94-95 Tail Lights VS. 96-98 Tail Lights?

Discussion in '1994 - 1995 Specific Tech' started by v12eater, Sep 8, 2003.

  1. see mustangs just had them wrong from the begining should have been horizontal all along damn ford cant get anything right lol
  2. Ford should've made the Mustang a FWD 4-banger too!!! What were they thinking?!!:D

    But honestly, I saw the green Mach III concept in person at Christies in NYC when Ford was auctioning in off...:puke: ....and it had horizontals.:D

    EDIT: Also just noticed, we're about 50/50 in the 5.0 forums. I wonder what the vote would be in the Land of Make Believe...:shrug:....:D
  3. lol i think every site has one of these topics your right theres a lot of people on both sides another site i go to often is like 90% horizontal and 10% vertical lol ...everyones gotta make there cars the way they like them and thats what it all come down to:D
  4. i think the horizontal tails define our cars. before, when i had my 1996, i did not like the horizontals. now, i wouldn't trade them for anything. they are a symbol of the brotherhood.
  5. I think you need to learn to read people's posts a bit.

    First off, I don't have fake hood scoops. And I never said I like the stock fake ones either. Let's not go mixing Apples and Oranges for the sake of trying to win an "opinion argument".

    Second, I said "borderline rice" as in they look like CHEAP made thin plastic. You make the very transparent red into a clear, stick some red bulbs in there, and bam they say APC all over them. :rlaugh:

    Now insulting my mustang knowledge is rude when you didn't read my post. Not that I care if you are the great and mighty mustang lord of the corral, instead of me. :D If you read my post I clearly said I don't feel they look like the classic mustangs... the 99+up, yup those look close. NEVER did I EVER say the horizontal's look like the classic mustangs... :nonono:

    We are debating the "opinion" <---- as in NO ONE WILL WIN. :rlaugh: of the 94-95s vs the 96-98 taillights.

    I base my opinions solely on those two choices and not to the classics. Someone mentioned the 96-98s are closer to the classics. Wow, they are vertical and have three sections. They aren't close enough for me to consider the "classic" resemblance. The part that sticks out about the "classic" is the aggressive /// \\\ angles of the slots. That is sweet. So I'm still at the original debate. Which do I feel look better on MY car. 94-95 or 96-98. I chose the 94-95.... plain and simple.

    You do it your way, I'll do it my way. No point in insulting anyone. :nice:
  6. Here again. This had nothing to do with Lightnings... or the fox body mustangs.

    If you want to bring them into this. OUR generation of youngsters might consider the FOX body as THE mustang body style. IF so... then the horizontal cheese graters would be a "similar" match to our stock taillights. Just bigger slices of cheese. :D
  7. I wasn't being insulting.
    I was simply stating that if you go poll Mustang enthusiasts(people who know the history), they will find the '96 are more supportive of the heritage of the car. Like I said, we're split 50/50 here in the 5.0 forums. I wonder what the 4.6 and classic guys would say....:shrug:

    I'll agree you can't debate opinion. But you can debate the FACTS that one states have influenced their opinion.

    Show me a head-on view of the rear of any classic Mustang from '65-'73 that has tails leaning towards the center like that. All classic Mustang tails go straight up and down. '65/'66 lean out in a convex fashion, and '67/'68 lean in a concave fashion, but line from top to bottom is 90* from the ground.

    The '99-'04 lenses are just as "cheap". But for looking cheap, my '01 lenses AND the '96 lenses on my 'vert don't fade like '94/'95 lenses.

    Okay...I get it. My roommate used to think 3rd gen. Camaros looked good.

    :D :jester:
  8. I stand corrected...

    I got the angles backwards, but they do appeared to be angled none the less on this body style.
    View attachment 405152

    Perhaps I do remember the ones below as angled only due to most pictures being at an angle. :p



    Bottom line is still I decide between the two options we have (without heavy modifications) not based on older models. Going back and looking at ALL the taillights. It's the mixture of the BODY and the taillights that pull off the look of the car. Eleanor is one of the most popular mustangs... and it resembles the FOX, not our car or the 96-98. :rlaugh:


    Now hopefully all the blasted hotlinks load. :D

    Attached Files:

  9. Opinions do change.... that has been noted above. To be honest, I wasn't a fan of the SN95 when it first came out. ( I was a Senior in HS - prime driving age to drool over a sporty car) But my opinion was based on the V-6 stripped down cars I seen everywhere. My opinion changed when I finally seen the Cobra :nice: .
  10. i love the long tail lights on that car so sexy....didn't they come from the t-bird..or something..i cant remember
  11. I like both of them. But I think my 95 look's tuffer in the back compared to my 96. The 94-95's look bad a$$ at nite :nice:
  12. That's just point of perspective. If you look at a '67/'68 taillight head-on(not lining up with the gas cap), you will see it's not slanted. It's just the concave shap that gives it that illusion.

    Yea, T-bird. But Ford did use them on the real '67 Shelby; one of the few accurate things about Eleanore.:nonono:
  13. Well there you go then. I like the 99+ because they resemble the nice aggressive look you get in the perspective of most pictures taken of what some deem the classic mustang. :rlaugh:
  14. The common thread was between rice and Lightning tails, not hard to follow. The other common thread was between the horizontal 94-95 tails and the 87-93 tails...again, not hard to follow.
  15. Who woulda thunk it :eek:

    Four pages of TL Rhetoric :shrug:

    To stir up the Pot a little :rlaugh:

    Those pics looked to be 67 or 68 :D

    Real Classic TL's ... IIRC ... were straight up and down :)

    I'm talkin 64 1/2 through 66 ... First Generation ... don't ya know

  16. :lol: Hey Grady, do you think there is a difference of opinion on what a mustang is... based on the age of the person you are asking?

    Might be an interesting thread. :D
  17. I agree with you on the second part. It's a really good observation.

    The first one, I followed... but it would take us even FURTHER out than we already are. Rice VS Lightning = neither side being listed in the title of this thread. :p And yes, I also agree... the new lightning tails are closer to rice. I'm not a fan.

    I feel I can talk rice all day long. I know rice. My car was once rice. Thankfully it's getting further from it all the time.


    Hard to imagine it's the same car as the one in my signature, isn't it? I had a friend AND his dad talk me into the alteeza's.... I kept them on the car for less than week. Only because I was trying to justify the $$$ I threw out the window.

    Sadly, I recouped some of the $$$ by selling them to someone who loves them on their mustang. :nonono:
  18. agreed i think it gives it a truely tought look and very good looking at night time...

    lightning tails are rice and i would be looking for a set of fleetside tails to swap a.s.a.p.

    i got lx tails in my 93 but if i found a set of gt tails not i would put those back in...when freshly painted i think they do auctually look good....

    whats the tail layout on 69 and 70's?? straight up and down i cant remember..? and whats the tails look like in 71-73 im drawing blanks for some reason..?
  19. Yes ... I really do think age can make a difference :nice:

    Have you ever considered :shrug:

    Just WHO is it? ...........
    The auto makers are building all the retro cars for

    Its peeps like ........................... Me :banana:
    Peeps who were around to enjoy .................. the originals :)

    I know lots of you younger folk don't like the 05 retro style

    Me ............ I love it :nice:
    I didn't even ask them to build em that way :D

    Too Bad Ford didn't have enough sense to .............
    do the same with the motor :notnice:

    btw ...... Have I ever told ya'll .........
    I don't care a whole lot for the mod motor :chair:

    When I saw the first 94 SN Body Style :eek:
    My first words were ..... Those Suck :rlaugh:

    Didn't take but a short ride in one to see .........
    Ford built em better than the older Fox ;)
    No squeaks, rattles, and ... more solid all around :nice:

    Then again ... My heart melts when I see a ... Cherry Fox Coupe :drool:
    Don't know why ... I just love how they look :cool:

    I was lookin for one when my current 95GT was found :)

    If that first plan had transpired .......
    Guess I'd be hangin on the Fox side of SN :shrug:

    anyway ..........

    All Stangs are good
    I easily remember ... some ... more than others :D

    428 Cobra Jets were kinda fun ;)
    Boss 302's didn't suck either :rlaugh:

    Over the years ... Several have been just ... Great :nice:

  20. i would love nothing more than a 70 boss 302 or a old mach:nice: i dont really care for the new 05...one, the dissapointing motors.. we need more cubes...two the interiors are totally cramped for me...6 foot and i felt like i was in the back seat of our cars....i like the bodystyling and the guage clusters are a nice throwback concept....wish they would have used the concept tails though:nice: