• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why did 90s RWD cars have so much front overhang?

Throckmorton

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aside from BMW, I think every automaker pulled the front wheels as far back as possible, causing a frontward weight bias and frumpy appearance.
I guess that trend started in the 80s, but it was worst in the 90s IMO.
But why? Were they trying to keep wheelbases short for better stiffness? Or was it to keep the wheels behind the crumple zone?

I think the worst offenders were the Mustang and Camaro. They had the long hoods that musclecars should have, but they seemed determined to keep the front wheels as far rearward as possible, leading to almost 60%/40% front weight bias for both cars. The long prodruding noses bother me every time I see these vehicles.

I made a chop with the front wheels moved forward on both cars. Looks better right?
T0rsF.jpg
 
Throckmorton said:
Aside from BMW, I think every automaker pulled the front wheels as far back as possible, causing a frontward weight bias and frumpy appearance.
I guess that trend started in the 80s, but it was worst in the 90s IMO.
But why? Were they trying to keep wheelbases short for better stiffness? Or was it to keep the wheels behind the crumple zone?

I think the worst offenders were the Mustang and Camaro. They had the long hoods that musclecars should have, but they seemed determined to keep the front wheels as far rearward as possible, leading to almost 60%/40% front weight bias for both cars. The long prodruding noses bother me every time I see these vehicles.

I made a chop with the front wheels moved forward on both cars. Looks better right?
T0rsF.jpg
Click to expand...

Bacause they need to put the engine up there.
 
exdeath said:
Yet another why aren't all cars exactly the same thread.
Click to expand...

Ford and GM got away from their roots and made their cars frumpy, with the cab forward layouts being the most significant factor IMO. There's a reason the current crop of RWD cars are cab-rearward, going back to the classic proportions.

It's not just styling though, it also messes up the weight distribution.
 
The cars were already huge, weren't they? So putting the wheels apart would've made the turning circles even worse.

Don't throw data at me, I haven't verified any figures.
 
The Camaro didn't really have much up there. The engine was further back half covered by the windshield. Most of the engine was behind the front axle.
 
It was just the style back then. Yes, it looks dated now, but people went batshit for the new Camaro and Mustang in the early 90's.
 
I'm happy with my'93 SC400 that someone paid $51,000 for and I got for a song (with 45K miles).

These styles are old but will return/repeat.
 
Because that was the way they made them?

Both of your shops look totally weird. Maybe because I'm used to how they are made from the factory but I can't say that the shops look good at all.

If you notice, the Camaro and mustang of that generation had more sloped noses on them. Something that BMW has never had, and the current Camaro and Mustang don't have either. So they look fine with the front wheels closer to the front of the car. But with a longer hood sloped lower, the wheels shoved forward that much looks totally whack. Even the viper which has a decently sloped hood still has a flatter nose on the end of it than the 4th gen Camaro did.
 
Why don't the cars made today look like the cars that will be made 10 years from now?

When you figure out the answer to that one, you'll have the answer to your question.
 
Last edited:
Those 90s Mustangs were built on a platform from the 1970s. Not sure about the Camaro.

Moving those wheels and suspension points farther out from the firewall on the cars you photochopped would probably compromise structural rigidity. We have gotten better at packaging is all.
 
Last edited:
Because cars were generally lower then. The shops you've provided wouldn't leave room for suspension uprights on the cars as they originally looked; you'd have to raise the leading edge of the hood. This is especially true of the Camaro with its very low leading edge.

If you look at very low cars today (like the Ferrari 458 Italia), you'll notice that they too have longer front overhangs.

ZV
 
I guess it's not just the overhang, it's the combination of the long overhang with the cab-forward design. Cars with more space between the wheel well and the door/windshield look fine with a long overhang.

IMO the 2nd gen Firebird/Camaro is one of the best looking cars of all time. It has as much sheetmetal behind the wheel wells as ahead, plus the nose is set high instead of drooping down for aerodynamics.


 
LTC8K6 said:
Yeah, why do Audi's have such giant snoots now?
Click to expand...

I second that question.


Regarding Mustangs and Camaros, I would think cost was a big factor. Keep the front suspension / engine configuration always the same, have styling dictate the front end, and wa-la --- long nose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top