Mustang Muscle??

I have a 1987 Ford Mustang GT 5.0L hatchback with a 5-speed manual tranny. I was wondering if it would be considered a true muscle car. I have seen the 1/4 mile times of a stock 5.0L Mustang and a say... 1968 440 Coronet and they aren't that different. Thanks for your input.

Hey man I have teh exact same car and while I consider it my own personal muscle car it is sadly not. :( It is in fact a pony car, due in part to teh fact tha the last muscle died away with the end of about 1973. I still would like to view my baby as a muscle car though :banghead: But that's what I drive my Uncles Daytona for :evillol: :smokin:

so ur saying that a 87 mustang 5.0 is not muscle

Technically no. All mustangs are actually "pony cars", although some people consider the big block Mustangs of the late '60's and early '70's as muscle cars.

Why are they called pony cars? Does this have to do with the uni-body's?

So you guys are saying that the fox body stang isn't muscle? oh well... I consider it new skool muscle anyways.....

I would consider mainly classic cars are muscle cars. i personaly have a 68 stang and thats what most people consider muscle. But as long as if u got a mustang its all good with me

Why are they called pony cars? Does this have to do with the uni-body's?


I believe the defination of a "pony car" is simply the hood is longer than the trunk lid...but I could be wrong.

Good Lord!! It's all just a question of symantics. Some people consider Corvettes "sports" cars and therefore they can't be "muscle" cars. :rolleyes: But hey, an L88 Corvette will out-muscle most muscle cars, and most people would still consider it a "muscle" car. On the other hand a '75 L48 Corvette is certainly NOT a "muscle" car.

I think it is a bit silly to try to hold everyone to a strict definition of what a "muscle" car is. I think a "muscle" car should be defined by it's performance. To me, if it can't at least run low 14 second 1/4 miles at over 100 it ain't no "muscle" car!! And yes, this leaves out some popular 60s cars that many consider "muscle" cars. On the other hand, many late model Camaros, Mustangs etc. certainly are "muscle" cars!

Those who want to be "purists", that's OK. But don't expect all of us to stick to a narrow definition of "muscle" car when so many modern cars will outperform cars from the sixties that you consider "true" "muscle" cars. :2cents:

Then by your definition, a dodge neon srt-4 is a muscle car!!!!!!!!!WTF, no, i think a muscle car ended in 1970. After that you have all the gas crisis and all that crap that limited factory performance, and the big block. To me, my 1969 428 cobra jet mach one is the true definition of a mucle car.

Hey, I love that 428 CJ Mustang! :) I always wanted one of those and somehow never got one.

I understand how you feel -- but many would consider your Mustang a pony car by their definition of a muscle car. It is all just semantics. And yes, if that Neon can outrun some cars that were considered "muscle cars", then it certainly is a muscle car! (And I think it can!) :2cents:

1) muscle car needs 8 cyls
2) muscle car needs a rear axle.
Therefore, a neon has half the engine and lacks the correct axle to even be considered a muscle car. After that, you look at the power and 1/4mile times the car is capable of. Then you look at styling. It has to have a long hood and short deck. It has to be big. It has to LOOK like a muscle car- you cant describe it, its just.. muscle.
Now I believe that some cars that were stock were not muscle cars - but you can make them muscle cars... Look at the early 70s mustangs(71-73ish)..while they werent the fastest cars in the world stock, you can easily beef one up to be very fast - I personally know a guy building a '72 up with a 393ci stroked cleveland, AFD aluminum heads and a parker intake - should be making around 500hp easy.
Or look at my car - 69 mustang coupe - its only got a measly 351c in it, which many would not consider a muscle car because it is not a big block.. I'm in the process of fabricating a twin turbo system for the motor, after which 700rwhp should be no problem, and hopefully can get it on enough of a diet to drop into the 9s. The car certainly looks the part of a muscle car with the big boss 429 hoodscoop and big slicks in the rear.. But many would not consider it a muscle car, and to some the turbos are even more of a turn off. To me, I don't really care. Whatever. I know my car is better looking and faster than pretty much anything else on the road.

Good luck with that TT and 700 rwhp on a Cleveland block!

Are you saying cleveland blocks or weak, or are you genuinely wishing me luck? If you are saying clevelands are weak, I wrote a whole post refuting that :) let me know, i'll post it!

