2015 Mustang leaked

AverageH wrote:

93EXCivic wrote:

bravenrace wrote:

93EXCivic wrote:

bravenrace wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: In reply to bravenrace: Damn! Hopefully someone on the aftermarket will come up with a way to make them not do that.

This sounds to me like a personal problem. If you like, I can provide your life with more important things to worry about.

True but it is only thing that really turns me off from the current Mustang and I wouldn't mind one for a toy on day if I could fix that.

What about it bothers you? Seriously, I'd like to know.

I don't know honestly. I just want it for flash like a normal turn signal. Something about the whole sequential thing annoys me greatly. It is like how some people's laugh or speech can annoy you but you can't exactly pinpoint why. Surely I can't be the only one.

Don't worry, I think it's a dumb gimmick too. -Hamid

I too can't stand the sequential signals. It just seems so gimmicky. In my mind it belongs in the same category as the aftermarket stick on scoops and airbrushed flaming pony grill emblems. Tacky.

I had a '65 Fastback and just having them blink on and off was fine with me. At least there is probably an easy remedy as the Ford info says export mustangs wont have them. A few changes in the wiring should remedy the situation, perhaps even replacing a taillight sub-harness.

I do however, love this new Mustang. I'm ready to go see one when they arrive at the dealer!

I think the sequential lights are the only thing I like about any rustang built after 1978. Probably because they come from way back in the day on mercury's. I like old things.

I think Ford has a winner with this one. I'm starting on winning my wife's approval too

I hope they offer a silver color, says the silver haired geezer.

I'm not done modding the '05 S197 yet and been eyeballin' '12 Coyotes already.... now this... thanks a berkeleying bunch Ford.

As one who likes both Astons and Mustangs, I like this.

The online configurator is up. Lots of pictures and you can change change the color and wheels

2015 Mustang

It looks gorgeous. Love it.

I do not like it. Looks like a cheap G35. It's just all wrong. I think they knocked it out of the berkeleying park with the styling on the 05-09's, and it's been downhill since.

My $.02.

So its been downhill since 1970?

In reply to Appleseed:

Yes

Appleseed wrote: So its been downhill since 1966?

FTFY.......the best were the originals......before they decided to cross the 3000lb plateau.

In reply to yamaha:

Why would you say that? These new, heavier Mustangs handle better, are faster, get better mileage, and drive nicer than any under 3k lb Mustang ever built.
I'm all for light weight (one of the reasons I own a '65 Mustang instead of a much heavier car from the same time period), but it only has meaning if it offers some advantage, and in this case I don't think it does.

Yeah I agree with bravenrace, better brakes, handling, reliability, gas mileage, safer, easy to drive fast, easier to drive long distance, make more power, better accessories. In every way the new cars beat the hell out of the old cars.

Of course I also covet the early stangs

As with the last 3 generations I will hate the looks until the second body style. I can't wait until 2011's are old enough for me to afford.

The more I look at it the better it looks. I was shocked how that car is 100% new. Not a single repeated body panel or chassis form repeated. I wonder what it will look like in black.

In reply to Flight Service:

http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/2015//

http://mustangsdaily.com/blog/2013/12/07/2015-ford-mustang-colors/

bravenrace wrote:

I need a minute...

One interesting thing about the design is that there dose not appear to be any increase in beltline from front to back. The top of the trunk lid appears to be the same height from the ground as the front window cowl.

I think the convertible looks fan-berking-tastic from the couple pictures I've seen. I wonder what an Eco-Boost four in a drop top will cost...

I don't like the hood, I think the raised section look silly on my SN-95's hood, I don't care for them here either. Maybe some would call it boring but I'd love a flat hood instead. I'd also want to de-horse the grill.

In reply to pres589:

I read that the hood shape is necessary - No excess clearance to lower it.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to yamaha: Why would you say that? These new, heavier Mustangs handle better, are faster, get better mileage, and drive nicer than any under 3k lb Mustang ever built. I'm all for light weight (one of the reasons I own a '65 Mustang instead of a much heavier car from the same time period), but it only has meaning if it offers some advantage, and in this case I don't think it does.

It was a jab at all of those that prefer the "muscle cars" from 67-70.......nothing more.

In reply to bravenrace:

Bummer. Maybe it won't look so drastic in the flesh.

I probably won't buy one since I'm an almost stupidly frugal person but this thing is still pretty good to look at...