I kinda want this
- Thread starter dodgechargerfan
- Start date
thrashingcows
Drowning deep in my sea of loathing...so I'm
Well have you been hit in the head lately.... :shifty:
I can say personally it does nothing for me, top up or down. I think it would look better with the fast back back in place. IMO...
I can say personally it does nothing for me, top up or down. I think it would look better with the fast back back in place. IMO...
It was initially offered up with a turbo parts car to provide for the conversion, but that has since sold off on it's own.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
I think it looks kind of cool with the top down, but with the top up it looks like something that earned a 6-year-old Boy Scout a merit badge for tent modification.
The L-body coupes were hatchbacks, not fastbacks. Big difference. Fastbacks are coupes with a decklid and a fixed rear window, and essentially a straight line from the top of the backlight to the tailing edge of the trunklid. Chrysler's last true fastback was the '69 Barracuda; the '70 Duster and later Dodge copies are considered semi-fastbacks as there's a visible-but-slight body-line break between the bottom of the backlight and the leading edge of the decklid when viewed from the side.
You should take it for a test drive and find a nice, nasty set of railroad tracks and report back to us. The cowl shake resulting from the loss of the roof's structural support has to be simply astounding. That's a ton of structure to lop off a car.
The L-body coupes were hatchbacks, not fastbacks. Big difference. Fastbacks are coupes with a decklid and a fixed rear window, and essentially a straight line from the top of the backlight to the tailing edge of the trunklid. Chrysler's last true fastback was the '69 Barracuda; the '70 Duster and later Dodge copies are considered semi-fastbacks as there's a visible-but-slight body-line break between the bottom of the backlight and the leading edge of the decklid when viewed from the side.
You should take it for a test drive and find a nice, nasty set of railroad tracks and report back to us. The cowl shake resulting from the loss of the roof's structural support has to be simply astounding. That's a ton of structure to lop off a car.
Fishy
Omnipotent Seaweasel
In my opinion a fast back has a sloped back window but a decklid that opens like a normal car. The Hatchback opens the decklid and rear glass. Best example I can think of at the moment is my dads '86 Camaro. Granted it was called a "Sport Coupe" but the rear opened like a hatchback by my definition.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
Fish, your Dad's Camaro, whatever Chevy called it, is a hatchback. Ford called its fastbacks SportsRoofs, though they continued to use the term on semi-fastbacks such as the '70 Torino.
Your definition is almost 100% correct. It has nothing to do with the length of the decklid after the glass; if the glass goes up it's a hatchback, and if it's got a separate trunklid it's a fastback. To further the standardized industry lingo: if the glass goes up with the decklid, the car is considered a 3-door (or 5-door in the case of a four-passenger-portal hatchback). I detest the terms "3-door" and "5-door" but they're the industry standard. I don't make this stuff up and it's not just my opinion.
No, 69.5, a FWD Daytona is not a fastback. It's a 3-door hatchback, just like the TC3/024/Charger/Duster/L-cars (as well as the 2-door P-body Duster/Shadow/Sundance, which had more of a notchback look but the glass still goes up) and Conquest/Starion. You can use whatever terminology you please personally, I'm just telling you the standard parlance of the automotive industry. The trunk on a Daytona is in the neghborhood of 4 feet in length... because the definition of the "trunk" (actually "hatch" in this case) includes the entire access opening, which on a Daytona extends all the way to the roof. If that little bit of metal panel opened like the trunk on a '67 Charger, then and only then it would be a fastback.
What really pisses me off is brands like Mercedes-Benz and Audi trying to muddy the waters: there is no such thing as a four-door coupe. Coupe=couple=two, as in number of doors. Yet manufacturers are now trying to claim they build such a beast. No, you don't, because it's not possible. Marketing fucks trying to get sedan haters to buy fast-roofed sedans, some of which are hatchbacks (which Americans hate overall).
Your definition is almost 100% correct. It has nothing to do with the length of the decklid after the glass; if the glass goes up it's a hatchback, and if it's got a separate trunklid it's a fastback. To further the standardized industry lingo: if the glass goes up with the decklid, the car is considered a 3-door (or 5-door in the case of a four-passenger-portal hatchback). I detest the terms "3-door" and "5-door" but they're the industry standard. I don't make this stuff up and it's not just my opinion.
