All 2015+ Mustang S550 renders / chops compilation

[SStormtrooPer]

68's are supposed to have rear quarter panel indicators, that is most likely a 67 in the picture. But the body shape is the same I believe:coolphotos:

'67s had louvers in the C-Scoops. I have a '68 notch that is all taken apart right now that does not have indicators in the qtr. -- I am the second owner, it was never wrecked, so I am confident it is correct.

I truly hope the rear of S500 looks as good as a 67/68.

Sponsored

 

[Ponywars]

I truly hope the rear of S500 looks as good as a 67/68.

x2

One can only hope we ever get another rear that looks that good.

Well, as some on this site have pointed out, so far the front I can see being a modern interpretation of the '68 gt500.

 

[Dub347sbf]

x2

One can only hope we ever get another rear that looks that good.

Well, as some on this site have pointed out, so far the front I can see being a modern interpretation of the '68 gt500.

I'm in love.

 

[Chewy]

'67s had louvers in the C-Scoops. I have a '68 notch that is all taken apart right now that does not have indicators in the qtr. -- I am the second owner, it was never wrecked, so I am confident it is correct.

I truly hope the rear of S500 looks as good as a 67/68.

True about the louvers! But the side indicators were required by law in 1968, it was a vehicle lighting mandate. Its possible that owners swapped them for prior year quarter panels for a cleaner look, but by law they had to come off the manufacturers line with them

edit: Anyone know if Shelby's would be required to follow the same manufactures laws? I'm assuming they would

 

[Lavien]

The rear is actually not that far off. He also has a wire frame done on 9/29 with a rear 3/4 showing the door open that I think will make that details of the side much more accurate than above. Chazcron is DEFINITELY on the right track!!!

Any chance the rear lights look anything like this? I love what topnotch did with this. Of course we cant see the bumper and trunk area but these lights would be a great start in my opinion.

 

[NeedLotteryToBuyStang]

x2

One can only hope we ever get another rear that looks that good.

Well, as some on this site have pointed out, so far the front I can see being a modern interpretation of the '68 gt500.

Ford should just go ahead and give us what we want... a thoroughly modern chassis, a thoroughly modern suspension, and a thoroughly modern engine... all wrapped in exact duplicates of the '68 Mustang's body panels.

 

[Twin Turbo]

Ford should just go ahead and give us what we want... a thoroughly modern chassis, a thoroughly modern suspension, and a thoroughly modern engine... all wrapped in exact duplicates of the '68 Mustang's body panels.

Then you want one of these. Built on an S197 by a company called Retrobuilt. Perhaps they'll start using S550 as a base in the future......

 

[NeedLotteryToBuyStang]

Then you want one of these. Built on an S197 by a company called Retrobuilt. Perhaps they'll start using S550 as a base in the future......

Yep, that's hot.

 

[UOP Shadow]

Then you want one of these. Built on an S197 by a company called Retrobuilt. Perhaps they'll start using S550 as a base in the future......

I fell in love with their 69 GT500 conversion based on their website. My wife told me no way were we going to spend all that money to turn our 2013 GT500 into that.

Well, we actually saw a number of these cars in person at the 2013 Mid America Shelby Show in Tulsa this summer. The build quality & fit / finish of these cars was AWFUL!!! There was so much body filler on the cars & so many bubbles in the body filler that was just painted over. I told my wife that there was no way I would pay all that money for their conversion with such sloppy work!

Their concepts look pretty good in person even though some of the proportions were wacky. But my opinion is that I could have done a better job with the kit myself. At least I would not have painted over burst bubbles in body fillers so the car looked like it had large, open holes in it all over.

WIN on design but FAIL on execution. I can't believe they actually brought their cars to the show looking as bad as they did. <facepalm>

 

[TampaBear67]

So I've been working on my renderings a bit more since FoxStang1987 commented on it. I've looked closely at the Camo and after studying it I Changed the rear end more in line with the Lincoln MKZ's profile which is more like a modern interpretation of the 67/68 Mustang's Fastback. I think this is closer to what We're going to get. I've reduced the "Wrap" on the tail lights and Removed the Reverse Scoop on the rear Bumper Under the Tail Lights. I Also modified the front end more in line with the most recent Reveal. The Top One has a More Coupe Like Profile and the second a More Fastback Profile, What do you Guys think now?

 

[Dirk McGurck]

I like both, but the driver scale looks way off. I would drive either one assuming it is smaller than an S197. The lines of your render is very sexy, and I hope that Ford tries something different like that.

 

[Metronome]

It looks good to me. I like that you brought down the hood a bit.... I would go with the top one more even if the roofline looks more like the current car. I just think that's probably more accurate.

 

[TampaBear67]

I like both, but the driver scale looks way off. I would drive either one assuming it is smaller than an S197. The lines of your render is very sexy, and I hope that Ford tries something different like that.

Thanks Dirk, unfortunately I can't help the size of the test driver that was behind the wheel of the prototype in the picture which Ive been working from. I personally think that he has to be rather short because I know even on the current car My head would be at the back of the side glass.

 

[JohnZiraldo]

I prefer the top one because the more tapered C pillar makes the rear end look less bulky and will hopefully allow the hips to look larger (thus more powerful) without the booty looking too big.

 

[Powderd Toast]

They're both dead sexy

Sponsored