Would the S-197 look better as a full/true fastback ?

[red05bullitgt]

Hey everyone ! just out of curiosity, I've often wondered as to whether or not, the current Mustang would look better as a traditional full fastback..

Some have mentioned in other threads, that it would look even more like the 67-68 fastback.. while others have stated that a full fastback just wouldn't look right, due to the high waistline along with the greenhouse (roof) being too curved..

In the meantime.. I'd really be interested in getting both your opinions and feedback, as to whether you agree, or disagree... Anyway as always, thanks everybody

 

[flyboy86]

Hard to tell, without seeing some pictures. I could see it working though, I'd like to see some concepts. It might work a little easier with a little more defined set of hips?

 

[07BLKSTANG-GT]

Hard to tell, without seeing some pictures. I could see it working though, I'd like to see some concepts. It might work a little easier with a little more defined set of hips?

I agree. It would be hard to imagine without some sort of pictures. It's not a bad idea. A fast back S197 with a duck tail spoiler would be a good idea as the next model. Dodge went almost totally retro with the new Challenger so a new fast back Mustang could go very well the people.

 

[kenaimone]

i will go back to the fox days. now every body wants a notch. i like having a trunk. just me opinion

 

[partsbill]

here's a link with some 2007 mustang fastback conversions.
http://www.fordpower.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=387

 

[69mach1-409]

Love the hips, not liking the FB roofline. Something just seems 'off' about it.

 

[stangdude2000]

Someone one here has to be good enough with photoshop to give us a picture. I think could work, but I also think it would have to be done very carefully.

 

[flyboy86]

here's a link with some 2007 mustang fastback conversions.
http://www.fordpower.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=387

I think that black one looks freakin awesome!

 

[ranger04]

I thought it was a fastback, it looks as much of a fastback as my 67, 68 and my 69 mach 1. It slopes rearward with a short trunk like they did. If it's not a true fastback, then it's fastbacked enough the way it is, cause it sure fooled me.

 

[stangdude2000]

I somehow completely glossed over that link when I was looking at this thread earlier. I like it, but at the same time I don't... I feel like either the "hips" are too high/inflated, or the section behind the rear wheels needs to be shortened. Definitely has potential though.

 

[DarkFireGT]

Here's a few chops and drawings I did a year or so ago. I would love to see a fastback.

 

[stangdude2000]

That looks a bit better than the link from above, but I still stand by my opinion that the rear section is a little too long.

 

[partsbill]

Here's a few chops and drawings I did a year or so ago. I would love to see a fastback.

nice photo chopping.

 

[DarkFireGT]

That looks a bit better than the link from above, but I still stand by my opinion that the rear section is a little too long.

Maybe instead of extending the rear window, I could cut a bit off the back end. I'll work on that this weekend.

 

[scupking]

Check a few of the concepts out.

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/mustangtuning/2009-mustang-concept-5.jpg
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/mustangtuning/2009-mustang-concept-6.jpg

 

[flyboy86]

This one looks pretty good... and it'd be better with quarter window louvers

 

[GusinCA]

Back end looks too heavy, just an opinion.

 

[red05bullitgt]

I thought it was a fastback, it looks as much of a fastback as my 67, 68 and my 69 mach 1. It slopes rearward with a short trunk like they did. If it's not a true fastback, then it's fastbacked enough the way it is, cause it sure fooled me.

Ranger, being that you've owned 67 and 68 fastbacks, plus a 69 Mach 1 !

How can you not tell the difference, between a full fastback... over a semi-fastback

Compare how the 67,68 and Mach 1.. slopes all the way rearward through the trunk, at a 90 degree angle..Where as the rearward slope on the current Mustang, ends just before the trunk.. in which the trunk itself, is completely horizontal !

Although your absolutely correct about the current S-197 being a fastback..

However I must respectfully disagree with your statement, concerning how it looks as much as a 67, 68 and 69 Mach 1 fastback..

If anything ! the current Mustang looks far more like the 65 and 66 2+2 fastback, than anything else...In other words, both share similar horizontal trunk designs..

 

[DarkFireGT]

Ranger, being that you've owned 67 and 68 fastbacks, plus a 69 Mach 1 !

How can you not tell the difference, between a full fastback... over a semi-fastback

Compare how the 67,68 and Mach 1.. slopes all the way rearward through the trunk, at a 90 degree angle..Where as the rearward slope on the current Mustang, ends just before the trunk.. in which the trunk itself, is completely horizontal !

Although your absolutely correct about the current S-197 being a fastback..

However I must respectfully disagree with your statement, concerning how it looks as much as a 67, 68 and 69 Mach 1 fastback..

If anything ! the current Mustang looks far more like the 65 and 66 2+2 fastback, than anything else...In other words, both share similar horizontal trunk designs..

I agree and have similar discussions on other boards. While the S197 could be classified as a fastback, it's more of a 2+2 than a fastback, thus the reason ford calls it a coupe. To me, a true fastback has an uninterrupted line from the roof to the tail panel. The S197 doesn't. It has a prominent interruption in the roof to trunk line.

Anywho, here's a quick attempt at shortening the rear end to make it more of a fastback. No hips or continuation of roofline, though...

 

[red05bullitgt]

Here's a couple of photoshops, I located from someone on TMS ..However there's no trunk