OMG WTF HAPPEND HERE!!!!

MustangMatt1966 · Jun 14, 2006

notice that the threads originator has not even posted to defend himself or his reasonings for calling it a "true ricer"....hmmmmmm

40oz · Jun 14, 2006

MustangMatt1966 said:
notice that the threads originator has not even posted to defend himself or his reasonings for calling it a "true ricer"....hmmmmmm

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.

MustangMatt1966 · Jun 14, 2006

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...what is ugly to some might be beautiful to others...its a mustang, its fast as s***, and it took one mans hard work to build...if he likes it, thats all that counts

bnickel · Jun 14, 2006

looks like a german touring car version of a 68 mustang to me. do you have any idea what a german touring car is? mercedes, bmw, audi or the like that is built like an american trans am car. Preston basically built a street driven trans am car that kind of resembles a german touring car. i personaly think it's pretty damn cool

stangkid88 · Jun 14, 2006

nothing rice about it... I remember seeing it posted a couple months back (it was getting just about the same responses as this thread) and being really impressed by it. I admit the flares look pretty awkward and look more European DTM than traditional muscle car but the amount of time and skill spent on that car is amazing.

I just checked and it looks like he probably lives within a 20 mile radius of me, so I hope to see it at some local shows.

strange65 · Jun 14, 2006

Anyone that ever worked with sheet metal will tell you, its not as easy as you think it is -that guy (Preston) did one amazing job!
The fenders flares, are the only thing keeping that car from flying.
That he fabricated the flares by hand instead of just bolting on some aftermarkets ones deserves alot of respect.
That he stuck with it, and finish his dream deserve's a standing ovation!
720 rwhp is alot of ponys, that car would kick some serious butt on a dragstrip.
When I was young those were the kind of guys, I would seek out and hang around with.
You can learn more from someone like him, then if you went to school every year for the next 25 years. I will admit the front of that car is extreme, but he only has to please himself...Its his F***** car! Anyone know what it weigh's?

stangonline · Jun 14, 2006

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.

And if he was after down-force? Mission accomplished.

If you look - most serious race cars have strange bulges and un-natural flares - no big surprise.

65ShelbyClone · Jun 15, 2006

strange65 said:
Anyone that ever worked with sheet metal will tell you, its not as easy as you think it is

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.

Just something for the people who act like they've never seen these flares before. From the [SIZE=-1]Deutschen Tourenwagen Masters or DTM:

View attachment 462651
View attachment 462653
View attachment 462655
[/SIZE]

A67StangMaster · Jun 15, 2006

Wow guys :Zip2: I never expected this to turn into something crazy gezzz...
Ok the reason I posted this up here is because I value the orignal body of a mustang. Why Mod it?? Why do you guys call it a Classic?
The one reason we all buy this car is because we like the "LOOK" of the car, not beacuse you could do neet stuff to it. Why cant a Classic STAY a Classic?
if your going to make a race car come up with your own body why go for something thats allready there? Whats the point of putting all that money under the body and just calling it a "MUSTANG". Its pretty stupid if you ask me. You would get more OooO's and Awww's if you you had made your own body juno?

Route666 · Jun 15, 2006

A67StangMaster said:
Why cant a Classic STAY a Classic?

Yours can. What's wrong with someone else doing what they want with their own things?

What's even worse is labelling other people's work with derogatory terms, especially when that term is completely wrong.

dawtips · Jun 15, 2006

Route666 said:
Yours can. What's wrong with someone else doing what they want with their own things?

You don't really believe that do you?

180 Out · Jun 15, 2006

I agree with the purists. I hate it when people change the looks of their Mustangs.

Modified cars look like crap. Especially race ready modified. I'm glad they didn't do that kind of stuff back in the day.

65ShelbyClone · Jun 15, 2006

I'l admit upfront that I'm in the crowd that values nice original examples staying nice original examples. However, every rule has exceptions. I don't know anything about that blue car or the person who built it, but I can think of several reasons to chop up a classic car. Suppose the floor and cowl was rotted out. How many smallblock notchbacks are worth restoring when half the car would be patch panels? Suppose the original got the front end wiped off in a crash. Suppose it was a clean car, but just a rolling shell that needed everything but sheetmetal.

I didn't hear anyone dogging on the '70 fastback that only had the body and part of the frame as original parts. No one seems to bitch about the SN65 which is a '65 fastback on an '03 Cobra chassis. The only idfference between any of them is that the blue car is a less valuable notchback and isn't as pretty. Hmm.....form over function, isn't that a ricer thing?

Just food for thought.

1320stang · Jun 15, 2006

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 · Jun 15, 2006

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.

bnickel · Jun 15, 2006

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......

if you are talking about the white 67 or 68 fastback with the tube frame and all that, it is the same Preston. the fastback didn't turn out the way he really wanted it so he sold it and built the coupe.

strange65 · Jun 15, 2006

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.

I agree, I would not care if he did that to a Shelby. His car, his money.
The purist can take a flying leap!

brianj5600 · Jun 15, 2006

1320, the links you are looking for are in post #5.

CochinoFilipino · Jun 15, 2006

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.

That even applies to Civics with neon lights, graphics and big wings.

Route666 · Jun 16, 2006

dawtips said:
You don't really believe that do you?

That someone can do what they want with their own possessions? I do, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, as much as I may think someone's tastes are off, if they own it, they can do what they want with it. I guess there's some ifs and buts there, for instance - I don't like movie makers wrecking nice classics, as it depletes the herd for monetary gain, but again, it's hard to not feel slightly bitter toward anyone with something you want but don't have. (In this I mean they have the ability and will to destroy something that yourself (or myself) would be horrified to do.)

I guess I'm more of a street-machine guy, not a classic purist. Saying a performance oriented car such as the topic of this thread is rice to a street-machine'r is similar to saying a concours correct classic is junk to a classic enthusiast.

OMG WTF HAPPEND HERE!!!!

MustangMatt1966

New Member

40oz

Member

MustangMatt1966

New Member

bnickel

stangkid88

New Member

strange65

New Member

stangonline

Member

65ShelbyClone

A67StangMaster

New Member

Route666

Active Member

dawtips

Member

180 Out

Member

65ShelbyClone

1320stang

57fairlane

New Member

bnickel

strange65

New Member

brianj5600

Active Member

CochinoFilipino

Route666

Active Member

Similar threads

OMG WTF HAPPEND HERE!!!!

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Active Member

Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency