![Bugatti Bird-gate Followup: Driver identity revealed <b>[*UPDATE:</b> Now with actual crash video!]](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/11/bugatti-veyron-swim-1258147199_143x85.jpg)
Spy Shots: 2010 Ford Mustang glass-top coupe and base convertible
by John Neff on Jun 16th 2008 at 1:58PM 
Click above for high-res gallery of 2010 Ford Mustang spy shots
It seems to be getting easier to take spy shots of the 2010 Ford Mustang, as reader Chris F. chatted up the drivers of these two prototype 'Stangs in Lake Zurich, IL who told him they were both base models with the 4.0L V6. The coupe also features a glass top, which suggests this relatively new feature will carryover to the redesigned '10 Mustang and be available on all models. Unfortunately, the fact that both base models were still powered by the same old 4.0L V6 suggests that, at least when it debuts, the '10 Mustang will not feature the 3.5L V6 that can currently be found in nearly every other Ford product.
We can see all the tell-tale signs of the redesigned Mustangs in these pics, including its new headlights, new grille, new front fascia, new wheels and new taillights. Out back there's only one tailpipe, confirming their base modelness. Unfortunately, the cool drivers Chris met up with asked him not to photograph the interior and weren't willing to give up any other juicy tidbits, but we'll take what we can get.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
ML 2:07PM (6/16/2008)
Yep, it's a Mustang alright (gee, like who couldn't guess...) and it's the same 'ole, same 'ole . . . minor tweaks and all. When is Ford going to come up with a new take on the old theme? It ain't worth the wait in my opinion. The Camaro is MUCH more modern looking and exciting, even though it's already been seen without camouflag!
Reply
henrykrinkle 2:50PM (6/16/2008)
So do you mean that the Camaro looks more modern than the totally camo-covered Mustang or do you have some sort of software that gives you x-ray internet vision and lets you see the car underneath that none of us have seen?
Randy 2:55AM (6/17/2008)
The Camaro is more modern looking? I'm surprised I'm the first one to point this out! ... Umm... MK! Bro! Amigo...... Um, the Camaro which is respectfully following the Mustang's lead (as always) and (along with the Challenger) is MUCHO RETRO! Not "more modern" Yes they are all modern interpretations of icons but they are far from "modern" looking. The whole appeal is their retro look! Their iconic image from the 60's and 70's muscle car era.
I don't mean any disrespect but by saying any of them look modern, you are without a doubt new to cars as a hobby or interest! I mean, this is essential stuff! It's like going to Starbucks and saying "i'd like a large coffee". They'd just look at you!
Anyway!... All Pony cars are riding on the coattails of the Mustang! Since 1964(and a half).
With that said, the Camaro, Challenger and Mustang all should get proper respect! And for what it's worth... the late AMC Maverick as well!
Randy
SPG 2:14PM (6/16/2008)
I'd love an Eco-boosted convertible.
Not a traditional Mustang, but then I'm not a Mustang kinda guy.
I think an Eco-boosted convertible would be a great summertime road trip car.
Reply
The Luigiian 2:15PM (6/16/2008)
Ford had better put the 3.5 in later on, at least by 2011 MY, or else it's going to lose a great deal of sales. The Challenger's base 3.5 is both more fuel efficient and more powerful than the 4.0 and the Challenger itself is roomier and more useful. Same thing with the Camaro.
Sure they cost a little more, but for Challenger vs. Mustang it's a $2000 difference. I'd gladly pay the extra money for a decent back seat, better fuel economy, more power and a good looking muscle car that'll stand out on my street.
Reply
Matt 3:18PM (6/16/2008)
Fortunately the Challenger will ALWAYS stand out, now that there are God knows how many of the 05+ Mustang on the roads. Sure it's still fun to see a Shelby or a Rousch, and we saw the Bullitt in the flesh last week and that was pretty sweet too, but the style itself is getting... over-saturated?
I myself was considering an 07 Mustang last spring, until I realized my 07 G6 had the same performance, much more practicality and room, and got like six miles per gallon better gas mileage.
I'm sorry, make the muscle car argument all you want, but in cases of G6 versus Mustang Coupe (or one could argue G8 versus Mustang GT), there's little excuse for the Mustang to get SUCH worse gas mileage while being roughly the same speed, if not slower. I realize the shape of the vehicle doesn't exactly help fuel economy, but neither does Ford's crappy, inefficient-by-today's-standards engines, particularly the 4.0.
That One Person 6:24PM (6/16/2008)
I dunno.
Have you seen the EPA estimates of the Mustang and V-6 Charger (seeing as the Charger and Challenger weigh pretty much the same)? They are pretty close.
And seeing as a 3.5L equipped Charger weighs 3800lbs and a V-6 Mustang weighs around 3500lbs, mileage and performance may be pretty much identical. I have a good feeling that the base Challenger will be around 3800lbs.
But I do agree that the Mustang should get the 3.5L. Maybe it will. Heck, no one knows what V-8 it's getting.
