Mustang is a Muscle car

[MrPbody]

sub006,

Yes. Sport-compact... Again, it doesn't matter how MUCH "muscle", it's the class of a certain size/weight/displacement. This is WHY cars have "classes".

Jim

[KENNETH HUBBARD46]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Welcome to AF.

Perhaps you may be interpreting such threads as being critical of the Mustang, when such criticism is not intended.

Are V8 Mustangs performance cars? Definitely!!

Are they muscle cars? IMAO, no, not in the traditional sense. Muscle cars, by definition were mid - size sedans with larger engines, often from the full size cars.
Mid sized sedans were the GTO/Tempest, Skylark, Cutlass, Chevelle, Torino, Charger,etc.

The Mustang was slightly smaller than the mid size sedans, so Mustangs, along with competing smaller cars, like Camaro/Firebird, Challanger/Barracudas were "pony" cars.

Did V8 Mustangs perform like muscle carss? Definitely. But they were, in the strictest interpretation of the term, not muscle cars.

I think the actual term given to Stangs, was Pony Car.
Becasue of their size.

[millclar]

This discussion seems to hang on the semantics of whether you are a purist it seems to me. You can't go to a muscle car forum or discussion without seeing discussions about Mustangs. Steve McQueen must be rolling over in his grave.


http://www.musclecarszone.com
http://www.usablogger.us

[sub006]

Originally Posted by millclar

This discussion seems to hang on the semantics of whether you are a purist it seems to me. You can't go to a muscle car forum or discussion without seeing discussions about Mustangs. Steve McQueen must be rolling over in his grave.


http://www.musclecarszone.com
http://www.usablogger.us

Good point, Mill!

My favorite muscle car is a '62-'65 Chevy II with a 327 or bigger small block. The small block V8 was a dealer-installed option beginning in 1962. The 283 arived in 1964 on the assembly line and it grew from there. Even the '66-'67 models with up to 350 hp get little or no respect in most MC articles and books.

At 2400 to 2800 pounds these cars were contenders against any other Chevy performance product including Corvettes with the same horsepower. Same goes for GTOs and all other GM and Ford muscle products. I've even seen them beat Hemis in street races.

Perhaps they're not muscle cars because Chevy never advertised them as performance machines. Probably didn't want to cut into the SS 396 market. And with the stock drum brakes a high powered shoebox could be a dangerous package at full throttle. But Grumpy Jenkins and countless others had great success developing this "David" package into a "Goliath" beater on and off the drag strip. Aside from the Vega, it remains the lightest rear-drive Chevy that easily accepts V8 power.

[kevinpeterson]

Yes Mustang is a muscle car and it is known for its speed. It is available very rare only car lovers have some of them. Its main features is its speed.


Kevin



(Link removed by Moderator)

[GaryBranson]

Are you kidding me. Mustangs, especially the Boss 429, defines muscle car.

[sub006]

Originally Posted by MrPbody

sub006,

Yes. Sport-compact... Again, it doesn't matter how MUCH "muscle", it's the class of a certain size/weight/displacement. This is WHY cars have "classes".

Jim

Hey, Jim, just thinkin",

If it's a two-door bucket-seat mid-size GM A-body with the same overall length and wheelbase, equipped with a Chevrolet 396 or 454,

does this description make a '68-'70 EL CAMINO a muscle car?

Despite little weight on the rear wheels, they seemed to "hook up" amazingly well at the drag strip. Maybe having all that inner wall and bed floor sheet metal lower down than the rear roof and trunk lid of a coupe was an advantage.

[KENNETH HUBBARD46]

When Mustangs ,Camaros & Firebirds first came out, they were called Pony Cars.
This was because of thier size & weight class.
Prior to that , cars weighed more , were larger in size & to compensate size for speed , they usually had large powerful motors.

[sub006]

Originally Posted by KENNETH HUBBARD46

When Mustangs ,Camaros & Firebirds first came out, they were called Pony Cars.
This was because of thier size & weight class.
Prior to that , cars weighed more , were larger in size & to compensate size for speed , they usually had large powerful motors.

The Mustang, Camaro and Barracuda ponies were based on the compact Falcon, Nova and Valiant respectively. These originally 6 cylinder-powered economy cars all had small-block V8 options by 1964. And those small V8's were optional from the start in the pony cars, usually with even more horsepower than the compacts.

