I always wondered what it takes to make the top drawer trim level of a car…any car. From what I saw from my friend Jeff Sanders’ sketchbook for the (yet-to-be created) Ford F150 Harley Davidson, very little of what a designer actually “designs” makes it into production. A flare side bed with leather bags like a real Harley? Not a chance in hell, Mr. Sanders. Enter the lipstick on a P…Pony: the outgoing Shelby GT500 for 2012.
Fair warning: I don’t care for any Mustang design after 1994, as the Fox Body Mustang from 79-93 was a surprisingly well designed tribute to the original. The size and spirit were right, with a touch of Mercedes 450SLC in the beginning, and a lot of 1986 Taurus at the end. The new Mustangs are bloated, half baked, Fat Elvis tributes to the original: a caricature for sure, but doing the bare minimum and hiding under “retro guise” was something I was regularly criticized for in design school. Ouch.
Since my work was less “Fox” and more New Mustang, well, perhaps I really like Shelby’s aggressive take on the Mustang. Just like the 1967 Shelby, this schnoz is far more aggressive and earth hugging than what you get from a regular Pony.
But here’s the fly in the ointment: if you have to block off the grille to accomplish some engineering requirement, your design failed. This practice needs to end, almost as much as the black triangles made to lengthen the DLO of a greenhouse. A blocked off grille looks…cheap.
And more blocked off grilles? Hey, when in Rome…no matter, the chin spoiler looks pretty cool. Perhaps this brick-nosed facade is a smooth operator, as some of the details do look sleek. Or perhaps I am just a huge fan of terrazzo flooring. Either way, there’s something pretty in this photo.
Oh come on, son! There are probably several valid reasons to block off the grilles on the front clip, but the hood vents? How much does this car retail for again?
With the macho-looking charcoal hoops, downward sloping grille with drop jaw bumper speed hole, and the tapered sides clearly seen in the headlight contours, the Shelby GT500 is…well, it’s pretty damn macho. Which is great, especially when you consider the ‘Stang is the smallest and lightest Pony car on the market.
No wait, that’s actually quite depressing.
When you consider this is still an SVT Cobra, do we really need Shelby’s name on it too? This car is a branding and badging nightmare, compete with the obligatory Brembo stoppers. The marketing people at Brembo really did a good job getting the company name out there. No matter, the side sculpturing is quite taut, but the horrendously chunky (soon to be chalky?) side skirting needs a re-think.
I love how the A-pillar, door and fender all meet at a logical place, looking sleek in the process. The side view mirrors sport a forward leaning profile much like the front schnoz. It looks mighty fine. Then again, if the Mustang had a lower beltline and a taller greenhouse, I betcha these appendages wouldn’t need to be so darn large.
This is arguably the best part of the 2005+ Mustang: the deliciously retro C-pillar, reminiscent of the original fastback Mustang. I love it.
But when you step back…oh my, this is Fat Elvis again. I see less of the original fastback design and more of a chunky GM colonnade treatment over an almost CUV tall body.
Oops, sorry about the camera phone fail. From here you see the Mustang’s scalloped side treatment between the door and the rear wheel, the colonnade roof and the bandsaw trimmed corners: a clumsy but obvious homage to the Porsche 928. But bandsawing is a good thing, considering the visual heft of the previous model. The extra thick black chin on the rear bumper also does an admirable job of reducing visual heft.
Even better, how about making a Mustang that’s small to start with? Then there’s no need to try to make it look sleeker and smaller!
If that thick black turtleneck looking thing didn’t exist, we might have a seriously trim, sleek and sexy Mustang. Alas, that wasn’t meant to be, for reasons we may never know!
These taillights look great, a styling feature that stands on its own feet. There’s so much surface tension, complemented by the triangulated lower half. And since these babies light up sequentially, you’re done: this is a great piece of engineering and design.
Good thing they never made that oversized gas cap in red, as it would make the Mustang look like a clown. Oh wait, that’s a non-functional tribute to the original’s gas filler…so it actually IS a clown!
