|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037 |
Originally posted by caltour:
I like the looks of non-SVT Contours best. Just my opinion, but those big ol' SVT side skirts don't do it for me. And SVT bumpers look so massive and heavy. Non-SVTs look leaner and cleaner.
The basic lines of the Contour are really good. Nice flow to the beltline, visually balanced front to back, graceful curves of the fender lines, overall very sleek and clean. Anything that breaks up or adds to those basic lines is probably not a good thing.
That's basically the way I feel about it. Plus, wasn't the rear pillar/roofline slightly altered when they went to the 98/98.5 model? I think that the pre-98s have a bit more rake to the rear glass, and it suits it better.
"Think of it, if you like, as a librarian with a G-string under the tweed." Clarkson on the Mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,975
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,975 |
Quote:
btw, isn't the blue car Lance Kinley's Contour? Been a while but I could be wrong.
Yes it is, only idfference being he's got Gold not Yellow brakes now  .
And yes I like the Chrome Strip (when in tact)
1992 Ford Escort LX-E
-Tracer LTS spoiler
-GT Grille
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015 |
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
Originally posted by caltour:
I like the looks of non-SVT Contours best. Just my opinion, but those big ol' SVT side skirts don't do it for me. And SVT bumpers look so massive and heavy. Non-SVTs look leaner and cleaner.
The basic lines of the Contour are really good. Nice flow to the beltline, visually balanced front to back, graceful curves of the fender lines, overall very sleek and clean. Anything that breaks up or adds to those basic lines is probably not a good thing.
That's basically the way I feel about it. Plus, wasn't the rear pillar/roofline slightly altered when they went to the 98/98.5 model? I think that the pre-98s have a bit more rake to the rear glass, and it suits it better.
They have IDENTICAL frames, so the roof,doors, pillars, glass, trunk and hood are all the same. Otherwise, how would you be able to interchange trunks (between pre and post 98's) if the glass was cantered back further?
Your eyes are playing tricks on you.
2000 SVT Turbo 295hp/269ftlb@12psi
#1 for Bendix Brakes Kits!
Knuckles rebuilt w/new bearings $55
AUSSIE ENDLINKS $70
Gutted pre-cats $80/set
A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037 |
http://www.contour.org/FAQ/FAQ.php?s=modelsQuote:
1997 -> 1998
The roof line has been altered and the rear deck shortened for improved rear seat headroom
*shrug*
"Think of it, if you like, as a librarian with a G-string under the tweed." Clarkson on the Mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,100
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,100 |
Roofline... not "roof"...
Alsom, the rear deck was shortened on the interior, with less "rear-dash" area, however the external frame and glass are identical.
I replaced my 95 rear glass and trunk lid with a 99 from the yards...
Ray
'99 CSVT - Silver #222/276
In a constant state of blow-off euphoria.
Originally posted by Kremitthefrog:
I like to wear dresses and use binoculars to watch grandmas across the street.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037 |
Good enough for me. I was going crazy wondering if I was or wasn't seeing it.
"Think of it, if you like, as a librarian with a G-string under the tweed." Clarkson on the Mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,195
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,195 |
the rear floorpan was also changed...
1999 Sportage 4x4...don't go there, it was free
....______o_o
.../_l l__\____\
..|--l l__----[]\|/[]
.....................oo
=( )_)----( )_)--)_)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by amarv12:
I think appearance wise, the SVTs are number 1 (regardless of color). For the number 2 spot, I would have to go with the 1998-2000 Mystique LS....
I agree. A girl around here has a 98+ black/tan Mystique that is just amazing, and it's bone stock. She keeps it super-clean too. A 98+ 'Mystique SVT' would have been awesome, and the ones here that have the kit on them are amazing (J-Lab, I think?).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,086
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,086 |
I would have to say, any post98 Contique thats black(SVT any color it came in)and also the pre98 Mystique, reason being is after 98 they made both cars(contour/mystique)look too identical, and IMO the headlights on the pre98 Mystique looks better.
Jason G.
1997 Mercury Mystique GS ZETEC ATX
Born: 11/96
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,840
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,840 |
Two plain, boring rectangles look the best out of the four varieties of headlights for this platform? Weed =  . -SAV
Troll. 1997 VW Jetta MkIII GLS 5spd
All hail my appearance on CEG!
|
|
|
|
|
