Auto show impressions

[FStephenMasek]

The Ford display at the NAIAS was clearly the most expensive. The Mustangs were popular, ND we observed many other people disappointed that the back seat is all but useless. We also saw other taller people who did not appreciate the lowered roof. I am 6' 1" and my wife us 5' 10", so we are above average, but not super tall. There is no way either of us would be happy with such a design. We went to the Ford Museum, and the original Mustang is a far better design. The mechanical aspects of the car are excellent, and the display at the auto with one in a holder rotated 90 degrees to the floor was excellent. Let's hope they make a more practical Thunderbird off of the same basic design. We had a 1994 Thunderbird VA and both liked it very much. That name is almost as good as Mustang, so it would be strange if Ford continues to neglect it. I also remember the view out of the 1970 AMX I had. What is the purpose of this smashed roof stuff? The GT350R lowered front end is nicer than the regular front end, so why don't they just use it for all versions?

I will post photos when we are back from Detroit.

Sponsored

 

[fionic]

The Ford display at the NAIAS was clearly the most expensive. The Mustangs were popular, ND we observed many other people disappointed that the back seat is all but useless. We also saw other taller people who did not appreciate the lowered roof. I am 6' 1" and my wife us 5' 10", so we are above average, but not super tall. There is no way either of us would be happy with such a design. We went to the Ford Museum, and the original Mustang is a far better design. The mechanical aspects of the car are excellent, and the display at the auto with one in a holder rotated 90 degrees to the floor was excellent. Let's hope they make a more practical Thunderbird off of the same basic design. We had a 1994 Thunderbird VA and both liked it very much. That name is almost as good as Mustang, so it would be strange if Ford continues to neglect it. I also remember the view out of the 1970 AMX I had. What is the purpose of this smashed roof stuff? The GT350R lowered front end is nicer than the regular front end, so why don't they just use it for all versions?

If you're only 6'1, you'll have PLENTY of head room.

 

[Rob00GT]

I think you don't understand the difference between how a design looks and how it functions. I've driven a 1964 Mustang and I can tell you that my 2015 has more room. I'm also 6'4" and my new convertible has room not only for my wife and I, but for short trips my 11 & 9 year-old daughters can ride in the back seat. I'll admit the back seat is suitable only for children, but that's how a sports coupe is supposed to be.

Oh and the kids prefer the back seat of my 2015 vert over my 1988 GT hatchback, even though it has less leg room.

 

[908ssp]

The Ford display at the NAIAS was clearly the most expensive. The Mustangs were popular, ND we observed many other people disappointed that the back seat is all but useless. We also saw other taller people who did not appreciate the lowered roof. I am 6' 1" and my wife us 5' 10", so we are above average, but not super tall. There is no way either of us would be happy with such a design. We went to the Ford Museum, and the original Mustang is a far better design. The mechanical aspects of the car are excellent, and the display at the auto with one in a holder rotated 90 degrees to the floor was excellent. Let's hope they make a more practical Thunderbird off of the same basic design. We had a 1994 Thunderbird VA and both liked it very much. That name is almost as good as Mustang, so it would be strange if Ford continues to neglect it. I also remember the view out of the 1970 AMX I had. What is the purpose of this smashed roof stuff? The GT350R lowered front end is nicer than the regular front end, so why don't they just use it for all versions?

I will post photos when we are back from Detroit.

I disagree with everything you said. That doesn't happen often.:tsk:

 

[1320']

The Ford display at the NAIAS was clearly the most expensive. The Mustangs were popular, ND we observed many other people disappointed that the back seat is all but useless. We also saw other taller people who did not appreciate the lowered roof. I am 6' 1" and my wife us 5' 10", so we are above average, but not super tall. There is no way either of us would be happy with such a design. We went to the Ford Museum, and the original Mustang is a far better design. The mechanical aspects of the car are excellent, and the display at the auto with one in a holder rotated 90 degrees to the floor was excellent. Let's hope they make a more practical Thunderbird off of the same basic design. We had a 1994 Thunderbird VA and both liked it very much. That name is almost as good as Mustang, so it would be strange if Ford continues to neglect it. I also remember the view out of the 1970 AMX I had. What is the purpose of this smashed roof stuff? The GT350R lowered front end is nicer than the regular front end, so why don't they just use it for all versions?

I will post photos when we are back from Detroit.

I'm taller than you at 6'2.5ish and didn't have problems.

The GT350 front end is for the GT350..it's an upper model and deserves to have its own look, the GT500 was unique for almost its entire run except for 13/14.

 

[FStephenMasek]

Everything? Which other display is fancier than the one Ford has?

When I had the front seat far enough back, it was touching the back seat, leaving zero leg room.

 

[kevg73]

Everything? Which other display is fancier than the one Ford has?

When I had the front seat far enough back, it was touching the back seat, leaving zero leg room.

You must have a very laid back driving position. I'm 6'0" and with the seat in my normal driving position some of my shorter friends (~5'5") have sat behind me in the back seat and been fine for short trips.

It's definitely not intended to be a family car so I would not expect it to be as practical as one.

 

[BmacIL]

Everything? Which other display is fancier than the one Ford has?

When I had the front seat far enough back, it was touching the back seat, leaving zero leg room.

Wow. You must have really long legs. I am 6'1 and when I put the seat where it needs to be to push the clutch all the way in comfortably, there was about 3.5-4 inches (about the width of my hand) between the seats. Granted, that's not much at all, but someone could squeeze in there.

 

[MSamuels]

I have plenty of gripes about my new Mustang but the height just isn't one of them. Never even occurred to me that it lacked headroom and Im 6 0. Did you sit in the car? Its not the least bit constraining in any conceivable way. Bit puzzled by this one. The backseat is pretty much unusable, but I cant be bothered at all about that. Really dont care.

 

[FStephenMasek]

As long and heavy as the car is, the space utilization should be better. We observed and talked with others at the show who thought the same things. If it sells as is fine, but the other car(s) on the same platform should be designed differently to obtain sales which would otherwise go to another car maker.

 

[fionic]

You must have a very laid back driving position.

JimmyTwoTimes knows what's up.

 

[fionic]

As long and heavy as the car is, the space utilization should be better. We observed and talked with others at the show who thought the same things. If it sells as is fine, but the other car(s) on the same platform should be designed differently to obtain sales which would otherwise go to another car maker.

never heard of safety features?

did you sit in the car????

globs of room up front. rear seats shouldn't be used anyway.

 

[1320']

never heard of safety features?

did you sit in the car????

globs of room up front. rear seats shouldn't be used anyway.

Yup.

I see the GT350R's rear seat delete becoming a popular option.

Rear seats are basically useless, might as well delete them and shave 30lbs off the car.

 

[Mike G]

The rear seats are fine for anyone under 5'6". About the same space as the S197, but the headroom has been reduced due to the fastback design. My 5'3" daughter rode in the backseat for a 7 hour drive with zero complaints. She said it was about the same as my old car. I'm 5'8" and don't have enough headroom back there; it was no problem for me to ride in the back of an S197.

 

[Magmetallic15]

I am 6'3" tall, and I get into and out of the 15 Mustang that I have with no issues. I have about 2 inches head clearance with my seat set to the lowest position. I did go to the Indy Auto Show and sat in many cars. If you want zero head room, go buy a new Camaro. With the seat in the full down position I can not sit up straight in that seat without hitting the roof. Anyone over 6'1" or so will not be able to comfortably drive that car. I also have an 05 Mustang GT and it has plenty of headroom too. What I like most is that unlike 4 door cars like the Fusion and the Focus, which I also have, you can easily get out of the Mustang. If you are tall in a 4 door car, you have the front seat back and the door pillar between the front and back door is in the way of getting out of the driver's seat. So the Mustang is so much easier to deal with than a 4 door car for us taller guys.

Sponsored