S-197 Retro question/opinions

[06 T-RED S/C GT]

I've been more than patient with you up to this point regarding your ridiculous debate in which I never attacked your fucking opinions from the very start, but was nothing but supportive towards you.. So don't fucking attempt to accuse me of attacking you just because I don't happen to agree with you over a fucking spoiler.. Therefore if you can't tell the difference between a 65-66 fastback's roofline and trunk sections over a 67-70 and S197 ? Then don't just walk to your nearest optometrist, but run as fast as you can.. As for quoting you is concerned, they weren't fucking attacks directed at you nor towards your opinions in anyway.. The reason for the quotes, is their required under the rules of this forum when directly responding to someone's post.. So why don't you ask the moderators about that while you're at it and find out what they tell you..

That being said, We are done here !

 

[darrens07gt]

I've been more than patient with you up to this point regarding your ridiculous debate in which I never attacked your fucking opinions from the very start, but was nothing but supportive towards you.. So don't fucking attempt to accuse me of attacking you just because I don't happen to agree with you over a fucking spoiler.. Therefore if you can't tell the difference between a 65-66 fastback's roofline and trunk sections over a 67-70 and S197 ? Then don't just walk to your nearest optometrist, but run as fast as you can.. As for quoting you is concerned, they weren't fucking attacks directed at you nor towards your opinions in anyway.. The reason for the quotes, is their required under the rules of this forum when directly responding to someone's post.. So why don't you ask the moderators about that while you're at it and find out what they tell you..

That being said, We are done here !

Really? let me remind you of exactly how this started:

What do you mean the fastback on the 69-70 cars don't go all the way to the back of the car I suggest you look again, as they most certainly do go all the way back to the rear decklid.. FYI: the 69-70 fastback models were technically referred to as Sportsroofs..

So apparently my opinion is "crazy" because it doesn't exactly match your opinion. If we were debating how many spark plugs are in a 4.6 3V motor then there would clearly be a right and wrong answer (8). But when it comes to looks and perception of those looks then I submit that is a subjective opinion with lets say a gray area. Opinions can very and that's ok.

I never asked you to agree with me on a spoiler or anything else. I didn't call you out, you called me out (see above). I have simply been defending my opinion which by the way, still hasn't changed to exactly match yours.

So you can drop as many F-bombs as you like but it won't change either of our opinions which I contend are neither right or wrong, but merely subjective.

You have a good night now,

Darren

 

[06 T-RED S/C GT]

And let me remind you of something.. It was FloStang who started up this thread to begin with, not you and btw: FloStang totally understands the principles of geometry and knows the difference between a full fastback design over a partial fastback.. So just who in the hell gave you the authority to dictate what the thread topic is about in the first place, let alone accuse me of attacking you when I never did to begin with and now you have the damn nerve to accuse me of calling you out and saying that I said your crazy for voicing your opinions, really ??? Where did I ever say that in any of my responses ? As those are your words, not mine..

And just for the record, I'm not a disrespectful person who would ever bad mouth anybody for voicing their opinion, as that just isn't the type of person I am at all..

All I tried to point out to you was the differences between the 65-66 fastback models, 67-70 fastback/sportroof models and then the S197 and requested that you do your own side by side comparisons in both a respectful and courteous manner.. So if you want to try and twist my words around by your accusations all because your unable to comprehend what the differences are between a partial fastback and a true fastback, then that is your problem..

The bottom line is this.. I know exactly what I said in my first response to your post and re-acted because I didn't understand where you were coming from and wanted to find out so that hopefully we might had been able to get on the same page.. Unfortunately that doesn't appear it's ever going to happen due to your continuous accusations..

Therefore I feel that it's best to end this debate or whatever you want to refer to it as, but at any rate, I am done here.. In the meantime, you have a good evening as well.. Also FYI what I posted in my first response about the 69-70 fastback being referred to as a sportsroof model is a known fact, not an opinion..

 

[05gtowner]

This was funny.

 

[eighty6gt]

Good fighting.

 

[FloStang]

That's just my take on it anyhow, but glad you found what was posted as helpful

Yes. Very helpful. Thank you. It was just a question I always wanted opinions on. Kinda like the S197 isn't reconized as a "Fastback" from Ford, But to me the 65-66 Fastback roofline is damn near a carbon copy of the S197. So I know it will go against popular opinion but I consider my 14 a "Fastback" !

Again thanks for your input. Much Appreciated.

 

[Dad]

I think this might help with the fussing. It seems the issue here is the flow or continuity of the roofline/back window to the trunk/decklid. The 65-66 there was a definite break from the roofline to the decklid. Decklid is more parallel to the ground than in the 67-70. More similarity to the profile of the S197. As for looking directly at the rear of the car, I would say they look more like the 65-66 but with 60-70 tail lights. Nevermind the wing.

