Talk:Fastback

I can't understand they say that the Fastback 68 66 is fast back what about the 69 and 70 Fastback it looks just like a generation 5 Mustang from 05 to 010 no one never says nothing about that

well

Randroide 11:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a car is made in europe like the above, are they really fastbacks? Since they make no distinction and call all of them hatchbacks, then wouldnt those cars be hatchbacks?

I think we need a disamiguation page.

I think we need a disamiguation page. FastBack was also a software package for backing up Macintosh computers in the early 90s, by Fifth Generation Systems. I was going to write a stub for it, but I'm not sure how. Connectionfailure 14:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! CZmarlin 01:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK

This sentence doesn't quite make sense: "it should be noted that no such distinction is made in the UK, and hence the body style this article discusses is also a hatchback" - tries to edit for gist66.77.124.61 04:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rover & Sterling 2 door fastbacks

I have never seen a Rover(Sterling in US) two door fastback. All the ones I have seen are either four door, three box notchbacks or five door liftbacks. Was this a one off experimental model? 66.77.124.61 21:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rover 800 Vitesse was never sold in America but it was far from an experimental model, thousands were built and they're quite popular with young men, that said the Car is far from being a fast back is more a notchback coupe.(86.31.182.119 (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Rover 800

Whether or not it's a true fastback, it was certainly called a fastback. See, for example, this magazine scan, or the well-known TV add with a German man saying to another (in German) that "in England they call it Fastback". 86.143.48.55 (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More confusing than illuminating?

Apart from the fact that this article has languished for at least six months without any sources or citations (i.e. it's nothing more than a collection of unattributed personal opinions), it is flawed by errors and self-contradictions. E.g. the opening definition ipso facto excludes the Marlin and the Citroen as illustrated. And the arrant nonsense about the word "fastback" being an American coinage (where does that assumption come from?) unknown in the UK is just that -- nonsense. "Fastback" is in common usage there, and the design is exemplified by numerous sporting and quasi-sporting British cars from manufacturers including, but not limited to, Bentley (e.g. R Continental, colloquially known as the "fastback Continental"; current Continental GT), Aston Martin (DB2, DB4, Vantage, Vanquish etc.), Sunbeam (Rapier fastback) and Rover (the latter's 800 Fastback was launched in the UK by print advertisements headlined "FAST THERE, FAST BACK"--perhaps someone can put their hands on a copy). Even the Jensen Interceptor's shape is commonly described as "fastback" (as per http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/bv/jensen_interceptor.htm )even though in this instance the fastback is comprised entirely of glass, which also opens as a hatch.

The angle and brevity of the stubby, steeply sloping tail on Fiat's 127 runabout seems less of a "fastback" than, well, a stubby, steeply-angled tail.

Is it time to revisit the article and try to arrive at a simpler, more consistent, more helpful consensus about what a fastback is? Not that it matters one jot in the great scheme of things. But if it's here it should at least make sense.

Does "fastback" even have a legitimate place here? A waste of space? There are plenty of readily-accessible dictionary definitions.

Any thoughts? Writegeist (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the OED defines a fastback as a car with a roofline that slopes continuously down at the back, surely hatchbacks/liftbacks with rooflines that slope continuously down at the back are also fastbacks, contrary to the opinion stated in the article? Writegeist (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your plan Writegeist is to mix the Saab 92 or Citroen GS into the same pot as the Saab 900 or Citroen GSA? Vehicles with a sloping rear section, fixed rear window, and seperate trunk are a distinct species - please outline your alternate plan for naming them. Marketing materials are not relevant - remember Mercedes called the CLS a four door coupe of all things.PLawrence99cx (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding PLawrence99cx. No "plan" - just proposing a discussion of the issue in the hope of arriving at a consensus for a definition that makes sense. As I said, I'm concerned that the "fixed rear window" distinction does not appear in any dictionary definition of the word.

Also "fastback" has performance connotations (though once again, not according to dictionaries), yet "hatchback", with its whiff of the utilitarian, seems inappropriate for the several GT coupés with fastback roof designs that happen to incorporate an opening window (e.g. Jensen Interceptor, Jaguar E-Type, Porsche 928, TVR Tuscan, Aston Martin DB2/4 Mark I). I tend to think that a car can be a fastback and a hatchback; i.e. that the terms are not mutually exclusive. Some hatchbacks have a fastback roof line whereas others have a notchback roof line. On some fastbacks the trunk lid opens below the window, whereas on others the window opens instead, like a hatchback. Writegeist (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about this definition:

"The term Fastback can be refered to:

Car roofline, which slopes continuously down at the back. In this meaning this term includes hatchback cars with such roofline (e.g. Fiat 127 second series.), as well as some liftbacks (SAAB 900), sedans (Pobeda), coupes (Mustang), and some wagons (Audi 100 Avant of the 1980s).

Car body style. In this meaning, sometimes the term Fastback can be used to separate cars with fastback roofline but with fixed rear window and without hatch from hatchbacks with fastback roofline. For example, the Volkswagen Passat B1 was produced both in hatchback and fastback bodies, the only difference was the hatch."

Is it somewhat more illumitative ?

DL24 (talk) 04:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FastTops

What about cars with "fasttop" roofline ? AFAIK some of them (ex. - 1963 1/2 Galaxie) were marketed as fastbacks. Early Mustang Fastback also is essintially a fasttop...

Ford early muscle-cars

DL24 (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good observation DL24! However, these Fords only had a more sloping roof to an almost perfectly horizontal decklid, and not one unbroken sweep from roof to the rear of the car. In other words, these models are not "true" fastback designs. Ford's marketing department called the design Sportroof (not "fastback") to label the newly introduced more sloping rear window and "C"-pillar on an otherwise unchanged "boxy" body (see: "1963 Ford Galaxie" by conceptcarz.com). Quoting from the source you provided, [t]he new fastback roofline gives a totally different appearance from the earlier “boxtop” Galaxies...(Sample page from Chapter 7 -"1963 Fast Backs" in Super '60s Fords - The Inside Story of the Most Powerful Fords Ever Built by John Smith). He writes that the Sportroof models featured a sloping fastback top design... Thus, the term applies only to the top (not the car's body design) and differentiates the new roof styling from the other models.

A Galaxie with a fastback body design was finally introduced in 1968 (see: "1968 Ford Galaxie" by conceptcarz.com and image of 1968 Ford Galaxie fastback, retail sales brochure page, Old Car Brochures).

I hope this helps! — CZmarlin (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! I think that 1950s...early 1960s fasttops can be described as early ancestors of 1960s fastbacks. DL24 (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First fastback ever ?

L. For's (I'm not sure how to write his surname) version of the French "Gregoire" with "egg-like" rear end, built in 1911 !

Image - [1] (the upper car)

DL24 (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

semi-fastbacks

we need to add semi-fastbacks to the list. The Plymouth Duster is one of them--24.218.164.106 (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "semi-fastback" is undefined. Many automakers and car reviewers use this term to describe a broad range of designs. For example, there are 58 mentions of this term in the English Wikipedia as of now, as well as almost 72,000 hits found by a Google search of the term: semi fastback car design. I think adding a section on semi-fastbacks would result in an unwieldy long list of models (in some cases only pertaining to a coupe version within a model range of a specific car line) that would probably cause disagreements, likely be incomplete, and provide little useful information to the readers of the article. CZmarlin (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liftbacks and hatchbacks

From the article:

Depending on the profile, such vehicles may be liftbacks but are unlikely to be hatchbacks.

Both liftback and hatchback go to the same article, with liftback pointing to a subsection of the "Hatchback" article. So from that standpoint, any liftback is a hatchback. But the editor who wrote this makes a distinction - anyone know what the distinction is? Or is this an error that should be removed? --Badger151 (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the images are not fastbacks by the definition in the article.

This article claims that a fastback is a design in which the roofline has a single slope at the back. It then illustrates this with a number of images that do not have a single slope. This starts with the very first image in the article, the Stout Scarab, which has a complex curve more approximating a 3D parabola than a straight line.

Even when one considers the cut-off variations for the kammback, many of the designs do not meet the definition. I seem some halting discussion of changing the definition to include terminology about "continual slope" or variations thereof, but none of those edits have been carried out, and I cannot verify this in basic googling.

Given the over-use of images already, I think we should just remove any image that does not meet the definition until that date if/when there is a new definition. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]