No, 69.5, a FWD Daytona is not a fastback. It's a 3-door hatchback, just like the TC3/024/Charger/Duster/L-cars (as well as the 2-door P-body Duster/Shadow/Sundance, which had more of a notchback look but the glass still goes up) and Conquest/Starion. You can use whatever terminology you please personally, I'm just telling you the standard parlance of the automotive industry. The trunk on a Daytona is in the neghborhood of 4 feet in length... because the definition of the "trunk" (actually "hatch" in this case) includes the entire access opening, which on a Daytona extends all the way to the roof. If that little bit of metal panel opened like the trunk on a '67 Charger, then and only then it would be a fastback.
What really pisses me off is brands like Mercedes-Benz and Audi trying to muddy the waters: there is no such thing as a four-door coupe. Coupe=couple=two, as in number of doors. Yet manufacturers are now trying to claim they build such a beast. No, you don't, because it's not possible. Marketing fucks trying to get sedan haters to buy fast-roofed sedans, some of which are hatchbacks (which Americans hate overall).
Fishy
Omnipotent Seaweasel
In total agreement about the "3 door" / "5 door" thing!!! Can't stand that!! I thought I was also the only one who still went by the standard of 2 doors = Coupe, 4 doors = Sedan. Then again our Ramchargers are now known as "SUV's" by todays standards, when the title says "MPV" for Multi-Purpose Vehicle. Then again with the way all these corporations have to put everything into it's own groups and give everything a label.....:dgt:
Then again with the way all these corporations have to put everything into it's own groups and give everything a label.....:dgt:
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
Yeah, that would be a fastback.
In Michigan, your Ramcharger would be titled as a "Station Wagon" as are all SUVs, K5 Blazers, early Broncos, etc. That's all an SUV is, after all--a tall station wagon. When I call someone's Durango or Suburban a station wagon, they often get offended. I just tell 'em to go home, look at their title and get back to me.
In Michigan, your Ramcharger would be titled as a "Station Wagon" as are all SUVs, K5 Blazers, early Broncos, etc. That's all an SUV is, after all--a tall station wagon. When I call someone's Durango or Suburban a station wagon, they often get offended. I just tell 'em to go home, look at their title and get back to me.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
While for a long time, most SUVs were truck-based, that's not really the case any more. More and more car structure is creeping into the segment with the ride and handling benefits of a car... great, if you're not going off-roading. I think with new CAFE requirements in the pipe and soccer moms wanting car-like handling from their tall station wagons, body-on-frame truck-based SUVs will become the vast minority in the coming years.
Then you've got the car companies building not-as-tall station wagons that really are station wagons--but they won't call 'em that. Now they're "crossovers". Bite me... the Pacifica was either a tallish station wagon or a low minivan with a longish nose. The industry avoids the term "station wagon" because it's the banshee wail of model sales--it foretells death. Audi uses the term "Avant" and the Brits got it right by calling it something cool: a shooting brake. Car buyers today associate "station wagon" as something their parents drove, and how uncool is that? I dunno--I always liked Mom's two station wagons even though the LTD was a screaming pile since day one. I think the use of the term "crossover" is an industry pre-emptive strike against the forthcoming backlash against minivans... because as new buyers enter the market, they're not gonna buy what Mom drove.
Then you've got the car companies building not-as-tall station wagons that really are station wagons--but they won't call 'em that. Now they're "crossovers". Bite me... the Pacifica was either a tallish station wagon or a low minivan with a longish nose. The industry avoids the term "station wagon" because it's the banshee wail of model sales--it foretells death. Audi uses the term "Avant" and the Brits got it right by calling it something cool: a shooting brake. Car buyers today associate "station wagon" as something their parents drove, and how uncool is that? I dunno--I always liked Mom's two station wagons even though the LTD was a screaming pile since day one. I think the use of the term "crossover" is an industry pre-emptive strike against the forthcoming backlash against minivans... because as new buyers enter the market, they're not gonna buy what Mom drove.