07gtcs

Okay, lets get it out in the open. I would like to see a list of functional vs. non-functional items particular to the Mustang. My intent is to give "purists" and idea of how pure they really are...or do they have selective purism?

davisinla

Good topic!

With the Mustang, I think we're ALL trying to build something that relates to an image we have in our head of what we'd like to be driving. That's why there's everything from Shelby clones and "continuations" to wanna be racers, to wild body kits, to spoiler deleted, scoopless monochrome cars (like mine ).

In my opinion, I don't think it's a question of "purist" or not, but rather "image". We're all after one - and there's nothing wrong with that. It's ALL good stuff.

And as us older guys remember, when the Mustang came out, there was a bewildering selection of options to build a car many different ways so that it could different things to different people...sounds familiar!

bztz4m

I am one of those who want functional parts scoops, C-pilar scoops etc. most things now are stick on parts which drives me nuts. I understand that people are going for a certian look for their cars but if it does not serve a function then why have it on.

Scarpi

Just my opinion, but since you want an HONEST opinion, if it ain't real it shouldn't be on there! That includes Ford putting fake scoops on the car that don't do anything.

rhumb

I'm in this camp, a much tighter integration of form and function, image and reality, the promise and delivering on that promise. The critical distinction is between purely stylistic design elements vs functional, or those pretending to pass off as functional, design elements.

If some item is purely for styling, say a stripe, rear window slats or a fancy paint job, then fine. Even if I don't dig it, stylewise, I at least respect it as being honest -- for just being what it is, a purely stylistic element.

Where I diverge is when it comes to items that pretend to be a functional performance-enhancing element when they really aren't. At a fundemental level, there is a basic dishonesty about this approach I can't get over, though others seem fine to overlook. That fake hood scoop is trying to pass itself off as something it isn't. Yeah, it may look cool, convey an image at the some surface level and all that, but scratch below that surface and it really is a visual lie, a charade, to be harsh about it.

I think that critical design distinction gets lost on many, and I think this post is, in some way, trying to set a trap by blurring that distinction and conflating a fake hood scoop with a hood stripe. But there is a fundamental difference in approach, of backing up the image and promise implied by a performance design element like a hood scoop with real purpose and function. And there's no problem with using stylistic design elements either as stylistic elements.

The best is when design elements work both aesthetically and fucntionally, the holy grail of melding form and fuction into a cohesive whole. Now that's the way to convey an image -- fully backed up by real substance, with design honesty and integrity at every level.

I'll bet many of the "purists" are older guys who lived through the '70's and '80's when most "performance" cars were nothing but an agglomeration of fake pseudo-performance everything when in reality, they were gutless icons to hollow image, ego and flash. So perhaps it's those traumatizing recollections that drive many of us to be so authentic and real in our design and styling choices.

So for me at least, it's all about deisgn authenticity, integrity, honesty and keeping it real.

OKCMustangGT

Disagree totally. The "function" that it serves is to create an appearance the owner of the car desires. I don't like everything that everyone does to their car and I'm sure not everyone likes my car, but it's the way I want it to look. Judging by the sheer number of compliments, stares, waves, thumbs up, etc I receive everyday, it must not be all bad. Even with my "fake" window and door scoops. I walk out every day, look at my car and say "**** I love that car". That is the function of my modifications.
If everyone bought a 2005+ Mustang and didn't add/change anything "functional" or not, it would be a very boring world.

I still stick to my "Breast Implant Analogy" in the previous thread that sparked this one.
Are they "Real", no, but who gives a ****, they still look/feel nice and attract attention.

OKCMustangGT

You "REALLY" need to find something better to do with your time.
Let's take a "fake" hood scoop for example. I don't think I have ever heard anyone say "Like my new hood scoop and guess what it's functional". Who cares. I think most people place them on the car for pure appearance. I don't think anyone PRETENDS they are real when they are not, and if they do, well it won't be hard to see through that lie as soon as the hood is popped. I think they put them on the car to improve their interpretation of overall appearance.

davisinla

Of course fake stuff on performance cars didn't start in the 70s. A couple of muscle car icons, the original GTO and the 63 Corvette had their share of fake scoops, vents, knock-off wheels, etc. In fact, the Corvette had fake scoops and/or vents almost it's entire life up until the mid 60s.

Cheese302

i think i have to disagree with everything you wrote on this thread. For a part to be functional, it has to do a specific purpose. for any scoop that means feeding cold/cooler air to a part of the car, hood scoops are for the motor, side scoops usually for brakes. since ford doesn't have any that work, they are all decorative plastic garbage.

i hate breat implants.

and lastly, no: no one ever says "do you like the look of my hoodscoop and its functional." on our cars there is no such thing as a functional hood scoop. so people either like the looks, or they dont, i dont. and i have seen people pretend they are real. like a 69 sport roof mustang, aweosme car, but way too many people think that those quarter scoops are functional, and they arent, so thats why when my family bought one, we made sure it was a boss 302 which was the only sport roof that didnt have the ugly scoops.



