#1 Posted by Blu3V3nom07 (4160 posts) -

For any old-school Mustang fans, here's something you might glance at, yay! At least it looks better than the 2005 Mustang, I think?. Anyway, Jalopnik, Inside Line, and others seem to be drooling all over it.

Remember all those rumors that the 2015 Ford Mustang was going to be smaller, tidier, dramatically more shrink-wrapped? Just plain wrong, on all counts. It turns out that although it's built on a new platform, the 2015 Mustang follows in the footsteps left by its predecessors.

And that's really the point: The new Mustang is a car with global ambitions, and changing the plot would have been a colossally risky move. After all, this is a car of which 9 million units have sold over a continuous 50-year period. You don't mess with that kind of track record. ..

Taking the Ford Mustang onto a global stage meant finally ditching its live axle rear suspension. That low roar you hear is the sound of Mustang die-hards across the nation weeping into their pillows. Sorry, fellas, but as capable as the Mustang's live axle had become after years of tweaking, there's simply no getting around the physics of its excessive unsprung weight and the attendant impact on ride quality and bump sensitivity.

By adopting an independent rear suspension, the 2015 Mustang is said to have twice the anti-dive and twice the anti-squat characteristics of the old car. And since the engineers were starting with a clean sheet, the new car's suspension geometry avoids the packaging compromises that afflicted the '99 Mustang Cobra's independent rear. Ford officials are quick to point out that the new rear suspension was developed specifically for the Mustang and is unrelated to any existing Ford product. ..

Jalopnik: The 2015 Ford Mustang Is The Most Advanced Muscle Car Ever Built

InsideLine: Everything You Want To Know About the All-New Pony Car

Anyway, last I remember, this Mustang was supposed to look like a bit like the Ford Fusion. And that's not very far from the truth.. In fact, it even looks like something Bond would drive. Thoughts?

#2 Posted by spraynardtatum (2608 posts) -

I heard it costs almost as much as it does in GT6 and Forza.

#3 Edited by Zelyre (1127 posts) -

I rather liked the 2005 Mustang design.

I'm not sure if I like this one or not. It looks like the late 90's Mustang and the 2005 Mustang had a baby.

#4 Posted by I_Stay_Puft (3028 posts) -

Whoa, does it transform?

#5 Edited by psylah (2162 posts) -

Looks good to me.

More interested in how the 2.3 turbo will turn out. First turbo mustang since the SVO.

The 5.0 speaks (roars?) for itself.

#6 Posted by Warfare (1632 posts) -

Looks like a Hyundai Tiburon.

#7 Posted by Vinny_Says (5687 posts) -

Is the inside still garbage?

#8 Posted by GreggD (4478 posts) -

Can't wait to ride in this one. :)

#9 Posted by Hosstile17 (763 posts) -

I am a huge fan of American Muscle. I grew up in Detroit and currently own a 2012 Dodge Challenger SRT 392. I like the changes they made. It maintains the trademark lines that made the last generation of Mustangs so popular and keeps the retro styling roots. The best way to look at this is a Mustang that went on a diet, less extra trim and tighter packaging. This model is also ripe for a fastback configuration. Rumors are floating around that this call will come in around 4-600 pounds lighter and still come with a 5.0 GT option package. If all that is true, this thing should fly.

#10 Posted by Korwin (2828 posts) -

IRS, how nice of them to join us in the 21st century. No LSD though which is a bummer for a modern performance car. Also that interior is a little to gaudy, also the plastics are probably still rubbish.

#11 Edited by isomeri (1225 posts) -

I think it looks good but I'd never buy one for European roads. Too big and impractical in the city, thirsty as hell and ultimately relatively slow on anything except a runway. I'd rather get a BTZ/GT 86 or a fast hatch and save 20 000 euros. But I do have respect for cars as hilarious as this and I do understand why people buy Mustangs over in the US.

#13 Edited by GreggD (4478 posts) -

@isomeri said:

I think it looks good but I'd never buy one for European roads. Too big and impractical in the city, thirsty as hell and ultimately relatively slow on anything except a runway. I'd rather get a BTZ/GT 86 or a fast hatch and save 20 000 euros. But I do have respect for cars as hilarious as this and I do understand why people buy Mustangs over in the US.

Hilarious seems like a...strange choice of words.

#14 Edited by Dizzmotron (36 posts) -
@warfare said:

Looks like a Hyundai Tiburon.

I have to be that guy, that's a Hyundai Genesis Coupe in that picture and not a Tiburon.

#15 Posted by Darson (448 posts) -

So it's a Charger?

#16 Posted by Dizzmotron (36 posts) -

@darson said:

So it's a Charger?

Not really, since the Charger is still a 4-door. It is still most closely related to the Challenger and Camaro.

#17 Edited by Warfare (1632 posts) -

@dizzmotron said:
@warfare said:

Looks like a Hyundai Tiburon.

I have to be that guy, that's a Hyundai Genesis Coupe in that picture and not a Tiburon.

Well I got that photo from here 2009 Hyundai Tiburon but one way or another the Mustang looks like a Hyundai.

#18 Posted by Pezen (1562 posts) -

If someone hid some details and told me it was a new Mitsubishi Evo I probably wouldn't doubt them. Still a nice looking car either way.

#19 Posted by bilbomarks (68 posts) -

Is it just me or does the 2nd (rear shot) look a little Porsche-y? I think it's a nice change.

#20 Edited by Subjugation (4718 posts) -

@pezen: Too long to be an Evo unless the new model has changed significantly. Evos are more ... I'm not sure if stout is the word I'm looking for but I'm sure you'll understand. Shorter and bulbous? I don't know. I can see how maybe the hood and grill might be reminiscent though.

