new mustang
 

I don't like it ......

new mustang
 

On 12/8/2013 11:54 AM, jim stewart wrote:
> I don't like it ......
>
>
Neither do I.

new mustang
 

On 2013-12-08, Debbie > wrote:
> On 12/8/2013 11:54 AM, jim stewart wrote:
>> I don't like it ......
>>
>>
> Neither do I.

It's not structurally bad styling.
Lose the klingon ridges and a good light refresh would fix it.

What bothers me is what I noticed today... the rocker panels... the
high panel seam behind the door... ugly. The fender makes a horizontal
seam with the rocker. Again ugly. But it's wierd, under the rocker
there's a black rocker panel trim piece. I have to see the car in
person to figure out what's going on there... but really the seams just
are badly arranged. Could be a safety oriented trade off.

new mustang
 

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2013-12-08, Debbie > wrote:
>> On 12/8/2013 11:54 AM, jim stewart wrote:
>>> I don't like it ......
>>>
>>>
>> Neither do I.
>
> It's not structurally bad styling.
> Lose the klingon ridges and a good light refresh would fix it.
>
> What bothers me is what I noticed today... the rocker panels... the
> high panel seam behind the door... ugly. The fender makes a horizontal
> seam with the rocker. Again ugly. But it's wierd, under the rocker
> there's a black rocker panel trim piece. I have to see the car in
> person to figure out what's going on there... but really the seams just
> are badly arranged. Could be a safety oriented trade off.
>
>
>
>
amazes me how ALL the mustangs '64 to '73 were beautiful .... do designers
since then just have no taste ?...I mean my '92 fox vert is ugly......

new mustang
 

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2013-12-08, Debbie > wrote:
>> On 12/8/2013 11:54 AM, jim stewart wrote:
>>> I don't like it ......
>>>
>>>
>> Neither do I.
>
> It's not structurally bad styling.
> Lose the klingon ridges and a good light refresh would fix it.
>
> What bothers me is what I noticed today... the rocker panels... the
> high panel seam behind the door... ugly. The fender makes a horizontal
> seam with the rocker. Again ugly. But it's wierd, under the rocker
> there's a black rocker panel trim piece. I have to see the car in
> person to figure out what's going on there... but really the seams just
> are badly arranged. Could be a safety oriented trade off.
>
>
>
>
amazes me how ALL the mustangs '64 to '73 were beautiful .... do designers
since then just have no taste ?...I mean my '92 fox vert is ugly......

new mustang
 

"jim stewart" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2013-12-08, Debbie > wrote:
>>> On 12/8/2013 11:54 AM, jim stewart wrote:
>>>> I don't like it ......
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Neither do I.
>>
>> It's not structurally bad styling.
>> Lose the klingon ridges and a good light refresh would fix it.
>>
>> What bothers me is what I noticed today... the rocker panels... the
>> high panel seam behind the door... ugly. The fender makes a
>> horizontal
>> seam with the rocker. Again ugly. But it's wierd, under the rocker
>> there's a black rocker panel trim piece. I have to see the car in
>> person to figure out what's going on there... but really the seams
>> just
>> are badly arranged. Could be a safety oriented trade off.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> amazes me how ALL the mustangs '64 to '73 were beautiful .... do
> designers since then just have no taste ?...I mean my '92 fox vert is
> ugly......
>

I'm going to keep my fingers crossed, hoping the folks who can do
something about the perceived problems as voiced all across the InterWeb
are paying attention and will act. All the physical examples we have
seen so far were pretty much hand-made; plenty of time before production
actually begins.

I also keep reminding myself that the designers and deciders weren't
thinking of the Hooked-On-Mustang crowd: they need a much bigger group
to become interested. In the meantime I'm not all that offended by a
plump BMW with Ford technology and prices.

--
Frank ess