2010 Mustang

[MrObsessive]

Autoblog has posted a story on the new '10 Mustang.

I dunno.................to me the jury's still out on the facelift. The front end is nice, but what the heck did they do to the back end??

I long for the day when a car (especially American) used to look good from every angle! Not just the front or the side.

Take a peek here and judge for yourself.

[Jairus]

Bill,

Did you notice that the front fenders have ridges? First time I have seen this on a retro car and it is something I have been harping about for years since the 1995 Mustang appeared.

Actually, the rear end is not that bad.... Still holds the cove for the lights and allows the lights to wrap around to the side slightly... thus fulfilling the side lighting mandate.

Lot of plastic running down around the bottom.?!? What's up with that?

I know it would have been expensive tooling... but would have been cool if they lengthened the roof for a Full Fastback!

Edited November 18, 2008 by Jairus

[Harry P.]

Looks good to me... except the rear end. The current style looks better. Change for the sake of change never excited me too much.

[Clay]

I think its one of the best designs sine the early years.

[brewsterg6]

I agree with Jairus about the car... not bad, but kind of forgetable. A fast back (if done correctly) would really add a different look to the car, and be 'different'. The problem with doing 'retro' styling is that you are limited in styling to the design of the first model. I am not a Ford guy, so really this restyle doesn't look much different from the current model to me. As far as sales for Ford go, this does not sit well. Will the thousands of Mustang fans think there is enough change here to upgrade to a new model over their current one? For non Ford owners, is there enough change here to convince a switch to Ford over the '09s... or is the competition (Camaro and Challenger) going to get the nod with their 'new' styling. Around 2013- 14 things are going to be really interesting in this segment. What is Ford going to do with the Mustang (They can't keep doing retro...can they??) and how are the first changes to their competition going to play out... (are they falling into the 'retro' trap as well??) The one thing every redesign of the Camaro has been... is different from it's predeceser...will the next one be different too, or are we going to be looking at slightly warmed over models like this 2010 Mustang and waiting for something better?

[Harry P.]

The one thing every redesign of the Camaro has been... is different from it's predeceser...will the next one be different too, or are we going to be looking at slightly warmed over models like this 2010 Mustang and waiting for something better?

"Something better" is very subjective... as is automotive styling to begin with.

If you happen to like "retro" type styling (I love it!), then the current Mustang looks great, no changes needed (IMO).

Of course, if you don't like the retro look, you'll be hoping for something "better" in the future... but for me, that something "better", in the case of Mustang, is already here!

[Guest 66dragfreak]

I still am partial to the '99 through the '03 body styles. The new Mustang looks good, but I just really love the looks of the earlier Mustangs. The subtle upgrades on the 2010 Mustang wouldn't be enough to pursuade me to go into hock for one either. I agree, a fastback would have been the cat's meow for this bodystyle but I doubt we'll ever see that come to fruition if it hasn't already.

[Zoom Zoom]

I'm a bit underwhelmed, with all the hoopla and teaser photos it looks kind of fussy and overstyled (grille and wheels) where the '05 looked a bit undercooked. Maybe I'll like it better in person? I'm disappointed that this basic styling will live on for a total of 8-10 years whereas the original Mustangs had 2-3 years before completely new styling. IMHO the 2010 is the car they should have made in '05, and they should have been giving us an all-new style for 2010 instead of just a refresh.

[miatamadman]

The back end looks sort of like a Toyota Solara to me. I guess I'll have to see it person to see how it really looks.

[Harry P.]

Interior looks good. I really like the steering wheel... "retro" yet new at the same time. And I love the "dual cove" shape of the dashboard, very 60s Mustang!

[Bernard Kron]

Underwhelming, warmed over, hesitant. facelifted - these are the words for this effort. The point made about the effect on future Mustang sales of the 2010's less than impactful "redesign" is the telling one, and I think that by the end of the 2009 model year sales will have faded to tiny levels and this "new" car will do nothing to improve it. This is from the same management team that chose to "facelift" the Series 1 Focus to the piece of dreck on offer now, rather than seriously consider an agressive commitment to the far more modern Series 2 Focus or the Fiesta platform of the time to drive sales. The relative success of the Mazda and Volvo models based pn the Series 2 Focus must be bitter consolarion to Ford management today. This is not a bad facelift at all, but it comes at the wrong time. IMHO, as nice a design as it has been, prolonging the current Mustang for yet another product cycle is a vivid example of the short-sighted management style that has driven the US car companies to the wall. Ford and GM's foreign model lines show that they are capable of better, but in the US they will not committ to a proper marketing effort based on fresh, forward looking techonolgies and designs. They have habitually painted Americans into a retrograde, nostalgia-based, backward looking corner. It has been going on so long that now, even when they do come out with strong, contemporary USA-based models that are competitive with market leading foreign brands, the public has become blind to them. It is destroying them. Very sad...