Despite lighter weight, the 271 hp 289 Mustangs and 235 hp Cudas couldn't compete with the 348 hp 389 GTO, which also debuted in the 1964 model year. Both had to wait for a redesign that would accommodate a larger-displacement engine. For 1967, Mustang offered a 390 and Barracuda a 383. Camaro was supposed to one-up the others when it bowed for '67 with a top option 295 hp 350 small-block. In a matter of months a 396 big-block was introduced to match Ford and Mopar.

For the next three or four years, the intermediate and pony classes were the scene of rapidly-escalating cubic inch and power races. Then insurance rate charts and emissions laws chased assembly-line street racers from the showrooms for a good two decades.

At the peak, I think the performance lines blurred between muscle cars and ponies. While a 1970 Chevelle LS6 was clearly faster than the top Camaro, I'd pick a 1970 Trans Am 455 over a GTO. By that time the T/A was about as heavy as the Goat, and they ran very close. Third-generation Cudas and Challengers had a slight edge over heavy Road Runners and Chargers with the same engines.

[MrPbody]

A couple of things at work here. An old thread, to be sure... The "debate" still rages. Sub006 is correct, regardless of how powerful an engine it may have, a pony car is a pony car.

Trans Am for 1970 had two engine options. 400 "Ram Air III" and 400 "Ram Air IV". No 455s in Firebirds for '70. '71 & '72, however, the ONLY engine available in T/A was the 455 "HO" (High Output). '73 and '74 were the "last gasp" of "monster motors" from Detroit, in the form of the Pontiac 455 "SD" (Super Duty). Special cylinder heads made this a torque monster as delivered. Some minor changes (cam, rockers) turned it into a solid 12 second car. Pistons would push it into the 11s without porting or even manifold changes. Good headers would add another 50 or so HP. 455SD may be one of those with more "potential" than anything else of its era. Too bad they're so rare and expensive today.

While it's still "in question" whether or not Chevy actually installed LS-7 (460 HP 454) in cars before the "dealer" got them, there is no doubt, '70 or '71 Chevelle with LS-7 was THE quickest muscle car of the era. Hemi cars were very potent, but especially in "street trim", they simply over-powered their chassis. With good traction equipment and tires, Hemi was still "King Kong". Challengers and 'Cudas aren't but MAYBE 100 lbs. lighter than RR and Charger. Even though they appear quite "large", those cars are hollow and right at or under 3,500 lbs. From a mechanic's POV, the only difference between the B-body Mopes and the C-body Mopes is the wheelbase. All the mechanicals are the same or VERY similar. All of these Mopes are much lighter than their GM counterparts.

FWIW

Jim

[sub006]

Originally Posted by MrPbody

A couple of things at work here. An old thread, to be sure... The "debate" still rages. Sub006 is correct, regardless of how powerful an engine it may have, a pony car is a pony car.

Trans Am for 1970 had two engine options. 400 "Ram Air III" and 400 "Ram Air IV". No 455s in Firebirds for '70. '71 & '72, however, the ONLY engine available in T/A was the 455 "HO" (High Output). '73 and '74 were the "last gasp" of "monster motors" from Detroit, in the form of the Pontiac 455 "SD" (Super Duty). Special cylinder heads made this a torque monster as delivered. Some minor changes (cam, rockers) turned it into a solid 12 second car. Pistons would push it into the 11s without porting or even manifold changes. Good headers would add another 50 or so HP. 455SD may be one of those with more "potential" than anything else of its era. Too bad they're so rare and expensive today.

While it's still "in question" whether or not Chevy actually installed LS-7 (460 HP 454) in cars before the "dealer" got them, there is no doubt, '70 or '71 Chevelle with LS-7 was THE quickest muscle car of the era. Hemi cars were very potent, but especially in "street trim", they simply over-powered their chassis. With good traction equipment and tires, Hemi was still "King Kong". Challengers and 'Cudas aren't but MAYBE 100 lbs. lighter than RR and Charger. Even though they appear quite "large", those cars are hollow and right at or under 3,500 lbs. From a mechanic's POV, the only difference between the B-body Mopes and the C-body Mopes is the wheelbase. All the mechanicals are the same or VERY similar. All of these Mopes are much lighter than their GM counterparts.

FWIW

Jim

Knew I could count on our Poncho expert! Thanks for setting me straight on the above.