I prefer nice clean lines, and no tacked on plastic stuff. kinda like a european car. and thats why my stang will never have that stuff.

Cheese302

good point, but i do like the fact that the c2 vette had optional real knockoffs. by far the best generation vette.

05GT-O.C.D.

The problem is that the 'function' is different from one person to another. In other words, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If function is styling to someone - then great, have at it, tack on as much junk as you want - just don't think that it's going to make you any faster.
Me, I like a nice clean look. A ducktail instead of a wing, and replacement louvers instead of tacked on ones.

Zig-Zag

I had a chance the other day to compare a Stage 3 Roush with a Ford GT and what struck me was that every scoop and louver on the Roush were non-functional, stick-on afterthoughts. This on a $40K tuner. Now I know the GT is a 1/4 million dollar supercar, but at least every scoop and louver was functional. I wanted a shaker on Trix since before I got her, but I seriously doubt I'd have considered it for very long if it at least did not make an attempt at functionality.

Cheese302

nah, functional is not styling. seperate things. functional means its there for a purpose, not there for looks. ever hear the phrase "form over function" well i am a much bigger proponent of "function over form".


i like a smooth butt, so there is nothing on my car, just a bare trunk lid

OKCMustangGT

So you are saying that NOTHING should be added to any car that is not functional by your definition of such?? (does your car have a spoiler, fake gas cap in the rear, mirror inserts, etc)You act as if anyone that doesn't share your thoughts is wrong?? Not so. No one, (or at least no one I know) is pretending that their window scoops, door scoops or even hood scoops for that matter are functional as described by you. If they are then they are definitely wrong, although the shaker does provide a source of cold air it really doesn't improve performance. Most people add these (myself included) because they feel it improves the cars appearance.
I have no problem with people putting GT500 fascias, GT/CS chins or rear fascias, etc on their car, or changing spoilers or anything that makes the car look like something that it isn't as long as they don't try to play it off as what its not.
This is purely an opinion on what one believes, it doesn't make the other side wrong, just different and that is what makes this world great.

And breast implants are great

Cheese302

i must have been confusing, all that i am saying is that the term functional shouldnt be used for those parts. they arent functional. if you have them on your car, thats cool. i am going to put a gt/cs rear bumper on mine. i dont think that the term functional can be used as a definition of styling. a styling part is not a functional part. thats all i am getting at. it seemd like that was your argument to me. i have mirror caps on mine, because they look cool. and i wont put the gt500 front end on because i prefer the 69 style headlights. I apologize if i came off too harsh

OKCMustangGT

I agree with you that they are not functional as they were originally designed on the older cars, I was just saying that they serve a purpose albeit not a performance one. I placed the scoops on the car for purely appearance reasons and would never claim them to be "functional" from a performance enhancing perspective but they are "functional" from an appearance standpoint.

Cheese302

well agree to disagree on that one. its not saint diego.... oh wait i mean, if its not a performance function. to me its not functional.

dly

I guess your Eject Button is functional then.

davisinla

I was 12 years old when the '63 Corvette was introduced. I still have a copy of the Road & Track with the coupe and roadster on the cover. I will never, ever forget the impact that car had on me! It looked like something from the future.

Thunder Road

First, nowhere is it written that function is solely a property of performance. You have style function, economy function, comfort function etc, as well as performance function. I'm a 60s child, 13 when the Mustang debuted. I'm a hot rodder. Hot rodding comes in all different facets. To me no where is there a more beautiful Mustang than the 67 Shelby, with the fake quarter and side scoops. It had the look! I'm not bothered by hood scoops, side scoops, body kits, 20 inch wheels, fart can muffeled godzilla winged ricers, or Stereo systems that cost more than the cars I see some people driving.
The absolutely, positively glorious thing about cars is you can individualize them. That what hot rodding is all about being unique.

I dont want a rice car, but have no problem with those who do. Many young people get in them because they available and affordable, much like my first car, a 56, Chevy, like my dad's first car, an old Hudson Hornet. Personally I dont need anything more than my shaker 500 stereo. I dont need 18, 19 or 20 inch wheels. I dont need wings. Lots of body kits out there I dont care for. I dont care for the Lemans stripes on my Mustang. I've no need for nitrious, blowers or turbos.
I do like my 67 Shelby styled hood scoop and CDC classis front spoiler. I would like to be able to fit 16 inch wheels with 60 series redline tires on my GT. I love the sequential signal lights, and blacked out tail panel. One of these days I'll get a ducktail spoiler more to my liking than the stock spoiler

BUT, its all good because we are all individuals with different tastes. I'm just glad hot rodding is still around after all these years. I'm glad way back there people weren't afraid to be different with their cars. The only thing I dont like about cars and what people do to them is the attitude of someone putting them down because the dont agree with what they have done.
Long live hot rodding.