uh this is not the concept at all.. it's a mustang built by a crew of Italiens, an italien Chip Foose... this is by no means the concept for the next mustang.
I half agree with that comment.
You obviously have some validity to it,
however given the fact that the VP of Design for Ford introduced this concept, tells me that this car will probably have a LOT of influence on the 2010.
Not to mention that the amount of speculation about its design cues are said to hint very closely to what the 2010 may look like.
But...
I said before, I don't think ford will go with it.
Personally I think it's too 'fashion forward' for Ford...
It simply looks too sophisticated for a mustang. not that sophistication is bad, it just doesn't have to be flashy.
I'd like some modest sophistication a la bmw + lexus
but no wood trim
everything looks more sophisticated these days. If you keep it looking sub-par, it's going to look cheap, and continue the idea that we can't keep up with everyone else, and make rickety old fords. sophisticated doesn't have to mean expensive, but at least at par with other $30k cars. Isn't it sad? we're trying to stay par. We should be kicking ass! setting the bar!
funny that you mention that. today in the toronto star I was reading how the leader of the Canadian auto workers union (CAW) took a trip to China...he basically said that our auto industry is in for some **** if we don't start competing with their companies...which will be rolling out cars to Canada and the US within ten years...at very, very low prices.
oh and the quality will be high too
I'm just hoping it means better cars all around though (domestic and import)
Hopefully the very very low prices is a true statement.
Somehow I don't really believe it, simply because, imports have always been ridiculously expensive. Along with everything else available these days.
a 2009 Supra will probably cost $120,000 when it gets released.
I don't think it will be much cheaper in Japan because it was built there.
a 2009 Supra will probably cost $120,000 when it gets released.
I don't think it will be much cheaper in Japan because it was built there.
Maybe Ford should build that car as a Thunderbird. Some tweaks and stuff and it could be a competitor to the Corvette. (Ford seriously needs to compete with the Corvette with a car called "Thunderbird"!!!!!) This is NOT a Mustang. Doesn't look like a Mustang. Doesn't feel like a Mustang. The original Mustang (The one that EVERYONE wanted) was actually based on the cheapest car Ford built. (Falcon) The second favorite (Fox) was built on, you guessed it, the cheapest car Ford built. (Fairmont) Seems to me that EVERYTIME Ford tries to move the Mustang "upscale" it gets fat and "unsporty". ('71-'73 and '95-'95 The '74-'78's don't even really count as Mustangs. Pinto was too big a peice of poop that even calling it a Mustang couldn't make it cool.) They should stick with the formula that got them here! Build us a cheap car to play with and build the upscale guys a badass Thunderbird to brag to their friends about.
I dunno the article i read said initial price will be around 50k, things change though
They are nice cars but not worth the inflated price, they handle like boats still and I would rather have a dohc twin turbo mustang to take the supra to school and back.
It just seems to me that if Chevy can put out a car that can run with or beat, in nearly every regard, most European supercars, (for less than half what they cost!) why can't/doesn't Ford? We need a two seat, awesome handling great looking iconic supercar for about $60k-$80k. Show the Euro trash that we CAN do it better and cheaper. The GT40 is a car that NO ONE but the super-rich can even think of affording. I know "Regular Joes" that own Corvettes. The Corvette is Chevy's flagship. I guess the Mustang is Ford's. They Mustang just can't compete with the Corvette, though. I guess Ford would have to start from a clean sheet of paper to design a car to do that. Something they don't seem to be good at, lately.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?