that picture makes me dizzy, could you have found a different way to show us that lol

 

How 'bout this?

 

Most Excelent....Party On Wayne!

 

I think the rakish, rising body lines, fore to aft, have several reasons:

Aesthetic: tend to give a dynamic, "ready to pounce" look rather than a sagging, drag-*** look, or a somewhat neutral if bland level look. Think of a cougar getting ready to pounce, taut haunches raised, head lowered, and front paws low to the ground. Probably evokes some primal instinct or something.

Functional: A rising, high-backed "Camm" rear end does tend to produce downforce, though the chopped of Camm rear end is more to fool the wind into acting like a longer, sleeker shape. Downforce doesn't so much the definition of aerodynamic drag but a side-effect of it, basically the lift-drag ratio of aerodynamics.

At one extreme -- very low drag cars with no handling intentions, i.e., land speed record cars, you do see the very elongated and tapered shapes. The "fastest" fastback would be close to horizontal in angle, but Ford tried that in the '71-'73 design and the rear visibility was horrible.

At the other, Formula One cars, which create so much down force that they could literally drive upside down at speed and generate 3+ Gs around the corners, but at a huge penalty in top speed and economy. Street performance cars exist somewhere in between, balancing economy with down force and handling.

 

that is a much better display the original atempt gave me a headache.

 

Sorry, I am a computer idiot. and even after looking at what he did, I still have no freaking clue how he did it.

 

Okay, so here is a better chop. The first one I decided was way too extreme on how far I sunk the wheel. This one still leaves a little rake but not nearly as much as the original. I also finished off the c-scoop, because I love that line. Better??

 

One part Photoshop, one part valuable company time and three parts sheer boredom.

 

Aaron, this day is killing me. thanks for the laughs

 

I think it gives it more of a 65-66 feel. Personally some of my favorite years. I thought the 69-73 years just got too large or large looking.

 

All I know is that the 2002+ T-Birds were probably the best running cars Ford ever made...I like the wedge, as long as the car isn't too low, then it looks ridiculous, the person who had my Sixer before me lowered it so that the car was even and it looked stupid and slow...a wedge has a sporty appearance.

 

 

I like the way they look with a little height in the back end. Just my taste.

 

Wow, I didn't think i was this much in the minority. I am surprised.

 

[quote=jarradasay;5701386]Okay, so here is a better chop. The first one I decided was way too extreme on how far I sunk the wheel. This one still leaves a little rake but not nearly as much as the original. I also finished off the c-scoop, because I love that line. Better??

quote]

Some of that rake is a photo illusion due to where the angle and lens (low and wide angle) and photographed from the rear giving a bit of fish eye lens effect. There is a bit of a wedge/rake. Not as extreme in reality.

 

I like the scoop attachment on the Torch Red one! Something I might have to consider.

 

That scoop does look nice doesn't it. Helps give it some of the flare it's missin!

 

Amen to that! It should be standard.

 

Kory, grr428 we're probably all going to get flamed for saying we prefer the tacked on scoops. But I think it gives it a little more edge and makes the hip pop a more.

 

i also like the side scoops. i think when i get mine i am going to get them along with the window louvers