• Welcome to the Contour Enthusiasts Group, the best resource for the Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique.

    You can register to join the community.

Shelby GT500

Oh, I am not done.
Hydramatic said:
The Mustang is a compact coupe that is built on it's own assembly line. The car shares very little with other Fomoco products, and most assuredly isn't based upon a more mundane passenger car.
Click to expand...
IIRC the Mustang's chassis has a little bit of Lincoln LS and Jaguar S-Type (both passenger cars).
Now the aussie Ford Falcon IS a muscle car. Also a muscle car is defined as having the most powerful engine available in that particular body style, not EVERY engine available in that body style.
Click to expand...
So does this mean that the 60s GTOs were not muscle cars because they were available with a less powerful engine? Plus, I'd like to see this 'definition' you claim to have, and the sources, peer review, and the reasons we should all accept it as fact.

The GTO is a muscle car because it is based off of the Holden Monaro. Since we only get the GTO with ONLY the largest engine available, and it just so happens to be an intermediate coupe, the car is a muscle car. PERIOD.
Click to expand...
I never said it wasn't. But your idea that it should only be available in one engine means the early GTOs were not muscle cars.

The Mustang is a Pony car. I'll say that again. THE MUSTANG IS A PONY CAR. Being a pony car doesn't mean the car isn't powerful, just that it isn't all that "muscular" due to the fact that so many girls drive base models around all day long, and the GT isn't exactly brawny enough to even BE a muscle car.
Click to expand...
Now a car can't be a muscle car if girls drive it? Or it's only a muscle car if it's not very popular? Or it has to be expensive so only an elite few can afford it?

I'm biased
Click to expand...
Your credibility=gone

And I hate to say it, but if you think that the Mustang could possibly be construed as 'mundane', you might wanna get your head checked.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think the new Mustang is gorgeous. Not everyone shares this opinion.

You really wanna see a good burnout? Check this out...Click here to see Video
Click to expand...

Didn't you read what I said? It wasn't a burnout for show. It was a simple burnout to get rocks off the slicks and heat them up a bit. There's no point in doing a 10 minute smoke-pouring, rubber-flying, burnout like that to get ready for a dragstrip run.
 
Dude, give it a rest, this is not lets see who has the last word, this was a thread about a car that goes fast. Thats it. It's impressive to see a car that hasn't even been on the market for 4 months already tearing it up.
You're acting like a little kid!

Robert
 
PurpleMystique said:
Oh, I am not done.

IIRC the Mustang's chassis has a little bit of Lincoln LS and Jaguar S-Type (both passenger cars).

So does this mean that the 60s GTOs were not muscle cars because they were available with a less powerful engine? Plus, I'd like to see this 'definition' you claim to have, and the sources, peer review, and the reasons we should all accept it as fact.


I never said it wasn't. But your idea that it should only be available in one engine means the early GTOs were not muscle cars.


Now a car can't be a muscle car if girls drive it? Or it's only a muscle car if it's not very popular? Or it has to be expensive so only an elite few can afford it?


Your credibility=gone


Personally, I think the new Mustang is gorgeous. Not everyone shares this opinion.



Didn't you read what I said? It wasn't a burnout for show. It was a simple burnout to get rocks off the slicks and heat them up a bit. There's no point in doing a 10 minute smoke-pouring, rubber-flying, burnout like that to get ready for a dragstrip run.
Click to expand...
Then I guess you better tell John Force that huh? He's been wasting his time for years now I guess...
(not to mention that 355 would kick your boy's mustang's ass...)

Mustang is not a muscle car, so get over it. The original GTO was the ORIGINAL muscle car. You lose.

Besides, if I've already stated that the Camaro isn't a true muscle car, why in the hell do you think the Mustang is? Didn't anyone ever tell you guys that the stang was ALWAYS second best to the F-body in terms of outright performance, not to mention LOOKS, during it's production run? So I'm not getting why you Ford pansies still keep trying to tell people that the Mustang is a Muscle car. Your logic doesn't make sense. Wanting a turd to become a piece of candy doesn't make it candy now does it?
 
