So why does Ford consider the 67-70, and 71-73's as sportsroof models. And if the term sportsroof, is not another name for fastback. Then what exactly, is the difference between them ?

 

Well I'm sure we have all used poor choice in wording at sometime or another, as nobody is perfect. At any rate, when I refer to the word "true Fastback" I interpret that as meaning either full fastback, or as a Sportsroof, and nothing more. In which I thought I had in several of my posts.

 

Ford coined the marketing designation "Sports Roof" (which was used starting in 1969, not before) which is another name for their fastback much like "Runabout" was a coined term for the Pinto 3-door hatchback.

The Sports Roof designation was created to emphasize the dramatically more horizontal positioning of the rear window and higher deck. The Sports Roof models came about after proposals for 1969 were created with nearly wagon-like rear rooflines. The rooflines were dropped much lower for production models but created a dramatically different look than before. When it was time to develop proposals for the 1971 models, another wagon-like "Kammback" design was created which resulted in using an even more horizontal positioning of the rear window and raising of the rear deck. Ultimately this resulted in a much criticized heavy overgrown look.

The 1967 Mustang fastback was developed into a full-fastback to suggest performance influenced by the competition car the Ford GT. By the end of the 1960's most of Ford's larger car line models included a fastback roof bodystyle on it's two door models, including the Torino, Thunderbird and the Ford Galaxie 500 XL.

 

I sure miss those 68-69 Fairlane/Torino fastbacks, as well as the Galaxie 500 XL's and Thunderbirds

It's really sad that will probably never see the likes of these cars, ever again.

 

Check out the Cyclone in my neighbors yard... All original in need of TLC...

 

I'm definitely very jealous of your next door neighbor, that's for sure. I just hope that he gives his Cyclone all the TLC, that it rightfully deserves.

As they're very rare, here in the northeast. In which I've only seen 2 of them, at my local car cruise events.

 

That was my first thought when I saw the taillights, CELICA!

Don't get me wrong, love the car but CELICA comes to mind when I see the rear end.

 

its a tie. BOTH equally ugly

 

I AGREE TOO.. The best part of the new stang(which everyone seems to be NOT talking about) is the interior., gorgous..

 

the bottom line is..
05-09's took cues from classic mustangs and did it well. The 10's took cues from Japanese automobile designs and did not do it well. sorry..

You will see that in the future the 05-09's will stand the test of time. and the 10's won't

 

Maybe the '10 will have a very limited production run.........no money.

 

I'm sorry, but that is such a loose definition of a fastback that one could make an argument that almost any car is a fastback. How do you define "most conventional coupes" for example? And at what angle is the glass on "most conventional coupes"?

TampaBear was talking about "TRUE" fastbacks. I posted a picture of a '68 Mustang that is a true fastback. If a fastback doesn't look like that, then it's not a TRUE fastback design.

 

Here's where your (and his) definition falls apart-- You failed to define an angle for the rear window in your (his) definition. If you really believe the definition of a fastback lies in the angle of the glass, then what exactly is the breaking point angle? See how silly it is to make that claim?You cannot simply say that it is steeper than most and maintain any degree of credibility. Therefore, it is obvious that a true fastback meets the criteria of the picture I posted earlier in the thread (the green '68 Stang).

Just because something looks sorta similar to a fastback profile doesn't mean it's really a true fastback. Just like some of those 4-door sedans with coupe styling. Are they coupes? No, of course not. But they have coupe-like styling.

 

Now that's another example of a true fastback. Obviously, not the angle of the rear glass is not the only determining factor.

 

Everyone just

 

The '10 took cues from classic Mustangs while at the same time refining and modernizing cues from the '05-'09s. Since we all had to prove where our claims of Euro design came from, I'd like to see some proof of these Japanese cues. Real proof, not a picture of a '70s Celica that looks nothing like a 2010 Mustang from the back (I'll give you the hood, but I've pointed that similarity out myself).

While I admit my gift for looking into the future may not be as finely honed as yours (), I'm fairly confident that both designs will do equally well in this arena. At least the 2010+ cars will still have their interiors intact.

 

You guys have your opinions, as do we all. This Debate over Fastback Vs. Non Fastback has Become Over Blown and Ridiculous. Most cars on the road today are Fastbacks as that is the Aerodynamically Superior Shape. You are just Hung Up on the past and cannot let go of the Extreme Fastback styling of the 67-71's. I LOVE THEM TOO!

Unfortunately they will never be repeated as Ford has to consider costs and making a completely different Rear Section, ie: Trunk and Quarter Panels, for the Fastback/Coupe and the Convertible is Cost Prohibitive.

I am Done Rehashing This, I Quit! It's Just not Fair Having a Battle of Wit's with an Unarmed Person.

 

This is what I meant, by hardtop. As a non-removable metal roof, also know as a notchback coupe.

 

You have taken yourself out of context. This is your quote that originated from my remark that you did not seem to know what a hardtop is:

No reference was made to notchbacks in this discussion about fastbacks.

You called the current coupes (which feature ONLY a fastback roofline) "hardtops" in your quote when in fact they are not hardtops. Hardtops are fixed roofs made to look like convertibles with the top up or an optionally removable hardtop in place. There are no obstructions like door frames or B-pillars with all the side windows down. The original 2-door Mustang notchback was a hardtop. The original fastbacks were not hardtops as they were coupes with a large rear pillar with a triangular fixed glass. The same applies to the current coupes which do not need the term fastback as an adjective to describe it on the window sticker because there is no notchback coupe offered to get the two body styles confused.

 

Fine, then I'll rephrase. What I was referring as a Hardtop, in that quote. Was a traditional coupe with non-removable metal roof, also known as a Notchback.

Therefore, if I had just said Notchback Coupe instead. Perhaps this entire misinterpretation wouldn't have taken place to begin with.

I suppose my reason for not using that term, is that most refer to Notchbacks today, as non Hatchback models ala Fox Bodies.