Archive for The Motor Forum "We are mature men in the highest cadres of our careers"
 


       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> Read All About It
Giant

Facelifted Mustang

http://jalopnik.com/heres-the-sad...twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

Amazing how such small changes can make such a big (negative IMO) impact
PhilD

Amazing how so much fuss can be made about nothing  

Seriously, its the same caa.

What is a bit of a shame is the difference between US and UK cars. Those strakes in the US version next to the main headlights are DRLs but just shiny plastic in UK. And in the US the three vertical rear lights are indicators which come on sequentially like some Audis (and Kitt).
Chris M Wanted a V-10

PhilD wrote:
Amazing how so much fuss can be made about nothing  

Indeed.....
Having a quick look at the leaked facelift photo and comparing it to the current Mustang photos on Ford's website, the headlights and grille appear unaltered, it's just the lower side intakes/fog lamp area that seems to have changed
Racing Teatray

Resembles a Jag XJ. Similarly piggy little headlights.
Michael

Racing Teatray wrote:
Resembles a Jag XJ. Similarly piggy little headlights.


I can see where you're coming from, there.
Bob Sacamano

The headlights work well, giving the front of the car a sense of width and presence. That said, the changes seem minor.
Grampa

The current Mustang doesn't do it for me anyway - far preferred the looks of the previous one.
Giant

Just me then! The current lights have a slot-eyed scowl of aggression to them, these ones have a droopy sadness to them which fundamentally changes the whole look of the front end for me.
PG

Not a huge difference to my eye, but then I'm not a Mustang spotter....
Chip Butty

Of greater importance - isn't a core part of this facelift an upgrade to the V8 taking it to 500 bhp as standard ?.
PhilD

have the lights actually changed?
gooner

Why is it being facelifted? I'm sure it only came into production last week!
PhilD

Refresh after a few years is probably right but it didn't really need it.
PG

PhilD wrote:
Refresh after a few years is probably right but it didn't really need it.


If it's on the timetable it has to be done. Typical rigid thinking. It is a success as is, it looked fine beforehand. Why did they not just look at it and go "looks fine, we'll leave it".  No, all designers must tinker and over detail everything.
PhilD

PG wrote:
PhilD wrote:
Refresh after a few years is probably right but it didn't really need it.


If it's on the timetable it has to be done. Typical rigid thinking. It is a success as is, it looked fine beforehand. Why did they not just look at it and go "looks fine, we'll leave it".  No, all designers must tinker and over detail everything.


I very much doubt it's the designers call.
PG

PhilD wrote:
PG wrote:
PhilD wrote:
Refresh after a few years is probably right but it didn't really need it.


If it's on the timetable it has to be done. Typical rigid thinking. It is a success as is, it looked fine beforehand. Why did they not just look at it and go "looks fine, we'll leave it".  No, all designers must tinker and over detail everything.


I very much doubt it's the designers call.


No, but they could just resubmit the original design (maybe change a badge to say they'd done something) and see if anyone noticed  
Tim

Grampa wrote:
......far preferred the looks of the previous one.


Same here, the new one is ok but I would've preferred a right hand drive version of the previous shape one.
PhilD

PG wrote:
PhilD wrote:
PG wrote:
PhilD wrote:
Refresh after a few years is probably right but it didn't really need it.


If it's on the timetable it has to be done. Typical rigid thinking. It is a success as is, it looked fine beforehand. Why did they not just look at it and go "looks fine, we'll leave it".  No, all designers must tinker and over detail everything.


I very much doubt it's the designers call.


No, but they could just resubmit the original design (maybe change a badge to say they'd done something) and see if anyone noticed  


If they wanted to do that they'd get a job with Audi or Porsche!  
Sav

The new lights and grille remind me of the pre-facelifted Dodge Charger. I don't consider that to be a bad thing.
Frank Bullitt

Giant wrote:
Just me then! The current lights have a slot-eyed scowl of aggression to them, these ones have a droopy sadness to them which fundamentally changes the whole look of the front end for me.


