silvrsvt Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Says who? Serious WTF....I had no clue that my car could do that...LOL I didn't see a release strap or button like on my other Ford products Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 As far as the placement of that cross member goes, most do put it under the floor, but we're quickly approaching the day when such compromises are no longer acceptable. If Ford really plans to shed as much weight as they say, they're going to need to change the standard of what they consider acceptable. Comvention is dead. which cross member? all new cars have major cross members in the roof as well as in the Floor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Based on a platform that dated from the 1980s...lets try again the Crown vic recieved 5 stars and it dates back to the 70s. my point is the package tray does not matter as much as good design does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 the Crown vic recieved 5 stars and it dates back to the 70s. my point is the package tray does not matter as much as good design does. So how is a perimeter frame comparable to a unibody structure? Apples to Oranges... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) So how is a perimeter frame comparable to a unibody structure? Apples to Oranges... don't be a Richard. there is no correlation between a well designed Hatchback and well designed sedan in Side impact tests. Edited May 4, 2012 by Biker16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 don't be a Richard. there is no correlation between a well designed Hatchback and well designed sedan in Side impact tests. What difference would the rear of the vehicle make in a crash into the driver's door? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 don't be a Richard. there is no correlation between a well designed Hatchback and well designed sedan in Side impact tests. Actually, there is: it's called "well designed", but I guess that's so obvious you missed it. It works like this: if they're well-designed, then they will each have good side-impact ratings, but if they're not, the ratings won't be as good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Physics being relative, a sedan designed by the same team with the same effort put forth will perform better in crash tests than a hatchback of the same size and weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 is this This is a fastback hatchback? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 Yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 is this This is a fastback hatchback? Great view. IMHO, the car looks better without the lower sculpture. It's more simple and allows the eye to consider that unique rocker panel treatment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 (edited) Physics being relative, a sedan designed by the same team with the same effort put forth will perform better in crash tests than a hatchback of the same size and weight. Rubbish, Focus Hatch is just as safe as Focus sedan and Stationwagon. Pinning your argument on a piddling piece of 1 mm sheet across the rear of the seat makes no appreciable difference in Front and Side crash tests. The strength of the shell is in the framing and the A, B and C pillars' ability to vector crash force away from the impact site, not a 1mm parcel tray. Edited May 6, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 The strength of the shell is in the framing and the A, B and C pillars' ability to vector crash force away from the impact site, not a 1mm parcel tray. Yes indeed. Now the next car gets IRS. Would a hatch require a brace between the two rear spring towers, with the IRS that Ford would probably use? IIRC, Nissan use one in their 370Z. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 (edited) Yes indeed. Now the next car gets IRS. Would a hatch require a brace between the two rear spring towers, with the IRS that Ford would probably use? IIRC, Nissan use one in their 370Z. Falcon has fold down rear seats and a parcel tray at the top but the whole IRS bolts into the chassis rails with six bolts, relocation of the upper latter arm pick up points would help with mustang's unique seating position but also the spring mount height and forward mounting bolts would all have to be changed, not impossible. Edited May 6, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 (edited) Rubbish, Focus Hatch is just as safe as Focus sedan and Stationwagon. Pinning your argument on a piddling piece of 1 mm sheet across the rear of the seat makes no appreciable difference in Front and Side crash tests. The strength of the shell is in the framing and the A, B and C pillars' ability to vector crash force away from the impact site, not a 1mm parcel tray. Considering that none of which are the same size or weight, I don't see how this example is relevant in any way. Furthermore, the entire frame works as a whole. No single element can be isolated from a force that effects another. Edited May 6, 2012 by Versa-Tech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 Yes indeed. Now the next car gets IRS. Would a hatch require a brace between the two rear spring towers, with the IRS that Ford would probably use? IIRC, Nissan use one in their 370Z. I give up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 (edited) Considering that none of which are the same size or weight, I don't see how this example is relevant in any way. What, a Focus Hatch versus a Focus Sedan versus a Focus stationwagon are not comparable? Edit, For the record, European and ROW weights of Focus are as follows: Focus hatch 1.6 1278 Kg Focus sedan 1339 Kg Focus s/W 1307 Kg Furthermore, the entire frame works as a whole. No single element can be isolated from a force that effects another. But all three body styles have been subjected to a standardized test that confirms that they all crash to 5 stars to NCAP Not being snippy VT, but I rest my case because the burden of proof now lies with you to prove the contrary. Cheers, John Edited May 6, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 This is the original fastback: compared to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 compared to this. What's your point here? I was just responding to your claim that the current Mustang is a notchback, when it much more closely follows the body lines of the '65 Fastback than it does any notchback. I didn't say anything at all about the Evos... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 I just realized that it's the louvers that are hinged on my '69, not the glass. Quite honestly, I think I just opened the decklid for the first time since... Well, ever. :D So, my next question is... What the hell is the difference between a fastback and a coupe?! Marketing? The '67-'68 and '71-'73 Mustangs were true Fastbacks as the roofline went straight to the edge of the trunklid. The Notchback Mustangs with the flat trunks were coupes. The '65-'66 2+2 was something in between. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 I do appreciate the functional benefits of a Hatchback. If you only have one car, the hatch is great for the times when you have to haul something that just won't fit in a trunk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 What's your point here? I was just responding to your claim that the current Mustang is a notchback, when it much more closely follows the body lines of the '65 Fastback than it does any notchback. I didn't say anything at all about the Evos... Agree SoonerLS, Even before the 65 Mustang 2+2, Ford's fastbacks started in 1963 1/2 with the Falcon/Comet and Galaxie/Marauder (NASCAR inspired, and very effective). Prior it was the "Boxtop" design (Thunderbird inspired). They all had defined trunks. Thus a "fastback" is NOT dependent on a flat continuation from roof to trunk lip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 (edited) I do appreciate the functional benefits of a Hatchback. If you only have one car, the hatch is great for the times when you have to haul something that just won't fit in a trunk. I think it's in the way a hatch back is designed, a hatchback can be made look identical to a fast backwhen there's a bustle added to the rear, It's not until you walk up to it and notice it has a hatch in the rear. And in particular to Mustang, it depends how much versatility is required by buyers versus perception of style. Edited May 6, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 What's your point here? I was just responding to your claim that the current Mustang is a notchback, when it much more closely follows the body lines of the '65 Fastback than it does any notchback. I didn't say anything at all about the Evos... I was looking at how the Fins on the Evos reminds me of the original Fastback. the notch back vs Fastback thing is subjective, I feel the 2005 mustang was inspired by the fastback but for intents and purposes is a notchback. but I digress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I was looking at how the Fins on the Evos reminds me of the original Fastback. Ok, I can see that. The first time I saw the Evos I thought there was a lot of Mustang style/design DNA in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.