 

[FloStang]

I think this might help with the fussing. It seems the issue here is the flow or continuity of the roofline/back window to the trunk/decklid. The 65-66 there was a definite break from the roofline to the decklid. Decklid is more parallel to the ground than in the 67-70. More similarity to the profile of the S197. As for looking directly at the rear of the car, I would say they look more like the 65-66 but with 60-70 tail lights. Nevermind the wing.

I think just the fact that the quater windows are so different throws out the 70-73 as far as roofline goes.And that 67-68 didnt have quarter windows proves the roofline is def 65-66

 

[Norm Peterson]

↑↑↑ presence of the quarter windows really only shows that the C-pillars are of comparable design. Not the roofline.


Norm

 

[FloStang]

↑↑↑ presence of the quarter windows really only shows that the C-pillars are of comparable design. Not the roofline.


Norm

Well that and the fact the roofline doesn't go to the back of the trunk lid does

 

[MassMustang]

I tend to agree that the side profile or roof line/rear deck looks more like the 65/66. I think the front end looks more like the 69 though. Either way, I think the 05-09 models REALLY capture the best features of the first generation Mustangs. My favorite year is the 69 Sportsroof though.

This is one of my favorite pics from a car show.

I have another pics somewhere parked next to a 1970 in red with matte black.

 

[MassMustang]

I want to add these retro style headlights as some point too (matte black):

Trying to mimic this a bit:

 

[Dad]

I wonder how a 69-70 hood scoop would look on these cars. Not the shaker, but the Mach 1 style scoop. That was pretty much my favorite thing about my 69 fastback. Other than the rude hp under the hood.

 

[MassMustang]

I wonder how a 69-70 hood scoop would look on these cars. Not the shaker, but the Mach 1 style scoop. That was pretty much my favorite thing about my 69 fastback. Other than the rude hp under the hood.

Check out Cervini's website.

Like this one?

 

[06 T-RED S/C GT]

Yes. Very helpful. Thank you. It was just a question I always wanted opinions on. Kinda like the S197 isn't reconized as a "Fastback" from Ford, But to me the 65-66 Fastback roofline is damn near a carbon copy of the S197. So I know it will go against popular opinion but I consider my 14 a "Fastback" !

Again thanks for your input. Much Appreciated.

It's my pleasure, as my purpose was to address your questions and provide the support you were searching for.. Hopefully I've been able to accomplish that for you

I think this might help with the fussing. It seems the issue here is the flow or continuity of the roofline/back window to the trunk/decklid. The 65-66 there was a definite break from the roofline to the decklid. Decklid is more parallel to the ground than in the 67-70. More similarity to the profile of the S197. As for looking directly at the rear of the car, I would say they look more like the 65-66 but with 60-70 tail lights. Nevermind the wing.

"Hallelujah" glad somebody finally gets it.. As that was exactly what I was pointing out from the very beginning of this thread..

I think just the fact that the quater windows are so different throws out the 70-73 as far as roofline goes.And that 67-68 didnt have quarter windows proves the roofline is def 65-66

I'm not quite sure that I'm following where your coming from this time.. Despite the 67-68 not having 1/4 windows, it never the less has louvered vents in the B-Pillar section.. So if your saying the 67-68 fastback has the same roofline as the 65-66 ? unfortunately I have to disagree as the trailing edge where the B-pillar section ends has a higher angle to it compared to the 65-66 fastback.. Also the rear decklid of the 67-68 has a 90 degree angled slope where as the decklid of the 65-66 is parallel.. Hopefully I just misunderstood your interpretation

Well that and the fact the roofline doesn't go to the back of the trunk lid does

Exactly 100% spot on

I tend to agree that the side profile or roof line/rear deck looks more like the 65/66. I think the front end looks more like the 69 though. Either way, I think the 05-09 models REALLY capture the best features of the first generation Mustangs. My favorite year is the 69 Sportsroof though.

This is one of my favorite pics from a car show.

I have another pics somewhere parked next to a 1970 in red with matte black.

Thank you for confirming what I've been posting all along from the very beginning of FloStang's thread

 

[FloStang]

I'm not quite sure that I'm following where your coming from this time.. Despite the 67-68 not having 1/4 windows, it never the less has louvered vents in the B-Pillar section.. So if your saying the 67-68 fastback has the same roofline as the 65-66 ? unfortunately I have to disagree as the trailing edge where the B-pillar section ends has a higher angle to it compared to the 65-66 fastback.. Also the rear decklid of the 67-68 has a 90 degree angled slope where as the decklid of the 65-66 is parallel.. Hopefully I just misunderstood your interpretation







Thank you for confirming what I've been posting all along from the very beginning of FloStang's thread

I meant its not 69-73 tupe fast back and that the quarter windows in those years proves that cause they either look like 65-66 windows or yes u are right 67-68 louvered quarter vents.

