digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at nytimes.com

NY Times: 2010 Ford Mustang

nytimes.com — Ford’s retro-futuristic Mustang, based on a late 1960s fastback model, has been around since the 2005 model year — and is beginning to look as droopy as a Fu Manchu mustache. So for the 2010 model year, a sartorial segue to a more ripped look, to stay current with the competition, was in order.

Who dugg this? Made popular Apr 20, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

155 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • ThantiK, on 04/20/2009, -9/+27Fix Or Repair Daily
    Found On Roadside Dead
    Failure Of Research & Development
    ***** Over Rebuilt Datsun
    Flip Over Read Directions
    Four Old Rusted Doors
    Ford Owner Really Dumb
    For Only Retarded Drivers
    Flipped Over Russian Dunebuggy
    For Off Road Death
    Fords Only Run Downhill
    Fat Old Rusted Dog
    Freaking Old Rusted Dodge (Datsun)
    For Old Retarded Drivers
    Failed On Race Day
    Found On Rubbish Dumps

    I couldn't remember anymore.
  • Fuel90, on 04/19/2009, -7/+24The thing needs to be lowered from the factory, along with GTs only coming a 6-speed manuals, lets get ride of all these fools and their automatics!

    LONG LIVE THE MANUAL!
  • sigmaman2, on 04/20/2009, -3/+13Musclecars? This is what the auto companies think is going to save them? Musclecars???

    The article says "It's a lot like 1969 again." And I guess the auto companies think that it really is. Otherwise they wouldn't be using ideas from when LBJ was president.
  • CanadaMan87, on 04/19/2009, -4/+13Personally I thought it looked mostly the same, so i looked it up - here's a comparison:

    2005 model:
    http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2005/2005-Ford-M ...
    http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2005/2005-Ford-M ...

    2010 model:
    http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2010/def/2010-Fo ...
    http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2010/def/2010-Fo ...
  • GhostInAShell, on 04/19/2009, -5/+14Not bad all around

    Too bad they STILL don't have an independent rear axle...
  • michaelpinto, on 04/19/2009, -4/+12I wished they made it look more like a 60s Mustang than a 70s Mustang — this design looks a little bit too chubby. Also the entire point of a Mustang is that you can take off the roof. The interior also looks too round as well — Mustangs should have more detail and edges.
  • eclypse, on 04/20/2009, -1/+9And no one cares....
  • inactive, on 04/19/2009, -0/+8Reminds me of a company that didn't take the bailout money.
  • j3rm1981, on 04/19/2009, -1/+8Ick. Really prefer the 2005 model. (Obviously, the 60's is top...but that's not the debate.) What's up with the ass of the 2010?
  • stewacide, on 04/20/2009, -1/+8The retro design got old fast. This modern facelift is a HUGE improvement.
  • factsahoy, on 04/20/2009, -0/+6People bitched about the IRS because of wheel hop when drag racing.
  • factsahoy, on 04/20/2009, -0/+4Yes to the standard transmission, but NO to the lowering. Lowering is asinine on today's ***** streets. You're just asking to slam your chassis into the pavement at every intersection. Some of us actually want to drive our cars.
  • crazzy88ss, on 04/20/2009, -4/+8I guess I'm the only one that thinks it looks good?
  • AquaOSX, on 04/20/2009, -0/+4Yup. IMHO, I wish they would make the Mustang smaller. These things share a lot of lines with the 60's Mustangs, but the old Mustangs aren't as big and bulky.
  • webconnoisseur, on 04/20/2009, -1/+5Love how the NYT says you have to see the old and new side by side to notice the difference, but they didn't bother doing so for the readers. Thanks CanadaMan87 for doing so.
  • drewfer, on 04/20/2009, -1/+5The better new front is canceled by that god-awe full rear.
  • Samohtneas, on 04/20/2009, -0/+4The American way, then: straight lines only.
  • okgenius33, on 04/20/2009, -2/+6Needs more cowbell.
  • encrypteduser, on 04/20/2009, -0/+4Really? Then why do I see a login page? ( http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=1zz5avn&s=5 )
  • PointAndClick, on 04/20/2009, -0/+4300hp is not really all that much.
    It's not necessarily that an irs can't handle the same amount of power, it's that a solid axle is much cheaper to build to handle big power levels. Considering the audience that the Mustang appeals to, why would they want to switch.

    When the 05's first came out, critiques couldn't believe it wasn't an independent. People need to quit trying to lump everything into the same category. A solid axle does not necessarily mean it's crap. A V8 doesn't equate to gas guzzler (look at GM's LSx series). Internal combustion engines are not always the old dirty pos that everyone wants to think they are. You can wish all you want that they would go away, but what other technology is even close to being able to provide the power needed to move 18 wheelers across the country. Considering the loads they handle, those old dirty diesel engines seem pretty efficient to me.
  • inactive, on 04/20/2009, -1/+5All these remade cars are starting to look alike to me, the Charger, Challenger, Camero, Mustang all so similar.

  • uevan, on 04/19/2009, -4/+8damn they went back to that ugly ass boxy rear design
  • ThaDRD, on 04/20/2009, -1/+4These retro cars are uninspired. Where do they really go with this? Will the design morph into the 90's version about 30-40 years down the road?
  • craeyon, on 04/20/2009, -0/+3I still prefer the 1967 version

    http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/ford-musta ...
  • Platina, on 04/19/2009, -2/+5Not really, i think i would prefer an Audi or Bmw. Any day.
  • aircanada1523, on 04/20/2009, -0/+3Forgive Our Research Department
  • Norumeni, on 04/20/2009, -1/+4I think you meant more womanly.
  • orangester, on 04/20/2009, -1/+4Agreed. They gave the 99-04 Cobras IRS, and what do people do? They scrap it for a straight axle. Why won't they learn?
  • cleric04, on 04/20/2009, -0/+3Since most of these cars are driven by women they will remain Automatics.
  • huntermcwhite, on 04/20/2009, -0/+3dugg because you are
  • matthobbs05, on 04/20/2009, -1/+4Wasn't that car released in 2004? How long did you have the car for?

    It's a bold statement saying a car is "very reliable" when it's only five years old; it's practically new so it's nothing talk up. If it was over 20 years old then you'd be saying something.

    Not saying this about Mustangs, but cars in general.
  • factsahoy, on 04/20/2009, -0/+3The continuation of the door crease onto the rear quarter panel is a design failure. Not only does it look sloppy, but it's not what the door indentation on the '60s models did; in those years, it continued onto the FRONT, which made sense because it wasn't interrupted by the wheel-well flare.

    But that's just nitpicking; the fact is that the Mustang is a bloated hog, like the Challenger, the Camaro, and just about any of these cars today. This is coming from a Mustang owner. These fat-asses need a diet more than any restyling.

    Oh, and screw the New York Times and their ***** log-in requirement.
  • say592, on 04/20/2009, -0/+3I still Dugg you, but I disagree on some levels.

    While I have driven a Mustang, I have actually never owned one, so do keep that in mind.

    Anyways, my experience in driving one wasnt terrible, but it was relatively generic. While you get a lot of power, you cant really have any fun with it inside the city, and the country roads are to curvy to be able to have fun with it and still feel safe. You certainly can have fun with it though.

    That leaves the highway, which is no longer fun because of lowered speed limits and increasing cops.

    Despite all of that (since most of that is relevant to only my local area) it is still a powerful car, which can be fun.

    Handling is not really what I would expect from all the hype that surrounds the car. I guess it is a muscle car, so handling isnt exactly the first thing people think about, but you have to be able to handle it at speed to have any fun with it. Its about average in that area.

    As for looks, I cant throw a stone without hitting a Mustang. They may be [relatively] sharp looking, but there are WAY to many of them. It is pretty much impossible to turn heads while driving a Mustang.

    Anyways, thats my opinion of them. The one I drove for a while was an '06 v6 model.

    My entire point is just that while they are still powerful, relatively fun cars to drive (because of the power) they are a little played out. You see them everywhere, they really have nothing that jumps out, other than the massive amounts of power, and if you want something fun to drive and great to look at, you are better off with something else thats less generic.
  • K4Lic0, on 04/20/2009, -2/+5Have any of the people bashing the Mustang ever actually owned one? I had a 40th Anniversary edition convertible Mustang GT and it was one of the best cars I've ever owned. Fun as hell to drive, plenty of power, looked good, tons and tons of modifications available for them, and as long as you keep up with normal maintenance it was very reliable, I never had any problems with it.
  • whatit, on 04/20/2009, -1/+3Do you even read any of the ***** articles about the bailouts? Ford has not taken any bailout funding.
  • AlexCrawford, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2***** off hippie
  • mandraque, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2looks, and peformance. Yea the SRT8 and the SS is faster bu mustangs have insane amounts of aftermarket available.

    Challenger is boring, just plain boring.
    The Camaro looks like a gimmick, like a cartoon.

    The challenger compete with the looks of the 05 mustang, ten years later they already look dated compared to the new stang.
  • factsahoy, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2I hope you're not betting much.
  • jakereilly, on 04/20/2009, -1/+3he can't win, don't jizz yourself
  • commenter01, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2only this isn't a track car. it's a dragster. solid axle works best.
  • inactive, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2Corvette C6 models ARE World Class, and arguably one of the finest machines to ever come out of an American factory.
  • terrible0ne, on 04/20/2009, -1/+3Its funny, is it any wonder the American auto industry is going belly up? I would be happy to see them go.
  • factsahoy, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2UGH. I just looked at the rear end. WHAT AN ABOMINATION.

    WTF, Ford?
  • ostracize, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2Why should sports cars be reserved for the super rich?
  • ReeferChiefer42, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2Blog it.
  • Ericdigital, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2What they should have done is keep the concept version, now THAT looks bad ass.

    http://www.thetorquereport.com/mustang_g.jpg

    http://www.musclecardrive.com/images/specs_pics/20 ...

    I think having the glass come all the way to the top looks so sweet.
  • anixmander, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2And if you knew anything about the Mustang, Camaro and the Challenger, you'd know that they ALL have a V6 option. Hell, the original Stang came with a 6 standard. And I know the old Cudas and Challengers had a base 6 cylinder engine back in the 60's and 70's

    Vettes and Vipers aren't musclecars. They are both sportscars verging on supercars. They are apples and oranges.
  • mandraque, on 04/19/2009, -5/+7I think i looks great. It looks slicker than the previous design, which was the point and i think it blows away the competition that is coming from other companies.
  • K4Lic0, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2I buried Fast05GT cause he sounds like a douchey 12 year old. But, bigger/wider wheels (rims sounds stupid, they're WHEELS) do help make a car faster, it helps with grip.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 160 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.