Ugh. That’s not a Mustang, that’s a Jaguar!
That car might get my vote as the ugliest Mustang, not because its necessarily ugly per se, but it just doesn’t say “Mustang” to me.
And I was off by a year or two on the independent rear suspension. I knew I had read it was coming down the pike at some point, but I’d rather they keep the live rear axle if it means not sacrificing the soul of the car.
I was thinking more Maserati (didn’t Ford use to own that). I’m not sure that’s the actual design. I like that they plan to round out the body curves instead of the hard edges seen on the 2012 design. I would imaging that there will be some “Mustang” traits to the final design.
Good lord, does that car look like it’s fixin’ to whoop some ass! It doesn’t look like the current crop, but I do like the style.
OK, maybe that is the design. Different view of the same car.
you can still see some pony in this. Quite a change. I’d like to see it in black.
On Yahoo today, 10 Wimpiest Muscle Cars Ever
On the first page, the 1978 Ford Mustang King Cobra.
A Fiesta weighs 600 lbs more. And for the price of a cam and some headers you had an easy 300 hp Mustang. It was a 100 mph car in the 1/4 mile. Yes it was a rusting cheap POS but at 300 hp it was 1 hp per 9.7 lbs. It also had staggered shocks on the back so it was a good launching car on the track.
I’m not sure such changes were legal for a street car in California at the time.
probably not in Ohio either but it’s not quite the nanny state as CA. In fact, we got rid of the EPA checks because they were a waste of time. People were burning gas on an unnecessary trip to prove that a computer continually tunes a car every second it’s driven.
The 70’s and 80’s must have sucked in CA.
I was driving a '66 MGB in the early-'80s, so I didn’t have the EPA rules to worry about. No smog equipment on my car, so I got the full 95 hp.
Ok, sure… yours can be second. 
I just don’t get you hard top guys… it’s like having a hot girlfriend but you can’t take her top off.
Unlike cars, when you take her top off, she won’t give you MELANOMA!
Always slather on sun block before pressing the retract button. Or drive topless only at night.
But remember, you’re still a target for meteorites.
OK, now I like this variant a lot more than the red one. They aren’t really the same car. The hood is different, and so is the grille, fog lights, side mirrors…and on this one, I quite like that rear end! It doesn’t really scream “Mustang” to me but I still think it looks cool.
I’ve never been much of a convertible guy. Plus hardtops handle better. I also like the seamless look having a roof the same color as the rest of the car.
A front strut bar makes a world of difference in body flex so the handling difference is small at worst.
As long as the top is down (most of the time)… there is no difference in roof color. 
Plus I get to drive the beauty queens in the parades.
+1!!! Mustang my ass. More like the Ford Gelding line…
Welded in sub-frame connectors make the biggest difference, depending on the year. If you’re talking about 05 or later cars, they don’t really need sub-frame connectors or strut tower bars. For coupes at least, I’m not sure about convertibles. I remember reading somewhere that the stock 05+ chassis was something like 30% stiffer than a Fox chassis with a 6-point cage.
I hope if the new ones are IRS, they don’t wheel hop. I’d prefer a solid axle though.
I’ve got an '06 convertible and trust me… they need the strut bar. There are some rail road tracks that run at an angle and before my strut bar, if I hit them at any speed the car was all over the place. No issue at all after adding the bar.
The 04 and under coupes were like that! They’ve come a long way since the Fox chassis.
I had one that looked like that and I had one like this with a shaker hood scoop. It was fun to drive. The sedan version should never have been made.
I’ve never understood the love of convertibles either unless you’re in a parade. I HATE the rag top look and just don’t see the thrill in driving with the noise and the sun beating down on you.
I have to agree with this.
The 71-73 models were a total departure from the original design and, while the Mustang II might have been a POS, it at least bore more than a passing resemblance to the 60s model, if more cartoonish.
Both very nice looking cars!
I actually prefer that body design very slightly to that of my 2012. But gosh, my baby sure is shiny!