 

[darrens07gt]

And let me remind you of something.. It was FloStang who started up this thread to begin with, not you.

So I'm only allowed to reply to threads that I started? That would be rather pointless I would think. Usually people start threads like this to get other peoples opinions since they already know their own opinion.

So just who in the hell gave you the authority to dictate what the thread topic is about in the first place

I didn't dictate the topic of this thread.

I would love to hear your opinions of what u think any why.

I just replied in it with my opinion that I always thought the 05 Mustang looks a lot like the 69 Mach 1 and gave my reasons why in response to the above part of the OP's original post.

Was I not allowed to do that?

let alone accuse me of attacking you when I never did to begin with and now you have the damn nerve to accuse me of calling you out and saying that I said your crazy for voicing your opinions, really ??? Where did I ever say that in any of my responses ? As those are your words, not mine..

Well you did that right here:

What do you mean the fastback on the 69-70 cars don't go all the way to the back of the car ..

Was I supposed to deduce from your choice of smilies that you were giving me a compliment of some kind? I admit I'm not up on all the new lingo but I always thought that was the universal sign of someone being crazy or nuts.

And just for the record, I'm not a disrespectful person who would ever bad mouth anybody for voicing their opinion, as that just isn't the type of person I am at all..

I'm glad to hear that and I'm not in any way being sarcastic.

All I tried to point out to you was the differences between the 65-66 fastback models, 67-70 fastback/sportroof models and then the S197 and requested that you do your own side by side comparisons in both a respectful and courteous manner.. So if you want to try and twist my words around by your accusations all because your unable to comprehend what the differences are between a partial fastback and a true fastback, then that is your problem..

The bottom line is this.. I know exactly what I said in my first response to your post and re-acted because I didn't understand where you were coming from and wanted to find out so that hopefully we might had been able to get on the same page.. Unfortunately that doesn't appear it's ever going to happen due to your continuous accusations..

Therefore I feel that it's best to end this debate or whatever you want to refer to it as, but at any rate, I am done here.. In the meantime, you have a good evening as well.. Also FYI what I posted in my first response about the 69-70 fastback being referred to as a sportsroof model is a known fact, not an opinion..

And again, you seem to feel the need to insult me and or my opinions even if it's in an indirect manner simply because they may differ from yours. But it's all good. I respect your opinion and your right to have it even if I don't fully agree with it.

69 Mach 1 is still a beautiful car that "in my opinion" has many strong resemblances to the 05-09 Mustangs.

You have a great night,

Darren

 

[06 T-RED S/C GT]

I meant its not 69-73 tupe fast back and that the quarter windows in those years proves that cause they either look like 65-66 windows or yes u are right 67-68 louvered quarter vents.

Sorry I misinterpreted and understand now.. Thanks for clarifying

So I'm only allowed to reply to threads that I started? That would be rather pointless I would think. Usually people start threads like this to get other peoples opinions since they already know their own opinion.

And that was exactly what I did was provide an opinion and I also tried to address your questions and all I got to show for it was your accusations..

I didn't dictate the topic of this thread.

You should had thought about that, before you jumped all over my shit with your accusations..

I just replied in it with my opinion that I always thought the 05 Mustang looks a lot like the 69 Mach 1 and gave my reasons why in response to the above part of the OP's original post.

Was I not allowed to do that?

Of course you were allowed, and all I did was ask you to have an open mind and do a side by side comparison to judge for yourself, but rather than take my advice, you first accuse me of attacking you which I never did in the first place and then you accuse me of saying that I said you were crazy for posting your opinions in which I also never posted in any of my responses..

Well you did that right here:

Well you completely misinterpreted what was posted.. What I said in that post was directed as a simple and straight forward question and if you had any doubts about that, all you had to do was just simply ask and I would've clarified for you what exactly I meant !

Was I supposed to deduce from your choice of smilies that you were giving me a compliment of some kind? I admit I'm not up on all the new lingo but I always thought that was the universal sign of someone being crazy or nuts.

As I just said, if you had any doubts whatsoever as to what I meant, all you had to do was just simply ask and believe me, if I would had referred to you as being nuts or crazy or whatever, I would've came right out and used those exact words if that would had been my opinion towards you, but it wasn't.. That was from your thoughts and your assumptions, not mine..

I'm glad to hear that and I'm not in any way being sarcastic.

Well it's the truth, as I have nothing to gain by attempting to deceive you nor anybody else for that matter on these forums..