By your definition, would the most recent Marauder fall under the muscle car definition?

Everyone needs to unbunch their panties here. The Mustang may be a "pony car" (there was a trim called... fittingly... Pony), but it does/did have muscle. That's part of why people call it a muscle car- because it HAS it.

And, despite the fact that the GTO was a more powerful car, the Mustang has NOT been out of production in one way, shape, or form since '64, and the GTO can't say that. Even now, I wouldn't call the GTO a muscle car. There are no other trim levels of the Holden Monaro in this country, and it's barely even a trim level OF the Monaro. It's just rebadged, with slightly different body cladding.
 
PhoenixSVT said:
The other forum I'm on defines "Muscle Car" as......http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-definition.shtml

I've raced BBF Mustangs since 1988. Both my 1969(460, not original) and 1973(429CJ, not original) Mach I's were most definitely Muscle Cars. :laugh:
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I'm looking for. A good analysis clearly defined and agreed on by many people. Thank you.

Hydramatic, I'm sorry that the original GTO does not fit your definition of a muscle car, but it's not my fault. Perhaps you should adjust your definition to a more widely accepted one.
 
Nice car and video. And yes the Mustang is a muscle car, I'd call the V6 version a sports car. I can't stand the new Pony packages with the V6 they need a V8 in the Pony, I like how they did the front end and the stripping on the sides on those.
Hydramatic if you don't like Fords then wtf are you doin on a Ford forum? :help:
 
Hydramatic said:
Didn't anyone ever tell you guys that the stang was ALWAYS second best to the F-body in terms of outright performance, not to mention LOOKS, during it's production run? So I'm not getting why you Ford pansies still keep trying to tell people that the Mustang is a Muscle car. Your logic doesn't make sense. Wanting a turd to become a piece of candy doesn't make it candy now does it?
Click to expand...

Just curious why you waste your time here with us "Ford pansies"? What I can't imagine is you ever owning a Ford product. It must have been a terrible time for you. I picture you getting behind the wheel and punching the steering wheel and dash every morning... "I hate you Ford!", then crying for a little while and then driving to work.

There are plenty of forums out there with people that pray to the 350 gods and would be glad to have you.
 
Hydramatic said:
So I'm not getting why you Ford pansies still keep trying to tell people that the Mustang is a Muscle car. Your logic doesn't make sense. Wanting a turd to become a piece of candy doesn't make it candy now does it?
Click to expand...

First you state you're biased, which is blatantly obvious. Then you proceed to call us "Ford pansies". Not the best way to make friends, especially on a Ford forum.

By your horrible analogy, you called the mustang a "turd". I've never seen a "turd" run 10 seconds with such little mods.

Explain how our logic doesn't make sense but then again, I think you should just stop arguing and agree to the fact that you're a biased, narrow-minded person, that will never be proven different.
 
RobSVT-t said:
so much for everyone dropping it. Next stop, moderators!
Click to expand...

Rob, I mean no disrespect to you by saying this, but you got your $.02 in, why don't you think other people should have that same right? I don't know why you feel the urge to stifle discussion in this thread, even if it has dipped to elementary school levels at times. I for one, enjoy reading moronic posts and I think it's good to have a record of them sometimes. You never know when someone might pop some item for sale in the classifieds, and going back and reading their past posts can help you decide if you should do business with that person.

IMO, with ANY discussion being sort of rare on this forum anymore, I'm not sure we should be so quick to lock threads and try to create a picture perfect forum... it's not reality.

BTW, I really like your car... man that thing sits nice!! Nice work
 
bishop375 said:
By your definition, would the most recent Marauder fall under the muscle car definition?

Everyone needs to unbunch their panties here. The Mustang may be a "pony car" (there was a trim called... fittingly... Pony), but it does/did have muscle. That's part of why people call it a muscle car- because it HAS it.

