My 2015 Mustang Review

[Nero Tenebre]

No, that honor would go to Porsche.

Haha! touché but with an important caveat. The 911 has evolved in a constant linear way whereas the mustang went through several iterations and then when they stopped working it went back to this style as a retro redo. It started selling again and ford has been afraid to jump off the look ever since.

Did you read the article?

The chassis is all new with an independent rear suspension, the entire greenhouse is smaller, lower, moved back 2", and the front suspension design is completely different.

Honestly I didn't because it looks the same to me and I'm not interested by it... However I will just to learn about it and because I stuck my head in here. That said, I am sure that there are real changes and I know the rear suspension is a big step for the car. I am sure you are technically oriented and the car won you over by it's virtues, and that honestly is high praise coming from you!

with styling of iconic cars the designers have to stay true to the common design language...meaning that customers get pissed if their stang or vette doesn't look like its supposed to.

This is true, but Ford is the worst. Look at the ford GT... I can barely tell it apart from the original. Not a good thing unless all you want is a modernized original. Chevy did a much better job using retro as inspiration rather than literal translation when they redesigned the Camaro.

JMO!

 

[stuntman]

Retro was a fad that all the American manufacturers went through in the mid-2000s (Ford GT, Ford Mustang, Chevy Camaro, Dodge Challenger, etc...). I am sort of glad to see the fad over and like the new direction of futuristic retro (C7 Vette:Stingray and 2013 Viper:the original 1996 GTS).

To say the 2015 Mustang looks like a mild evolution is like saying the C7 Vette is just a simple evolution of the C6, or the Ferrari 458 as just a facelifted F430.

There was some praise of the Mustang, and some things that could be better. I try to be neutral and objective in my reviews so check out what I liked and disliked in the article

 

[Envyscorpio]

I like the idea of American muscle finally catching up with the Bavarian competitors. The only car I drove and actually liked back in the days was the Corvette and we're improving! Who says economy crisis is a bad thing? LOL, if any, it made us Americans stronger and more competitive. A mustang GT in Taiwan goes for 100k+. Albeit not M3/M4 160k price tag but it's up there if anyone cares.

 

[Nero Tenebre]

To say the 2015 Mustang looks like a mild evolution is like saying the C7 Vette is just a simple evolution of the C6, or the Ferrari 458 as just a facelifted F430.

It doesn't look any better than a mild evolution to me Everything is the same shape like the headlights and tails just tweaked, whereas in the other cars you mentioned they have all new shapes and details along with better proportions- which is a huge difference. Blur your eyes looking at a new mustang and you will see the old mustang right there.

 

[Ritesh]

It's takes more skill to constantly evolve a classic design all the while upgrading the mechanicals and technology then to build a completely new model every few years. Say what you might - the 911, Mustang and Corvette have loyal owners and fan base that is eager to upgrade to the next gen. The NSX was one and done. Same with the Supra(2 generations), the Z which was done after the Z32.

Finally - Anybody who thinks the last gen Mustang and 2015 are too much alike needs to see and test drive one. Driving one is an eye opening experience!

 

[seamus628]

^^^^^
"It's takes more skill to constantly evolve a classic design all the while upgrading the mechanicals and technology then to build a completely new model every few years."

That would be a bold statement to make given all three examples are basically variations on an original theme- slacker Porsche being the worst example by far.
Miura, Countach, and Stratos are all great Marcello Gandini designs: are they any less great because they followed a shorter development cycle?

 

[stuntman]

It doesn't look any better than a mild evolution to me Everything is the same shape like the headlights and tails just tweaked, whereas in the other cars you mentioned they have all new shapes and details along with better proportions- which is a huge difference. Blur your eyes looking at a new mustang and you will see the old mustang right there.

I'd still disagree but everyone is entitled to their own opinions. IMO its a pretty weak argument to call the headlights and taillights the 2015 Mustang as similar to the previous model as they are significantly different, as is the greenhouse of the car itself.

Its like arguing that the 12C, 458 Italia, NSX 2.0, R8, and Huracan all look alike. But then some people do say that...

 

[Nero Tenebre]

No problem we can agree to disagree. [emoji41] I was never a mustang fan and the latest one didn't win me over much less even generate an ounce of intrigue with it's "new" look. I still flip the page when I see it just as in years past but I can see how it could be the small start of a shift in tide for mustangs.

 

[naaman]

with styling of iconic cars the designers have to stay true to the common design language...meaning that customers get pissed if their stang or vette doesn't look like its supposed to.

Agreed. And it's one of the reasons I find the new NSX so hard to swallow.

 

[Nero Tenebre]

Agreed. And it's one of the reasons I find the new NSX so hard to swallow.

Now that I can agree on... the new Acura R8X [emoji23]

 

[Ritesh]

^^^^^
"It's takes more skill to constantly evolve a classic design all the while upgrading the mechanicals and technology then to build a completely new model every few years."

That would be a bold statement to make given all three examples are basically variations on an original theme- slacker Porsche being the worst example by far.
Miura, Countach, and Stratos are all great Marcello Gandini designs: are they any less great because they followed a shorter development cycle?

No but they are all gone now. Don't you think the GM engineers would love to make the Z06 or ZR1 Mid engine but they can't. The cost is too high and they would lose some of the demographic market. Same thing with a 911. Porsche tried to make a front engine 911 replacement. It was called the 928 and it was a complete flop with the 911 owners. So Porsche has basically spent more to make the rearengined 911 handle more like a mid engine design all the while keeping some of the rear bias handling/braking. Sadly the 991 drives the least like a proper 911. To fix that they came up with 4 Wheel steering. Like I said - It makes more $$/time/engineering to constantly evolve a model design then to completely refresh it every few years.

Another eg: Ferrari does 2 model runs of the same style. 308/328, F348/355, F360/430, F458/458T then it comes up with a completely new design. That has worked very well for them.

The New NSX will never be as successful as a 911 because Acura alienated a large percentage of its NSX owners demographics when it decided to come up with an all new design.

 

[Nero Tenebre]

Well I read the article Billy, and the car has improved from an engineering POV but I still see the same old mustang when I look at it. I did study the pictures pretty hard and eventually noticed that the headlight slant where it meets the fender now goes the other way instead of parallel to the slant at the grill. I've also seen the car in person and didn't look any better... Oh well.

Good points Ritesh! I have been using the 911 analogy for years here and nobody listens.

 

[stuntman]

Hey guys,

Here's my 2015 Mustang ECOBOOST review on MotoIQ.com:


"We test Ford’s new 2015 Mustang EcoBoost to determine if a turbocharged 4-cylinder Mustang bridges the gap between the American Hot-Rodding community and Import Tuners. How does the Ecoboost stack up against rear-wheel drive icons such as the Honda S2000, turbocharged all-wheel-drive cars like the Subaru WRX, and hot hatches like the VW Golf GTI? Read on to find out."





Enjoy!