it sounds bad ass when you put your foot in and its bone stock except for the plugs and wires. It is RWD and the only assist it has is crude ABS, so if you really want it to, you just give it a bit in a corner and the rear end slides out and you are in a race to control the thing, it is absolutely hilarious seeing peoples faces when I 'drift' the thing from almost a complete stop at an intersection, it just goes, and I have no complaints, haha. and the thing looks amazing as well. My mom has a 2012 GMC Terrain SLT2 with the 3.0L V6 and she gets around 18-20 combined, and my dad owns a 2006 GMC Sierra 2500 HD SLT with the 6.6L Duramax Turbo Diesel, that gets around 450 HP and 780 ft-lbs torque, and he gets around 15-17 combined because of the ultra low sulfur diesel shit, whenever he can he adds motor oil to his tank to help keep his injectors clean and also when he can get a hold of it, he fills it with hydraulic fluid, because of its higher sulfur content, on that he gets around 28-30 with his 9248 odd lb (curb weight) truck. Also I know that Europeans don't particularly like Diesels, and I don't know why that is, they are extremely useful, they might not accelerate as fast as a gasoline engine, and they aren't at responsive and don't sound as good as a gasoline engine, but they will run forever, even longer than a Honda engine, and they put out quite a bit more torque at lower RPMs because the power band is massive from the start. That is all I have to say for now. Here is photos of my Thunderbird
Haha, sorry. Fastest stock production muscle car ever. Which, of course, means it's faster than the stock version of the Shelby Gt 1000.
