Prediction: 2010 Ford Mustang to Be Design Dud
Ducati Minor
I normally try to stay positive...20% of the time. But I'm going to have to bring out the negativity card on Ford's '10 Mustang. I understand this is meant to be a facelift and slight improvement, but this thing doesn't look to be much of a change from the model we've had since '05. Ford's set to premiere it on Speed TV. Is this just my own (sexy) skepticism? Or does this look to be an overrated gimmick?
- Discuss (32 comments)
- Digg It
- Del.icio.us
- StumbleUpon
Popular Sections
- European Car Talk (German, British, Italian, Swedish)
- Tuning and Project Cars
- Automotive Technology and the Driver
- Automotive Industry
- European Car Talk (German, British, Italian, Swedish)
Lear
This is mostly a restyle isn't it?
So, if design = styling, then this seems pretty mild and I think will be a bit of a dud. Like each new 911, it is hard to get excited and easy to be slightly disappointed.
If design is more than styling, well, this is just the 2009 Bullitt as far as I can tell. I like the Mustang from a driving perspective (fun per dollar is pretty high), so that isn't bad, but its no big deal either.
My only question: where's the Ecotec motor?
Mena
"My only question: where's the Ecotec motor?"
I think Ford is still trying to decide if anyone will buy a V6 Mustang when there is no V8 available. Even V6 Mustang buyers are influenced by the V8 availability. I think it will depend on how they market it. It will have to make a LOT more power AND torque than the current V8 for sure. I would make a 2011 or 2012 Concept Twin-Turbo Mustang and drag it around the country and see what people think about it. Make it an actual runner and let the car mags have a crack at it too. Hype. Hype. Hype. Make sure everyone hears about it.
Lear
Mena -- your plan is good, but I wouldn't replace the V8 in this car. Maybe your point is that with Ecotec (which has similar hp and maybe torque to the 4.6 V8?), the V8 would have to be stronger, and I'd agree.
I'm also not sure I'd wait so darn long. What does Detroit have to be a slow follower in everything? That's the way to keep the reputation for being dolts, eh?
Mena
Ford is considering replacing the V8 with a twin-turbo V6 (Ecoboost) in order to meet CAFE requirements. No one's going to buy a twin-turbo V6 when a V8 is available, more hp or not. If it happens, it will be a replacement.
compassstl
It's EcoBoost, not ecotec. Ecotec is a GM I-4 motor. The EcoBoost is not going to debut until late 2009 or as late as early 2010, and is to debut in one of the Lincoln models, probably the MKS, but will quickly be released across the FoMoCo board, in Ford, Mercury, Lincoln, and Mazda engine bays, but not Volvos.
As for the design, I think it's excellent overall, but my biggest complaint is with the oddball rear. It differentiates itself well from the rest of the reborn retro musclecar crowd, but unfortunately the Mustang has more history than those other vehicles, and can draw on much better design cues for styling, such as the GT concept that debuted in 2003 for the current-generation Mustang. That concept, if you recall, had excellent '68 Shelby GT500-inspired taillights (Mercury Cougar lights with the chrome removed, more or less). The upswept rear bumper cover is the most perplexing, as it looks nothing like prior Mustangs, and its only styling cue would be from the Guigaro Mustang concept that debuted in '07 or '08, as far as I can tell, and that rear end was also the weakest part of that vehicle.
As for the new Mustang logo, I think it's fine, though somewhat unneccessary. Yes it looks more chiseled and the dark one on the GT blends in nicely with the grille, but I think if updating and refining the pony was the intent, it could have gone much further.
I hope it's a sales sucess, as I must give kudos to Ford for not accepting the bail-out package; they seem to have the best foothold on their future, and seem to be thinking with sense and purpose rather than their pockets/wallets.
AutoObserver
Nice exterior facelift with improved interior styling and amenities. Think it will keep the vehicle competitive and worthy of consideration.
