Maybe I could give it some slack if I knew what they were trying to accomplish design-wise? What market segment requires that ... look? What is the look?

Top gear tag? not sure what that’s about but F not-captain-america. (mandatory comment, pardon)

I apologize immensely, I just did a quick google search. I was wondering how shrapnel could have made it so far.

concur. all about the flat angle on that first shot I guess.

What a great great article and point. Thank you.

COTD

There’s some nay nay whip joke in here somewhere.

I’ve never seen that before, wow.

That rear element can so go into a dual wing. Mmmm Escort dreams.

Two thoughts sprang to mind.

And mine are the goodyears.

Given that its FWD and I’m a commuter (short but daily, four times since two jobs), the front middle treads are starting to flatten out.

I can’t tell you how happy I am with mine. The fun I get to have in it even on a regular drive is really substantial. The CVT in sport kinda lets you keep the power above 4500 revs if you want, but even though the mag writers say the brakes are fine I really want bigger brakes to match the car’s ability. I think they…

Well bascially all our (4dr Sport owners) cars are, is a base model with an extra muffler (for what, 5hp?) and those wheels/tires. They are indeed pricey. And I gotta tell you, they do wonders with the already better-than-decent chassis/dynamics of this very very inexpensive car.

I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who’s first google search when the new mustang came out was exactly this.

Gotta agree.

Still ugly. How long will this domestic retro thing last?

Too much. Just too much awesomeness.

Other than that Traverse plus size grille, that’s a nice looking car. One thing irks me. The rear glass juts out from the rear pillar. Would be a great shape if the car ended at the pillar. My $.02 (and worth maybe that). They needed the interior volume I guess.