Combine the gas cap’s size with the surrounding concave negative area and you get a design feature that’s far too big for its britches. Well maybe not as obnoxious as a Mustang II King Cobra graphics package, but that’s not the point.
Plus, big SHELBY lettering is great for the car show crowd.
Wait…another SVT badge? If there’s a worse case of “red headed step child” automotive divisions than Ford’s SVT, I’d like to know. Because aside from the wonderful Contour and Focus SVT, these folks always have a far more catchy name attached to their products. (cough, Lightning…cough, Cobra…cough, Shelby GT500, cough Raptor)
Assuming SVT did the lion’s share of work to make this vehicle, is the Shelby name just another useless bit of retro on the retro Mustang? I wager a wholehearted guess of “yes”.
While I too like the rear ‘fastback’ C pillar, why is the triangular window out of line with the wide window? It seems extremely disproportionate (and ‘dinky’) when viewed from the broader shot.
The grill reminds me of a grouper (as does the new Ford grill generally).
… and what’s with the heavy branding on everything nowadays? While I understand the importance of brand, the prominence of names, symbols and so on, nowadays is quite garish. Subtlety is quickly becoming a lost art.
I don’t like the Shelby nose on the whole 2013 Mustang line, nor do I like the new headlight design. Makes the car look far more bloated, approaching the visual heft of the Challenger. With the Shelby the bolder snout could pass, but on a base model V6?
It’s just a hommage to the crappy looking Shelby Mustangs of the 60s.
Those were some of the ugliest cars ever made. This thing actually looks restrained.
I’d have to agree with that. And considering Shelby’s value in the collector car scene, there’s really no accounting for taste.
As a Lincoln-Mercury fanboi, I’ll continue to lust for a concours quality Continental Mark II and push the played out muscle cars to the side.
The cheapiness of cars today makes me sad. It’s like car makers think as long as they get the newer generation 0.1 of sec faster than the previous generation no one actually cares that the cars are actually of less quality. In design and materials. I understand materials have to change to improve mileage and safety but still…someone got paid to create these fake grills and fuel filler caps? Sheesh!
BTW, the Lincoln Mark II is one my all time favorite too.
Ditch all the branding except for the snake in the grill and a re-designed full chrome gas cap tribute with just the snake and it would go a long ways towards subtle classiness, also the trend here and on the viper to over-style the hood cooling vents doesn’t work, it makes the front end too busy, if possible, relocating them to the back of the hood just in front of the windshield would be a nice spot.
I bet they sell at or above MSRP. And that is what matters. The next time you see these cars will be on Barrett Jackson in about 20 years.
I agree with most of what has been written about this car, yet I’m still in love with it.
Ford really does need to make the next gen ‘Stang smaller. The target weight needs to get as close to 3000lbs as possible.
I got a 2012 GT and I’m really glad I didn’t wait a year… this transitional front end just doesn’t make it for me. I like most of the other touches but all three of the current pony class seem too “thick” in the doors, the Challenger’s the worst. I know it’s from side impact requirements but still not a good look. When I floor it the issue does go away for the moment!
I’m mixed on basing the next one on the Evos design, however I agree the retro is done… wouldn’t mind seeing a couple of 1971 Mach 1 cues on the Evos but move on.
I feel like I’m in the minority here, but I hate sequential taillights. So tacky.
100% agree on the Shelby/SVT confusion.
Let Shelby buy their Mustangs from Ford and work their “magic” on them, just like Roush and Saleen do. Ford should ditch the Shelby licensing rights, call this car the SVT Cobra, and either reduce the price of the car or add more performance goodness.
You said it better than I possibly could. SVT was originally sold to us as the BMW “M” equivalent for Ford products. Instead, Ford sold SVT out. It’s a damn shame.