Anyway, I'd totally drive this.

#21 Posted by punkxblaze (2957 posts) -

I WANNA PUT MY NUTS ALL OVER IT.

Online
#22 Posted by MonkeyKing1969 (2570 posts) -

@darson said:

So it's a Charger?

Have you seen a 2012 Charger...it has a BLACK HOLE where the grill should be...which makes it look like an Audi A6.

#23 Posted by AlexW00d (6186 posts) -

@greggd said:

@isomeri said:

I think it looks good but I'd never buy one for European roads. Too big and impractical in the city, thirsty as hell and ultimately relatively slow on anything except a runway. I'd rather get a BTZ/GT 86 or a fast hatch and save 20 000 euros. But I do have respect for cars as hilarious as this and I do understand why people buy Mustangs over in the US.

Hilarious seems like a...strange choice of words.

It's nicer than ridiculous, which is all muscle cars really are. They're the OTT action films of the car world.

#24 Posted by Buneroid (428 posts) -

I have a 2003 GT. It's kind of weird how the design went real sporty looking for one generation then went right back to the muscle look.

#25 Posted by GERALTITUDE (2945 posts) -

ugh, why do aerodynamics have to make cars so hideous? I mean, it's fine by modern standards but this compared to a classic mustang is a laugh.

#26 Posted by Korwin (2828 posts) -

ugh, why do aerodynamics have to make cars so hideous? I mean, it's fine by modern standards but this compared to a classic mustang is a laugh.

Aerodynamics don't have to make cars ugly, just look at the 458 Italia which makes my trouser zone feel funny whenever I see it.

#27 Edited by Fire_Of_The_Wind (170 posts) -

The front end looks a lot like a Mitsubishi Evo

#28 Edited by MormonWarrior (2541 posts) -

The first car I ever drove was a Mustang. Those things are terrible in the snow...they make awful northern Utah cars. But it was fun to drive in the summer!

#29 Posted by GreggD (4478 posts) -

@alexw00d said:

@greggd said:

@isomeri said:

I think it looks good but I'd never buy one for European roads. Too big and impractical in the city, thirsty as hell and ultimately relatively slow on anything except a runway. I'd rather get a BTZ/GT 86 or a fast hatch and save 20 000 euros. But I do have respect for cars as hilarious as this and I do understand why people buy Mustangs over in the US.

Hilarious seems like a...strange choice of words.

It's nicer than ridiculous, which is all muscle cars really are. They're the OTT action films of the car world.

Perhaps. Doesn't make it a bad thing, though.

#30 Posted by captain_clayman (3319 posts) -

ugh, why do aerodynamics have to make cars so hideous? I mean, it's fine by modern standards but this compared to a classic mustang is a laugh.

That's exactly what I was talking about with my friend. How all these new sports/muscle cars are subjected to all these efficiency standards and crash safety standards it's just making them look like regular cars. You don't buy a 'stang or a camaro for safety or mpg. You buy it because it's loud, has a lot of horsepower and looks fuckin cool. I think perhaps electric cars might be the answer to this. No passing smog to worry about, you can make your cars look as badass and angular as you want. If I had tons of money to spend on a car, I'd rather get a Tesla Model S if I was trying to get an all around attractive looking and efficient car. I guess it's more in line with a BMW or Mercedes or Aston in looks, but it looks like a high end luxury car instead of a lame looking muscle car.

#31 Posted by Aleryn (704 posts) -

It's got the overall classic shape, looks good to me.

#32 Posted by Blu3V3nom07 (4160 posts) -

Like I said. 2005, ugh..

#33 Edited by hippocrit (236 posts) -

I clicked on this thread hoping to see a horse.

#34 Edited by csl316 (8124 posts) -

I'm intrigued. I drive an '07 GT and love it (this one), though if the price is right I may finally have to upgrade come early 2015.

The 30 mile drive to work in a Chicago snowstorm may suck, but it's awesome every other day!

#35 Edited by Broomhitches (172 posts) -

It doesn't look bad, but the interior looks so cheap.

#36 Edited by senrat (313 posts) -

Solid rear wheel drive performance and the 2.3 liter turbo should hopefuly make loads of power in the aftermarket.

#37 Posted by TheHT (10890 posts) -

Yup, it looks like a car.

#38 Posted by Daneian (1207 posts) -

Oh fuck. I live near a military base and now i'm gonna see these goddamn things everywhere.

#39 Posted by Khann (2787 posts) -

Looks like a GTR.

#40 Posted by GERALTITUDE (2945 posts) -

@korwin said:

@geraltitude said:

ugh, why do aerodynamics have to make cars so hideous? I mean, it's fine by modern standards but this compared to a classic mustang is a laugh.

Aerodynamics don't have to make cars ugly, just look at the 458 Italia which makes my trouser zone feel funny whenever I see it.

but not a muscle car, unfortunately.

#41 Posted by TurboMan (7402 posts) -

looks like a car to me

#42 Posted by DukesT3 (1892 posts) -

I like it.

#43 Posted by SgtSphynx (1269 posts) -

I'm doubtful, but have they fixed how claustrophobic it feels inside Mustangs? Anyway, it looks nice, but I'll stick with my Challenger.

#44 Edited by ATLFalconsfan (47 posts) -

I own a 96 Mustang GT (105,000 miles young) and I still prefer the SN95 design over the new ones. I do like the 2001 Bullitt and the '03/'04 Cobra's and Mach 1's.