Old Ford pics

hiball3985 · 2018-10-24 15:43

Quote from: Tom S on 2018-10-24 13:12
Yeah. And maybe the side glass too. Still....

As hard as we try it still doesn't fly for me

CobraJoe · 2018-10-25 05:02

Quote from: hiball3985 on 2018-10-24 15:43
As hard as we try it still doesn't fly for me

Still, the amount of work H & M did to this car is unbelievable. The body was cut down three inches as well as the roof, never mind building the fastback.

Tom S · 2018-10-25 05:14

Quote from: hiball3985 on 2018-10-24 15:43As hard as we try it still doesn't fly for me

Yup. Hard to get away from that bulbous Falcudi lookin' rearend.

Might be better with a squared off rear window & ... stuff.
Not a very good job but maybe looks a little better. More Ford like?
I doanno why I get into this. Spend way too much time on it sometimes.

Hey, Joe, thanks for that & the profile shot. I always want to see a cars profile.

RICH MUISE · 2018-10-25 09:22

Yep, lots of work, but those racing guys needed to hire some custom car builders with instructions to forgo the lead!
I guess if you go fast enough anything looks good, and afterall, they were racing, not doing the show car circuit.

rmk57 · 2018-10-25 09:34

This is what happens when you have the luxury of designing a car from the ground up. No Mustang yet but by 63 it was probably on the drawing board.

CobraJoe · 2018-10-25 16:15

The '65 & '66 2+2's are by far my favorite Mustang's followed closely by the '68 fastback, not to mention the "R" codes.

Tom S · 2018-10-25 19:27

Quote from: CobraJoe on 2018-10-25 16:15
The '65 & '66 2+2's are by far my favorite Mustang's followed closely by the '68 fastback, not to mention the "R" codes.

What about the '67 fastback Stangs? Same body but without the government mandated side marker lights clutter. I think the '67 & '68s are much better lookin' then the '65-'66s. I also like the '69s a lot because of the grille/headlight treatment. Unfortunately, IMO, those 3rd generation 'Sangs marked the start of building Mustangs that increasingly got bigger & heavier.

CobraJoe · 2018-10-25 19:55

Quote from: Tom S on 2018-10-25 19:27
What about the '67 fastback Stangs? Same body but without the government mandated side marker lights clutter. I think the '67 & '68s are much better lookin' then the '65-'66s. I also like the '69s a lot because of the grille/headlight treatment. Unfortunately, IMO, those 3rd generation 'Sangs marked the start of building Mustangs that increasingly got bigger & heavier.

The '67's had those ugly, fake side scoops in the quarter panel; the '68 was much cleaner IMO. As far as the side marker lights or reflectors, the '68 had either the recessed or the surface mounted ; depending on the time of production. Honestly, I prefer the recessed myself. Now, here is where the hypocrite in me comes in; I prefer the fake mounted quarter panel/Shelby style brake cooling scoops of the '69 over the clean look of the '70.

Now, as far as bigger and heavier goes; it is pretty obvious by the slower gait of the later Mustang grill emblem of the '70's vs the one of the '60's.