Opinion: New Mustang is next verse, worse than the first
After much ado, the seventh-generation, 2024 Ford Mustang cometh. In the end, the rumors of hybridization, all-wheel drive, and the Explorer’s RWD/AWD platform were premature. The new Mustang, codename S650, remains pretty much business as usual. What it amounts to is more or less a mild, unremarkable evolution of the existing rear-drive architecture. But what does that mean for America’s pony car, and what might end up being this storied nameplate’s internal-combustion swan-song?
Ford is going all in on electrification as it reaps success from sticking batteries into the F-150 and leveraging the Mustang name to sell an electric crossover. For the moment, it appears to be happy to let the traditional Mustang wither on the vine … at least in the big-picture sense. Lest we forget, the Mustang is now the only non-pickup, non-crossover Ford you can buy in the United States. Maybe Ford realized its competition, the Chevrolet Camaro and Dodge Challenger, are not much longer for this world and it wouldn’t take much to keep the Mustang on top in the muscle car game.
The bare minimum appears to have been just enough. There were rumors that Ford would bolt its new Mustang onto the Explorer platform (CD6), which would have allowed for more up-to-date powertrains, including a hybrid setup. Historically, it should be mentioned, both the Mustang and the Camaro have kept up with prevailing technological and aesthetic trends. Both nameplates, for example, added a turbocharged four-cylinder model as a base engine in their most recent generations, but the Challenger and the Mustang in particular have been stressing a more retro vibe since the mid-2000s. Now it appears to be running over the same old ground, albeit in a new wrapper.
Part of the long-term success of the Mustang, even through its lean years, was how it has adapted to the market of its moment. It started in the Sixties when the Mustang was born as a way to give the common man flash for not much cash. Soon, Ford proved its mettle with growly Shelbys and considerable motorsports success. The hangover from the Sixties was the crisis-ridden Seventies, but the Mustang endured the Malaise Era and stayed alive through some questionable baroque styling and not much performance. Still, it was a reinvention that was correct for where the market was at the time.
When the Eighties arrived, the Mustang found itself with a hatchback and more considered Euro-style appearance, but again the pony car held true to making the best of its humdrum undercarriage with up-to-the-minute looks and features. (The Camaro marched in lockstep and did the same.)
Now for the full disclosure: Remember my old ’71 Duster, which I’ve mentioned in previous articles? When I realized that keeping such a highly strung beast on the road was out of my depth, I traded it for a Fox-body. Its motor was a boat-anchor 3.3 and it had a weird manual shift layout with an overdrive. I wired in my Sony CD changer wrongly, which left me to choose between headlights or music—not both at the same time. (This led to a rather interesting night out at the cinema with a girl I’d promised to take out in my Mustang.) But it was a Mustang nonetheless, and I’ve always lusted after one of the last ’93 Cobras after reading about them in a road test with its competitors.
Ford dipped it toes into the retro pool with the SN95 generation in 1994, before awkwardly forcing straight lines onto the 1999 redesign. But when S197 appeared in 2005, chief designer J Mays—who made his name with retrofuturism—set the controls straight for 1964. His work on this design was not influenced (as many believed) by the Mustang Giugiaro concept which would not appear until 2006. I’ve mentioned before how I think the 2005 Mustang is a bit blocky and ungainly, needing a bit more finesse to really sail as a successful throwback in the same way as the Challenger does.
So that’s where we’ve been ever since, Ford like Dodge and Chevrolet deciding that the first versions of these pony cars are the definitive ones. Translation: this is what these cars are and this is how you will remember them. No new Fox-body or pop-up headlight Camaros, no reinvention to keep up with the times; we’re selling you nostalgia rather than a contemporary update of the muscle car formula. Can you imagine a manufacturer green-lighting something as bold as the F-body glass tailgate today? The accountants would be in fits. The Charger has shamelessly kept up its rubber-burning reputation, but as we’ve seen with the new Daytona SRT concept, at least Dodge are trying something new.
S650 is, deep down, a remix of a remix of the 1964 original. It leans heavily on the outgoing S550 Mustang, using essentially the same underpinnings. It’s got a slightly more chiseled appearance, but the reality is one of a very big facelift.
Tooling up for a car is expensive, and among the biggest investments—apart from the lights—is the body in white. It’s the fundamental structure, the actual skeleton on which the car is built. Looking at this new Mustang, you can see the bones are carry-over. Doing it this way allows Ford to update the sheet metal, but I’d argue they’ve merely made it worse. It’s all a bit more of an exaggeration on the existing theme, with bigger hips and a more aggressive down-the-road graphic up front.
The front light to fender is a critical visual relationship, and this is one of those areas where we’re talking about fractions of an inch. Ford lowered the headlights for 2023 and made them a bit messy by trying to replicate the three vertical tail lamps, and by continuing a straight line across the grille managed to give the car a frowning look. The previous Mustang avoided this because its grille shape was more pronounced, so you didn’t notice as much. The S650 feels like a rearranging of existing graphical elements to no great effect.
The Mustang has dropped the black infill panel between the tail lights, reducing some of the visual break-up at the back. Having something to lessen the visual impact of painted sheet metal is important, because too much can bodywork can look bland. Of course, fewer parts means less cost.
It seems strange that car that trades primarily on its driving experience and tactile fulfillment settles for large touchscreens in its interior, especially after the previous model made such a big deal of having a “cockpit” inspired by aircraft design. We’ve seen good and bad TFT implementations over the last few years, but this feels terribly misguided. Ergonomics aside, the whole thing appears incongruous and not really in keeping with the muscle car aesthetic. Mostly the same, but worse, is not what I’d call a recipe for long-term success. Like the Camaro, the Mustang is no longer evolving to keep up with the times but remixing an existing concept to ever decreasing returns.
Now, I can hear you all saying that I’m contradicting myself, and after all, didn’t I praise the Challenger for doing exactly that? Here’s the difference. The Challenger had one look, stuck to it, and was always a unique ownership proposition. It never chased trends. The Mustang, for better or worse, did. It remained current and was even adaptable enough to be a huge hit in Europe, so its failure to do so this time around disappoints me.
I’m glad I didn’t stay up to watch the reveal like I may have done in the past. Because other than that ’93 Cobra, what I really want is a ’71 Mach 1 on dog-dish steelies.
***
Adrian Clarke is a professional car designer, earning a degree in automotive design from Coventry University and a Masters in Vehicle Design from the Royal College of Art in London. He worked for several years at a major European OEM, and in the ’90s his daily driver in London was a 1979 Ford Thunderbird.
Shades of David E. Davis.
I agree with some of the comments and not a fan of the new dashboard however what I love about it is there’s no doubt it’s a Mustang. I have a 2014 pony package, glass roof and loaded with all options. A week doesn’t go by that I’ll get a thumbs up or verbal comments. I even get asked “is that the new mustang?” I was sitting in a traffic jam last week surrounded by nothing but boxes including a Mach e (that’s what they should have called it NOT mustang) and I smiled knowing I own a distinctive classic. There should always be continuity in classic design.
It’s got a Camaro like roof line, squashed a bit, not good.
I’m not super impressed with this latest iteration of the car that I’ve loved since I was a teen. Oh, my that was some time ago! I’m on my 5th Mustang, a 2008 Saleen S281 supercharged. It’s one hell of a piece of equipment. Timeless design and enough HP and torque to put you deep into the back of the driver’s seat. I’m not coming from the perspective of a 100% Ford guy here, (although I’ve only owned one Mopar and one bow tie in my almost 8 decades on God’s creation) but I do give Ford and any manufacturer willing to do so, a lot of credit for attempting to sail against the tide of EV’s. Sure, they’re fast and they’re all the rage right now but there is simply no infrastructure to support the mass use of EV’s now and into the foreseeable future. IMHO, ICE’s are the wave of the future when the greens finally realize where they’re getting the energy to power their sleek, faddish vehicles. This new Mustang doesn’t grab me but the ICE sure as hell does.
It’s not revolutionary, but think Ford actually did a good job with it. I like the taillights, and the wide rear fenders look good as well. I also think Ford is smart not go to far down the EV path. I forsee manufactures the are all in too soon getting burned. Electric can be good, and obviously very fast, but we aren’t ready for all in EV at this time, or even in 8 years. Let the market set the timing.
Sure is a lot of hatred already going around for the new pony. People – just be glad we still have a V8, stick-shift coupe and CONVERTIBLE available, as we morbidly wait for the “brave new world” of EV’s to squash it all!
I tend to agree with Adrian’s commentary…looks like the “new” Mustang is trying to emulate the Camaro, which I believe is a mistake. The “new”design is too harsh! Traditional design, or “retrofuturism”, is to me a great concept and it was wonderful see these develop because I grew up during the first evolution of the Muscle and Pony Cars…still nothing better that a ’32 Ford Roadster Hi Boy. All Good!