I agree with you, it somehow looks less-well proportioned and a bit melted
Giant

Just me then! The current lights have a slot-eyed scowl of aggression to them, these ones have a droopy sadness to them which fundamentally changes the whole look of the front end for me.
Roadsterstu

Did you really need to say that again?!  
PhilD

It's keeping him awake at night!
Chris M Wanted a V-10

PhilD wrote:
have the lights actually changed?

From what I have seen on-line, the headlamps remain the same. Bonnet and front bumper have been slightly altered as has the rear bumper.  New rear lights but it seems that they may just be LED versions of the current design
PhilD

Chris M Wanted a V-10 wrote:
PhilD wrote:
have the lights actually changed?

From what I have seen on-line, the headlamps remain the same. Bonnet and front bumper have been slightly altered as has the rear bumper.  New rear lights but it seems that they may just be LED versions of the current design


They have changed if you look at before and after front:



PhilD

If you think of the top of the lights as eyebrows (and why not...) they now slope down. Which is a bit odd for a facelift.
Dr. Hfuhruhurr

It's like those frowning pieces of plastic that every chav and dubber put on their Mk 3/4 Golf ten years ago
simonp

If anyone buys one, don't crash it.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news...es-two-stars-euro-ncap-test-video
gonnabuildabuggy

I'm a fan but I'll confess that does put me off a lot.

One thing having a lack of stuff on a classic, different on your daily driver and family car.
gooner

That's really surprising and it's incredibly odd that the US versions have much more safety equipment as standard given that U.K. Safety legislation is much more stringent than in the States. I can only assume this is what helped Ford keep the cost down for the European market so that it looked like a performance bargain, something the Corvette has never quite managed over here.
Frank Bullitt

gooner wrote:
That's really surprising and it's incredibly odd that the US versions have much more safety equipment as standard given that U.K. Safety legislation is much more stringent than in the States.


I think it's more than the added bits - the standards in the US crash test are clearly lower as;

"The American muscle car fared badly in frontal offset tests – where the car is impacted 40% off-centre – with its driver and passenger airbags described as “inflating insufficiently to properly restrain occupants”.

In full-width frontal tests, a crash test dummy in the back slid under its seatbelt, increasing the risk of injuries to the abdomen. NCAP said the car’s belt pre-tensioners and load-limiters didn’t work effectively enough."

As noted they probably didn't expect EuroNCAP to test it - I doubt the facelifted car with its extra kit will do much better.
cbeaks1

Pretty sure it will do better FB. The 2* overall is because of the 2* result in active safety (only introduced last year - most older cars without autonomous braking and speed assist would now score much lower than their original scores).

It received 4* for front occupants, 3* for child (which includes ingress and egress of child seat) and 5* for pedestrian impact.

A 5* US car as well.
Frank Bullitt

It can barely do much worse!

So long as they resolve the ineffectual airbags and stop the rear passenger sliding under the belt it may even look reasonable
gonnabuildabuggy

This guy doesn't sound impressed, though I'm sure it's all for effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vupJqnNyaE
Tim

Frank Bullitt wrote:
It can barely do much worse!

So long as they resolve the ineffectual airbags and stop the rear passenger sliding under the belt it may even look reasonable


The rear seat passenger issue is irrelevant - I couldn't sit behind myself and I'm only 5 ft 7 (on a good day!).
simonp

cbeaks1 wrote:
Pretty sure it will do better FB. The 2* overall is because of the 2* result in active safety (only introduced last year - most older cars without autonomous braking and speed assist would now score much lower than their original scores).

It received 4* for front occupants, 3* for child (which includes ingress and egress of child seat) and 5* for pedestrian impact.

A 5* US car as well.


So it only loses a single star for under-inflating airbags that allow both front occupants to hit their heads on solid bits of the interior?!
cbeaks1

It's all on the website.
PhilD

I thought American cars had great airbags because the yanks won't wear seatbelts?
Nelson

That looks awful now. At least the pre-facelift looked a little mean, like a Stang should. Phil's post sums it up...before was so much more attractive

       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> Read All About It
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum