Newer Mustangs look like ricers? (was Re: Which mustang is the LEAST desirable?)

Matt wrote: > Love the Fox body. > Newer ones look too much like ricers > (really ducking and running for cover but finding none)

I remember when someone called them "the Ford Celica" in 94. First let me say I love them, I wanted one the instant I saw first look pics in Motor trend (or car and driver). And now do own a 95.

I'll say what I said to that person long ago. The Mustang doesn't look like the celica (or any other ricer you can name). Just the opposite, the Celica (and a LOT of other Japanese cars) look like the Mustang. The Japanese were heavily influenced by Fords "pony" concept, sporty affordable cars, and took styling ques by the dozens. Even going so far as to try and make a baby mustang.

Take a look at a vintage Celica or Corolla, perhaps a lot of you haven't seen (or paid any attention to) some of these cars. A lot of them up to

1981 or so were only rarely imported.

Look at these pics:

formatting link
77 Celica, as close to a total rip off of early Mustang looks as you'll ever see (except by Ford perhaps), the so called "baby mustang"It's probably needless to point out the rear, the tail lights, the front, the rear quarter flairs at the top, the "fast back" etc. etc. etc.
formatting link
(toyota for sports coup) Corolla, notice: "fast back", round headlights in a swept forward squared front, and catch that GRILL trim... If that's not a direct copy of a "pony coral" I'm blind.
formatting link
Corolla same deal, round lamps in a square mounting, notice the WHEELS, 65 hub caps anyone? Most of these lines continued to lift styling ques from the old 65 fastback (especially) and the coupes as well all the way to the early

90's celica which is indeed shaped pretty similar to the SN95's... Because of course Ford used "retro" styling ques in the redesign; That Toyota had long since incorporated from the same early 'stangs.

So next time you see one say to yourself: That looks like the Mustang that the Japanese have been ripping off for 20 years.

Matt > 89 5.0 GT vert (ok so I'm prejudiced)

I love the Fox body too, I'm planning on buying one. and a 65 fastback.

Reply to
Simon Juncal
Loading thread data ...

Simon Juncal opined

Dead on!

Imitation being the sincerest form...

But those 70's Celica's - sorry Philippe - were NOWHERE near as reliable as a fox 2.3 Mustang, though they WERE more fun to drive.

Reply to
Backyard Mechanic

Thanks, I sortah needed to get that out of my system.

Yep... they did a pretty decent job on the 1st generation celica's, people actually collect them and restore them (and this is damn hard as the car is really rare).

BTW I'm not knocking Toyota for lifting Mustang styling, I've owned a bunch, and would recommend a early corolla as the beater of all beater cars. My 1980 SR5 went 23 years and multiple odometer flips without a SINGLE major mechanical failure or even part replacement, just one clutch slave cylinder, two water pumps, a timing belt and now finally it needs another new timing belt and a carb overhaul. Which I'm seriously thinking about getting done so it can be my winter beater again.

Reply to
Simon Juncal

My son and I put together a 80 Celica in 1980 for SCCA events. I was kind of a father son project for us. I gave him the car when he graduated. He still has the car as we built it and autocrosses it now an then. He says this will be his son's first car like it was his. I might add it still looks like when we first built it, with only the passenger seat reinstalled. It also still runs great.

Reply to
Joe Cilinceon

They may be cheaper, they may be improved, they may be this or that but what they are NOT..

is a Mustang.

Kate

| > I remember when someone called them "the Ford Celica" in 94. First let | > me say I love them, I wanted one the instant I saw first look pics in | > Motor trend (or car and driver). And now do own a 95. | >

| > I'll say what I said to that person long ago. The Mustang doesn't look | > like the celica (or any other ricer you can name). Just the opposite, | > the Celica (and a LOT of other Japanese cars) look like the Mustang. The | > Japanese were heavily influenced by Fords "pony" concept, sporty | > affordable cars, and took styling ques by the dozens. Even going so far | > as to try and make a baby mustang. | >

| > Take a look at a vintage Celica or Corolla, perhaps a lot of you haven't | > seen (or paid any attention to) some of these cars. A lot of them up to | > 1981 or so were only rarely imported. | >

| > Look at these pics: | >

| >

formatting link
| > A 77 Celica, as close to a total rip off of early Mustang looks as| > you'll ever see (except by Ford perhaps), the so called "baby mustang"| > It's probably needless to point out the rear, the tail lights, the| > front, the rear quarter flairs at the top, the "fast back" etc. etc.etc. | >

| >

formatting link
| > SR5 (toyota for sports coup) Corolla, notice: "fast back", round| > headlights in a swept forward squared front, and catch that GRILL| > trim... If that's not a direct copy of a "pony coral" I'm blind.| >

| >

formatting link
| > 78 Corolla same deal, round lamps in a square mounting, notice the| > WHEELS, 65 hub caps anyone?| >

| > Most of these lines continued to lift styling ques from the old 65 | > fastback (especially) and the coupes as well all the way to the early | > 90's celica which is indeed shaped pretty similar to the SN95's... | > Because of course Ford used "retro" styling ques in the redesign; That | > Toyota had long since incorporated from the same early 'stangs. | >

| > So next time you see one say to yourself: That looks like the Mustang | > that the Japanese have been ripping off for 20 years. | >

| > > Matt | > > 89 5.0 GT vert (ok so I'm prejudiced) | >

| > I love the Fox body too, I'm planning on buying one. and a 65 fastback. | >

| |

Reply to
SVTKate

Here Here!

We may all love different ones for different reasons..

but we all love the Mustang

Matt

89 5.0 GT Vert

Reply to
Matt

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.