94-95 Tail Lights VS. 96-98 Tail Lights?
#82
trav_19 said:
see mustangs just had them wrong from the begining should have been horizontal all along damn ford cant get anything right lol
Click to expand...

Ford should've made the Mustang a FWD 4-banger too!!! What were they thinking?!!

But honestly, I saw the green Mach III concept in person at Christies in NYC when Ford was auctioning in off... ....and it had horizontals.

EDIT: Also just noticed, we're about 50/50 in the 5.0 forums. I wonder what the vote would be in the Land of Make Believe.......
 
#83
lol i think every site has one of these topics your right theres a lot of people on both sides another site i go to often is like 90% horizontal and 10% vertical lol ...everyones gotta make there cars the way they like them and thats what it all come down to
 
#85

I think you need to learn to read people's posts a bit.

First off, I don't have fake hood scoops. And I never said I like the stock fake ones either. Let's not go mixing Apples and Oranges for the sake of trying to win an "opinion argument".

Second, I said "borderline rice" as in they look like CHEAP made thin plastic. You make the very transparent red into a clear, stick some red bulbs in there, and bam they say APC all over them.

Now insulting my mustang knowledge is rude when you didn't read my post. Not that I care if you are the great and mighty mustang lord of the corral, instead of me. If you read my post I clearly said I don't feel they look like the classic mustangs... the 99+up, yup those look close. NEVER did I EVER say the horizontal's look like the classic mustangs...

We are debating the "opinion" <---- as in NO ONE WILL WIN. of the 94-95s vs the 96-98 taillights.

I base my opinions solely on those two choices and not to the classics. Someone mentioned the 96-98s are closer to the classics. Wow, they are vertical and have three sections. They aren't close enough for me to consider the "classic" resemblance. The part that sticks out about the "classic" is the aggressive /// \\\ angles of the slots. That is sweet. So I'm still at the original debate. Which do I feel look better on MY car. 94-95 or 96-98. I chose the 94-95.... plain and simple.

You do it your way, I'll do it my way. No point in insulting anyone.
 
#86
GToddyT5 said:
Rice??? That's a bit much. If you wanna talk border-line rice, mention the newer Lightning or whatever that newer Ford sedan is called.

The 87-93 GT look like fine cheese graters, whereas the 94-95 will give you the large slices of cheese.
Click to expand...

Here again. This had nothing to do with Lightnings... or the fox body mustangs.

If you want to bring them into this. OUR generation of youngsters might consider the FOX body as THE mustang body style. IF so... then the horizontal cheese graters would be a "similar" match to our stock taillights. Just bigger slices of cheese.
 
#87
gcomfx.com said:
No point in insulting anyone.
Click to expand...

I wasn't being insulting.
I was simply stating that if you go poll Mustang enthusiasts(people who know the history), they will find the '96 are more supportive of the heritage of the car. Like I said, we're split 50/50 here in the 5.0 forums. I wonder what the 4.6 and classic guys would say....

I'll agree you can't debate opinion. But you can debate the FACTS that one states have influenced their opinion.

The part that sticks out about the "classic" is the aggressive /// \\\ angles of the slots. That is sweet. So I'm still at the original debate.
Click to expand...

Show me a head-on view of the rear of any classic Mustang from '65-'73 that has tails leaning towards the center like that. All classic Mustang tails go straight up and down. '65/'66 lean out in a convex fashion, and '67/'68 lean in a concave fashion, but line from top to bottom is 90* from the ground.

Second, I said "borderline rice" as in they look like CHEAP made thin plastic. You make the very transparent red into a clear, stick some red bulbs in there, and bam they say APC all over them.
Click to expand...

The '99-'04 lenses are just as "cheap". But for looking cheap, my '01 lenses AND the '96 lenses on my 'vert don't fade like '94/'95 lenses.


Which do I feel look better on MY car. 94-95 or 96-98. I chose the 94-95.... plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Okay...I get it. My roommate used to think 3rd gen. Camaros looked good.

 
#88
I stand corrected...

I got the angles backwards, but they do appeared to be angled none the less on this body style.
View attachment 405152

Perhaps I do remember the ones below as angled only due to most pictures being at an angle.





Bottom line is still I decide between the two options we have (without heavy modifications) not based on older models. Going back and looking at ALL the taillights. It's the mixture of the BODY and the taillights that pull off the look of the car. Eleanor is one of the most popular mustangs... and it resembles the FOX, not our car or the 96-98.

http://www.totalcontrolproducts.com/download/wallpaper/eleanor2.jpg

Now hopefully all the blasted hotlinks load.
 

Attachments

  • FBeachrear.jpg
    31.9 KB · Views: 77
#89
'66 coupe said:
Okay...I get it. My roommate used to think 3rd gen. Camaros looked good.

Click to expand...

Opinions do change.... that has been noted above. To be honest, I wasn't a fan of the SN95 when it first came out. ( I was a Senior in HS - prime driving age to drool over a sporty car) But my opinion was based on the V-6 stripped down cars I seen everywhere. My opinion changed when I finally seen the Cobra .
 
