MustangMatt1966
New Member
notice that the threads originator has not even posted to defend himself or his reasonings for calling it a "true ricer"....hmmmmmm
MustangMatt1966 said:notice that the threads originator has not even posted to defend himself or his reasonings for calling it a "true ricer"....hmmmmmm
40oz said:well, the OP's point still stands - that car is, externally, ugly as ****, and obviously modified by someone with very little taste. As engineering types rarely have any taste to begin with, it is no surprise. For crying out loud, the flares could have at least not been square, if track speed was what he was after.
I'm certainly not going to knock the intent of the vehicle, and I have no data on the actual performance, but since when is it acceptable to make something horrendously foul in appearance, then excuse it by saying "form follows function?" If that were true, then in this case, the car would be sleek and clean, not tacky and tacked-on.
The fact that it doesn't look like the flares are held on with glue says something to that. Sheetmetal is a PITA if you don't have tons of experience.strange65 said:Anyone that ever worked with sheet metal will tell you, its not as easy as you think it is
A67StangMaster said:Why cant a Classic STAY a Classic?
Route666 said:Yours can. What's wrong with someone else doing what they want with their own things?
1320stang said:I recall seeing posts when this car was first being built. I searched for Preston on Corner Carvers and the only Preston I came up with has a '68 Fastback, not a coupe.
This guy built it under that carport without a lot of shop tools as I recall. Designed most all of it himself. The body wasn't very pristeen as I recall, floor rot and quarter rot and cowl too as I recall. He had a website up detailing the build, but I cannot find it now. I gather that some of you that hate the car have no idea what went into building it. While it's crude in some aspects and isn't exactly the poster child for early Mustangs, all that is overridden by the fact for me by how he built it, with what materials he used, by the minimal amount of experience he had, on the budget he was using and how it turned out overall. I guarentee you that even Chip Foose would be impressed with this car just by knowing what all went into the build.
Would there be things the builder would change? Likely so, but I am really impressed by what it turned out to be as I had thought it would end up an abandoned project. Have any of you guys that don't like it built a car from the ground up? I don't mean taking cash to a shop to do the work for you, I mean actually doing it yourself? I can understand a purist restoring a car and not liking it, but the lack of appreciation of what was accomplished if you know the whole story......
57fairlane said:Different strokes for different folks eh?
Since when the heck has building a car EVER been about pleasing other people? You build what you want, regardless if most people (me included) think it is ugly.
57fairlane said:Different strokes for different folks eh?
Since when the heck has building a car EVER been about pleasing other people? You build what you want, regardless if most people (me included) think it is ugly.
dawtips said:You don't really believe that do you?