Derek
I agree with Lear. The Porsche 911 still looks basically the same as it did in 1963 but that doesn't seem to be a bad thing.
The current look is pretty much like in 2005, but also pretty much like the 1964 Mustang too. When people think "Mustang", that is the look that most people would pick. It has a profile that is instantly recognizable as a Mustang even by non-car people. Stop trying to come up with an all new look every few years and put the money elsewhere to make a great product. I applaud Ford for having the restraint to go this direction and hope that other companies will follow suit (Chevy, are you listening?)
Ian
While the wonderful Jeremy Clarkson from the BBC's Top Gear says in despair that Porsche has the "world's laziest designers", I think Derek is right in pointing to the value of a seamless transition of an iconic design over the years. The 2010 Mustang fits well in that arc without (as so often happens) cheapening the intrinsic image of the 'brand' - as happened in the 90's with the Mustang. And don't even think about the cruel decline of the Thunderbird in the 80's.
A far more serious concern in my view is the stubborn refusal to acknowledge that suspensions need a bit more sophistication in 2010 than they did in 1964. We keep hearing that the 2005 Mustang was designed with a modern independent rear suspension, and that the dim money drones prevailed on management and had the beam axle put back at the back. Bad move in an auto industry struggling to avoid the dinosaur tag and compete with cars from Europe and Japan, virtually all of which are rather more clever in the suspension department!
Wasn't there - a couple of years ago - a Mercury or Lincoln show car based on the Mustang architecture which actually had the 'real' rear suspension. Bring it on!
RedRyder
Actually the 2003/2004 Mustang Cobra had independent rear suspension as does the 2008 sporttrac/explorer (if no other fords). Certainly money may have played a part or the fact that many buyers still only want to go fast in a straight line. The 2010 is a classic if not mind boggling design. Many of us that are still around know that a six is still a six regardless of how "powerful" it is and it just ain't an eight. Heck, I turn off the radio and roll down the window just to listen to a GT. :-)
compassstl
Kudos to watching Top Gear. :)
As for the suspension, I can understand the financial considerations inherent in an IRS. I have an IRS on my car and it's much more expensive to work on and replace components than SLA setups, which would be problematic for owners, especially those that modify their vehicles: swapping out the rear diff is much easier on a SLA car than an IRS; I'd have to replace my entire rear assembly on my vehicle if I wanted a diferent diff setup (which I don't, thank goodness). So price and flexibility were important to the Mustang engineers; maybe the next full redesign rather than reskinning and updating the interior quality (which was very much needed!) will bring the long-awaited IRS if enough Mustang owners make an issue of it to Ford.
Mena
The issue is not expense as GM put out two sports cars with IRS (a nice one at that) at a $19k base price point. Other, much more mundane, cars have IRS's with no added expense to the owners. That argument just doesn't hold water anymore. Quite frankly, there's no reason, other than nostalgia, to have a beam axle in a 2010 car.
Kevin
I have to agree the new Mustang is not what Iwas hoping for,
When the 05 came out I was dissapointed in the way it looked. The body lines could have been sharper and the back of the car is borring. Also the interior has too much hard pastic which makes it look cheap. So I was really looking forward to the 2010 (I have a 03 Roush) hoping it would have more of those Classic Mustang lines.
From the side the new car looks better but again the tail end is just wrong, and all of the black plastic around the bottom of the car looks cheap. It makes the car look dated, kind of 80's instead of updated.
I am rethinking my opinion of the 05-09 Mustang and may have start shoping for one. As it turns out the current Mustang may wind up being the best answer to the classic Mustang for some years to come. Like the Porche 911 that classic Mustang look has never gone out of style or become borring. I can only hope that the aftermarket will do something with the bumpers and hood and then the car can loose that ugly plastic.
Tiemco
The designers really dropped the ball on this restyle. The new front bumper is too massive, it distorts the proportions of the whole front end. The headlights are too small, or maybe they just appear that way. I don't understand why they made the front end come to a point, it is not part of the mustang design language, and it looks like the new camaro. The side view on this car is good, as the lines are horizontal, and don't rise as they go back in keeping with the original mustangs of the sixties. The rear end, while better than the outgoing model, is still too monolithic, and the angle of the back doesn't really work. I understand the three bar design of the tail lights, but the shape and proportion are awkward. The Guigaro (sp?) design was much better, especially the front. I would have liked to see a lot more of that design in the new car, except for the Lamborghini style doors.
Stang Fanatic
"I normally try to stay positive...20% of the time. But I'm going to have to bring out the negativity card on Ford's '10 Mustang. I understand this is meant to be a facelift and slight improvement, but this thing doesn't look to be much of a change from the model we've had since '05. Ford's set to premiere it on Speed TV. Is this just my own (sexy) skepticism? Or does this look to be an overrated gimmick?"
Sadly I agree with you. My biggest pet peeve is the tailights. They should not vary from the original equally sized shape imo.
On the other hand I would buy a twin turboed V6 model.
Pro-197
I vote DUD, I think they really messed up the front end, I like the present one much better, but honestly, Ford styling has always been a total mystery to me in general. I like the older 60's Mustang's looks, but from 71 until the last generations have ranged from blah, to whoa, that's ugly!
Everybody has their own likes and dislikes, but in my opinion, in the retro pony car styling contest, the Challenger blows the current Mustang away, looks wise, just like it did about 38 years ago.
flamarcella
I Test Drive Cars for Roush Industries, ( not race cars.... DARN !) mostly the new cars comming out, we are testing the new 2010 Shelby Cobra GT 500 SVT right now, fantastic car, lots of fun to drive !! Makes me want one but I would get into too much trouble with this one, it is so powerful! Personally I love the sequential turn signals in the rear, it is very eye catching.
I am a new member to winding road, that is why my comments are so far behind everyone else!
also I couldn't see paying the price for this car even though it is incredibly fun to drive, We also had the Challengers last April and as far as performance goes I like the Challenger better, and at half the price ! Plus it has heated seats where the Shelby doesn't even have that! But the red and black leather on the seats are beautiful!! But I do love the Grabber blue paint job! it is very eye catching with the red stripes!
Of the Challengers we had 3 different ones, The best and fastest was the 6.1 with the 6 speed manual transmission, but we got that one with out the speed controll installed and let me tell you, you had to be extremely careful with that car, just normal take off from a stop and you are burning the tires!! They all had flight recorders so we weren't allowed to play with them ,DARN !!
Poplifedc
I saw the '05 Mustang at the New York Auto show in 2004 and couldn't wait to get one. I have an '05 GT Vert and couldn't be happier. I'm also on my 3rd Corvette but for thrills I drive the Mustang the most.
The only thing I don't like about the 2010 Mustang is the rear. It just don't work. Everything else is fine and the interior is the biggest improvement. Still, it won't be confused with anything else on the road.
Anonymous
The whole idea of the new Mustang is that it is supposed to look like a modern version of the original. If you screw with the design too much it will look like a V.W. or something. Guess how many of those they'd sell.....
JETSOLVER
Tell me this whole thing doesn't smack of the same thing we went through with the death of the musclecar some 35 years ago. Evolutionary styling, endless gnashing of teeth, and a refusal to see performance as more than one dimensional.
And yet the best years recently of Mustang sales where when the styling was not a sales cue, and V6 sales outstripped the V8, and the range topper was the very well balanced and accessible SVT Cobra.
And now? With the much ballyhooed 05 model, and the shocking change in the model mix to favour V8's, a mild evolutionary style tweak, and endless promises of magical beans to power the thing, combined with an unacceptable and pretty much unreachable range topper(oh yea, I was one of those former customers screwed over with the $helby thing), here we are watching sales tank.
All that is old is new again at Ford.
I would like to say that if they get their crap together and build a REAL successor to the BOSS 302, a superior performing and well balanced car, I would be back in a heartbeat.
But, it ain't so.
I ordered a CTS-V to replace my Cayman, all money that I would have gladly spent on the GT-500 and parts for it. Ford got greedy and lost focus, and now it turns out that I wasn't the only customer who felt they no longer mattered to Ford.
So restyle away FoMoCo, I could pretty much care less.
Les
I think the mustang still is ugly and the only ones that were decent were 1969/70 and the mustang Grande of '70 or '71. All the rest are basket balls or boxes.
Black C5
The current Mustang is arguably the nicest ever; why would they want to start with a clean sheet of paper?
Anonymous
Restyling?
Where's the hope for a proper "Pony car" with the current bloated platform? At what point did we think a 4,000 lb car could be a true pony car; economical and sporty? The temporarily lower gas prices aside, it is time for "come to Jesus" meeting for Ford. Find the low weight/fuel efficient religion or forgo the sports car niche. Think less mass = more fun! Oh, and better fuel economy which, I know, is blasphemy for North American sports cars.
compassstl
That would be wonderful! Much like what Shelby did with their new Terlingua vehicle, but design the engine (the heaviest and most awkwardness-causing component of the current car's handling, IMO rather than the SLA on the rear) to be even lighter, which I hope they're doing with the EcoBoost model.
I had heard some rumors about a "baby Mustang"... which would be pretty cool, especially if it used the Mazda turbocharged 2.3 I4 of the Focus RS/ Volvo turbocharged I5 motor for power. Heck, just make it a new model, something that doesn't start with F. Slot it between (or below) the Focus RS when it comes to North America and the V6 EcoBoost Mustang and it'd probably do pretty well.
Blue Oval Guy
I've always been a Ford guy but I'm disappointed with the amount of power or lack thereof they squeeze out of their engines.I have a 2004 Mercury Marauder with the 4.6 DOHC 4 Valve engine that produces 302 horsepower.Now that's not too bad compared to the single cam 2 valve 4.6 standard in the Grand Marquis in 2004 which produced around 210 horses,at least not until you compare it to my son's 2004 Audi S4.That car has a 4.3 that produces over 340 horses,and now the new Hyundai Genesis has a 4.6 that produces 375 horsepower! And that in a car that that lists for the same $35,000 my Marauder did.
What's my point? Ford needs to wake up and get it's engineers working to get it's engines producing world class horsepower and torque again.lately the only way they can get over 315 hp out of it's engines is to supercharge them.That works well in the Shelby GT500's and it did also in the Ford GT,but not everyone wants or can afford a specialty car but would gladly shell out a bit more money for a at least 350 hp in a Mustang or even a Crown Vic or a Grand Marquis.Hint hint,a new upgraded 375+ hp Marauder with a nice list of options would get me to trade in my 2004 along with a lot of other Marauder guys that are tiring of theirs and selling them now and replacing them with various SRT8's .Now Chevy is coming out with the new Camaro and it's going to have 300 horsepower in the V6 base car ! Ford is getting maybe 315 hp out of it's 2009 V8 Mustang and only 210 from it's V6,I won't even go into what the Camaro's V8 will put out but it will or should embarass the 4.6 3 valve Ford V8 badly,and that's with a push rod ancient technology engine.
Come on Ford,build a Mustang with some real power and quit dragging your feet,heck,if you built a new Mustang with a 300 hp V6 I'd seriously consider buying one.I'm sure the aftermarket tuners ( like Alternative Automotive) could easily squeeze enough power out of one so it could at least walk side by side in acceleration with a current 4.6 3 valve plus out handle and out brake it and get better gas mileage with the lighter weight and better weight distribution.If they could throw a 350-375 horsepower V8 in the Mustang they could keep a lot of the sales they're going to lose to the new Camaro and are already losing to the Challenger.Maybe they need to hire some Chevy or Chrysler or even Hyundai engine designers.