And, despite the fact that the GTO was a more powerful car, the Mustang has NOT been out of production in one way, shape, or form since '64, and the GTO can't say that. Even now, I wouldn't call the GTO a muscle car. There are no other trim levels of the Holden Monaro in this country, and it's barely even a trim level OF the Monaro. It's just rebadged, with slightly different body cladding.
Click to expand...
I hate to break it to you, but the original Mustang bloodline died off after '73, and then was put BACK into production in '79. Ford also tried to kill it in the late eighties, ideally replacing it with the then-new Probe, but the public outcry was just a little too loud. So in actuality Mustang died long before the F-body did. Anyway, I post on here, because I can, and I used to own a Mercury Mystique, as some of you might have noticed.

And the Marauder is not considered a Muscle Car. 4-doors+Full size+almost 5K pounds=just a fast, badass sedan. I love Marauders. The same thing goes for the '96 Impala. Too big with big engine just equals big sedan with big engine.

Now I hate to piss you guys off(yeah right) but to me, the closest things to a true muscle car that Ford has made lately were the T-bird Super Coupe and Lincoln MKVIII w/4-valve all-aluminum 4.6L. NICE CARS.

Here's a list of REAL Muscle cars...

Dodge Charger, Coronet R/T(only the old one with big block engines, no LA-block ones count)

Chvrolet Chevelle SS(only with 396, 454,427)

Pontiac GTO(big blocks only, aka 389, 400, 455)

Plymouth Roadrunner,GTX,Belvedere Satellite(Big block only)

Ford Fairlane GT(390ci)


etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car
And just to piss some of ya'll off, here's the Wikipedia link. I go by definition "A" aka the "purists" definition, not the "general" definition. If I went by def. "B" every car with a V8 deemed "powerful" at the time of production would be on the list. I guess the '92 Grand Marquis would be on the list right next to the Mustang huh? And you'd probably even see the Bonnevile SSEi and Grand Prix GXP on there too! That'd be quite a list!

Later.
 
Hydramatic said:
Here's a list of REAL Muscle cars...

Dodge Charger, Coronet R/T(only the old one with big block engines, no LA-block ones count)

Chvrolet Chevelle SS(only with 396, 454,427)

Pontiac GTO(big blocks only, aka 389, 400, 455)

Plymouth Roadrunner,GTX,Belvedere Satellite(Big block only)

Ford Fairlane GT(390ci)
Click to expand...

But...but...but...those cars come with more than one engine! They don't fit your definition of a muscle car coming only with the top engine!!1!111eleven!11!
 
uh, didnt the tbird super coupe come with an s/c v6? :confused:
and that would be more of a muscle car than a cobra? or camaro ss?
 
Hydramatic said:
I hate to break it to you, but the original Mustang bloodline died off after '73, and then was put BACK into production in '79. Ford also tried to kill it in the late eighties, ideally replacing it with the then-new Probe, but the public outcry was just a little too loud. So in actuality Mustang died long before the F-body did.
Click to expand...

Ok, how about paying attention to what I said.

When was it OUT of production? The Mustang II, while utter crap, was still carrying the Mustang logo and name. Which means that it WAS under production. The *spirit* of the Mustang may have died for a few years, but the car was NOT out of production, which is far more than can be said about the GTO.

And how is ONE production year "long before?" The GTO was killed in '74. And didn't reappear for almost 30 years. You can rave about how much more power the GTO had, you can argue that it was the true Muscle Car, but you cannot argue the fact that the Mustang has a richer, and longer, bloodline.

All this aside, what's your take on the new "Charger?"

And you can go on and on about Muscle vs. Pony all you want. That doesn't mean that your average person, NOT an enthusiast will know the "enthusiast accepted" version ofwhat Muscle Car means.

