Ford Mustang Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Here's something I've been thinking about that I haven't seen mentioned. The 1st gen Mustang was offered in 3 body styles, coupe, convert and fastback(Sportsroof) while the Camaro and Firebird only had the coupe and convert. Should GM have offered the fastback body style back then?

I really think a fastback Firebird-T/A would have been sick with the "beak" on the front or even the Camaro RS with the hideaway lights.

If anyone has heard any rumors why GM decided to forgo the fastback style please post, I've never heard anything about it or even if GM considered it.

(P.S. - Please keep the Ford or Chevy is "better" crap out of this thread............this is only to discuss body styles, and it won't help this thread any, thanks :bigthumbsup)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,979 Posts
The 2nd gen had more of a fastback roof line the 1 gen they rushed out since the mustang was selling great.They did make a monte carlo ss aerocoupe in 86/87 they also did a grand prix aerocoupe both where built for nascar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
fastback

Here's something I've been thinking about that I haven't seen mentioned. The 1st gen Mustang was offered in 3 body styles, coupe, convert and fastback(Sportsroof) while the Camaro and Firebird only had the coupe and convert. Should GM have offered the fastback body style back then?

I really think a fastback Firebird-T/A would have been sick with the "beak" on the front or even the Camaro RS with the hideaway lights.

If anyone has heard any rumors why GM decided to forgo the fastback style please post, I've never heard anything about it or even if GM considered it.

(P.S. - Please keep the Ford or Chevy is "better" crap out of this thread............this is only to discuss body styles, and it won't help this thread any, thanks :bigthumbsup)


GM just never made a fastback or a sportsroof design.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
850 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
964 Posts
Fastback type roof would not look good on camaro/firebird, it would look too goofy. It looks good on mustang because of the mustangs lines in the front and the doors, camaros and firebirds have a more square front end and square doors so a fastback roof wouldn't match the rest of the car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
The 70-79 F Bodies were pretty fastback like cars -- could have put a hatch on them they did not have a notch. The first gen cars wouldn't have worked. I owned a 69 Firebird Convertible -- it was a great car -- but it exagerated the long front / short rear even more than the mustangs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Jay was asking anyone who knows the history of the developement of the first generation Camaros and Firebirds, if GM kicked around the idea of a Fastback version of these cars, since Mustang had one.
BINGO!:)

What I was aiming at is the Mustang was the biggest automotive success in that time frame. The auto companies were trying to cash into that and compete. GM brought the Camaro/Firebird out to compete with the Mustang and they both shared the coupe (notchback) and convertible body styles but GM never produced a fastback! Now the GM vehicles did sell well but if a buyer really wanted a fastback they went to Mustang or even the first gen Chargers (66 and 67) and even AMC with the AMX and Javelin had a fastback style to them. It just seems to me that GM *should* have offered that.

I do realize that Mustang's cousin, the Cougar, never got a fastback version either.

Now 67Ragtop mentioned the Riviera, which is one awesome styled car in my opinion, but that was a bit later in the early 70s. Nothing wrong with that car at all, but why was the Camaro and Firebird ignored? Calponycarsmike links to a few pics too and the 85 Z24 Cavalier was the closest I would say GM did to the true fastback body style, it is a great looking Cav in my opinion and I had a basic 1981 2dr Citation years ago that had the "fastback" style to it. I always wished it was an X11 Citation like my uncle had, and someday if I find one I may buy it as I was on the lookout for an X11 years ago.

What I'm getting at is the Camaro and Firebird were the direct competition to the Mustang but it just seems to me they lacked that body style for some reason and may have hurt sales for those that REALLY wanted that style and went to Ford, Dodge and AMC instead. There are people out there that aren't diehard/married to any particular make (like me) and buy what they like style wise instead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
850 Posts
I don't think I'd classify the '52 Chevy, '67 Chevy or the Cavalier as Fastbacks. The first two cars' roof lines don't quite go all the way to the back of the car, which I consider to be the definition of a Fastback. The Cavalier is a hatchback, which is not the same, IMHO.

My first car was a '67 Charger, which was a true Fastback.

I don't consider the '65/'66 Mustang "09 Codes" to be true Fastbacks either.:shocked: IMHO, it wasn't 'til '67, that the Mustang bacame a true Fastback!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
Interest topic. Yeah, I don't think I ever heard of GM considering a third bodystyle during the production of the Camaro. Perhaps GM wanted to get their cars on the market ASAP and didn't bother with the idea.

The closest they ever got to a "fastback" with the 1st generation cars is a fold down rear seat option.:gringreen
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top