Well at least this looks like a Mustang. I was afraid that 4 door abortion they came out with this year was going to be the end of the pony car. I thought they were doing to the Mustang what they did to the T bird.
No electric BS for muscle cars. They’re not going to top internal combustion any time soon for range and simplicity. Just more to go wrong and five figure battery replacements. No thanks.
CS
It looks like the new Mustang is trying to have even less outward visibility than the Camaro. Not good.
“Incongruous” indeed the exterior is incongruous with the times and even as an evolutionary adaptation it misses. It seems like a missing prequel to the current iteration that no one asked for . And the interior is a swing and a miss as well as it misses an opportunity to truly advance the form and move to a much more integrated design.Instead we get another “glued on tablet” that would look just as relevant in an suv, there is really nothing inherent that says “welcome your in a Mustang” . Ford seemingly realized this and used the “tablets” to splash mustang images all over the dual screens to let drivers know what car they purchased.
You can criticize the Mustang, however check the sales numbers against Camaro, and of course the Camaro is being dropped along with the Challenger and Charger, the public has spoken…..
The Challenger has been doing exceptionally well recently though. There’s lots of reasons people buy cars, and of course with something like a Mustang rationality doesn’t always play such a big part. It will do just fine sales wise I’m sure, but that’s out of loyalty and the sheer size of the Ford operation as well.
No, the government has spoken, forcing EVs down our throats. At least the Mustang can still cruise the wide open spaces without range anxiety.
I’m guessing the design brief was to create a “modern” version of the Mustang, and this definitely checks those boxes. Origami styling from Hyundai? Honda Civic sized gills in the fascia? A tablet display from a Tesla? Why couldn’t the new Mustang look more like a Ferrari? Because the designers were chasing a burgeoning base of tech savvy buyers? We’ll see if this strategy works, but I think it’s a turn-off for traditional buyers of cars who see the Mustang as a performance value, and I think the tech savvy buyers will avoid it because they view ICE powertrains as antiquated. The guy who styled the wheels hit a home run. Bring back compound curves and air scoops!!
Wheel spokes should be chrome.
Whether automobiles, music, movies, when the best you can do is another retro homage, time to do something else. Ford is cynically banking on enough Gen X & Yers who grew up in front of the TV or watching two weeks to video mallplex movies, reading online crowing or buff magazines imagining themselves automotive bon vivants or Steve McQueen by buying anything with a Mustang (or whatever) badge. Bullitt’s was night and day different from the usual reskinned Falcon.
I don’t think you have the right generation here. Just about all the Mustang guys I know and see on the road are 50s and older. At least that’s true for the current Gen cars.
I can understand the criticism. Where every car-manufacturer (even Dodge) is “advancing” with at least hybridization as a minimum, Ford, who has seen a steep advancement-curve over the past few years, chose to remain put with probably their key product next to the F-150 – The Mustang. As a “halo-car” you’d expect it to break boundaries, yet it comfortly sits in the seat of yesteryear. But is that such a bad thing, though?
Since everything is going silent and efficient (EV), I think there’s room for a little bit of old school without going fully so. Something that stirres the senses more than just nauseating roler coaster-like acceleration.
Not everyone has the abillity or patience of owning an old or older car, but still want the feeling and the raw experience they provide. I see the same thing in motorcycles – The retro / modern classic market is rising. People want classic design without the hassles of classic mechanics, yet something that when driving/riding has the proper classic and rudimentary feeling to them.
hadn’t it been for the STUPID taxes on cars here in Norway, I’d probably have a new Mustang, but priced here to the equivalent of 135.000 dollars, they are way out of my league. Add 8-9 dollars a gallon for fuel… you get the picture.
Now, all hope is not lost. I’ve had a ’70 Torino Brougham for the past 10 years (and counting) and even though it is a daunting task sometimes to keep it running, I wouldn’t trade it for the world. I’ve been EV-ing daily for the past 4 years (and have an ID Buzz on order) and I have to admit I’m pretty excited and enthusiastic about the modern EV experience. And, I think, it has made me appreciate the past even more.
Add my ’09 Moto Guzzi V7 Classic I bought in May this year, and I’m all set for a multi-propulsion future.
Seems like I lost track here, going full self-indulgence…
Point is… they Moto Guzzi has all the modern qualities, yet feels properly “old”. The Torino IS old and feels rightly so.
Modern EVs are great, but kind of isolating. So… I salute Ford for staying with “blacksmith tech” in the new Mustang. A blend of tomorrow and yesterday with enough “new” to make it easy to live with and enough “old” to show it’s heritage. The best of both worlds, for as long as we can have it.