making a fox body look good

Home  \  Domestic Cars  \  making a fox body look good

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?

posted by  Scolson

Surely a Stang Convertible is more youth orientated than a hatchback?

posted by  Cliffy

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

posted by  99integra

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

posted by  Cliffy

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:

posted by  99integra

^sexy^

http://www.conroecruisers.com/Members_Cars/BDuncan90.jpg

YUCK :puke:

http://mustangsandmore.50megs.com/stangfan2.jpg

posted by  Scolson

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:

posted by  Cliffy

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

posted by  99integra

Yes, I agree....hence my signature pic! And the '05....I love that classic look!

posted by  Cliffy

Haha gotta love it :wink2:

posted by  99integra

I actually like the convertible better, but the hatch does have its high points too :2cents:

posted by  chris_knows

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 place).

http://www.vipimports.com/images/carsforsale/history/084a.jpg

http://www.mustangreview.com/images/1988SaleenConvertible/1988SaleenVert_lf .jpeg

I tend to like the '85-86 Mustang GT convertibles better than the later Fox GTs. I like the nose better:

http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/timeline/79-86/85/1985Convertible.jpg

posted by  ChrisV

I also personally like the ASC McLaren Mustangs and Capri convertibles. The Capri is particualry nice.

http://www.ascmclaren.com/newcarsforsale/McLaren2.jpg

http://www.ascmclaren.com/carsforsalepics/88a.jpg

http://www.ascmclaren.com/carsforsalepics/88c.jpg

http://www.ascmclaren.com/newcarsforsale/MVC-002S%20(2).JPG

http://www.ascmclaren.com/newcarsforsale/MVC-001S%20(2).JPG

http://www.ascmclaren.com/newcarsforsale/Picture%20005.jpg

http://www.ascmclaren.com/newcarsforsale/Picture%20006.jpg

http://www.ascmclaren.com/newcarsforsale/ASC%20side%202.jpg

posted by  ChrisV

And the ASC Capri:

http://www.ascmclaren.com/carsforsalepics/McLaren%20Roadster%20006.jpg

posted by  ChrisV

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 cars!

http://www.free-picture-graphic.org.uk/images/picture-of-ford-capri.jpg

posted by  Cliffy

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.

posted by  Scolson

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.

posted by  ChrisV

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.

posted by  Pythias

In my opinion, the backend is too empty, it's just flat and it doesnt seem right.

posted by  Benson

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:

posted by  ChrisV

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.

posted by  99integra

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 fact.



That looks more like a fact than an opinion, I stated my opinion when I gave it, you did not. :thumbs:

posted by  Pythias

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:

posted by  99integra

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.

posted by  ChrisV

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

posted by  Pythias

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.

posted by  thunderbird1100

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.

http://www.mustangregistry.org/lx_79_82.htm

posted by  ChrisV

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)

posted by  ChrisV

Your Message