I remember when the 2nd gen Firebirds came out. I said "Wow, how can it be so much LOWER than my C2 Corvette and have a usable back seat?" Still want a white one to this day.

Was the '70 Cuda short wheelbase an off-the-line advantage? Or did it shift more weight to the rear wheels than on a "hollow" Road Runner? I just remember the L.A. street racers switching wholesale from Road Runners, Super Bees and Chargers to the Mo-Ponies.

And have you figured out if the El Camino is a muscle car or truck? Where did NHRA classify them back in the day?

[MrPbody]

I recall seeing Elkys in Stock and SS classes, among the other cars. An SS396, for example, was grouped in with other Chevelles at the same "factoring". IMO, El Camino was a cool ride with a dual purpose. It and Ranchero were WAY "ahead of their time". I knew one guy in Berdoo that literally filled his taigate with cement so it would "hook" like his brother's Chevelle. With big power, they ARE a little "light in the rear".

As for the white T/As, well.... I remember seeing a story about the '70 RA IV car, with a beautiful "side view". The caption was "Was there any doubt? This car MEANS BUSINESS!" I've also seen the engineering report on the "aero" treatment around the wheel wells and the side vents, and how they affected the car's handling and ability to go faster than 140 MPH. None of that stuff was "for looks", it was ALL "functional". Only the single blue stripe was for "looks". Even the reversed scoop was more effective than the older approaches used on various performance cars of the era.

The best example of "real world" I recall concerning 2nd gen T/As was around the '80 "Indy Pace Car" version. For '79, Mustang (w/302) was the official pace car. There was an article about what Roush Racing had to do to make it capable of sustaining 125 MPH ("pace speed"). Heads, cam, pistons, headers, intake/carb, gears, a "laundry list" of changes like building a street machine. For the '80 T/A? They shaved the tread to 1/2 depth on the stock tires and removed the A/C belt. That's it... And that was the loathsome (in many "camps") 301 "Turbo". While Mustang was definitley the largest selling pony car ever, T/A carried the "banner" as the as the best performer, at least through '81, after which they became "Cheviacs"... In '79, it was just about the ONLY GM car that would actually turn the tires over from a standing start...

Yes, I AM a "Pontiac bigot"...(:-

Jim

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by MrPbody

I
The best example of "real world" I recall concerning 2nd gen T/As was around the '80 "Indy Pace Car" version. For '79, Mustang (w/302) was the official pace car. There was an article about what Roush Racing had to do to make it capable of sustaining 125 MPH ("pace speed"). Heads, cam, pistons, headers, intake/carb, gears, a "laundry list" of changes like building a street machine. For the '80 T/A? They shaved the tread to 1/2 depth on the stock tires and removed the A/C belt. That's it... And that was the loathsome (in many "camps") 301 "Turbo". While Mustang was definitley the largest selling pony car ever, T/A carried the "banner" as the as the best performer, at least through '81, after which they became "Cheviacs"... In '79, it was just about the ONLY GM car that would actually turn the tires over from a standing start...

I remember reading about the T/A pace car mods too (30 years ago!) They also had to swap rear-end ratios to get sufficient top speed..... something the overdrive-equipped Mustang did not need, as far as I know.

As someone who owned a 1979 Mustang Pace Car, I agree the driveline in it was just an embarrasement.

The engine was a garden-variety 137 hp 2 barrel, no different than any other sedan 302 of the day. If Ford actually cared about the Mustang performance, they could have easily engineered some emissions-friendly components to boost power.
IMO they didn't, partly to save money and partly so that the V8 would not out-perform the turbo 4 cyl, which, back then, was perceived to to be the marketing focus of their performance efforts.

The manual transmission was almost as bad. It was the SROD 4 speed, which was geared like a modern OD 5-speed, but missing third gear.
Not only were the ratios poor, but it was a weak unit. A determined teenager could wipe-out the transmission in about 10 minutes....... unless the weak 7.5 inch diff broke first.

The benefits of the '79 Pace Car? The performance features of the chassis was well-thought out. Ford spent the money on unique suspension pieces, a great chassis brace, fine wheels and tires, great seats, and aerodynamic body features which helped. In fact, the entire Pace Car package was recycled intact as the '82 GT.

But, yes, I agree...... the T/A has enough old-school virture to make it a great performance car of the time.

The only thing I didn't like about the 2nd gen F-body was the rear suspension. A car like that deserved a coil-and-link set-up.