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

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.

Yes, I remember your dream car being a '65 Mustang convertible.  Did you have a favorite color?

The fact that you like the coupe better than the fastback ("2+2") seems consistent with your dislike of the styling of Volvo C30 and, by extension, station wagons in general.

Remember the 1st-generation Ford Taurus?  It was a big breakthrough for Ford in the way that the K-Cars were for Chrysler a decade or so earlier.  The hot version was the SHO.

There was a sort of cottage industry of converting 1st-gen Taurus wagons and/or SHO sedans into "SHO Wagons."

Like this.  Which you would not like.


Car and Driver tested a conversion and gave it rave reviews.

I guess you would not be a fan of this sporty Volvo 1800E.



I had a fraternity brother who had a similar car.  I thought it was pretty cool.  OTOH, I thought that the similarly proprtioned (albeit smaller) MGB-GT was ugly.  Sometimes, there's just no accounting for taste.

Station wagons are quite practical IMHO.  Americans don't like them of course.

Station wagons are quite practical IMHO.  Americans don't like them of course.

Between my 2nd-gen Taurus SHO and my 2012 Mustang, I had a Volvo V40 wagon.  It ran surprisingly well, and it was extremely practical.  I have nothing negative to say about it.


It was red, like Utee's dream '65 Mustang.

Are you tooling me here? Looks like a small Euro version of a box van.  So no, it does not particularly appeal to me.  What is it, anyway?

It's a Ford Flex. (What I drive, actually).

You said you don't like station wagons, and that's kinda what this classifies as to me.

It somewhat defies categorization, though. I don't consider it a crossover, because while it's somewhat boxy it doesn't have the lifted SUV look. I consider it a station wagon, but the only common station wagons you see any more are Euro, and this doesn't look anything like that. It's massive.

Oddly, they tend to be most popular here in California, because to a lot of people they harken back to the design cues of the old Woody:

For nostalgia, few things beat an old Woodie.

But in retrospect, it's hard to see why they continued to be made long after the days when automobile "coachwork" was made of wood, and even well into the 1960s, with the wood replaced by plastic, or even by wood-grained vinyl sheeting outlined in chrome.

And they weren't all station wagons.  Here's a 1940s Nash Suburban sedan that looks very nice.



And there's this, from the Font of All Wisdom and Knowledge: "In 2008, wood construction was evoked abstractly on the Ford Flex with a series of side and rear horizontal grooves."

Yes.  It just needed a big "N" on the hood.

Toyota Supra is a next-generation testament to classic sports car design

https://www.wallpaper.com/lifestyle/toyota-supra-design-review