Yet compared to the SVT Cobra, the Shelby GT500 has been nothing but a success and if you somehow think dropping the Shelby moniker will reduce the price or add some “performance goodness” go back to hitting that bong, the Shelby GT500 has had more “performance goodness” baked in than any previous SVT model (including that sad attempt at an IRS for the 99-2004 cars).
Your “if” is something I’d never consider. But since you went there, do the right thing and eliminate the SVT brand. Make it some super secret skunkworks with no name recognition.
“…and if you somehow think dropping the Shelby moniker will reduce the price…”
That’s exactly what I think. You believe otherwise? Pass the bong.
As an owner of an ’08 convertible I have to agree that the branding is confusing. What with the Mustang Pony on the windshield, the SVT logos on the wheels and doorsills, SHELBY lettering on the trunk, Cobras everywhere and GT500 badges. I have a hard trying to decide what to call it. Is it a Ford Mustang SVT Shelby GT500 Cobra? That’s quite a mouthfull. I love this car and would have bought it no matter what it’s called. The Shelby tie did and still does add significantly to the cost of this vehicle, just compare the price difference from the previous outgoing Cobra. On top of that the GT500 retained the dreaded ADM’s for far longer than is normal for a Pony car.
From what I have read and inderstood Carroll Shelby’s input in the GT500 seems to limited to rear tire selection and possibly some suspension work, the vast majority the work done on this car was the product of SVT efforts, the Shelby name was just a marketing tool.
Hopefully the next generation will be significantly lighter and they’ll ditch “ol Shelby. This bloating has got to stop.
The Shelby relationship has been very successful so it will continue into the next generation car (confirmed) and even if Ford were to drop the moniker do you really think they would shrink the margin on the car?
It also cracks me up that SVT guys seem to think the differnce in price was solely attributable to the Shelby name – nevermind the 10% increase in inflation from 2004-2007, that the new car wasn’t based on a 25 year old chassis, that Ford’s halo car sported more expensive gear (double disc clutch, brembos, stronger transmission, larger wheels, updated supercharger, updated cylinderheads, et al)
I’d really love to see what Shelby is getting in liscencing on each car – my guess given the low volume of Shelby GT500s its much more percentage wise than say what GM was giving Trans-AM to use the Trans-AM name but much less than what SVT Cobra conspiracist claim it to be.
I completely agree with you about the blocked off grills. I think the new viper’s hood vent is mostly blocked off which would be a shame if it is. Designers really need to work more closely with engineers.
Seems like I read somewhere that the ‘Fat Elvis’ look of modern cars (especially the retro-mobiles) is a direct result of federal regulations (bumpers, side impact, CAFE, etc.). IOW, even if an automaker (Ford) wanted to build and sell an exact copy of an original 1964½ Mustang, it simply wouldn’t be possible with today’s mandatory rules and guidelines.
Does anyone know if this is true? It sounds plausible, considering how complicated modern cars seem to be to meet all the regulations.
compare the BRZ/FT-86 to the original Mustang. BRZ is a touch smaller, lighter, wider, but otherwise similar in size. so yes, one can build a car that small and meet current regs.
one might not be able to make it look exactly like the original, but I suspect one could get it close. someone could probably overlay one in photshop and show us how not close it would be.
The problem I have with the look of the current Mustang is that its want-be fastback. The original had a big back window and a tiny rear deck. The Mach 1 version took this to the extreme and that says “Mustang” to me. For awhile in 80s they made true hatchback Mustangs and separate sedans with more upright rear windows and traditional trunks (icky! I owned one). Now we’ve got something in between: where the rear window doesn’t slant down enough to say “fast back” and trunk lid is too long. In fact the whole rear end is just too much (baby’s got BACK!) Its seems even Ford realized this and quickly did the bandsaw trim around the back as visual liposuction, but its just not working for me. The original Mustang had a flat back section where the tail light cluster and gas cap was so the back of this version is a real mess in comparison. However the sequential tail lights rule, I wish more cars had this feature, especially those without yellow turn signals. I like the forward slanted nose as well, gives it a look like its ready to jump, somewhat shark-like.