People hate change, u see it everywhere on this forum and all over the internet. they also forget enthusiasts are a tiny fraction of the buyers.
thoughts on a 15
- Thread starter steedafever
- Start date
Not too interested in waiting to potentially buy one. Maybe down the road pick up the 16/17 Mach1/GT once any bugs gets fixed.
Interior is amazing.
Interior is amazing.
That's an enticing point, but then where does it end? I mean, why not have woodgrain interior, moonroofs, dvd video screens in the back of the headrests, velvet seats, etc. just cram every luxury amenity that will fit inside the car. My humble opinion is that there are cars "for that". And then there are cars that are meant to rip asphalt. Two different cars. And usually, two different drivers.
Oddly enough there is a luxury horsepower market (CTS-V, SRT-8, Chevy SS) emerging, but Mustang is an odd duck in that mix..I guess it will be options and different models. Its just weird to me still.
And since I don't daily drive my Mustang, I'm not coming at this from the "grocery getter", "sit in traffic every day" point of view. So I don't need or want fancy luxuries in my pony car.
Last edited:
I like change if it's an improvement. Taking a muscular looking performance car and turning into just another slick grocery getter with mag wheels ain't much of an improvement IMO. You're right though, enthusiasts are a tiny fraction of the buyers, at least in the overall picture. But enthusiasts are the majority buyers of the performance versions. 97% of newer Mustangs I see on the road are NOT the cool 5.0 GTs although they still look cool.
If you don't like the looks, that is one thing. If you think this car is just another "slick grocery getter", you really don't see the whole picture.
I suppose the *whole* picture is that the grocery getter look is just a disguise for the Mustang lurking under all of that mild mannered sheet metal? Are Americans supposed to surrender the Muscle car look so as not to offend the French now?
The car is lower, wider, has much more pronounced hips and flares, a very sleek fastback similar to 69-70, and a more mustang like nose the any II, fox or sn95... yet its a "grocery getter" that doesnt look like a mustang? What is your idea of more muscular? A brick of a car with straight lines and slab sides?
This,
Um, yeah I can see the resemblance to the 69-70 fastback you're talking about. Not!:lol:
And BTW, the above is what is meant by Muscular, musclecar and so on.
Now to my eyes, the 2015 Mustang with it's lower wider flares etc. looks more like:
But that's just me.
The only resemblance to the accord is the trailing edge of the 1/4 windows. Otherwise the coke bottle taper, front arches, rear hips and general proportions are completely different. Yet people always get hung up on that quarter window shape. I've had at least 12 65-70 shelbys (plus the occasional b302 or b9) in my shop at any given time over the last 8 yrs. We currently have 13 shelbys. I have a decent idea what a mustang looks like, and I'd say ford knows pretty well too. I can also say the car looks much better in person. I spent at least a hr a day for 4 days staring at the dib gt at BJ. i'm surrounded by oldschool mustangs every day, and I cant wait to buy a '15 GT. I also know plenty of people who agree with me.
I agree with you
I can just see these guys that think they know Mustangs that are fanboys of the 2015 going *oh look at that wicked cool 2015 Stang coming down the road, looks just like a 1969 fastback!* until they realize it was a Nissan or Honda.
By grocery getter I mean smaller engine (various models I know), better gas mileage, interior "luxuries". Softer exterior lines so as to not offend the French, etc. So yes, its obvious they have softened the car and made it appeal to a broader audience. And in doing that, it loses some of its soul. Just my opinion. It may change. Its a fine car for what it is, just different. And I await the SVT models. Ok?
And FWIW, the whole "swept back" squinty headlights IS derived from European and Asian vehicles. Its plain to see that comparison. So we got asian front end and retro-ish back end...:shrug:
And FWIW, the whole "swept back" squinty headlights IS derived from European and Asian vehicles. Its plain to see that comparison. So we got asian front end and retro-ish back end...:shrug:
Last edited:
Now to my eyes, the 2015 Mustang with it's lower wider flares etc. looks more like:
But that's just me.
And its the absence of the B pillar that now makes the mustang profile look a lot like these other cars. I want my B pillar back.
Excellent post. Yes we get the obviously Asian inspired front end (Fail) mixed with a pretty decent lookin retro rear. I know this is just MY opinion but the combination of two wildly different body styles shows the extreme lack of taste and innovation of the new Mustangs designers. Didn't anyone in the board room say "Hold it a minute. Is this some kind of sick joke?" "I just saw this car on the road on the way in, I think it said something like Nissan or Honda on the back!" "Now quit screwing around and show us the real new Mustang you came up with!"
And the answer is apparently not.
I drive and own both Mustangs and Jeeps Wranglers (I know, I never really made it out of high school 
and this conversation about the '15 being "too nice" reminds me very much of some of the conversations that I've seen over on the Jeep forums.
