I must say that I'm very impressed with the new Mustang from a styling perspective. I think that it's a great looking car and "unmistakably Mustang". I would not describe it as a "retro" car as some folks seem inclined to describe it. That's because the Mustang has been "unmistakably Mustang" all along. Each generation of the Mustang has had strong styling similarities to the original, even the anemic Mustang II of the mid-70's. When every generation of a car has strong styling similarities to its progenitor, then you can't really call the current edition a "retro" car; they're all "retro" to the original.
Thinking about it, that may be where the Corvette and Camaro "went wrong". The 2nd generation Corvette was a radical styling departure from the first generation, save for the 61-62 rear (which I believe was "tacked-on" to the car to "prepare" folks for the 1963 model). In any event, to a casual (or, not so casual) observer, you could have put a C1 and C2 side-by-side and folks would be hard-pressed to see any styling commonality or "lineage".
The same thing occurred in the change from C2 to C3. As was the case with the C2, the C3 was an awesome looking car when it firt debuted, but it bore very little styling resemblence to its predecessors. About all there was was 4 round tail lights and pop-up headlights (although configured competely differently than C2).
The C4 change was equally a "clean sheet of paper" design. There was very little in the way of design commonality with the Corvette forebearers. Once again, about all that continued was the 4 round tail lights and pop up headlamps. Otherwise, there was no obvious "lineage".
The change to C5 was another dramatic departure in styling, although the change to C6 is more evolutionary. There are distinct styling similarities between the C5 and C6, but VERY FEW which really have any commonality in design with earlier generations. What it boils down to is that if you were to put, say, a 1957 Corvette side-by-side with a 2005, take all the badges off, and show it to someone completely unfamiliar with Corvettes, no one would be able to see anything that would suggest the cars were of the same marque or that the 2005 had "decended" from the 1957.
The Camaro had the same styling history. The original 67-69 model was replaced by the 70-81 which really had no styling cues, at all, that it shared with the earlier. The 82-96 shared little with earlier generations and the 97+ shared a little with the 82-96, but nothing, at all, with earlier models.
The Camaro finally died. Although it was technically and performance-wise FAR superior to its chief competitor, the Mustang, the Mustang destroyed the Camaro sales-wise. And, it did this with an ancient chassis design and far less power. Why? I think that it was because a Mustang was always a Mustang. Any generation had a strong commonality with its forbearers. The Mustang "mystique" is kept alive through each generation, right up through the present. In fact, stunningly so in the present design. The Camaro, for all its performance, lost its connection to its predecessors and in doing so lost its "identity". That cost it its life.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not "down on Corvettes". It should be obvious how I feel about them. However, when I think about it in the context of the Mustang, it's really kind of a shame that the Corvette of today has no obvious (or, even, not-so-obvious) connection to its predecessors.
But, I sure do like that Mustang. Plus, the DOHC engine (which will be returning in 4 valve version in the future) has just got to be one of the best looking engines ever installed in a passenger car (second only to the Boss 429 engine of the early 70s). No way near the performance of the GM Gen IV small block but definitely WAY better looking.
I don't know, though. Trying to get used to Ford's part numbering system with all those letters and dashes interspersed with numbers would be tough for a guy like me. It's taken me 35+ years to learn about the GM system. I haven't got 35 more years to learn the Ford system.
Thinking about it, that may be where the Corvette and Camaro "went wrong". The 2nd generation Corvette was a radical styling departure from the first generation, save for the 61-62 rear (which I believe was "tacked-on" to the car to "prepare" folks for the 1963 model). In any event, to a casual (or, not so casual) observer, you could have put a C1 and C2 side-by-side and folks would be hard-pressed to see any styling commonality or "lineage".
The same thing occurred in the change from C2 to C3. As was the case with the C2, the C3 was an awesome looking car when it firt debuted, but it bore very little styling resemblence to its predecessors. About all there was was 4 round tail lights and pop-up headlights (although configured competely differently than C2).
The C4 change was equally a "clean sheet of paper" design. There was very little in the way of design commonality with the Corvette forebearers. Once again, about all that continued was the 4 round tail lights and pop up headlamps. Otherwise, there was no obvious "lineage".
The change to C5 was another dramatic departure in styling, although the change to C6 is more evolutionary. There are distinct styling similarities between the C5 and C6, but VERY FEW which really have any commonality in design with earlier generations. What it boils down to is that if you were to put, say, a 1957 Corvette side-by-side with a 2005, take all the badges off, and show it to someone completely unfamiliar with Corvettes, no one would be able to see anything that would suggest the cars were of the same marque or that the 2005 had "decended" from the 1957.
The Camaro had the same styling history. The original 67-69 model was replaced by the 70-81 which really had no styling cues, at all, that it shared with the earlier. The 82-96 shared little with earlier generations and the 97+ shared a little with the 82-96, but nothing, at all, with earlier models.
The Camaro finally died. Although it was technically and performance-wise FAR superior to its chief competitor, the Mustang, the Mustang destroyed the Camaro sales-wise. And, it did this with an ancient chassis design and far less power. Why? I think that it was because a Mustang was always a Mustang. Any generation had a strong commonality with its forbearers. The Mustang "mystique" is kept alive through each generation, right up through the present. In fact, stunningly so in the present design. The Camaro, for all its performance, lost its connection to its predecessors and in doing so lost its "identity". That cost it its life.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not "down on Corvettes". It should be obvious how I feel about them. However, when I think about it in the context of the Mustang, it's really kind of a shame that the Corvette of today has no obvious (or, even, not-so-obvious) connection to its predecessors.
But, I sure do like that Mustang. Plus, the DOHC engine (which will be returning in 4 valve version in the future) has just got to be one of the best looking engines ever installed in a passenger car (second only to the Boss 429 engine of the early 70s). No way near the performance of the GM Gen IV small block but definitely WAY better looking.
I don't know, though. Trying to get used to Ford's part numbering system with all those letters and dashes interspersed with numbers would be tough for a guy like me. It's taken me 35+ years to learn about the GM system. I haven't got 35 more years to learn the Ford system.
Comment