New Mustang Bodies/Shells

[69 Rustang]

While I am not old enough the have remembered or cared at the time, the first steel bodied reproduction 32 Fords years ago were supposedly of poor quality. Today, there are many to choose from with varying quality levels and improvements to the original design.

I myself have slammed Dynacorn for their quality based on the Camaro convertible they took to SEMA a few years ago--the panel fitment was embarassing for a car they were using as a showpiece. However, I look at this with different eyes today. This is the dawn of a new era for Mustanging that will enable my kids (if they aren't building POS Hondas) to share my hobby in 20+ years.

The Dynacorn cars may be pricey now...they may need a lot of fitting to be presentable...they may have other issues. But, they are going to change the hobby for the better in the long term. Also, let those Eleanor guys have 'em!

 

[180 Out]

Dynacorn says they use heavier gauge steel than the gennies. I recall from a story on the Crapmaro that they weld seams full length, where the gennie is spot welded. It is unlikely the Dynacorn will have the same sharpness to the creases and the same contours to the last detail. So to anyone who shells out big bucks for an "investment grade" '67 fb and finds out it's a Dynacorn, I'd say the system has worked: the money has passed from the stupid people to the smart people.

 

[zookeeper]

Wow, that's a pretty harsh statement, and I'm not sure it's even remotely accurate. Dynacorn says the fit and accuracy of it's fastback bodies is superior to '67 quality. Judging from the pics I've seen, it's hard to argue that point. The door gaps and fit look pretty good and although they come right out and tell you that the seams aren't finished, I think it looks very, very good. As for them claiming they used thicker gauge steel, I've never read or heard that before, nor do I know why they would even consider doing so, original vintage Mustang sheetmetal is just right in my opinion.
Also as far as your example of people buying a '67 fastback as an investment, if they can't tell the difference (either through paperwork or a little detective work on the car) then one of two things must be true. Either the car is of outstanding quality (which you claim isn't true) or the prospective buyers haven't done any research at all. I have never made any secret of my extreme dislike of people buying cars as investments, so it's hard to feel pity for the gold-chain and enclosed-trailer crowd that's too ignorant to research a car before laying down top dollar for an "investment". I read a prospectus before investing money in any fund or stock, and I think it's only wise to do the same when buying a car.
Lastly, why is it that some people are so pissed about a manufacturer that is (I believe) trying hard to produce a QUALITY reproduction body shell? Nobody seems to be whining about all the piss-poor quality repro quarter panels, door shells, fenders, hoods and other body panels that are everywhere. Would you rather buy a "real" Ford-produced fastback that was formerly a rusted-out hulk, but has been repaired with thin-gauge, innaccurate body panels from frame rails to roof? Would that make you feel better? I hope so, because not only is that the alternative now that solid fastbacks are getting so hard to find, but it happens everyday. I looked for 6 solid months to find a nice, rust free fastback and that was 6 years ago. I seriously doubt they are any easeir to find or any cheaper today.
The bottom line is, these Dynacorn bodies are probably out of reach for most of us due to price. But for the high-end car builders who are going to ash-can 95% of an original fastback anyway to build a custom, they are a bargain. Look at the Bobby Alloway-built fastback in the current issue of Hot Rod. I think the car is hideous, but having said that, how much of an original fastback do you really think is left of that car? Would you prefer he cut up a cherry, S-code GT to build it? Make no mistake, guys like that have the money to do it, and if sacrificing a rare car is what it takes for them to have a solid foundation, so be it.
I'm going to hold off bad mouthing the new bodies until I actually see one, but until then, I like the idea, and if the quality's there I think it may be the best thing for the Mustang hobby in years.

 

[69 Rustang]

Well, I am going on record as still being skeptical about the quality. I did see the Camaro with my own eyes. If the original Camaros were worse than that new, well, no way--I have seen original Camaros that weren't restored that are not even close to that bad.

I will withhold judgement on the 67 until I actually see it--maybe this year at SEMA. I hope it is great for what its worth.

 

[zookeeper]

You bring up another good point, was the OEM stuff that bad? I know the fit on my '68 wasn't great, but it was pretty good. A freind of my brother bought a '70 Mach I last year and even though it was an undamaged, clean original, the fit was and is absolutley horrible. I've always liked the '70 Mustangs, but I guess I never looked too close, because even though this car's never been wrecked, the fit sucks. Same with my wife's '69 Corvette, it's a low mileage original, but the door and hood gaps are all over the place. The interior panels don't fit any better, and it squeeks like a box of mice until the shocks warm up a bit and allow the suspension to move. I'm not sure how bad the Dynacorn Camaros are so I really don't know what specific areas you saw that were that bad, but it couldn't be much worse than stock if the doors fit at all!