The only cosmetic mods left to my car are going to be a GT500 front clip (including the hood), CDC rear ductail spoiler w/ third light delete, and possibly the SHR windows if I feel like. I feel like less is more with these cars. You don't have to do much to get these cars looking nice and all the people who put everything on their cars just never makes sense to me lol
Getting rid of the big ass
- Thread starter zeeg
- Start date
The only cosmetic mods left to my car are going to be a GT500 front clip (including the hood), CDC rear ductail spoiler w/ third light delete, and possibly the SHR windows if I feel like. I feel like less is more with these cars. You don't have to do much to get these cars looking nice and all the people who put everything on their cars just never makes sense to me lol
walter
Founding Member
Going with a spoiler delete option would probably thin out the outline as well. Still the GT500 look with the flat black paint and flat black sideskirts does wonders to trick the eye in thinking the car is smaller an it actually is especially if the car you're looking at is lighter in color.
I find that the S197 rear looks a lot like the Nissan GT-R. I approve! The Nismo Z has brake issues, check the latest Car & Driver to see how poorly Nissan and Infiniti fared in the braking tests.
blacksheep06
New Member
- Jan 31, 2006
- 288
- 0
- 0
Everybody is always talking about the fat ass, but when you compare the s197 to the sn95 it's actually the entire car. For some reason Ford gave the s197 a higher waist line (higher sides, less roof). That's what gives it a fat look. The fat ass is just the end result of having less roof.
I would have liked to have seen the s197 with slighly lower sides like the sn95.
I love the retro look of the s197 but I also still like the sleek lean look of the sn95.
But if you look around at all the new cars these days, their all getting fatter and bloated looking. I guess it's the trend.
IMO, lowering definately makes the whole car look leaner.
I would have liked to have seen the s197 with slighly lower sides like the sn95.
I love the retro look of the s197 but I also still like the sleek lean look of the sn95.
But if you look around at all the new cars these days, their all getting fatter and bloated looking. I guess it's the trend.
IMO, lowering definately makes the whole car look leaner.
Hit the nail on the head. The lean, mean look of the SN95 was amazing (and still is). I love my S197, but there is just something about those New Edge Mustangs that I will always love (even though the interior looks like a blind person designed it)
I couldn't stand the look of the sn-95's, they looked like they were carved from a block of soap or something. I started to buy a new GT back in 2000, but decided to wait. Now I'm glad I did, I love the retro look of the new stangs. I have to look twice to tell if it's old or new. Now I just look at the quarter pannel, if it has hips, it's old.
red05bullitgt
Member
And the hips are a coming, as the 2010 Stang will be revealed at the L.A. Auto Show, this upcoming November 
scupking
Active Member
I think the interior is good on the sn95s. It’s designed to look like the 69-70 stangs.
The 79-04 Fox Mustangs looked and felt like cheap cars. The S197 gave it a European touch, straight down to the European Ford Transit shift knobs. The S197 was originally designed to have an IRS, but that was scrubbed due to cost and weight. I definitely dig the bulkier body shape and new S197 chassis. I was never impressed with the 79-04 Fox platform.
GreyDiesel
New Member
And the hips are a coming, as the 2010 Stang will be revealed at the L.A. Auto Show, this upcoming November
Do you know something I dont? I have seen spy shots of the 2010, and it seems to have the same sides. There is a new tail light design, and a new front, but I thought that was it.
I had a 96 and I HATED the shifter location.
Also, agreed on the frame of the sn95. It was crappy. Absolutely needed SFC's (full length) to be anywhere near as rigid as our cars and without an IRS (so anything but an 03/04 cobra) and the ride was ****ty IMO.
Humboldt Stang
Member
- Nov 5, 2005
- 64
- 0
- 6
SlideWRX
Member
Personally the fatness of the ass is in the length past the rear wheels; I'd like it shorter. That and how far the bumper sticks out from the trunk. It looks like the GT500/CS rear clip help with the trim line, and I'll bet filling in between the lights would add to that effect.
red05bullitgt
Member
Just as DarkFireGT posted, the hips aren't huge, but they're definitely there underneath all that camo.
Also, as I had previously posted. The 2010 Mustang, will be revealed at the L.A. Auto Show this upcoming November 21st.
That being said, you'll be seeing the hips soon enough
klaw
Member
It's all about personal taste. If my car was a woman she'd spend alot of time biting the pillow.
GreyDiesel
New Member
It's all about personal taste. If my car was a woman she'd spend alot of time biting the pillow.
Brillinat!
If I were to know where to place the bet, I would put money on the 09 stang being a downgrade. (of course I would, I just bought an 07 based on that assumtion) Just like in the 70s, the designers are under pressure to make the stang seem more gas friendly, smaller, etc. Plus, they are adding hips to compete with the Camaro, not because it "needs" hips. I'll bet they look tacked on --an afterthought. Plus, the "extra brightwork" (described by inside line) looks like crap from what I have seen in spy photos. I dont want to sound too negative, but they do have big shoes to fill.
