Official: 2018 Ford Mustang Refresh Detailed! (Options/Features, Specs, Photos, Info)

[EcoVert]

Pony car. Muscle car. Sports car. I just call it a Mustang. I'll let everyone else sweat the category it belongs in.:shrug:

I would say "Just Kicking Ass" but thats just me. :lol::lol::lol:

Mustang started the pony car class but now it's in a class all by its self
:ford:

Sponsored

 

[GT Pony]

I watched the video, where's the Mach 1 ?

Fake News ... the world is turning more fake every day. :doh:

 

[EcoVert]

Fake News ... the world is turning more fake every day. :doh:

More and more fake new and to many damn commercials :doh:

 

[Topnotch]

[ame]

1:14 Mustang GT

 

[Coyote Red]

Wheelbase S550 vs S197

Except the Mustang is not a muscle car. The S197 didn't have the long hood issue like the S550 does.

I agree, my 14 cyclone would turn in the street, not my 16 GT. The wheelbase has changed and I am not enjoying it as much.

 

[MRGTX]

I agree with those who are saying the classification thing is not concrete enough to argue about. The Mustang has always had a flavor of both a muscle car and a sports car to varying degrees. Even in its 1971-1974 "baroque" years, it wasn't quite as much of a brute as a Chevelle SS or a Charger R/T.

As we all know, the original idea of a muscle car was to take a mid sized car and stuff an oversized engine into it. That's it. This doesn't exactly describe the Mustang...which as we all know, was originally based on the compact Falcon and received a punchy (but not overwhelming) 289 4bbl option. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe "heart pounding acceleration and mountain moving torque" was on Lee Iacocca's list of design criteria for the Mustang.

From the perspective of someone who was born two decades too late to experience the muscle car era first hand, it looks to me like the Mustang just got tugged along with the performance car trends, away from it's original intent of stylish/affordable/sporty transportation, thanks to the efforts of Carol Shelby and other circumstances of the second half of the 1960s. Rather, it was adapted to grab a part of the market that was only just emerging when the Mustang was born. Ford had no idea that the 1964 GTO was going to stand the world on its head and they didn't design the Mustang to compete with that class.

After the mass extinction of the muscle car in 1974 or so, the surviving cars from the era were left to try to blend the appeal of everything that was lost. The Mustang became the de facto muscle car because the fire breathing mid-sized machines were gone...for better or for worse, this blended genre situation has stuck as today's soulless automobile market only has enough testosterone to support one or two performance models from each manufacturer.

The 1948 Oldsmobile Rocket 88 is generally noted as the first muscle car:

By 1970, even a second-tier automaker like Plymouth gave you a stunning group of hot rods to choose from.

 

[MRGTX]

Tangent aside: I DO think that the Mustang GT, Challenger R/T and Camaro SS are genuine muscle cars and they have been to varying degrees since the original form of the muscle car died off.

But, with the S197.5 forward and the birth of the amazing Coyote engine Ford realized that they could suddenly compete with a world class "sports coupe," the BMW M3, for less than half the money. I think that was the turning point (no pun intended) when the Mustang started receiving more and more injections of sports car DNA. Now the S550 is a machine that can accelerate with the best of the muscle cars and more than hold its own on a road course with the best sports cars of previous generations.

IMO, it's totally justifiable to call it a muscle car or a sports car.

 

[Twin Turbo]

1:14 Mustang GT

Good video, thanks TN :cheers:

And I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I hadn't realised quite how similar the outta edges of the GT's rear bumper are to the outta edges from the Mustang's front bumper. It's a lot clearer in white!

 

[Topnotch]

 

[Bullitt]

That top image's front bumper looks so much better.

 

[wireeater]

Definitely doesn't have that aggressive look as the 15-17 from that front low angle. Much more sleek and refined looking but those pictures look WAY better than most I have seen. Is the front upper black splitter part of the PP or is that standard on all. And white makes everything look better!

 

[Norm Peterson]

While I agree with what you are saying, never said a word about going fast in a straight line.

Maybe not directly. But that is the clear implication any time that "old school muscle cars" are referenced.

It is a muscle car! I have been fortunate enough to drive a small selection old school muscle cars, and sit in plenty more and guess what... they all have a long and tall hood that are hard to see over.

It's the only kind of performance that they were any good at, and arguably the kind of performance where having a good view of the road is least needed. Heck, with the nose up on hard acceleration in 1st gear you might not see pavement until a hundred yards out (the road had damn well better go straight ahead).

My point about a tall pronounced hood is that it is a part of the design that communicates power, and usually power via displacement.

I understand that much. What I don't quite get is why styling should so rigidly cling to the era when big power was the only thing that the true muscle cars had to offer, when today's cars have improved much more in the other performance driving categories. Improving sightlines over the hood is recognition that other driving attributes are also important now, where in times past they weren't perhaps even good enough for it to matter. Form should generally follow function - all functions, not fight with them.

At least finally someone got the point I was trying to make. You know what you are buying so don't complain that the hood is too hard to see over. As you said, your next purchase will keep your goals for the car in mind BEFORE you buy it instead of complaining about an oversight after the fact.

It was obvious from the first half mile I drove an S197 that it was really better suited to the more open sort of driving found on road courses and country or canyon driving than at the much tighter autocross (that I was getting out of for other reasons). At least the basic GT wasn't stuck with that silly GT/CS hood scoop.

I guess I'm not seeing how failing to notice sight lines that were better could be considered an unfortunate oversight.

Yes, seeing it in 3D and from the driver's seat will be the ultimate test.


Norm

 

[Kevin08]

Definitely doesn't have that aggressive look as the 15-17 from that front low angle. Much more sleek and refined looking but those pictures look WAY better than most I have seen. Is the front upper black splitter part of the PP or is that standard on all. And white makes everything look better!

Those are photoshops, or "fake news" according to certain members. TN doesn't like to include much context in his posts.

 

[65Terdlingua]

Good video, thanks TN :cheers:

And I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I hadn't realised quite how similar the outta edges of the GT's rear bumper are to the outta edges from the Mustang's front bumper. It's a lot clearer in white!

The actual cutout for brake cooling in those vents is only about the size of half your palm. Not that big.

 

[GTRacerX.]

2018 Ford Mustang Front Fascia

I can live with this one ! What do you guys & gals think?
:ford:

:cheers:

Sponsored