[Harry P.]

IMHO, as nice a design as it has been, prolonging the current Mustang for yet another product cycle is a vivid example of the short-sighted management style that has driven the US car companies to the wall. Ford and GM's foreign model lines show that they are capable of better, but in the US they will not committ to a proper marketing effort based on fresh, forward looking techonolgies and designs. They have habitually painted Americans into a retrograde, nostalgia-based, backward looking corner. It has been going on so long that now, even when they do come out with strong, contemporary USA-based models that are competitive with market leading foreign brands, the public has become blind to them. It is destroying them. Very sad...

I couldn't disagree more!

The "retro" styling of the Mustang, Challenger, etc. isn't why Detroit is in the dumper!

Look, the Mustang and cars like it are meant to appeal to a certain demographic, they are deliberate reworkings of classic American models from the past, meant only for the American (not worldwide) market. Ford didn't do the current Mustang in retro style because they can't do anything more "forward looking"! It was done that way very deliberately, to appeal to a certain target audience. The current Mustang is NOT meant to appeal to everyone... it is NOT an American "Camry", and it is not meant to compete on the global market. It is a uniquely American icon.

The problems US automakers are facing have nothing to do with the relatively few "retro" styled cars out there. They have everything to do with poor product planning, constantly playing "catch up" with the Japanese in terms of technology and fuel efficiency, spending millions and millions fighting and trying to stop government fuel efficiency standards, a far too large reliance on BIG gas guzzling monsters and not enough serious effort into small, economical cars, and the crushing legacy costs they must pay out to all ex-employees. GM's cost to cover its employee contract/benefits agreements is approximately $1,500 per car! Toyota, by contrast, has a roughly $100 per car cost. So in effect GM is forced to compete with Toyota by giving Toyota a $1500 "head start" on price. Nobody ever won a 50 yard dash by giving the other guy a 25 yard head start!!!

[crispy]

I'm not impressed with it at all. First look reminded me of the concept car. To me this is going backwards a bit.

I do think there are a few cues that are nice. Granted it does look tougher from the front, must be why they have a plethora of frontal pictures.

Sadly it looks like it will blend in with everything else out there now.

As far as GM is concerned the Camaro is too little too late. Why oh Why do they have to wait so loooooooong to give the public a car? It reminds me of the SSR. When that truck was introduced people were oohing and ahhing over it. Then after what, 3 -4 years they finally release it to really dismal sales.

I don't think the Camaro will be like that but they are losing customers over it I'm sure.

Everything "new" is so bland these days.

Chris

[Zoom Zoom]

Harry, I think you may have misread his commentary...the jist of it is what I've complained about, and it's because Ford is stretching what was once a 2-year design (67/68) into a 10 year product that already looks dated, even with this refresh. Ford could have done a completely new 2010 Mustang design loosely based on the '69/'70 (or even '71/'72) heritage that would look a lot newer and fresher than the 2010 manages. The specialness of this generation Mustang is watered down because it's going to be on the street a lot longer than the original. To the point that even though they are retro, they've become entirely mainstream because so many of them are on the street, and will continue for at least another 5 years, and those cars will be on the road for a good 10 years after that. To me the vast majority of the '05-up Mustangs are pretty bland and mainstream due to so many of them on the roads. GT500's, Shelby GT's, Parnelli Jones variants are a lot cooler because the designs have more "oomph" and you don't see them often enough for them to get boring.

GM's been showing us the Camaro for 3 years. We still can't buy one. We may never be able to. It already looks old and familiar...the impact when and if it hits the streets will be entirely watered down because the car is so familiar...there's no "shock and awe" factor when you play your cards so early and for so long...yet another bankrupt way of doing business that only Detroit seems to think is a proper way to conduct business

[Harry P.]

Harry, I think you may have misread his commentary...the jist of it is what I've complained about, and it's because Ford is stretching what was once a 2-year design (67/68) into a 10 year product that already looks dated, even with this refresh. Ford could have done a completely new 2010 Mustang design loosely based on the '69/'70 (or even '71/'72) heritage that would look a lot newer and fresher than the 2010 manages.

