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

[red05bullitgt]

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...

I couldn't agree more, as your definition nailed it 100% right on the mark !

 

[kooldawg6]

The fastback would look good on the S197, but without the hips. You add the hips in the mix and the tail section is just too tall. I don't think you can have both and still not have it look like J Lo-not a bad thing for some women, but definitely not a Mustang!!!!!

 

[kooldawg6]

Put two of DarkFire's renditions together for easier comparison.

 

[DarkFireGT]

I'm taking the day off work today, so I may come up with a few more chops today. I'm liking that 71-73 style fastback up above. I might have to play around a bit with that. And I'll try putting hips on the shortened rear end and see what happens, along with an integrated ducktail.

 

[DarkFireGT]

Ok, I created a seamless roof line. I'll work on hips a bit later. Need a brake. Photoshop keeps crashing on me.

 

[ranger04]

Simple, because there's not enough difference to worry about, even these concept cars or photochopped, whatever, there's just not a big enough difference. My 67 and so looked more like my 07 than it does thes photochopped cars. It's been awhile , but not that long that I forget what they looked like, short trunk and all. My 07 doesn't have the hips, but I'm talking about the slant of the roofline and short trunk.

 

[scupking]

I still think this one is the best of the concepts http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/mustangtuning/2009-mustang-concept-5.jpg

 

[226embarcadero]

How about a small porthole in the rear quarter like the old 69s?

That might look cool.

 

[DarkFireGT]

Hips

 

[ranger04]

OK, after looking at some old pitures of my 67, 68 fastbacks and 69 mach 1, besides the hips, the trunks also sloped downward, where as the 07 is straight back. the 07 is more like the 65 & 66 fastbacks with the longer straighter trunk. The 67 and so on had the slope of the trunk matching the slope of the roofline. Anyhow still is all that big of difference to worry about.

 

[DarkFireGT]

Last one for today I think. Shortened rear end, hips, window delete, integrated ducktail, flowing roof line to tail panel.

 

[flyboy86]

Last one for today I think. Shortened rear end, hips, window delete, integrated ducktail, flowing roof line to tail panel.

Ford needs to make something like that.

 

[DarkFireGT]

I lied... One more. I think it needed some SHR louvers and a Calypso Coral paint job.

 

[kooldawg6]

I lied... One more. I think it needed some SHR louvers and a Calypso Coral paint job.

How's about one in Vista Blue, Dark?????? With white stripes. I'd buy one if Ford made that!!!!!

 

[DarkFireGT]

Here's my best attempt at Vista Blue.

 

[kooldawg6]

Here's my best attempt at Vista Blue.

Greatly appreciated Dark I took your pic and tweaked it some more and darkened it. I made the 302 a grayish color to make it appear to be an emblem rather than sticker. Definitely looks sweet to me!

 

[red05bullitgt]

As for adding hips ! I totally agree with both Stangdude, and Kooldawg...The waistline currently sits way too high as is, and needs to be lowered..Otherwise hips will only raise the quarter/tail section, even higher..

 

[red05bullitgt]

OK, after looking at some old pitures of my 67, 68 fastbacks and 69 mach 1, besides the hips, the trunks also sloped downward, where as the 07 is straight back. the 07 is more like the 65 & 66 fastbacks with the longer straighter trunk. The 67 and so on had the slope of the trunk matching the slope of the roofline. Anyhow still is all that big of difference to worry about.

This is exactly what I pointed out, following your initial post..And although it may not be that big of a difference to worry about ! Never the less.. there's definitely a substantial difference, between a 2+2 fastback coupe.. over a full fastback..

 

[ranger04]

I think it would look good either way, so what we have now is the 66 2+2 style huh? At least it's closer to that than a 67. By the looks of the photochopped pitures, that would look cool as well.

 

[red05bullitgt]

Although I actually like the current 66 2+2 style..I've always liked the 67-68 fastback design most..

However IMHO.. I don't believe a 67-68 fastback style, would look right on the current Stang, unless the car's beltline is lowered.. as it currently sits too high as is.

By adding hips, would only result in raising the quarter/tail section, even higher than it already is a.k.a.. J-Lo butt lol.


But then again, if hips aren't added.. It won't look like a true fastback either.. so again, the car's waistline has to be lowered, in order to look right..

Plus the A-pillar posts, would also need moved up forward..along with the roofline having a flatter curve, before sloping into the trunk/rear section ala 67-68 greenhouse..

Otherwise, both the rear glass and trunk sections..will appear to look way too high/flat..

Perhaps these are some of Ford's reasons, for not designing the current Mustang as a full fastback..