Have you seen or read anything indicating a drastic jump in price over the outgoing model? Everything I have read suggests that the prices will remain close to what they are now.The only thing I really think is ugly is going to be the price....
No, nothing at all, just guesswork, assuming IRS and other new features will be somewhat costly, and as inflation and material costs rarely go downward. If not, then all the better. My post is really talking about more of where the Mustang is positioned in the new car marketplace compared to 1964. 50 years ago it was a really inexpensive, small, light, relatively fast (with v8 option) car. While the 2015 is impossible to compare to the 1964 1/2 technologically, I wonder if they wouldn't sell more domestically if they kept things a little more simple and inexpensive instead of striving for faster and more complex. In my neck of the woods, on a middle-class income, a RWD car at the new Mustang's price-point is getting hard to justify as a sound purchase. I'm sure that's not a very popular viewpoint but it's mine anyways -- and the sales numbers seem to back it up. I don't think it needed a face-lift, but more of a re-thinking. Maybe I'll be wrong and the world will eat it up. Though the number of well-to-do Asian Ford fans may be lower than Ford thinks, and Europeans ($10/gal gas) aren't going to eat up even the eco-boost version I fear.Have you seen or read anything indicating a drastic jump in price over the outgoing model? Everything I have read suggests that the prices will remain close to what they are now.
You're right, I did the same comparison and today's car is a lot more (infinitely more) than what you got in '64 - safety, luxury, emissions, economy, technology. Ultimately the problem is that wages & wealth didn't keep up with inflation (unless you believe the constantly politically re-calculated CPI). And for Mustang to continue to be an average Joe's car, it would have to downsize its aspirations. Not that I'd want it to go backwards 50 years in engineering, but it'd be nice if they could focus engineers on creatively cutting costs to make it more attainable as the adult toy it really is for most of us instead of fighting over a tiny marketplace with the Camaro based largely on speed.I just checked the numbers with an inflation calculator...
In '64, the Mustang started at $2240. Given the inflation, that equates to just over $16K now. The 2014 Mustang starts at $22,500. So, yes, comparatively speaking, current Mustangs are a little more expensive than they originally started at...but figure all the extra goodies you can get now versus then.
Certainly wouldn't hurt to see a lower price point for them...I mean, $30K for a base GT? Ugh. But, that's what happens over time unfortunately.
I bought my first Mustang in 1984 and over the years I have owned 2 classics , 4 Foxes an SN95 and an s197. I think that qualifies me as a true mustang guy. As a true mustang guy I know that 1978 to 2004 Mustangs have rectangular headlamps with the fog lights mounted below the bumper. 2007 to 2014 GT500s have the fog lights below the bumper as do the 2010-2014 California Specials. The 3 bar tail lamps disappeared in 1978 and did not return until 1994. On the other hand Mustang IIs have round headlights and 3 bar tail lights. Point being I don't think the shape of the head and tail lights and the location of the fog lights is the determining factor as to whether a car is a true Mustang or not.Ok Honestly... the new 2015+ looks decent and overall a nice looking CAR... however i dont appreciate it as a MUSTANG ! why? well lets see.. if you're a TRUE mustang guy you know that traditional mustangs have round headlights with fog lights in the middle... 3 rectangle lights in the rear .......
1978 to 2004 Mustangs have rectangular headlamps with the fog lights mounted below the bumper. The 3 bar tail lamps disappeared in 1978 and did not return until 1994.
I like the video of the '15 GT with Jay Leno and a Ford Exec. Jay Leno loves cars, but you could tell he was not impressed with this car at all. He acted interested enough and bragged a little on it, but you could tell he thought this thing was fugly. Trading my '10 in for a '14 very soon!
'14 aka the last real Mustang!! Fog lights, retro styling and a solid rear axle all day long.
I agree about the rear quarter windows. In fact, look at a 2002 Hyundai Tiburon coupe. From the side, the cars are near-twins.Overall I like it too. The only thing I don't like is the shape of the quarter windows. It's not that they are ugly, they just look too generic to me. It seems they could have come off of any of the import coupes that are out there. Otherwise it's a good looking car , well proportioned, aggressive, and most importantly clearly recognizable as a Mustang.
With the all the talk coming out of Ford about being "designed to appeal to a global market," I was expecting a repeat of the Mazda/Mustang/ Probe debacle from the 1990s. Glad i was wrong.
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?