• Mustang Forums
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter red05bullitgt
  • Start date Start date Nov 28, 2007
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
First Prev 3 of 3

bigcat

start with the upper hole, and if more traction is
May 1, 2005
3,015
1
79
7200 feet
Nov 30, 2007
#41
  • Nov 30, 2007
  • #41
just get one of these:



thats my next car. (unless they come out with a 70 body soon)
 

Attachments

  • mufp_0707_01_z+dynacorn_1967_ford_mustang_fasback_body+on_the_lift.webp
    75.6 KB · Views: 142

red05bullitgt

Member
Aug 15, 2005
861
0
16
Pittsburgh, PA.
Nov 30, 2007
#42
  • Nov 30, 2007
  • #42
Believe me, If I were able to swing it financially ! I would own that car..

It really sucks, when all you can afford..are monthly car payments..
 

kooldawg6

mine works really well and can take a fair amount
Aug 31, 2006
1,679
2
38
Central VA
Nov 30, 2007
#43
  • Nov 30, 2007
  • #43
red05bullitgt said:
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.

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..
Click to expand...

Here is a '06 beside a '66. It is clear to see how much taller the S197 is and how adding more to the back half would make it even bulkier.
 

Attachments

  • 2006-Ford-Shelby-GT-H-hr_manu-02.webp
    18.7 KB · Views: 135

226embarcadero

New Member
Oct 13, 2007
10
0
0
San Francisco, CA
Nov 30, 2007
#44
  • Nov 30, 2007
  • #44


Bring back the port hole!
 

Attachments

  • 1.webp
    13.5 KB · Views: 136

226embarcadero

New Member
Oct 13, 2007
10
0
0
San Francisco, CA
Nov 30, 2007
#45
  • Nov 30, 2007
  • #45
kooldawg6 said:
Here is a '06 beside a '66. It is clear to see how much taller the S197 is and how adding more to the back half would make it even bulkier.
Click to expand...

A '66 is not really a good example because, personally, I don't like them nearly as much as the 67-69s.

Compare an S197 with a '67 or '69 fastback
 

Attachments

  • 2006-Ford-Shelby-GT-H-hr_manu-02.webp
    18.7 KB · Views: 146
R

rlntlss

New Member
Jul 6, 2007
9
0
1
Nov 30, 2007
#46
  • Nov 30, 2007
  • #46
nice renditions dark fire but until you work on the hips i like the 1st one better just my $.02
 

red05bullitgt

Member
Aug 15, 2005
861
0
16
Pittsburgh, PA.
Nov 30, 2007
#47
  • Nov 30, 2007
  • #47
226embarcadero said:
A '66 is not really a good example because, personally, I don't like them nearly as much as the 67-69s.

Compare an S197 with a '67 or '69 fastback
Click to expand...
What's the difference ? as the waistline on the 65-66..is the same height as the 67-69's anyhow...

Therefore, if you compare the S-197 with either 65-66, or 67-68 fastback..The height difference will remain the same..

No matter how you look at it..The waistline on the S-197 needs to be lowered, otherwise it's just as Kooldawg posted.. the rear section would look way too bulky..
 

Ice Hawk

New Member
Feb 7, 2004
114
0
0
Daytona Bch, Florida
Nov 30, 2007
#48
  • Nov 30, 2007
  • #48
WOW. I love this thread. There are some really talented people out there. My fav so far is the Dark Blue w/ SHR qtrs and "badge" effect on the 302. The waist and tail are perfect for what we have to work with on the platform. Good job!
 

Jenns01TA

Active Member
Mar 31, 2005
37
0
36
Nov 30, 2007
#49
  • Nov 30, 2007
  • #49
Neither the 67 or the 69 are close enough in line design to compare to the S197. The roof lines are slanted at a sweeping degree where the S197 follows a shorter, sharper slant degree from the rear roof to trunk panel. The 67 has no rear passenger window and the 69 has no pillar separation at the passenger window.

The S197 is a metamorphosis between modern and classic. I really can't think of a single element from any of the classic generations that is conducive to repetition on the S197. I personally believe Ford designed it fairly well as incepted.

