26th Jul 2010, 17:36

This is true, and all good points, but I think the determining factor with a lot of Mustang enthusiasts, and especially older owners, is the very decidedly NON-retro look of the 2010-2011 Mustangs. All the Mustang guys I hang out with are outraged at Ford for departing from the really beautiful retro look of the 2005-2009 models. None of them has bought a 2010 or 2011, and 2 have bought the new Challenger. The younger owners were not around when the 1969-70 Mustangs were current, but those of us who were are very attracted to the true retro look of the 2005-2009 models. For us the 2010 was like Ford going back to the Fox.

I won't be buying a Mustang any time soon, and if I do opt for another car of that type, I will most likely also go with the truly retro-styled Challenger as some of my friends have.

27th Jul 2010, 18:29

That is opinion and not fact. I myself think the 2010/ 2011 style is much better looking than the older one. I think it is a nice modernization of the older concept. If I want an original '69 Mustang I'll buy one. Why are we so infatuated with new cars looking exactly like 40 year old ones? I like a nice fresh look based on an older car but not an exact copy of it. The '05 - '09 looks plain and boring now that the newer style has arrived. The front looks way meaner and sportier and the sequential turn signals round out the rear end with a touch of class.

Performance isn't even in the same league either, especially for the V6 models. I'd rather have the new engine even if the looks weren't perfect to me... but they are, so it is a win win for me!

29th Jul 2010, 18:26

"Why are we so infatuated with new cars looking exactly like 40 year old ones?"

That's why the styling is called "retro". It harks back to the original look. Our 1970 Challenger R/T looks very much like a new Challenger. The new Camaro looks much more like a cartoon picture of a '69 Camaro, and, sadly, the new Mustang styling no longer has a true "retro" look either. Yes, it's a matter of preference, but I'd just as soon own a Fox or a 1994-2004 Mustang as the 2010 as far as true Mustang heritage goes. There is no point in buying a Mustang, for me, if it does not LOOK like a Mustang.

30th Jul 2010, 16:04

And what about the 1994-2004 Mustang looked like a Mustang? Oh maybe the CORVETTE inspired dash? Retro is cool, and the 2010 has a strong retro look to it, but it also has that modern flair to it as well. I think they really captured the look better than they did on the last run. The '05 - '09 just looks plain and boring to me now.

31st Jul 2010, 22:16

A fast car is not always a muscle car. 6 cylinder Trans Am is not, however the Pontiac Trans Am and Formulas 69 to 73 400 or 455 are. Wikipedia defines a muscle car as a 2 door 60s early 70s model with a V8. Some badged former muscle cars mid seventies and eighties are embarrassing. Some were badges just a nameplate. I had a 75 350 4bbl 190 hp; anemic, far from a muscle car. However my 69 Camaro SS 300 HP is a muscle car, as is the 396.

1st Aug 2010, 08:37

Too bad that V6 TA will smoke any of the other cars you listed in stock form though huh?

13th Aug 2010, 09:58

@31st Jul 2010, 22:16

Wikipedia is no authority on anything. Anybody can add or edit information on Wikipedia. A muscle car is what you want it to be, but I'd say you need a lot of muscles ie. engine capacity in relation to the car's weight. The sixties and the seventies has got nothing to do with it, besides that this is when many people say that the muscle car era started. A new Mustang V8 is DEFINITELY a muscle car by any standard. Even the new Mustang V6 with the updated V6 may be called a muscle car; having the same 0-60 time as a 1968 Mustang 428 Cobra.