25th Aug 2013, 09:26

The Challenger is far more faithful to the original. The originals are hard to find here, with most suffering extensive rust.

I always thought the Mustang looked better in the past, the late 60s era as far as size. Especially the Fastback. I never liked the scaled down size from 73 up. My one son has had a few Fox bodies, and a 95 Convertible, all 5.0. They are the best bang per buck used for a high school student.

I owned a 69 SS Camaro 4 speed for 10 years and do not like the new one, other than the HP. The original Challenger was cheaper to buy in the past, base price, vs Camaro. I wish I could design the new ones, as it just doesn't seem right to me. I despise the interior and feel like I am sitting in a hole with poor vision.

You can pick up a used Corvette 1998-2000 for under 20k used. The LSI is amazing and doesn't break. The interior on the C5 platform has the flat floor with easy entry. 0-60 5 seconds, 185 mph top speed. So a used Mustang GT or a used C5 are the best bargains out there in our experience.

What's tough is having new cars drop in value like a rock. On the other side of my garage, the old ones go up.

27th Aug 2013, 12:21

No question that the new Challenger is more faithful to the true retro look. The 2005-2009 Mustangs were pretty good, but the bizarro style introduced in 2010 ruined it for me. I own a 2007 and will keep it for a long time. I'm not sure if I'd buy another new Mustang. I'd probably go with a Challenger at this point.

28th Aug 2013, 08:11

If they would produce a Mustang Fastback with the exact same proportions as the late 60s, my family would buy 3 of them immediately! We will otherwise stay locked with old ones. Ford are you listening? We have high disposable incomes, but the vehicles must appeal to us.

29th Aug 2013, 11:12

Actually the 2005-2009 Mustang was pretty true to the look and shape of the 1969. That was why I bought one. After 2010 I think I'd opt for the Challenger. The new Mustangs have strayed too far from the retro look. I definitely won't be buying a new one.

30th Aug 2013, 09:38

Personally I feel the small Mustang scale (size) has been absolutely totally wrong since after 1972. Maybe it handles better, but I feel the 60's era size could be highly refined in a brand new 2015 model. I also feel it would sell extremely well. I know you can buy an aftermarket Shelby clone with the correct dimensions from the late 60s, but we want a factory produced Mustang Fastback with the dimensions of old.

My uncle has a late model small Bullitt, and I simply do not care for it. Park it next to a 1968 and what do you truly like better? The Dodge Challenger designers really got it down right. Why can't Ford do the same? Our checkbooks are in hand waiting.

1st Sep 2013, 07:02

Yeah, well looks like your checkbooks will be staying in your hand too. The spy photos of the 2015 Mustang, even in camouflage, make it clear that the retro style is history.

As far as the Challenger goes, the model that is supposedly replacing it (SRT Barracuda) is anything but retro!

2nd Sep 2013, 08:15

If I had room, my garage would be full of 1970 year muscle cars and 67-68 Fastbacks. I have owned first and second gen Camaros, Chevelles, and 63-64 Impala SS Convertibles. After 73 it was really sad for most domestic brands that put great nameplates on former great muscle cars. The Trans Am at least kept its proportions and power for the day. Even recently cars like the GTO just lost their visual appeal of the past. I went to Corvettes, C3 up. I think if a brand cannot remain true to its origin, then the nameplate should be retired. Resizing cars and putting badges on cars like the newer GTOs, just misses the mark in my opinion.