Of course that's just my $.02 from my 40+ years of driving,hot rodding and racing experience.
compassstl
Yes. Thank you! Glad to know it's not just me who feels this way. :)
Black C5
It isn't a question that Ford needs to include higher performance in the Mustang design. If we are talking about styling, the Mustang has a nice mix of retro and modern, but when it comes to the four thousand pounds and inadequate horsepower, the Mustang is WAY behind the competition. 3200 pounds and 400 horsepower would put the Mustang back in the performance game. Many of the V6 buyers feel like they have a V8 and often buy them for the Mustang V8 image they feel when driving their V6 cars. Corvette got the message, put their cars on a diet, and produced the bet Vette yet. In the performance arena, Ford needs to get on the stick!
Anonymous
Considering Ford's selection of vehicles, I don't think Ford can afford to screw up it's mileage averages and meet Cafe standards with a big V8 that is not a special order item. The big Continental and Marauder are platforms of the past (unless it is for police). What's the problem with a GT-R engine in a Mustang?
Pony Pirate
First, the '10 GT will only come with cold intake, giving a negligible 5% boost in power, an increase of only 15 HP, while making premium gas mandatory. Am not sure the added cost at the pump is worth this small amount of additional power. I would have preferred cold intake to be an option, not mandatory.
Second, body redesign is OK, no more. Overall impression is of a sleeker, smoothed out, and less aggressive car. Taking away the raised wheel wells, smoothing them out into the body, makes the car look more bland, conforming to the look of most cars, taming slightly the aggressive stance of the car. Similarly, changes in the front-end work to smooth the look, reduce the aggression. But isn't aggression the basic spirit of Mustang, a loud car that goes fast?
Interior changes also make the Mustang look more like any other car and are, imo, totally unnecessary.
I wish an 18-inch version of the GT500 wheel would be made available.
I also wish independent rear suspension would be made an option.
Basically, this is just a fashion move, change for the sake of change, intended to give the illusion of something new, something different.
myyvaine
i find the new mustang fabulous .... it is normal to keep the look alike the old one and it is not boring at all , i find it natural like all car makers do to keep their DNA intact , the major change came in 2005 when they brought the look of the old mustangs but it had succes and they had to continue with it
Anonymous
The redesign misses on all fronts, except maybe the interior. The teaser releases we saw in Car and Driver and Motor Trend, was a much prettier and cleaner looking update.
The 05'09 was the next best thing to an early gen 'Stang. It also could have been a little more retro and been even better, but the '10 is less retro and looks like somebody tried too hard and it just doesn't flow.
Thanks Ford, for a Celica rear end! Terrible! The previous is WAY better and gives the impression of a '69. Ford could have changed the tail lights to resemble a '67 or even '70 and it would have looked cool.
The front end is also much nicer on the previous design. More proportional and clean.
This was the chance to make right what was left off the previous design, such as a real "C" shape to the side sheet metal, instead of retaining the hockey stick.
Now I'm really glad I have an '06 GT!! I will hang onto it! It may be a bit plain in design, but is much cleaner looking and no tacky black plastic around the bottom and back. What the hell is Ford thinking?
There are too many '05-'09's around to be worth anything for years to come, like a '67-70 would bring, but no question, it's going to be the next classic 'Stang to hang onto, imho!
Ducati Minor
That may happen.
The '10 GT will run you over $30K now. That's a lot of dough. Given the poor economy, weak credit system, fresh competition, and consumer shift to "smaller is better," the revised 'Stang will sell in lower volume for the mid-term at least. Poorer sales will mean fewer on the road and likely desirability in the future.
I'd bet the Camaro would fare better in that road, though. It's meant to sell in much lower numbers to begin with. If it flops--more for the collector.
EnchantinQ
<a href="http://www.guzelsozler.Name " title="güzel sözler , güzel MesajLar" target="_blank">guzel sozler</a>