I don't think Ford is in a financial position to be bringing out any totally fresh, all new, from-the-ground-up models at this time...

They're too busy figuring out how they're going to keep the lights on.

[Bernard Kron]

...the Mustang and cars like it are meant to appeal to a certain demographic, they are deliberate reworkings of classic American models from the past, ...The current Mustang is NOT meant to appeal to everyone... it is NOT an American "Camry", and it is not meant to compete on the global market. It is a uniquely American icon.

The problems US automakers are facing have nothing to do with the relatively few "retro" styled cars out there. They have everything to do with poor product planning, constantly playing "catch up" with the Japanese in terms of technology and fuel efficiency, spending millions and millions fighting and trying to stop government fuel efficiency standards, a far too large reliance on BIG gas guzzling monsters and not enough serious effort into small, economical cars, and the crushing legacy costs they must pay out to all ex-employees. GM's cost to cover its employee contract/benefits agreements is approximately $1,500 per car! Toyota, by contrast, has a roughly $100 per car cost....

Well put, Harry. I actually largely agree with you. Our difference is that I fear that the "retro" impetus has taken up so much corporate mindshare over such a long time. The thought that the only cars (and "trucks") American will buy are the "iconic" ones and those that evoke them seems to have dominated their corporate psyche. Most of the political moves that "Detroit" has made over the years seemed to favor these products. The legacy cost issue extends far beyond the Big 3 and has much to do with muchb broader issues in American domestic policy over the past 30 years and I won't go into them here (no politics policy on this board - a good one IMHO BTW). Bottom line, if something needs to have captured their collective focus over the past 30 years it was a willingness to embrace the emergence of new product types. Unfortunately, they were willing to give up to import brands most of these types under the misguided notion that Americcans didn't need or want them. They obviously did and do. Iconic traditional designs and forward looking product evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive. Indeed, they should have been creating new American icons all along! Now, however. the pressure is on and the American companies may no longer have the luxury of supporting the icons they did create. That is a shame and I hope things work out so that they can. The nightmare of the "fuel efficient" 70's is not something I am anxious to relive. The Mustang II was a truly horibble insult to that particular icon. The 2010 Mustang at least is true to the icon and is a generally succesful, if somewhat timid, facelift.

[Spike]

eh, its just another stang

[Bernard Kron]

Harry, I think you may have misread his commentary...the jist of it is what I've complained about, and it's because Ford is stretching what was once a 2-year design (67/68) into a 10 year product that already looks dated, even with this refresh. Ford could have done a completely new 2010 Mustang design loosely based on the '69/'70 (or even '71/'72) heritage that would look a lot newer and fresher than the 2010 manages. ...

GM's been showing us the Camaro for 3 years. We still can't buy one. We may never be able to. ...the impact when and if it hits the streets will be entirely watered down because the car is so familiar...yet another bankrupt way of doing business that only Detroit seems to think is a proper way to conduct business

Thanks Bob. That is part of what I was getting at. The rest is what I wrote above in responding to Harry. As modelers we are naturally drawn to the iconic. I guess I'm just greedy and want more icons and not fewer or weaker car companies to dream them up.

[B-dub]

I don't like it, when the first style came out on the basic rearend with the ugly tail lights I hated it more than the new rearend but I think the GT's had different stylings or some certain models did.. the few people I know of that have the new style of mustangs (not the '10) i know the rearends are ugly except on one of the GT's which looks a lot more old school...

I'm a mustang person but honestly I haven't liked them much unless they were the full out modded gt's that were expensive they just never looked like the old style enough to be worth it.. I really do love the old school looking style of the Challenger though... the chargers are such a joke it's quite sad..

[gasman]

it looks ok. I like the look of the V6 car, the front end looks better. The car still has the same power plants as the 05-09 cars. so It should be easy for Revell to convert there kit over. My biggest beef with the car is that it Ford really needs to ditch the solid rear axle. both the Mustang and Challenger have an IRS. The Mustang is a screamer in a straight line. but once you get to a turn it gets to a turn things tend to get hairy.

[Harry P.]

The nightmare of the "fuel efficient" 70's is not something I am anxious to relive. The Mustang II was a truly horibble insult to that particular icon.

There's a perfect example of the poor product planning and bad management decisions I referred to in other posts... Detroit caught with its pants down again!