And sorry about the crude comparison of the Stang and Challenger but that's pretty much all I have to go on at this moment.
JSM 2:23PM (6/16/2008)
interesting - the convertible shot confirms that this car DOES NOT have the vertical bump up at the hip line (behind the doors) that folks expected as a nod to the '68s. It looks like a pretty straight belt-line as with the current version - heck it almost looks like a front and rear refresh as opposed to a more fundamental redesign. Guess my '06 won't look so different after all.
Reply
psarhjinian 3:25PM (6/16/2008)
Thank the Lord. I was really getting worried that Ford felt the need to give the car hips. I hate hips on a car.
The Mustang is a nice, clean design; it looks (and is!) comparatively lithe next to the much fatter Challenger. Hopefully they keep it that way.
Dude 2:26PM (6/16/2008)
Why is it assumed that the driver was telling the truth?
If the driver would have said it had the 3.5, the photographers may not have agreed to only take pics of the outside and wanted the money shot of the new V6 engine.
Reply
The Luigiian 2:52PM (6/16/2008)
Car and Driver reported last month that the Mustang was going to keep its 4 liter for the 2010 MY.
Other sources say it's going to keep the 4 liter for at least one model year, because Ford Engineering is swamped with redesigns (such as converting the Euro Focus, Fiesta, possibly Mondeo, possibly Ranger) for U.S. consumption and can't get them out fast enough.
My two cents.
Dude 3:10PM (6/16/2008)
@The Luigiian
That's good enough for me.
Jim 5:34PM (6/16/2008)
'cos there are no longitudinal applications of the 3.5 liter yet? It's a significant tear-up to adapt the engine from transverse to longitudinal, and I don't think Ford has the scratch right now to do that for one car.
Jason 2:34PM (6/16/2008)
Those wheels look interesting has Ford used them before on any of the other Mustangs?
Reply
Torrent 2:51PM (6/16/2008)
Let me guess it's a Vista Roof.
Reply
Max 2:59PM (6/16/2008)
Its funny that while the majority of Ford's lineup is being briskly overhauled, the Mustang continues to soldier on using decades old technology. I guess Mulally hasn't talked to the guys in the Mustang dept. yet.
All I've gotta say is that the new 5L V8 better be a reality, because no one is going to give a second look to another 4L V6 model.
Reply
psarhjinian 3:40PM (6/16/2008)
It's not as dated as people think. The chassis is a modified, decontented version of the Lincoln LS/Jag S-Type's DEW98, which was--and still is--a very good car in dynamic terms. They could bring back certain chassis features of DEW98, but it'd increase complexity and cost, which would be a hard sell in this market. And remember, the Mustang V8 weighs a lot less than the V6 versions of the Challenger and G8. That chassis simplicity has it's benefits. The 4.0L six is a dinosaur, but the V8 is reasonably modern. Both make decent power.
I would never buy the car, but I think people fail to appreciate "The Right Tool for the Right Job" factor: it's light, cheap, fun to drive and not crushing expensive for Ford to make. The Zeta and LY platforms are heavier and more costly; I doubt either GM or Chrysler will be able to make them as long-term viable as Ford has.
Gregg 3:23PM (6/16/2008)
All this hype about the 2010 model, and still it is obvious that it is the 2005 Mustang with a new front clip, tail lights, bumper changes and a few interior tweaks. And frankly, Ford can't afford to do much more at this point. A complete redesign of a car that still sells pretty well would be senseless when they have so many models that won't sell at all without huge incentives.
Mustang will get its re-do in time, but it won't be 2010. Camaro and Challenger sales, if they take too much of the Mustang's market, will spur that along. But 2010 changes will be pretty ho-hum, with the same greenhouse and dimensions. Kinda like the difference between a 1997 and 1998 Ranger. No one who is not a Mustang aficionado will likely even notice.
Reply
Emily 11:26AM (6/30/2008)
I agree that the 2010 appears to look like the current 05-08 body styles. So disappointing.., was anticipating a totally new body style. I have owned a Camaro and currently own a Mustang and sadly I must say that I am going to have to take a look at the Camaro more seriously. Mustangs are where my heart is at and I can't believe that they are leaving me hanging once again. I hold out hope that when I can actually see the unveiled product that it will look totally different than it appears.
REALITYCHECK 3:29PM (6/16/2008)
I have a 2006 with the 4.0 and I Supercharged it. This car is a blast to drive and I have never had a single pasenger complain about it. I have done a lot to it like switching every body part to GT takeoff parts, working hood scoop, 18" tires, new grill and just some fun add on's like big brakes and lowering an inch. It out run's every GT and Z in its way and get 18 city 27 highway. I only have $28k into it and its a convertable. So keep the 4.0 for a low cost intro engine because for 80 percent of the world it's a moot point anyhow, also the 3.5 v6 will cost as mush as the V8 anyhow or more according to Ford.
Reply