I've been looking for a stock 86-93 5.0 mustang hatchback. but I see more convertables than anything. It's not that I don't like the idea of a convertable, I just think they're ugly as sin. Like they're a granny car or something. Would a spoiler or something make them look a bit better?
Surely a Stang Convertible is more youth orientated than a hatchback?
I must be different then because they Convertible is ugly as sin IMO, the hatch is damn sexy http://www.classicgray.com/images/93_MustangLX_1.jpg
lol...that may be the case......but usually the more mature driver tends to drive the hatchback, surely?....unless they're car enthusiasts or at a certain era of their lives lol
Heh, the hatch is also more aerodynamic, handles better and weighs less, that sells me, plus my grammpa had a 90 5.0 hatch (car I learned how to drive stick on) and it was a great handling little pony car :wink2:
I dont really like that era of Mustang anyways, but I can see where you're coming from, I like that hatch better too.....I never said I didn't! :clap:
I've come to find that its either a love it or hate it kind of body style, just like the new ones, personally the 89-93 are the ONLY ones that I did like besides the 64-69 Mustangs
Yes, I agree....hence my signature pic! And the '05....I love that classic look!
Haha gotta love it :wink2:
I actually like the convertible better, but the hatch does have its high points too :2cents:
A convertible is for the driver when you're driving it. You can't see the
outside from the driver's seat, but you can feel the elements. That's the
appeal of a convertible of ANY car. the smooth style of the car is often
not as good on teh convertible versions (especially when, as in the case of
the Fox Mustang, they were never designed to be convertibles in the first
I tend to like the '85-86 Mustang GT convertibles better than the later Fox GTs. I like the nose better:
I also personally like the ASC McLaren Mustangs and Capri convertibles. The
Capri is particualry nice.
And the ASC Capri:
They're Capri's?...these are the only Capri's I know of lol...I guess it's
a bit like the Chevy Cavalier/Vauxhall Cavalier.....totally different
I get your point. Anyone know if these cars have problems with vibration and lack of stiffness? I've heard convertibles that weren't originally meant to be can have problems like that.
Yeah, Fox convertibels are flexi-flyers. Not as rigid ash they could be. The ASC cars are better, but they are aftermarket. Without full cages, there's a lot of cowl shake.
All a matter of opinion, as 99Integra seemed to not mention, just gave his opinion, that it is all matter of opinion. I own a Mustang GT Convertible that you can see in my sig. Personally I hate the Hatchback's I think THEY look ugly as sin, as for being mroe aerodynamic :screwy: Better check your facts on that one, the onyl thing the hatches have on vert's are osme weight, which can be evened out with some weight modificated. I don't like the hatchback style, plus I wanted a convertible, so I ended up deciding on my car. Personally I love it but mostly because it is my preference against hatches. And YES convertible's are normally youth related but depending on the youth they may want the lighter and quicker hatch if they like that look so ti can go either way Cliffy.
In my opinion, the backend is too empty, it's just flat and it doesnt seem right.
Then you haven't seen too many American convertibles. Besides, if you look
at the direct side view, you'll see that the one you quoted simply has a
bad camera angle making it look longer than it is. The black one lower
down, and even the bottom red one, look shorter (and the side view of the
black one really shows that it's not as liong as the red one you quoted
looks). The deck is no longer than the notch back of the same year.
Look how long, flat, and square the rear deck on my Comet project is:
I know I stated an opinion, and I made the assumption on the aerodynamics fact because most of the time covertibles are usually less aerodynamic than the other models.
How do you figure, by being lower to the ground, and sometimes having side
skirts and such, you are less aerodynamic? And YES you stated an opinion
but you didn't say that it was your opinion, you presented it more as a
That looks more like a fact than an opinion, I stated my opinion when I gave it, you did not. :thumbs:
Yes that was a my bad on my side, it was just as an opinion no biggie.
Don't get your panties up in a bunch bro I put "IMO" which abbreviates "in my opinion" :wink2:
Actually, the convertibles are less aerodynamic than the hatchbacks, and
even slightly worse than the notchbacks. The convertible top itself when up
catches air across the leading edge, and the uneven roof (top bows and the
like) along with the movement of the top material, causes drag. When the
top is down, the tumble of the air over and around the windsheild and
passenger compartment makes for quite a bit of drag.
The hatchbacks ahd a basic drag coeeficient of .44 (in '87 the GT aero bits dropped that to .39) the coupes were at .46 in '79, dropping to .42 by '87, and the convertibles were around .48! If you added the GT parts, the convertible dropped to .44, the same as the '79 Hatchbacks.
I wasn't sure if the convertibles were more aerodynamic but I thought they were. Although I did not know when the top was down drag was created. I do have the GT parts so i guess I am around .44
It's just so odd to me when it has such a high drag when compared to a family car like the Accord which has a drag co-ef of .29. Then again the fox was a 80's car (well late 70s/80s) and Honda is known lately for building pretty aero-sound vehicles.
Actually, the Fox came out in '78 as a '79 model, so it was designed in '75
or so, and in it's day was a pretty aerodynamic car. It lead directly to
the '83 Aero T-Bird.
Convertibles have always been higher drag than coupes. That's why even early on, GT cars were faster than their sports car twins even when built on the same chassis. (like MGB GT vs MGB, 250 GTO vs 250 Spider, etc)