Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting-brake

After reading that, I'm perfectly fine with calling it a "shooting brake". That seems to fit perfectly based on some of the other examples in the Wiki article.

But it's not a crossover.

I have always thought that the 2nd-generation GM F-bodies were very good-looking cars.  These are both 1970 models.  At the time, they were considered to look a little Ferrari-esque.

I particularly like the Camaro with the split-bumper (was that the "RS" option?) front end treatment.



The Firebird in its Trans Am version was just a tad over the top, IMO.  It would get much more so in coming years with the "screaming chicken" decal that covered the hood.


Incidentally, Ford originally was going to name the Boss 302 the Trans Am, but Pontiac beat them to it.  Interestingly, while Mustang won two Trans Am championships, the latter one with Parnelli Jones in the 1970 Boss 302, the Firebird was never a serious competitor in the series.  Because Pontiac didn't have a small-block V8 suitable for racing, the Firebird was stuck with the big-block cast-iron Pontiac motor de-stroked to 303 c.i.d. to meet the 5-liter engine-size limit.  That big iron block up front didn't go anything good for the Firebird's handling.

I think these two cars represent the pinnacle of GM pony car styling.

I have always thought that the 2nd-generation GM F-bodies were very good-looking cars.  These are both 1970 models.  At the time, they were considered to look a little Ferrari-esque.

I particularly like the Camaro with the split-bumper (was that the "RS" option?) front end treatment.

I don't see anything that would be functional as a bumper on either car

CWS-- I really intensely dislike the flared rear fenders you pointed out.  I also dislike the low station-wagon-like look of the long rear.  I don't mind that longer enclosed rear on a true SUV, because the higher ride in general, plus the taller windows, look more natural to me.  I don't like the Volvo you posted, either.

It's nothing particular to crossovers, I've never liked station wagons or the longer hatchbacks, either.  They all appear quite ugly to me.

Now, I do quite like the Camaro and Pontiac you posted.  And I also like the "screaming chicken" Trans Am of the late 70s.

OK.
What about fastbacks?
Which old Mustang strikes your fancy more (or less)?
Coupe?



Or fastback?


On the subject of Mustang styling, I think this first generation of the car had the best styling.  I had a '67 in the '70s, and thought at the time that it was an improvement over the first ones, but I have changed my mind since then.  These were the best-ever, I think.

OK.
What about fastbacks?
Which old Mustang strikes your fancy more (or less)?
Coupe?



Or fastback?


On the subject of Mustang styling, I think this first generation of the car had the best styling.  I had a '67 in the '70s, and thought at the time that it was an improvement over the first ones, but I have changed my mind since then.  These were the best-ever, I think.

Convertibles are my favorite, then the coupe.  I like the fastbacks alright, but they're definitely #3 on the list.

We've had several discussions on Mustangs over the year but you might not recall, my dream car is a 1965 Mustang convertible 289.  66 would do, as well.  As you mention, 67 on up had differences in styling that are less appealing IMO-- particularly, the bodies got a little bigger and wider and just clunkier looking and although I still like them and would happily drive one, it's not my dream car.

Always liked the fastbacks--probably consistent with my preference for the first generation Camaro over the Mustang of the same era. I'm also a sucker for '67-'68 Barracudas (I know '69 is supposedly the same style, but it doesn't look the same to me), but particularly the notchbacks. It and the Camaro are a bit of a hybrid between the coupe and the fastback.

WHooo-wah,nice