2005 Butt-Ugly Mustang

"dwight" > wrote in message
...
> "WraithCobra" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I prefer the more angular lines of the earlier Mustangs. The '74-'78 had
> >the
> > same angular styling, the '79-'98 were not as angular, and the '99+
> > brought
> > it back. I still can't say I liked the looks of the '94-'98, it was much
> > improved in '99 and should of looked like that in '94.
> > --
> You're hearkening back to a time when automotive design didn't give a damn
> about aerodynamics (or fuel efficiency, for that matter - goes hand in
> hand). You're also talking about a Mustang that was born in whole from a
> different car and given new sheet metal that spawned in turn a wholly new
> breed. (Long hood, short deck.)
>
> By the time OPEC had turned off the spigot in '73, Ford had to do the very
> same thing with the Pinto, turning it into the Mustang II. The II was much
> rounder than its predecessors (I owned a '74 coupe and a '78 hatchback),
> even though Ford made every attempt to continue the classic Mustang lines.
> All of a sudden, aerodynamic shape was important, and every gallon of gas
> spent fighting the wind was a gallon of gas lost. Purely from a fleet
point
> of view, it's almost impossible to recapture the designs of previous
> decades.
>
> In '79, again, the Mustang took off from another car that was definitely
not
> a Mustang. It "evoked" the classic Mustang lines, but it was a leap away.
> Some elements of the classics were involved, but it almost seemed that
Ford
> gave up on keeping to the "look" of the Mustang.
>
> Now - I liked the II from the start. The Fox had to grow on me (hell, it
was
> a stinkin' Fairmont, for god's sake), but I ended up owning four of them.
I
> bought TFrog, precisely because the redesign in '94 disappointed me.
>
> Like you, I wasn't smitten with the '94-'98 models, although they can't be
> anything but Mustangs. The tweak in '99, that brought back the sharp
edges,
> was, I thought, a winner.
>
> Now this new 2005 model... ohmigod. Again, it can't be anything but a
> Mustang, and many of the classic elements are there. Kudos to Ford.
>
> While much of the automotive industry has gone for a one-size-fits-all
> approach, making it hard to tell one brand from another, the Mustang keeps
> coming out in a design that couldn't be anything else. You see one, you
know
> immediately what it is.
>
> Liked the II, didn't care for the Fox, didn't like the SN95 at all, came
> back around in '99, flat-out love the '05. Is it the angular lines? A
> distorted memory?
>
> When someone says "Corvette", do you think early models or 2005? There's a
> car that has gone through similar permutations over the years, but you
could
> pick any model year and it could only be a Corvette. You could never
confuse
> it with any other car. Some folks are 60's purists, some are partial to
the
> sharks, some like the 80's, some say the latest models are the absolute
> best.
>
> When a car has a lineage, you find that different people stop at different
> points in the evolution. This is becoming increasingly obvious at Mustang
> shows, where Mustangs are segregated by design. At shows like Nashville,
the
> classics were on one side, everything else on the other, except for the
IIs,
> who didn't know where to park.
>
> (One wonders - given another 10 or 20 years, will the IIs work their way
> into the classic parking lot?)
>
> Sorry for rambling...
>
> dwight

A Mustang has "the aerodynamics of a brick", and I like it! I like
horsepower, aerodynamics be damned.
--
Mike
Silver 10th Anniversary Cobra Coupe
....

"WraithCobra" > wrote in message >...

> A Mustang has "the aerodynamics of a brick", and I like it! I like
> horsepower, aerodynamics be damned.

WC,

Note 1. Aerodynamics is free horsepower.

Note 2. Good aerodynamics doesn't have to mean a shape resembling a
used bar of soap. Cleaning up the undercarriage is nearly as
important as a smooth shiny side. In other words, small detail
changes can reap big improvements i.e Ford's new GT(-40).

Patrick
'93 Cobra
'83 LTD

If aerodynamics means it has to look like some of the new cars these days,
"used bar of soap" is a good visual, I'd rather have a classic. The GT is in
another league, and so it it's price, but it's still my "Lottery Car"! It
looks like a modern GT should, and I wouldn't want the Mustang to look like
that.
I know what you mean about the "free horsepower" statement. On another board
I read someone posted a link to a write-up a dyno operator put together. The
dyno operator averaged all the files of stock '03 Cobra's and stock '03
Z06's and posted the averaged graph. Surprisingly the 390 bhp Cobra's dyno'd
15 hp higher at the rear wheels than the 405 bhp Z06. With estimated
drivetrain loss added in the Z06 was right at factory ratings, which
verifies that the Cobra is under rated. We also know that the Z06 is at
least .5 sec faster in the quarter than the best driven Cobra. Although the
Cobra has an extra 500 pounds to deal with, at .1 sec per 100 lbs they
should be .5 sec apart at the same horsepower but the Z06 has better
aerodynamics. Would I own the faster and lighter Corvette? Nope, can't get
past the looks. Will I be buying the next SVT Mustang? Yep, as long as it's
supercharged.
--
Mike
Silver 10th Anniversary Cobra Coupe
---

Patrick wrote:
> "WraithCobra" > wrote in message
> >...
>
>> A Mustang has "the aerodynamics of a brick", and I like it! I like
>> horsepower, aerodynamics be damned.
>
> WC,
>
> Note 1. Aerodynamics is free horsepower.
>
> Note 2. Good aerodynamics doesn't have to mean a shape resembling a
> used bar of soap. Cleaning up the undercarriage is nearly as
> important as a smooth shiny side. In other words, small detail
> changes can reap big improvements i.e Ford's new GT(-40).
>
> Patrick
> '93 Cobra
> '83 LTD