My 2 door 2014 Wrangler Rubicon has heated leather seats and mirrors along with a silky smooth and powerful V6.... I've been driving since the mid 80's and I never thought I would own a Wrangler this comfortable and capable. Many of the "purists" shun the new Wranglers as just being too nice. Sound familiar?
But I encourage everyone to take a look around the grocery store or mall parking lot the next time you are out. The newer model Jeep Wranglers are everywhere. The 2012 Wrangler sold about 192,000 units with the Toledo plant running 20hrs a day and 6 days a week trying to keep up with demand. The options and comfort features certainly appear to be driving mass market appeal....
If we compare that with the previous model Wrangler (TJ available '98-06), they averaged about 75,000 units per year.
For comparison, our beloved Mustang has averaged just under 70,000 units for the past several years....
As purists we always have to remember that the grocery getters (and associated mass market features) are what keeps our favorite toys in production and allows Ford to build GT500's and allows Jeep to build Rubicon's.
and this conversation about the '15 being "too nice" reminds me very much of some of the conversations that I've seen over on the Jeep forums. My 2 door 2014 Wrangler Rubicon has heated leather seats and mirrors along with a silky smooth and powerful V6.... I've been driving since the mid 80's and I never thought I would own a Wrangler this comfortable and capable. Many of the "purists" shun the new Wranglers as just being too nice. Sound familiar?
But I encourage everyone to take a look around the grocery store or mall parking lot the next time you are out. The newer model Jeep Wranglers are everywhere. The 2012 Wrangler sold about 192,000 units with the Toledo plant running 20hrs a day and 6 days a week trying to keep up with demand. The options and comfort features certainly appear to be driving mass market appeal....
If we compare that with the previous model Wrangler (TJ available '98-06), they averaged about 75,000 units per year.
For comparison, our beloved Mustang has averaged just under 70,000 units for the past several years....
As purists we always have to remember that the grocery getters (and associated mass market features) are what keeps our favorite toys in production and allows Ford to build GT500's and allows Jeep to build Rubicon's.
I drive and own both Mustangs and Jeeps Wranglers (I know, I never really made it out of high school
My 2 door 2014 Wrangler Rubicon has heated leather seats and mirrors along with a silky smooth and powerful V6.... I've been driving since the mid 80's and I never thought I would own a Wrangler this comfortable and capable. Many of the "purists" shun the new Wranglers as just being too nice. Sound familiar?
But I encourage everyone to take a look around the grocery store or mall parking lot the next time you are out. The newer model Jeep Wranglers are everywhere. The 2012 Wrangler sold about 192,000 units with the Toledo plant running 20hrs a day and 6 days a week trying to keep up with demand. The options and comfort features certainly appear to be driving mass market appeal....
If we compare that with the previous model Wrangler (TJ available '98-06), they averaged about 75,000 units per year.
For comparison, our beloved Mustang has averaged just under 70,000 units for the past several years....
As purists we always have to remember that the grocery getters (and associated mass market features) are what keeps our favorite toys in production and allows Ford to build GT500's and allows Jeep to build Rubicon's.
Well said, complaints the car is toooooo good are for the weak of mind
That's stupid. :bs:
First of all 'toooo good' is in the mind of the beholder. If people want a luxury muscle car, that's one thing. Perhaps the new design attracts more grocery getters. And I agree with the previous post that it subsidizes the specialty cars the rest of us prefer. So that's fine.
But to say that because "the rest of us" don't want all the extra bells and whistles we are weak minded is ridiculous. :bash:
I could care less about whether it has too many luxury features or if it doesn't look like a 60's mustang. Just make a good looking car.. Here's the problems I have with the exterior design: The front looks like a fusion, the hood line is too high, the grill is too big, and the headlights don't look agressive at all. The back end looks a little better, but the rear over hang is too long. Looks like they tried to make it modern but put on an over hang that came off of an 80's sports car.
Seems like a lot of people put in different styling ideas and combined them all into one design. And it just didn't work.
Seems like a lot of people put in different styling ideas and combined them all into one design. And it just didn't work.
Last edited:
I mean, there's just no comparison to my eyes. The bottom car looks menacing and powerful - i.e. muscular. The top one looks retarded with its (bmw-ish) wall-eyes.
Last edited:
It is not ridiculous, it is a fact, your arguments are weak minded. If you do not like the car that is fine and I respect that, but do not say that because the car offers,maybe, potentially, too many options it is crap. Weak minded argument, just simply state you like the old one better, your next post shows some evolution in the debating proposition , but it is also flawed as you picked different camera angles. Your opinion is ok, just your reasoning could use some anti troll venom
Users who are viewing this thread
