To Scoop or Not to Scoop
3/25/05, 10:13 AM
#8
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just don't get this peacock-like fascination with festooning bright and garish baubles like scoops all over anything with wheels. Sure, if it serves a real purpose, functionally or stylistically. But otherwise, it just ends up being tacky and awkward decorations that detract for a car’s basic good looks. Good design is not the same thing as a lot of design, and is usually just the opposite, i.e., less is more, quality over quantity. Reflexively gluing automotive costume jewelry on any exposed flank is the first and obvious resort of bad designers resulting in the automotive equivalent of a zoot suit.
Ford, thankfully, took a more refined, thoughtful and grown up approach than the gone-wild-with-the-J.C. Whitney catalog school of design and has come up with a very refined, cohesive, coherent, functional and tasteful result. No high-school study hall design here. The elements are all there for a purpose and serve to enhance both the function of the vehicle and the overall looks, basically, keep'n it real in automotive terms.
Think of the difference between a guy in a well-tailored, impeccably finished suit and one with some cheap, ill fitting one wearing garish shirts and a bunch of cheap jewelry to grab attention to himself. It the difference between commanding respect vs. demanding attention. The GT500’s looks speak very firmly and assuredly, not loudly and brashly.
Even the rear spoiler, which I generally abhor as a trite stylistic conceit 99% of the time, is well integrated with the overall design and really does work to enhance aerodynamics and performance, lending it credibility and integrity. This is in stark contrast with the GT's clumsy, totally generic-looking piece that does absolutely nothing but add deadweight and drag. And it certainly distinguishes it from the sea of pretenders sprouting all manner of fake protuberances from every panel, i.e., the dreaded ricers.
The GT500 owner can assuredly look to his rear spoiler and point out that it has been extensively wind tunnel tested to provide 80lbs of downforce at 100mph (or whatever the exact figures are). The guy with the Honda Civic can point to his towering spoiler and point out that he and his buddies around him got a bulk-buy discount on 10 of these wind fences at the local parts shop and adds probably 100lbs of drag at 80mph.
My hope is that what would distinguish Mustang owners from the dreaded ricers is that they would add such things, not simply for preening, but for real purpose, that there is a real integrity to any add ons, not simply some pagentry for one's ego.
Of course, if its your car, please feel free to go nuts with the pop-rivet and glue guns and start "corning out" (American equivalent of "ricing out") your poor Stang...it's your money and eyes.
There, I feel better now. Where's those meds...
Ford, thankfully, took a more refined, thoughtful and grown up approach than the gone-wild-with-the-J.C. Whitney catalog school of design and has come up with a very refined, cohesive, coherent, functional and tasteful result. No high-school study hall design here. The elements are all there for a purpose and serve to enhance both the function of the vehicle and the overall looks, basically, keep'n it real in automotive terms.
Think of the difference between a guy in a well-tailored, impeccably finished suit and one with some cheap, ill fitting one wearing garish shirts and a bunch of cheap jewelry to grab attention to himself. It the difference between commanding respect vs. demanding attention. The GT500’s looks speak very firmly and assuredly, not loudly and brashly.
Even the rear spoiler, which I generally abhor as a trite stylistic conceit 99% of the time, is well integrated with the overall design and really does work to enhance aerodynamics and performance, lending it credibility and integrity. This is in stark contrast with the GT's clumsy, totally generic-looking piece that does absolutely nothing but add deadweight and drag. And it certainly distinguishes it from the sea of pretenders sprouting all manner of fake protuberances from every panel, i.e., the dreaded ricers.
The GT500 owner can assuredly look to his rear spoiler and point out that it has been extensively wind tunnel tested to provide 80lbs of downforce at 100mph (or whatever the exact figures are). The guy with the Honda Civic can point to his towering spoiler and point out that he and his buddies around him got a bulk-buy discount on 10 of these wind fences at the local parts shop and adds probably 100lbs of drag at 80mph.
My hope is that what would distinguish Mustang owners from the dreaded ricers is that they would add such things, not simply for preening, but for real purpose, that there is a real integrity to any add ons, not simply some pagentry for one's ego.
Of course, if its your car, please feel free to go nuts with the pop-rivet and glue guns and start "corning out" (American equivalent of "ricing out") your poor Stang...it's your money and eyes.
There, I feel better now. Where's those meds...
3/25/05, 10:24 AM
#10
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The quarter window? Naw, what's it do other than block an already tight sightline. Maybe something flush like the Mustang Concept's that vent air to a diff oil cooler or something...
The quarter panel? That's actually not too bad, reflects the nicely integrated one on the Mustang Concept rather than the goofy Dumbo-ears usually afixed here. Now if some actual cool air is actually ducted to some toasty brakes...
I prefer the black rockers as they reduce the visual height and weight of the side panels, lending a leaner, longer, lower look.
The quarter panel? That's actually not too bad, reflects the nicely integrated one on the Mustang Concept rather than the goofy Dumbo-ears usually afixed here. Now if some actual cool air is actually ducted to some toasty brakes...
I prefer the black rockers as they reduce the visual height and weight of the side panels, lending a leaner, longer, lower look.
3/25/05, 10:27 AM
#11
AKA 1 BULLITT------------ Legacy TMS Member
A Shelby needs the scoops. I wonder if some similar to the '68's will be available.
3/25/05, 11:22 AM
#13
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Originally posted by rhumb@March 25, 2005, 11:27 AM
I prefer the black rockers as they reduce the visual height and weight of the side panels, lending a leaner, longer, lower look.
I prefer the black rockers as they reduce the visual height and weight of the side panels, lending a leaner, longer, lower look.
3/25/05, 11:26 AM
#14
I would like them to have a window louver or something that can be changed out pretty easily with the glass. I would also like them to leave the side cove as it is.
Then again, if it drives a few people nuts that the car has scoops I hope they add plenty of fake ones. I won't lose sleep over it.
Then again, if it drives a few people nuts that the car has scoops I hope they add plenty of fake ones. I won't lose sleep over it.
3/25/05, 12:10 PM
#16
V6 Member
Join Date: October 14, 2004
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rhumb@March 25, 2005, 11:16 AM
I just don't get this peacock-like fascination with festooning bright and garish baubles like scoops all over anything with wheels. Sure, if it serves a real purpose, functionally or stylistically. But otherwise, it just ends up being tacky and awkward decorations that detract for a car’s basic good looks. Good design is not the same thing as a lot of design, and is usually just the opposite, i.e., less is more, quality over quantity. Reflexively gluing automotive costume jewelry on any exposed flank is the first and obvious resort of bad designers resulting in the automotive equivalent of a zoot suit.
I just don't get this peacock-like fascination with festooning bright and garish baubles like scoops all over anything with wheels. Sure, if it serves a real purpose, functionally or stylistically. But otherwise, it just ends up being tacky and awkward decorations that detract for a car’s basic good looks. Good design is not the same thing as a lot of design, and is usually just the opposite, i.e., less is more, quality over quantity. Reflexively gluing automotive costume jewelry on any exposed flank is the first and obvious resort of bad designers resulting in the automotive equivalent of a zoot suit.
3/25/05, 01:06 PM
#17
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I certainly prefered the '65-'66 -- clean, lean, and very functional.
The '67-'68s weren't bad, and ostensibly, the scoops (non-functioning ones) were there to be readily modified to work in competition, so at least a pose of functional justification there.
The "69-'70s were just over the top and looked like cheese graters.
I guess they just reflected the course of Mustang development, getting bigger, fatter, heavier, plusher, softer and generally, just a bit too much for the most part. Sure, the big-motored made them faster, in a straight line at least and with a commensurate decline in agility, but otherwise, I think their edge softened over time from a lean tight focus of the originals to a just pile it on excess of the later versions.
The '67-'68s weren't bad, and ostensibly, the scoops (non-functioning ones) were there to be readily modified to work in competition, so at least a pose of functional justification there.
The "69-'70s were just over the top and looked like cheese graters.
I guess they just reflected the course of Mustang development, getting bigger, fatter, heavier, plusher, softer and generally, just a bit too much for the most part. Sure, the big-motored made them faster, in a straight line at least and with a commensurate decline in agility, but otherwise, I think their edge softened over time from a lean tight focus of the originals to a just pile it on excess of the later versions.
3/25/05, 01:42 PM
#18
Originally posted by rhumb@March 25, 2005, 2:09 PM
I guess they just reflected the course of Mustang development, getting bigger, fatter, heavier, plusher, softer and generally, just a bit too much for the most part. Sure, the big-motored made them faster, in a straight line at least and with a commensurate decline in agility, but otherwise, I think their edge softened over time from a lean tight focus of the originals to a just pile it on excess of the later versions.
I guess they just reflected the course of Mustang development, getting bigger, fatter, heavier, plusher, softer and generally, just a bit too much for the most part. Sure, the big-motored made them faster, in a straight line at least and with a commensurate decline in agility, but otherwise, I think their edge softened over time from a lean tight focus of the originals to a just pile it on excess of the later versions.
3/25/05, 01:47 PM
#19
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't going to say it, but....
3/25/05, 01:52 PM
#20
V6 Member
Join Date: March 24, 2005
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the side scoop. Put a Roush window louvre on there. It only has 4 louvre panels I think. And it would look awesome if they plug the mouting screw holes.
http://www.roushparts.com/products/05/401346_400.jpg
http://www.roushparts.com/products/05/401346_400.jpg