2015 Ford Mustang / Shelby GT350 Official - 5.2L FPC with 500+hp/400+ lb-ft

[Levi]

Originally Posted by dem00n

I'm just tired of cars trying to look like other cars...

It will always be that way; when the cars look different, nobody likes them because they are ugly.

[Wes B.]

Originally Posted by muffinman

What? U wanna see a mustang that weighs 150+ pounds less than a frs? Even with a turbo 4 base model I don't see how that could be physically possible from the factory.

'64-'66 Mustangs weighed 2,445 lbs with a 2.8l I6 and a 4-speed manual. I'm simply saying it would be nice if Ford would produce another super-light pony car rather than the overweight ostentatious "muscle" car they are currently producing.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by jaynutter2

It wouldn't be a muscle car if it wasn't big and bulky. That is one of the traits that make it a muscle car and not an FR-S or Miata. I will likely be buying a 2015 Mustang GT or 2015 Nissan 370Z/390Z, and keeping my FR-S. The FR-S is fun and a great daily driver, but nothing feels as great as a crude 'Merican V8 muscle car.

Rather than produce a lightweight Mustang, I would prefer Ford to create an AWD Focus ST with a turbo 4 or something along that line.

if you would rather they make an awd st over a lightweight mustang, why did you buy the frs over a wrx?

[Wes B.]

Originally Posted by jaynutter2

It wouldn't be a muscle car if it wasn't big and bulky. That is one of the traits that make it a muscle car and not an FR-S or Miata. I will likely be buying a 2015 Mustang GT or 2015 Nissan 370Z/390Z, and keeping my FR-S. The FR-S is fun and a great daily driver, but nothing feels as great as a crude 'Merican V8 muscle car.

Rather than produce a lightweight Mustang, I would prefer Ford to create an AWD Focus ST with a turbo 4 or something along that line.

The Mustang was introduced as a Pony Car, not a muscle car. You wanted a Ford muscle car from the early 60s, then you pretty much had to buy the Ford Fairlane Thunderbolt.

The Pony Car class consisted of American sports-like coupes with long hoods and short rear decks (sounds more or less like an FR-S).

[Books]

Originally Posted by chadstyle

Wow! If that's your bag then save some $$ and hit up the local hospice and take some poor guy whale watching.

I've been in the auto industry my whole life...never heard anyone compare something they think is "cool" to an old man or a whale let alone both in the same sentence.

well 'cool' as in it looks nice. I guess this design reminds me of an 'old man' in the sense that the front looks droopy... like a Maserati Quattroporte, 7 series, or maybe a new Acura sedan. Those cars are... cool... but not quite my fancy.

It's the lower squinting headlights and lowered grill that gives it a sense of 'elegance' (?) aka old. Like an old man with reading glasses reading a newspaper.

And for the whale... that last pic of the Boss 302... All I can think of is this: (cue whale calls)

[carbonBLUE]

Originally Posted by Levi

It will always be that way; when the cars look different, nobody likes them because they are ugly.

the FRS/BRZ/GT86 doesnt really look like anything and its pretty... just like the supra really doesnt look like anything... still pretty 20 years later..

[Morg]

I think debating the terminology is a little bit off topic, but as appropriate as the pony car term might be, rather than muscle car. I think they are definately more commonly referred to as muscle cars rather than pony cars. It's more catchy, and either way both words refer to old school styling. I agree, there is a difference between the old pony/muscle (as pointed out, the weight & size primarily)... but even the biggest gear heads often just call em muscle.

Either way it doesn't matter, as the point I was getting at, was not whether it's this word nor that word. It's the fact that the styling is steering away from the little remaining of those old styles.. and more towards modern styling that is not as uniquely distinct when compared to the offerings of other brands.

You can find tons of curvy coupes that have similarities these days.. But the Mustang/Chally/Camaro's stand out in part because they aren't one of "those". And not to say that modern styling is bad.... but I think part of the allure of these cars is that retro essence. It's definately wise to mesh it together with modern style for the sake of being current/new/appealing to todays generations.

For me it's part of the overall attitude. And although I'd still be impressed by modern styled performance cars... It's just not the same. I love the 86 styling but...... it doesn't ever appeal to me in the same way that the big 3 american coupes do.

The silhouette of the car & driver concept image for example.... reallllllly looks similar to so many imports and euro coupes. Doesn't stand out instantly as it lacks that distinct silhouette that you see in the modern muscle/pony cars.

And I'm not even too picky about whether they are "big & bulky" as I'd be just as happy if they put them on a diet and scaled them down.

If they just released the '15 as a the Ford Evos... which I believe was the original concept term... That woulda been sweet. But I guess there's no logic in selling two different RWD coupes to compete with eachother.

Anyway don't get me wrong I think it looks great. And I certainly wouldn't be dissappointed to find one in the garage at some point in the future. It wouldn't be my 1st choice Mustang though. I think it will be badass either way.

Can't wait to hear the new exhaust notes though.. Wonder how much of that distinct mustang sound will remain if any.

[Morg]

Originally Posted by carbonBLUE

the FRS/BRZ/GT86 doesnt really look like anything and its pretty... just like the supra really doesnt look like anything... still pretty 20 years later..

I think the curvy silhouettes are compareable to a lot of small coupes. But I agree that they are unique looking in the bigger picture. I could see one from the corner of my eye and immediately know what it was.

However, a lot of people (who obviously don't know their cars) seem to confuse them with all kinds of other cars... Maserati Ferrari Viper Vette Porsche Supra RX 7/8 ... to list some of the cars I've heard them confused with.... That said... I don't think it's insulting at all to be mistaken for any of those cars given the caliber of vehicle they all are. And imo, they are all for the most part attractive rides.

To me though, the silhouette is a huge factor in the look of a vehicle... Coming from a bit of an art background.... That is kind of the first thing you think of in designing a lot of concepts.

You could tweak ONE silhouette and fill it in with any number of variations in the details.. and they would all turn out to be unique concept designs.. But if you designed each silhouette individually and seperated them distinctly they would really stand out more. And be more easily recognizeable to the non car-folk.

The silhouette really decides the "type" or classification people would lump it into. For example, driving my Camaro... I never once had a person mistake it for any of the coupe's I mentioned that a BRZ gets mistaken for... Pretty much without fail, everyone who confused my car... Confused it for either a Mustang or a Challenger/Charger... Pretty much the silhouette of the car to them represented "Muscle car" so they just pulled the first "muscle" name they could think of and assumed it was that.

[Rayme]

Originally Posted by carbonBLUE

the FRS/BRZ/GT86 doesnt really look like anything and its pretty... just like the supra really doesnt look like anything... still pretty 20 years later..

It looks like an old toyota !

[ZDan]

Worth noting: The original '64 1/2 - '66 Mustang was essentially the FR-S/BRZ of its day, and only weighed ~2700 lb! The originals were indeed PONY cars, not muscle cars. Given the size/weight of the '05+ Mustangs, they are definitely (note spelling!) more in the muscle car realm, as are the modern Challenger and Camaro. The Camaro and Challenger have SERIOUS weight issues! And they sit so HIGH. That's what you get when you try to build a "sporty" coupe on a MASSIVE sedan platform

[Morg]

Ok.. But I didn't say they weren't pony cars. I was more or less saying it is irrelevant.

A Pony car basically IS a Muscle car. You could debate that to the end of the world. Not all Muscle cars are Pony cars... But a Pony car still satisfies the definition of a Muscle car. Compact or not, it's still an American high HP "affordable" rwd coupe suited for the street or the strip. You will find the Mustang on both "Muscle car" and "Pony car" lists.

Muscle car is a term used to refer to a variety of high-performance [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile"]Automobile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame].[1] The [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster%27s_Dictionary"]Webster's Dictionary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] dictionary defines muscle cars as "any of a group of American-made 2-door sports coupes with powerful engines designed for high-performance driving."

And be realistic here, the 64 was more or less a 65... And the mustang had already reached modern Mustang weights by 69-71. (Much sooner than 2005)

The light weight lasted 2ish years? And then jumped nearly 500 lbs. And then by 69-71 they were already in the 3100-3500+ neighborhood. They shed a little weight in the 80's but jumped right back up to modern weights for the redesign.

The Mustang has just as much history as a "Muscle car" as it does as specifically a Pony car.. which I'd still argue to be a sub-genre of Muscle cars.

Moving on..
Not sure what the FR-S/BRZ has to do with Pony/Muscle cars. The ft86 is related to the ae86... Not the old Mustang.

The 64-66 stangs were really nothing like the FR-S/BRZ. I'd say comparing them based on weight alone is a stretch.

The current 86 was designed with a very specific driving dynamic in mind.. Minimal power, with a focus on handling and balance. The kind of balance & handling that I'm pretty sure did not exist in the old Mustangs.

The 64-66 stang's were about the cheap power that the Muscle cars have always been more about. The handling seems to be more of an afterthought in the form of "track packs" and such. Nothing compared to the low COG & balance in the ft86.

Safe to say I don't need to elaborate on the differences in torque... As even most of the old Mustangs had more torque than the current 86.

I also think the '64 stang had a much larger historical impact, and appealed to a different kind of car culture. It was that car, that really inspired the birth of a long history of magnificent cars from different brands. (Including toyota)

The '64 stang as well as the modern Muscle exist for a culture that likes to stack absurd amounts of power and go fast in a straight line. Street & drag cars. Marketed with rear seats to still have some appeal as daily drivers.

The FT86 is not about that whatsoever. You'd be hard pressed to get one to move quick in a straight line... It is about the handling/balance...(If anything the rear seats were the after thought for insurance purposes... more so than DD purposes. )

The ae86 was appreciated for it's handling... Not it's power..And not the drag strip.... As the ae86 was underpowered for it's time too, but a very well balanced lightweight platform which made it a fun car that was ideal for modifying and whipping around a track.

Thanks for the spelling correction. Not sure I see the need for that though in a casual forum post.

I think it is interesting that people seem to take issue with those of us who enjoy the retro styling influences that have always existed in Mustang designs throughout it's history... And also, do not confuse "retro styling" as having anything to do with weight or size. You could scale down the size of the current "Muscle" cars, and retain the exact same styling. So all these weight arguments are irrelevant.

And as I already stated, late 60's early 70's they already reached modern Muscle car weights. It's not such a new development.

But yeah, the Mustang has pretty much always been influenced by it's roots. The '15 has some to it too. Just not as much. I just think if they step too far away from 50'ish years of consistency.... It would feel weird to call it a Mustang.

Not that "Modern" styling is bad. The '15 concept looks great. I'm really just curious how far from "Mustang" they're willing to go before they come up with a new name. To be honest, I feel like they came up with a fantastic new car called the "Evos" but, because the Evos is new it has no history to help push sales.

The Mustang however is the grandfather of affordable RWD high powered go fast coupes. That history = sales just by using the name... Not everyone would want to go buy the new Evos... but the new Mustang? Guaranteed sales.

If it wasn't called a Mustang, and was instead labelled Evos I would wager a handful of people might be tempted by a 13 or older stang, or even move on to a Camaro or Challenger instead.

So I think using the Mustang name for the '15 is more about selling a new design.. And less about heritage.
Basically my argument is not that they shouldn't design NEW cars. I just think new cars deserve new names. Let Mustangs be Mustangs. Let an Evos be an Evos imo.

[stilletto]

These renderings are extreme! I think the current generation looks great. Thoughts of owning a 5.0 have crossed my mind many a time, but the car's just SO big!

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by Wes B.

It would be nice to see a sub-2,500lb Mustang.

Sub 2500lb Mustang?!?! Hell, I'll take a brand new Sub 2500lb anything that's not a lotus or an ariel atom type vehicle.

[SubieNate]

I don't think the Fox bodies looked anything like the original Mustangs. They seemed to sell okay.

That said, I'm personally less worried about the styling and more hoping they scale it down to about 8/10ths it's current size. It's just too massive. The thing is as long and big as most 4 door sedans.

As far as the 64-68's being about power, yes, they did get power a few years after the introduction, but you'd be hard pressed to call the original 289 a real power monster even when compared to the competition of the day.

Nathan