And again, you seem to feel the need to insult me and or my opinions even if it's in an indirect manner simply because they may differ from yours. But it's all good. I respect your opinion and your right to have it even if I don't fully agree with it.

My intention was never to insult nor disrespect your opinions in anyway whatsoever Darren and you have my most sincere apology if you interpreted what I had posted in that way, however as I just stated, what I posted in my first response was directed as a question and my reaction was the result of frustration due to not understanding where you were coming from.. After that, I tried my very best to try and have a better understanding where you were coming from, but unfortunately you took practically everything I posted in the wrong manner and wouldn't even give me a chance when you continued to constantly put me on the defensive with your accusations.. So just how did you expect me to respond to that, with a smile and a happy face as you put it ?

69 Mach 1 is still a beautiful car that "in my opinion" has many strong resemblances to the 05-09 Mustangs.

I never said that it didn't.. Read my earlier posts in this thread and you'll notice that for yourself..

You have a great night,

Darren

You have a great night as well...



-Rocky

 

[darrens07gt]

Sorry I misinterpreted and understand now.. Thanks for clarifying

I'm happy to clarify the unclarified things.

And that was exactly what I did was provide an opinion and I also tried to address your questions and all I got to show for it was your accusations..

I didn't have any questions for you to answer. I gave my opinion as statements not as questions.

You should had thought about that, before you jumped all over my shit with your accusations..

There was nothing to think about. I gave an opinion, you quoted my opinion in a derogatory manner and I have been defending my opinion ever since. There were no accusations at least not from me.

Of course you were allowed, and all I did was ask you to have an open mind and do a side by side comparison to judge for yourself, but rather than take my advice, you first accuse me of attacking you which I never did in the first place and then you accuse me of saying that I said you were crazy for posting your opinions in which I also never posted in any of my responses..

Remember him----> There is only one interpretation for that when you quoted me. I never quoted you until you quoted me which goes back to I've been on defense more then the New York Jets (sorry to any Jets fans in here).

Well you completely misinterpreted what was posted.. What I said in that post was directed as a simple and straight forward question and if you had any doubts about that, all you had to do was just simply ask and I would've clarified for you what exactly I meant !

Lol, ---->------> he seemed to clarify things quite clearly.

As I just said, if you had any doubts whatsoever as to what I meant, all you had to do was just simply ask and believe me, if I would had referred to you as being nuts or crazy or whatever, I would've came right out and used those exact words if that would had been my opinion towards you, but it wasn't.. That was from your thoughts and your assumptions, not mine..

See above response.

Well it's the truth, as I have nothing to gain by attempting to deceive you nor anybody else for that matter on these forums..

I never said you tried to deceive me. I think you are very entitled to your opinion on this topic and I don't even disagree with everything you have said. You could look at just about every Mustang from 65 to 70 and come up with some similarities. But I just don't agree with everything and I still stand by my belief that the 69 Mach 1 has a lot in common (not everything) with the 05-09 Mustang.

My intention was never to insult nor disrespect your opinions in anyway whatsoever Darren and you have my most sincere apology if you interpreted what I had posted in that way, however as I just stated, what I posted in my first response was directed as a question and my reaction was the result of frustration due to not understanding where you were coming from.. After that, I tried my very best to try and have a better understanding where you were coming from, but unfortunately you took practically everything I posted in the wrong manner and wouldn't even give me a chance when you continued to constantly put me on the defensive with your accusations.. So just how did you expect me to respond to that, with a smile and a happy face as you put it ?

There are only two things in this life that I fully expect. Death and taxes. Everything else is up for debate and interpretation.

I never said that it didn't.. Read my earlier posts in this thread and you'll notice that for yourself..

Sometimes things can come off in ways they were not intended. If that's the case here then I apologize.

You have a great night as well...

I'm trying but it's hard when I'm at work and learned I have to work this weekend. I work four 10 hour shifts mon-thurs so I'm spoiled with three day weekends. Now I have to work Saturday and Sunday so I only get Friday off this week.

But on the bright side, I can dump the OT money in my Mustang (which slightly resembles a 69 Mach 1 )

Have a great night,

Darren

 

[06 T-RED S/C GT]

Ok Darren ! I tried my very best to provide you with an explanation and despite my best efforts, you still continue to accuse me with your accusations..

Therefore we are now done here.. So you go right ahead and think whatever you want, as I'm done being put on the defensive by you..

As 5 other people who posted here in just the past 24 hours all have the very same opinion as I do, but have you confronted any of them and accused them of being wrong ? Well I wonder why that is.. Because you know full well they're not going to take any of your shit from you.. That's why !


That being said, I will not respond to any further posts from you.. As I'm no longer going to defend my actions, as I personally really don't care one way or the other as to what you choose or not choose to believe any longer..