I have never owned a Cleveland engine so I don't speak from personal experience, but I have often read, not that the blocks are weak, but that the oiling system is poor. That is one reason why most people adapt Cleveland heads to Windsor blocks. This is just what I have read over the years in mags such as Car Craft, Hot Rod, etc. I do genuinely wish you luck, though!

fair enough, that is a common opinion, but in reality, the oiling system is perfectly fine for anything south of 7500rpm, with a hydro cam helps. Once you get over 7500(and are undoubtedly running a solid cam), the #5 main sometimes gets starved for oil. Then again, I know some people who run above 7500rpm without any oiling system mods and have no problems.. i know people who have run it above 7500 and had problems, installed restrictors and solved it... I know people who've had problems, installed restrictors and the problem wasnt solved! Same goes for the external oil line 'fix'. Nobody really knows... some people make good points, but then there is always someone else who's done the opposite and is doin just fine! No stock Cleveland has the oiling system trouble, and they rev higher than mine will(turbos make up for low RPMS!), so I don't think I'll have any trouble. I've got a big pan, a big oil cooler, and a high volume pump.. restrictors have been installed in my block by the previous owner, I think I'll leave 'em, but I doubt they'll change much of anything.

Thanks for wishin me luck, its gonna be a long road... There is a LOT left to do! engine deburring, painting, assembly, under piston oiling fabrication, head assembly, deciding on custom cam specs, building the EFI system/throttle bodies, building my headers, routing the exhaust after the turbos, figuring where I'm gonna put the intercooler, running the intake piping, building the cooling system(heavily modified), building the water/alky injection system, programming the timing, build the rear axle, route oil to/fro the turbos, build the oil pan... then I get to tune the monster! I'm aiming for 2 months til completion, I want it done before I go back to college!

69 Candyapple Red Mach One w/428 Cobra Jet
What make and model is that car? :lol:

Then by your definition, a dodge neon srt-4 is a muscle car!!!!!!!!!WTF, no, i think a muscle car ended in 1970. After that you have all the gas crisis and all that crap that limited factory performance, and the big block. To me, my 1969 428 cobra jet mach one is the true definition of a mucle car.
Does he still run? :iceslolan :grinno: :biggrin:

I dont think any front wheel drive car is a muscle car :2cents: .All the muscle cars i know are rear wheel drive .I think the muscle car era died in 73.I own a 71 429scj mach 1 and a 70 boss 302 .

Well the auto makers decided in the mid 60's that a muscle car had to have at least 300 cubic inchs or more to meet the definition of muscle car, so by-by 289 hello 302 (ford), by-by 283 hello 327 or 305/302 (chevy)

Now this was the minumim, other things were added to the list later, positive traction rear-end, 4b carb, sport shifter, etc. basicly a sport package with features added by the big three, or earlier by the dealers, like the base features on the the PONTIAC LAMANS, it didn't really become a gto/muscle car unless you opted for the sports package, same car with most if not all the features avaliable for purchase. The term muscle car was being developed as they went. The early muscle cars didn't really meet the definition later in the same era. Some people are even trying to redifine the term muscle car to day for what they were or even which ones really were muscle cars.

Some say an early cuda or marlin with the 318 was not a muscle car. Many say if they had an automatic tranny, they weren't muscle cars. They may not meet you current definiton but they still and always will be muscle cars, if they meet the definition of thier era, at that time no matter how we feel today. And the ones not meeting the standards of thier era are not muscle cars even if they had a v8 and were built at that time. (ie the LAMANS). So defining cars of today as muscle cars would really depend on which year you compared it to.

So the early mustang, camro, or vette didn't make the cut early on, pony car/sports car was used to try and attract kids to them because of the wild nature of the mustang pony, but all smaller v8 cars were tagged with it, because the mustang was named after the mustang ponys it is the first .

All the auto makers tried to 1-up each other so muscle car engines grew and grew, one of the most powerful off the showroom floor at the hayday of muscle cars, was the hemi's cuda, chargers, road runners, etc. There were others but after-market add ons had to be added to most after purchase, this made many just as competitive as the hemi's.

I myself have a 84 mustang 5.0 gt but I like the pony car tag better. And many versions of the pony's went on to be true muscle cars, both small block and big block (another story another day) but they never lost the pony tag, and for others the sports car tag.

Like others (ie hot rod mag, etc.) have said the definition for a muscle car needs to be re-thought and re-defined, I agree. Some small 4 and 6 cylinder rides like the wrx, mitsubishi, etc. are kicking out times as good as some early muscle cars. Its not a new term just a new age, I love old school muscle cars I'm from that era, but I'm not ready to give into the generation gap yet. I have to give the ricers thier props, done right they smoke. Old school die hards will never give in to the small performance cars, just a fact all will have to deal with.

And its true what they say "no replacement for displacement", if you spend the money on a big block that is spent to pump up these small cars you can still beat thier times.

Nothing else sound like a v8. I own a 84 mustang gt 5.0, and a 79 camaro with a small block 400, I'm buying a 67 mustang with a 289 straight shift on the col........................but I drive a nissian truck to work.

So I'm a v8 guy...........mostly, and my dream car is a 67 gto.

the way i see it, to be qualified to be a muscle car it needs to be two things: fast and domestic.

Yeah Gotta GT -350(84)myself 302 qt .030 over and it goes just fine ..........
It has the 5 speed stock and 3.08 police gears so The top end hasn't been reached yet(by me ) but it will bury the speedometer 110mph in 3rd gear.Well the auto makers decided in the mid 60's that a muscle car had to have at least 300 cubic inchs or more to meet the definition of muscle car, so by-by 289 hello 302 (ford), by-by 283 hello 327 or 305/302 (chevy)

Now this was the minumim, other things were added to the list later, positive traction rear-end, 4b carb, sport shifter, etc. basicly a sport package with features added by the big three, or earlier by the dealers, like the base features on the the PONTIAC LAMANS, it didn't really become a gto/muscle car unless you opted for the sports package, same car with most if not all the features avaliable for purchase. The term muscle car was being developed as they went. The early muscle cars didn't really meet the definition later in the same era. Some people are even trying to redifine the term muscle car to day for what they were or even which ones really were muscle cars.

Some say an early cuda or marlin with the 318 was not a muscle car. Many say if they had an automatic tranny, they weren't muscle cars. They may not meet you current definiton but they still and always will be muscle cars, if they meet the definition of thier era, at that time no matter how we feel today. And the ones not meeting the standards of thier era are not muscle cars even if they had a v8 and were built at that time. (ie the LAMANS). So defining cars of today as muscle cars would really depend on which year you compared it to.

So the early mustang, camro, or vette didn't make the cut early on, pony car/sports car was used to try and attract kids to them because of the wild nature of the mustang pony, but all smaller v8 cars were tagged with it, because the mustang was named after the mustang ponys it is the first .

All the auto makers tried to 1-up each other so muscle car engines grew and grew, one of the most powerful off the showroom floor at the hayday of muscle cars, was the hemi's cuda, chargers, road runners, etc. There were others but after-market add ons had to be added to most after purchase, this made many just as competitive as the hemi's.

I myself have a 84 mustang 5.0 gt but I like the pony car tag better. And many versions of the pony's went on to be true muscle cars, both small block and big block (another story another day) but they never lost the pony tag, and for others the sports car tag.

Like others (ie hot rod mag, etc.) have said the definition for a muscle car needs to be re-thought and re-defined, I agree. Some small 4 and 6 cylinder rides like the wrx, mitsubishi, etc. are kicking out times as good as some early muscle cars. Its not a new term just a new age, I love old school muscle cars I'm from that era, but I'm not ready to give into the generation gap yet. I have to give the ricers thier props, done right they smoke. Old school die hards will never give in to the small performance cars, just a fact all will have to deal with.

And its true what they say "no replacement for displacement", if you spend the money on a big block that is spent to pump up these small cars you can still beat thier times.

Nothing else sound like a v8. I own a 84 mustang gt 5.0, and a 79 camaro with a small block 400, I'm buying a 67 mustang with a 289 straight shift on the col........................but I drive a nissian truck to work.

So I'm a v8 guy...........mostly, and my dream car is a 67 gto.

Holy ancient threads, Batman!

Please do not resurrect very old threads. Most regulars find this annoying because the thread has already run its course.

If you wish to continue this discussion, please start a new thread on the subject.

Thread closed.