Oh, and Wiki's "Definition A" states

Wikipedia said:
The term muscle car generally describes a mid-size car with a large, poweful engine (typically, although not universally, a V8 engine) and special trim, intended for maximum acceleration on the street or in drag racing competition.
Click to expand...

1. Note that it says "generally," which means there's room for interpretation.
2. The Mustang is NOT a compact car, which puts it to midsize, and the 429 for the old Cobras, as well as the 5.0L and now 5.4L are relatively large engines based for maximum acceleration.
3. It's Wiki. Not exactly the authority on factual and correct information.
 
The definition of "Muscle Car" is very subjective. What most people forget is the "intent". The Big 3 created affordable, high powered, fun to drive vehicles for the masses. That's the spirit of the Muscle Car. Why do you think the Corvette, Ford GT (or GT40), and the Viper are not considered by most people to be Muscle Cars. With that being said, I don't feel the new GT500 is a Muscle car; they're out of reach for most enthusists....fantastic car though. Ford wouldn't be posting such large profit losses if it could produce more cars with a higher thrill to dollar ratio. Ford forgot the basic car strategy that states if you build a car that people don't won't to get out of, and you make it affordable, people will buy it and money will be made.

As for the Mustangs and F-bodies, Hydramatic is the only person I've ever herd say they weren't Muscle cars. As a veteran of the '80s Mustang/Camaro Wars, I can tell you that kind of talk would have been like writing a check your body couldn't cash :blackeye:. Especially with the NY/NJ (Englishtown) area racers...haha
 
And Wikipedia is more a victim of the Editorial Process then CNN or the NY Times..hahaha. You can find great info there but it's not always ground truth.
 
im not sure id consider any modern car a "muscle car". to me, thats a term that really only applies to cars of yesteryear. to me, chargers, shelbys, and GTOs are just "badass cars" or "fast cars".

if my buddy calls me up and says "hey, wanna go to bob's big boy in burbank tonight? leno's gonna be there and a bunch of muscle cars" i would be thinking 60s muscle and not at all 05 mustangs and gtos. :shrug:
obviously there would be one or two there (because someone owns one), but i wouldnt expect them all to be.

i know a lot of people will disagree with me but when i watch barrett jackson the commentators seem to realllly know a lot about these types of cars. they have many times called the mustang a "pony car" but mentioned that the mach 1 and boss and shelbys were in fact true muscle cars. ive also heard them say that the the vettes with big blocks were also considered muscle cars.

and a shelby GT500 stickers for what, $40K? is that really considered to be "too expensive" for most enthusiasts? is it supposed to be in the civic price range or something? is it supposed to be something your average pimply-faced blockbuster employee can afford? and dont say theyre $70k because there are plenty of people who have bought them at msrp. i know one of them. if every dealer sold them at msrp, a sh*tload of people would be driving them right now. which they will, when the price eventually drops. there are people who bought their terminators for only $28k brand new. that's less than a fully loaded honda accord. :shrug:
 
svt4stv said:
im not sure id consider any modern car a "muscle car". to me, thats a term that really only applies to cars of yesteryear. to me, chargers, shelbys, and GTOs are just "badass cars" or "fast cars".
Click to expand...

I've gotta give you that.

There aren't many LARGE engines now. And even the highest power ones are running some sort of enhancement - turbo or supercharger. They're high-performance sports cars, sure, but more finesse than muscle.
 
thank you. and what im also saying is that to me, imo, "muscle car" refers to an era. like a hot rod. sure you can build a custom one off, but i believe that would be a "street rod" and not a true "hot rod".

not to mention, nowadays, the automakers are trying to cram as much luxury into the cars as they can. look at the Z06. considered a streetable race/track car with leather seats and all sorts of extra non-track bs.

and i believe someone called the mustang a "sports car". its not a sports car but a sports coupe. typically, sports cars dont have back seats. if anything, the mustang is a GT (grand touring) car.

there will always be differences in definitions though. hell, i didnt even know until recently that people argued over whether or not a roadster has a power top or not. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top