'67


'69


Jenns05Stang - Gone, but not forgotten. He was fine, just the way he was.

 

red05bullitgt

Member
Aug 15, 2005
861
0
16
Pittsburgh, PA.
Dec 1, 2007
#50
  • Dec 1, 2007
  • #50
I couldn't agree more, as Ford took design elements from (65-66) Shelby quarter windows (67-68) dash/gauges/hood/grille/headlights/fogs, and (69-70) tail lights..

Thus, the S-197 is indeed.. a metamorphosis between modern and classic design, in which gives the car it's own unique identity...While at the same time, remaining true to it's heritage..

As one thing is for certain ! at least nobody can accuse Ford, of attempting to duplicate it's success, from any of their classic designs lol.
 

Jenns01TA

Active Member
Mar 31, 2005
37
0
36
Dec 1, 2007
#51
  • Dec 1, 2007
  • #51
@ Rocky
 

red05bullitgt

Member
Aug 15, 2005
861
0
16
Pittsburgh, PA.
Dec 1, 2007
#52
  • Dec 1, 2007
  • #52
Right back at you, Jenn
 

226embarcadero

New Member
Oct 13, 2007
10
0
0
San Francisco, CA
Dec 3, 2007
#53
  • Dec 3, 2007
  • #53
red05bullitgt said:
I couldn't agree more, as Ford took design elements from (65-66) Shelby quarter windows (67-68) dash/gauges/hood/grille/headlights/fogs, and (69-70) tail lights..

Thus, the S-197 is indeed.. a metamorphosis between modern and classic design, in which gives the car it's own unique identity...While at the same time, remaining true to it's heritage..

As one thing is for certain ! at least nobody can accuse Ford, of attempting to duplicate it's success, from any of their classic designs lol.
Click to expand...

Just about the ONLY thing I don't really like about the s197 is the Tail Lamps. They could have made them look so much more aggressive. The 3 vertical lights should be separated and distinguished from one another. The way Ford did it, it looks like one big light with two lines down the center.

I am surprised no one has developed an aftermarket tail light that more closely resembles a 67-69.
 
S

stanmckinney

10 Year Member
Mar 30, 2005
1,188
5
49
Dec 3, 2007
#54
  • Dec 3, 2007
  • #54
I'll take both of those Shelbys, please.
 
R

ranger04

New Member
Jul 28, 2007
245
0
0
Dec 3, 2007
#55
  • Dec 3, 2007
  • #55
+1
 

red05bullitgt

Member
Aug 15, 2005
861
0
16
Pittsburgh, PA.
Dec 5, 2007
#56
  • Dec 5, 2007
  • #56
+2
 
S

SinisterStang07

New Member
Dec 4, 2007
2
0
0
Dec 5, 2007
#57
  • Dec 5, 2007
  • #57
heres one
 

Attachments

  • 2009-mustang-concept-6-1.webp
    9 KB · Views: 137

kooldawg6

mine works really well and can take a fair amount
Aug 31, 2006
1,679
2
38
Central VA
Dec 5, 2007
#58
  • Dec 5, 2007
  • #58
Post #16 already has that one.
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
First Prev 3 of 3
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Would The S-197 Look Better As A Full/true Fastback ?
  • red05bullitgt
  • Apr 5, 2017
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
6
Views
1K
2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk- Apr 8, 2017
red05bullitgt
B
Daily driver debate: 65-68 coupe or 62-63 Comet
  • BoulevardofRustedDreams
  • Oct 18, 2019
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
6
Views
2K
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Nov 1, 2020
wicked93gs
Progress Thread 2014 V6 'chelle-b Ii'
  • Colorado66
  • Aug 26, 2017
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
30
Views
8K
2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk- Feb 20, 2019
Noobz347
Extremely Low Fuel Mileage Issue
  • stangr5oh
  • Jul 21, 2014
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
  • 2
Replies
23
Views
7K
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech Aug 23, 2014
stangr5oh
2015 Ford Mustang Official Intel
  • MRaburn
  • Dec 5, 2013
  • StangNet Site News
Replies
0
Views
2K
StangNet Site News Dec 5, 2013
MRaburn
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?