Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Falconspeed

Yeah, I love the 67s and 68s. Almost identical I think. 66s and earlier were good too. 69s not bad. What has really shocked me though, in this sad day and age we’re living, is how incredibly nice the retro Mustangs are (2000s). I’m not sure which exact year in the 2000s the really cool retro designed Mustangs first appeared, but, up until the last year or two at least, they were incredible. I hate the new Cameros and Chargers. I don’t know why they even call that 4-door thing a Charger. Challengers, not too bad, but kind of “chubby”, compared to the lower, wider, sleek original.


73 posted on 12/03/2015 10:21:00 PM PST by ETL (Ted Cruz 2016!! -- For a better, safer America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]


To: ETL

I agree.

The 65 and 66 Mustangs were cool with a flat back.

The 67-69 Mustangs were cool with a curvy back.

Mr. J. Mays started polishing the Mustangs in 2005 and they get better every year. The new Mustangs are impressive American machines.

J. Mays, as you probably know, is the humble and legendary designer who did the Mustang, Volkswagen Beetle, Ford Thunderbird, Ford Flex, Lincoln pickup truck and the Audi TT.

I prefer the new Mustangs, because the new Camaro and new Charger seem to be trying to copy J. Mays. But I think the new Dodge Challenger is sweet.

Keep up the good work. Remember Revell car models?


75 posted on 12/08/2015 3:23:26 PM PST by Falconspeed ("Keep your fears to yourself, but share your courage with others." Robert Louis Stevenson (1850-94))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson