Muscle Cars - Chevy vs Ford

[429SCJguy]

Bantering is all in fun but it seems that many enthusiasts today are quite liberal in their definition of muscle car. Mustangs and full size cars often get included.

Jim,

Was your friends Cyclone the only 429 you ever raced? I think most SCJ cars came with either 3.91 or 4.30 gears.

[MrPbody]

Nope. A couple Mustangs, too. They don't seem to "hook" as well as the bigger cars. I would see them "coming on" in the mirror, but when a 1/4 mile was "up", I was still ahead. I thought the Cyclone "comparison" was "apples to apples", since both cars had similar gearing. It's true a car with 3.90s or 4.10s would be quicker, though not as "fast". Same would be true of GTO.

A "sports car" has 2 seats. A "sport compact" would be something like a Nova or Dart with a performance engine (usually a small block). Mustangs, Firebirds, etc. are "pony cars", named for Mustang, which could be a misnomer, as 'Cuda was "first", but "fishy car" doesn't have the same "ring" to it... (:-

Jim

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by MrPbody

, as 'Cuda was "first", but "fishy car" doesn't have the same "ring" to it...

Haha... Fish cars!!

Well, we DID have the AMC Marlin and (sort of) the Mako Shark.


BTW the Barracuda beat the Mustang to market by 2 weeks...... but nobody noticed....... imo because the Barracuda looked too much like the Valiant compact on which it was based.

The Mustang really did not look much like a Falcon AND Ford promoted the hell out of the Mustang, generating lots of advance publicity and anticipation with the public, something Chrysler did not do as well.

[MrPbody]

MR,

Gotta agree. Plymouth could have done a LOT more for the car. It WAS offered with Hemi... HHHMMMMMM...... What a MONSTER one of those cars is!

As for the first Mustang, considering it's nothing more than a reskinned Falcon, it sure did well! Mustang guys will take offense at this, but those of us outside the "circle" realize, Falcon was a pretty good car, too! No offense intended.

Jim

[Shpuker]

Originally Posted by 429SCJguy

Bantering is all in fun but it seems that many enthusiasts today are quite liberal in their definition of muscle car. Mustangs and full size cars often get included.

Jim,

Was your friends Cyclone the only 429 you ever raced? I think most SCJ cars came with either 3.91 or 4.30 gears.

So your telling me you don't think that the 67' Mustang is a muscle car? don't think I can talk to you any more

[MrPbody]

Perhaps I should say it LOUDER for the CHEAP SEATS.

A true "muscle car" is an INTERMEDIATE BODY (NOT a sport compact or pony car). It has a "big car" engine in it. Fairlane GT or GT/A WITH at LEAST a 390 (289 doesn't qualify) is the Ford entry. A "pony car" REGARDLESS of how much "muscle" it has is STILL a "pony car". This is NOT a derogetory statement. It is a statment of automotive FACT. GTO, aknowledged by all "in the know" as the "first" muscle car (named by the engineer and marketing rep that developed the package: "It's like a family coupe with more muscle." John Z. DeLorean, 1963) has a wheelbase of 115". Mustang of that era has 108". Certainly NOT the same "class" of car.

What you're missing (or refusing to accept, your choice) is that cars are grouped in "classes" based on size, weight, purpose, and performance. A sports car has two seats, no more. It can have a 1.2 lr. 4-banger (mid '60s Datsun "Fair Lady", MG Midget, etc.) or a MONSTER V8 (modified Corvette or Jag XK-8). STILL a "sports car". A "muscle car" has class "paramters". So does a pony car. The shorter wheelbase, the availability of ONLY a 2-door body, a variety of "sporty" options, in some cases, a "real" performance engine, etc. are what distinguish pony cars from muscle cars. I cannot say it enough, REGARDLESS of how much "muscle". A '70 Mach 1 with a 429SCJ is still a pony car. So is a '65 Mustang with a 200 in it. Obviously, the '70 SCJ car is VERY fast and rather quick. The 200 won't get out of its own way. A '73 TransAM 455SD may be the most powerful car sold in the '70s. I don't consider it a muscle car. A '66 Fairlane GT with a 335 horse 390 is a "stone" compared to others, but is STILL a muscle car. The '69 AMC Rebel "Machine", also a stone, is considered to be a muscle car. Is it coming clear yet?

And understand, this is NOT my opinion, this is historic fact. You don't need to talk to me anymore, that's okay. But understand that I don't post on sites like this just to read my own writing. I do it to dipsel myths and offer facts for those too young or not involved at the time, about the hay-day of American performance cars, specifically the "muscle car era" (1964-1971, in '72 most of the real performers were gone). You don't have to agree with me. That doesn't make ME "wrong".

PAX

Jm

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by MrPbody

You don't need to talk to me anymore, that's okay.

I thought Shpuker was being funny when he said (threatened?) not to talk to you anymore.

The English language does develop and evolve. At some point when so many people are calling vintage American performance cars "muscle cars" then the useful definition of the term changes.

As an example, MrPbody, many traditional car enthusiasts would disagree with your definition of 'sports car'.

For many, a 'sports car' was smaller, with a smaller engine and a minimum of comfort and convenience features (traditional MG, Triumph, Fiat etc) However, larger 2-seaters with more powerful engines and more comfort/convenience features (Corvette, Ferrari, Lambo etc) are touring or GT cars, NOT sports cars.

But, these days, since little bare-bones 2-seaters generally are no longer made, the functional definition of 'sports car' has changed and now includes the definition that you use.

It's the same with the term 'muscle car'. It's definition and use has changed with the times due to the forces of the mass use of the English language. This means imho, it's fine to defend the 'purity' of the muscle car definition, but splitting hairs with others about their use of the English language is counter-productive. It generates a bit of a hostile, unwelcoming atmosphere around here, especially for the newbies.


It's obvious to me that there is a need and a desire among most AF members to include vintage pony cars in the "Muscle Car" section. I also think this was likely the intention of the forum founder, because pony cars have virtually the same issues and concerns as muscle cars for owners, drivers, restorers and AF members.

[429SCJguy]

Make no mistake the big block Mustangs were very muscular. I was only saying that I guess if you go by the strict definition of intermediate body, only Fairlanes, Torinos, '70.5 Falcons, Cyclones qualify.

Jim,

If stones, what do you estimate the 390 GT/GTA Fairlanes were capable in the 1/4?

[MrPbody]

429CJguy,

The strongest stockers I ever saw with 390s went in the low 15s/high 14s. When modified, they would pick up a bit, but 390s just aren't meant for BIG power. Tough stuff, powerful and reliable. The only FE engine that consistently runs "hard" is the 427. I've seen a handful of 428s, done "right", that were good runners (11s). Mostly, FEs are like the Pontiac and Olds, lots of low-end and some mid-range. Good, solid engines. But the cylinder head isn't really well-designed for a good street machine. The "medium riser" and "high riser" 427s are a different story, and when those heads are used on other FEs, they too, run quite well. Those heads are about as easy to find as Ram Air IV heads, and just as costly. The aftermarket stuff available today was only a "pipe dream" back then.

Today, there are a few sources for "goodies" for FE, but the "385" (or "Lima") BBF has overshadowed the FE with some SERIOUS performance. The "454" FE combo has shown lots of promise. Certain changes must be made for crank oiling and rod journals, to allow it to "live" better. We've seen some significant bearing and rod issues where there is no logical reason.

As a street racer during the "muscle car era", I had encounters with virtually every kind of street machine or "hot rod". The Fords, while well built and powerful, seemed to always have a little "less" in stock form than the GM and Chrysler entries. Maybe using my Ram Air GTO as a "measuring stick" isn't good, as a Ram Air car has a definite advantage over a "regular" GTO. But my "little" 400 outran most larger-displacement cars of the same "class".

The strongest running car in my home town (San Bernardino, California) in 1971 WAS a '66 Fairlane. It certainly was no 390... Actually, it was a 427 SOHC with Hilborn injection. First bonafide 9 second street car I ever saw. It wasn't a "GT", either. It was a "club coupe". I recall one race where a guy trailered a '55 Chevy up from Van Nuys with a 454 in it (first one of those we saw in a tri-5, too). He went home with an empty trailer...(:-

Don't misunderstand. I have the utmost respect for Ford products. My outlook is based on realism and experience, not necessarily "brand loyalty". I DID own a '66 GT. My '65 GTO would run away and HIDE from it.

Jim

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by MrPbody

guy trailered a '55 Chevy up from Van Nuys with a 454 in it ....

So..... was that James Taylor or Dennis Wilson?

[BlueDjinn]

Two-Lane Blacktop/1971.

[toddman67]

It could'nt have been Bob Falfa (Harrison Ford), He wadded his up in the best movie of all times. Aint he neat!
American Graffiti.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by toddman67

It could'nt have been Bob Falfa (Harrison Ford), He wadded his up in the best movie of all times. Aint he neat!
American Graffiti.

Rumor has it that Ford's Chevy (I just had to say that! ) in American Graffiti was the EXACT same '55 Chevy used in Two Lane Blacktop.

[toddman67]

Great race between Ford's-Chevy and Milners 32 coupe with the ......327 SBC???? could it have been?

[MrPbody]

Nope, in 1971, Two Lane Blacktop was still "new". It was a black guy that owned the one from Van Nuys.

One of my sister's best friends had a '55 with a '69 435-horse 427 in it from a wrecked 10K miler. In 1970, it went mid 11s... His name was Ron Seagondollar...

Jim