#92
gcomfx.com said:
I stand corrected...

I got the angles backwards, but they do appeared to be angled none the less on this body style.
Click to expand...

That's just point of perspective. If you look at a '67/'68 taillight head-on(not lining up with the gas cap), you will see it's not slanted. It's just the concave shap that gives it that illusion.

i love the long tail lights on that car so sexy....didn't they come from the t-bird..or something..i cant remember
Click to expand...

Yea, T-bird. But Ford did use them on the real '67 Shelby; one of the few accurate things about Eleanore.
 
#93
'66 coupe said:
That's just point of perspective. If you look at a '67/'68 taillight head-on(not lining up with the gas cap), you will see it's not slanted. It's just the concave shap that gives it that illusion.
Click to expand...

Well there you go then. I like the 99+ because they resemble the nice aggressive look you get in the perspective of most pictures taken of what some deem the classic mustang.
 
#94

The common thread was between rice and Lightning tails, not hard to follow. The other common thread was between the horizontal 94-95 tails and the 87-93 tails...again, not hard to follow.
 
#95
Who woulda thunk it

Four pages of TL Rhetoric

To stir up the Pot a little

Those pics looked to be 67 or 68

Real Classic TL's ... IIRC ... were straight up and down

I'm talkin 64 1/2 through 66 ... First Generation ... don't ya know

Grady
 
#97
GToddyT5 said:
The common thread was between rice and Lightning tails, not hard to follow. The other common thread was between the horizontal 94-95 tails and the 87-93 tails...again, not hard to follow.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the second part. It's a really good observation.

The first one, I followed... but it would take us even FURTHER out than we already are. Rice VS Lightning = neither side being listed in the title of this thread. And yes, I also agree... the new lightning tails are closer to rice. I'm not a fan.

I feel I can talk rice all day long. I know rice. My car was once rice. Thankfully it's getting further from it all the time.

http://gcomfx.com/graphix/mall/stang9.jpg

Hard to imagine it's the same car as the one in my signature, isn't it? I had a friend AND his dad talk me into the alteeza's.... I kept them on the car for less than week. Only because I was trying to justify the $$$ I threw out the window.

Sadly, I recouped some of the $$$ by selling them to someone who loves them on their mustang.
 
#98
215what said:
I like both of them. But I think my 95 look's tuffer in the back compared to my 96. The 94-95's look bad a$$ at nite
Click to expand...

agreed i think it gives it a truely tought look and very good looking at night time...

lightning tails are rice and i would be looking for a set of fleetside tails to swap a.s.a.p.

i got lx tails in my 93 but if i found a set of gt tails not i would put those back in...when freshly painted i think they do auctually look good....

whats the tail layout on 69 and 70's?? straight up and down i cant remember..? and whats the tails look like in 71-73 im drawing blanks for some reason..?
 
#99
gcomfx.com said:
Hey Grady, do you think there is a difference of opinion on what a mustang is... based on the age of the person you are asking?

Might be an interesting thread.
Click to expand...

Yes ... I really do think age can make a difference

Have you ever considered

Just WHO is it? ...........
The auto makers are building all the retro cars for

Its peeps like ........................... Me
Peeps who were around to enjoy .................. the originals

I know lots of you younger folk don't like the 05 retro style

Me ............ I love it
and
I didn't even ask them to build em that way

Too Bad Ford didn't have enough sense to .............
do the same with the motor

btw ...... Have I ever told ya'll .........
I don't care a whole lot for the mod motor

When I saw the first 94 SN Body Style
My first words were ..... Those Suck

Didn't take but a short ride in one to see .........
Ford built em better than the older Fox
No squeaks, rattles, and ... more solid all around

Then again ... My heart melts when I see a ... Cherry Fox Coupe
Don't know why ... I just love how they look

I was lookin for one when my current 95GT was found

If that first plan had transpired .......
Guess I'd be hangin on the Fox side of SN

anyway ..........

All Stangs are good
but
I easily remember ... some ... more than others

428 Cobra Jets were kinda fun
Boss 302's didn't suck either

Over the years ... Several have been just ... Great

Grady
 
#100
i would love nothing more than a 70 boss 302 or a old mach i dont really care for the new 05...one, the dissapointing motors.. we need more cubes...two the interiors are totally cramped for me...6 foot and i felt like i was in the back seat of our cars....i like the bodystyling and the guage clusters are a nice throwback concept....wish they would have used the concept tails though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Electrical Manual 2003 GT 4.6L coupe that will not start. Thoughts? Resources?
Replies
3
Views
611
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
PSKSAM2
P
D
2012 GT tail light problem
Replies
0
Views
544
2010 - 2014 Specific Tech
diamonded
D
Where to get amber taillights for 79 stang - see pics
Replies
7
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Mustang5L5
D
Double check my electrical diagnosis of light issues on 65 Coupe
Replies
1
Views
388
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
AeroCoupe
B
94 cobra possible idle issue?
Replies
11
Views
721
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Noobz347
Menu
Log in
Register