not at all. Between the Jag and S550 either they use the same design house or they are stealing each other's work. The '21+ Jag has those slim headlights located below the wheel arch just like the S650 supposedly does. The JAG looks really good and if there were no badging they could be interchangeable.Is that based on insider info lol?
this is what I've repeatedly said in the past that GM should have done with the C8.Have y'all seen this? Interesting concept....
I did this about 5 or 6 years ago and was based on the proportions of the Bentley GT.I really like the back of that car and the roof line and fixes the overly round rear end the s550 has. fingers crossed the s650 rear and roof line look very similar to this.
I agree with that. The modern Mustang is trying to be what I grew up thinking Cadillacs were like. Big, floaty, extremely soft and comfortable, too many gizmos and geegaws.The endless gripes about the interior are silly nitpicking, when they are not luxury badged vehicles. When the foreign competition can offer a V8 coupe at this price, with modern amenities and pass regulations, then let me know. So many just don't get it, but luckily this will be the last vehicle of its type standing in 2028.
I had no interest in the 4.6 engine. I didn't want a car with that boat anchor in it. So I really tuned out on Mustangs for many years.you couldn't PAY me to own a Mustang before S550 they looked so incredibly bad inside and out.
What I don't understand is artist/designer's uncontrolled fascination with HUGE slab-sided vehicles with slit windows and greenhouse. QUIT IT ALREADY!! If you want to design bars of soap, go work for Procter and Gamble. Lower the gad damn belt line and put a healthy green house on top. Do "you people" never learn from history, esp the Camaro?
I agree. The S550 rear I think is beautiful, but the front is MEH. GT350 and Mach 1 are ok, but the rest aren't that great. I'm mostly a buyer due to the Coyote. The rest of the car is less important to me.Full disclosure, I'm not a fan of the S550, in general. It's too bulbous looking and seems like the front doesn't match the rear. The GT350s make it look more cohesive by ditching the bloated front clip. The GT PP2 and Mach 1 aren't bad, though.
I agree the overhangs should be reduced and the weight of the Mustang is currently a big issue. I disagree with "state of the art" due to cost. Mustang has good suspension for its price point. It's just far too soft. I agree the car should be smaller and lighter. Between that and availability of decently firm suspension the car could be much better.This is the first time posting here for me, I've been waiting for a loooooong time for this car like so many others, been a Mustang guy my whole life. So I don't want to be too negative, but I'm very very disappointed with what I see, over the decades I've grown frustrated with certain things Ford has always seemed to cheap out on with the Mustang. In the past it was always because the Mustang was a bargain and certain things had to be sacrificed to give us this car. However, it is no longer cheap or affordable to most people, a GT with some options gets into territory where other cars start looking more interesting. At th price point Ford is asking for a Mustang these days I expect a lot more, the interior is a let down in terms of materials and design, I have other thoughts on it that I'll leave up to your imagination.
The most disappointing thing for me though is the chassis, and this so-called all new car, which to me is just corporate pr, all I see is a refresh of the current Mustang. I know people say you can't tell with the camo but some things they cannot hide, like the wheelbase and the overhangs. For ages now I've been hoping the Mustang would move to a modern platform that is both lighter and smaller, smaller as in less overhang. Which brings me to my biggest gripe with the post 2005 Mustang, that 70's era rear overhang, I can't get over it, I can spot my car in massive parking lots from a mile away because it's got the biggest ass. I don't think there's any way to make this look good, it makes the car look dated, and oddly proportioned. And I blame this on it's DEW98 underpinnings, and I can't believe Ford is using this 90's chassis for this now expensive sports car, it's just a deal killer for me, I don't care how much power it has, or how much tech. For the money they ask for a a Mustang it deserves a state of the art modern chassis, and a world class interior. It doesn't make sense how every other car on the planet can get interior updates every few years along with the latest chassis designs, wheels pushed out to the corners, minimal overhangs, etc. But it's only Ford with the Mustang that has people convinced that somehow the only way they can build and sell this car is to use ancient bits and pieces from leftover cars that are long gone. Always an excusw from Ford, and a promise the next generation will be the one to get, yet now it seems like the next gen is way way off, and will be all electric. Same excuses we heard with IRS, which the Mustang didn't get until the 2015 model year.
Well I guess that's pretty negative but I felt I needed to get it off my chest, at this point if I was shopping for a new 2 door sports car the Mustang would be the last car on my list, you can always add more power, stuff like that, cant change the chassis you're riding on though.
I agree. The PP1 suspension is far too soft and doesn't do a good job controlling body movements. Base - I think it's ok to have something soft for convertibles and other cruiser vehicles, but probably the PP1 should be the absolute minimum firmness available. The base is far too soft for a 400+ HP car.Indeed, where are the bonded panels, the use of aluminum? VW, Kia !! and Toyota etc. use it.
Some twat in Marketing keeps pushing the mantra of 'quiet' car nee Carolla and keeps ruining the chassis, as weak and creaking that it may be. A Mustang is supposed to be an experience of power WITH THE ABIITY TO HARNESS it. Rip and replace all the damn rubber in this car and go with shore 70A bushings and proper bearings in the articulation points and the NVH hardly changes. I know, I've done it. The improvement in chassis is VERY welcome.
The stock and PP1 suspension is utter, fetid fecal mater and the engineering manager needs to be beaten and forced to write "I will not put crap suspension on a Mustang" a thousand times on the chalkboard, nee Bart Simpson. Good suspension does not float. Good suspension is not harsh or choppy. Good suspension instills confidence and encourages driver improvement. Good suspension does not have to be expensive - it just has to be done by a team that knows WTH they're doing.
Oh man, please don’t get thePill started on the 2017 GT500 we didn’t get and a potential 2027 GT500. The real reason is R&D overlaps on high end models and it helps keep MSRP’s lower. We didn’t get a 2017 GT500 for a bunch of reasons but that’s about as close as I would want a GT350 and 500 to be. The 350 has value in Motorsport and it’s good to build on success. The fate of the Mustang’s competition also cooled Ford’s jets a little too.I don't see why Ford doesn't just produce the 350 and the 500 concurrently. There's an obvious audience for both, and many customers would actually buy both.
There are only a few ways you can shape metal man.I was wondering where that rear crease crap was coming from. And the headlights below the wheel arch... Did Ford simply outsource their design team to Audi? Or there is a secret handshake that the two are actually in a joint-venture but didn't tell anybody? The Mach-(m)E and other cars look disturbingly like the ID series etc.