The Japanese were busy cranking out stylish, fuel-efficient cars to better meet the challenges of the times, which they apparently had no trouble recognizing, while Ford and the rest of the Big Three, smug in their US market dominance, did very little to bring out smaller, more efficient cars. When they finally realized that the market had shifted and people now wanted more efficient cars, they had nothing in the way of new product to sell, so last-minute "new" cars like the Mustang II were created to fill the demand for more efficient cars. Most American compacts of that time, meant to go head-to-head with the Japanese imports, were poorly designed, poorly engineered and poorly executed. Remember GM's Vega? It began to rust away before you got it home from the showroom! Same with the mid-70s Aspens and Volares from Chrysler. And the Ford Pinto had a nasty habit of exploding into a ball of flames when rear-ended even slightly. Cars like that cemented the notion that American cars were just not up to snuff, and Japanese cars were better. And that was true in the 70s.

Nowadays, I really believe that American cars as as good, if not better, than their Asian competition, but the perception of poor quality lingers on in the minds of consumers. "Buy domestic" is still a tough sell for the US automakers (as can be seen by their current situation!), but Detroit has nobody to blame but itself. They really shot themselves in the foot by putting out the ###### that they did in the 70s... and they never recovered from that image of "Detroit junk", even though it's not really true anymore.

[Zoom Zoom]

I don't think Ford is in a financial position to be bringing out any totally fresh, all new, from-the-ground-up models at this time...

They're too busy figuring out how they're going to keep the lights on.

Uh, they have plenty of all-new cars coming out at this time. Have a look at the Fiesta, and there's an all-new Focus (not the cheap rehash, but world car) coming in a year or two.

The money spent on the Mustang has no correlation to their cash crisis today. Money was spent on it long before today's crisis and 2010 rollout. The 2010 has all-new sheetmetal except for the roof panel. I dare say they could have been a bit more daring w/the redesign since they already spent money to redesign every other panel on the car.

[Harry P.]

Uh, they have plenty of all-new cars coming out at this time. Have a look at the Fiesta, and there's an all-new Focus (not the cheap rehash, but world car) coming in a year or two.

The money spent on the Mustang has no correlation to their cash crisis today. Money was spent on it long before today's crisis and 2010 rollout. The 2010 has all-new sheetmetal except for the roof panel. I dare say they could have been a bit more daring w/the redesign since they already spent money to redesign every other panel on the car.

Fiesta and a new Focus isn't exactly "plenty" of new cars. It's two.

The "new" Mustang was designed several years ago. Is the money spent on that car's development part of Ford's economic problems today? Of course! All the money they spent on all their cars is part of their financial problem today, in the sense that monies spent in the past were assumed to be replenished by continued sales of their product. Since their products aren't selling at expected levels, the cash cushion isn't being replenished at the level that it must be in order to survive. The hole in their bucket is losing water faster than their hose can refill it.

And why should Ford have been "expected" to bring out an all-new Mustang vs. a redesign, anyway? Current economic situation aside, isn't the new Mustang basically a sales success? Maybe not wildly so, but at least before the current mess, the Mustang was selling fairly well. So why should Ford put out an all-new Mustang before it's really necessary to do so, sales-wise? Sure, a lot of car fans would like an all-new Mustang, maybe, but Ford apparently doesn't see that move as being quite as urgent.

Hey... like so many modelers seem to believe when it comes to re-issued kits... let's be glad we have a Mustang at all!

[Zoom Zoom]

They spent all-new money on all-new sheetmetal (aside from roof panel and glass), IMHO they didn't get their money's worth since so many think it's barely a change from before (and could just be lipstick on the corpse). They could have spent significantly less and done just a new interior and front/rear fascias, maybe grille...and probably retained as many sales. "More of the same" is what's gotten the auto companies in such trouble. Had this refresh been in its infancy now instead of 3 years ago, it probably would have been axed or significantly throttled back.

I was disappointed with the '99-'04 Mustang "refresh", to my eyes it didn't look as good as the '94-'98. Sure drove a lot better, but visually the design details were rather raw and unfinished.

I sure hope Ford still exists in 2015, and I hope by then we're not still seeing this same design. 10 years of retro on an original 2 year design is stretching it really thin...

[Nick F40]

I like it, love the mean look in the front, take the outside lights out and you got the '70 look.

The tail lights look like a 6th generation Celica