View Single Post
Old 12-19-2007, 08:51 AM   #8
MrPbody
AF -Advisor
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chesterfield, Virginia
Posts: 2,549
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Re: Mustang is a Muscle car

Msvic,

Apparently, you (and others) missed the definition. A PONY car is smaller and shorter (key) than a muscle car.

The point here, is NOT how much muscle a car actually HAS, but what size, weight and era the car is from. There is no such thing as a muscle car NOT built in the USA until 2004, when GTO came over from Australia. And that is the ONLY non-American muscle car. A muscle car has no power adders, either (thus the ommission of the Buick Turbo cars, though they too, are VERY good performers).

Boss 302 was nowhere NEAR a muscle car in performance. It had a tiny engine, so it would qualify for the Trans American Challenge Cup (known as "TransAm") in SCCA, having a 5 litre limit on engine displacement. Boss 351 was much better, but a year too late. Compression ratios were woeful in '71, and the small Ford was no match for the bigger Fords or GM and Chrysler "muscle cars". Chevy guys will hate this, but '68 and '69 Z/28s fall into the same category as Boss 302. Good performers, but no "giant killer". I know my '70 Judge (Ram Air III) would SPANK any of the aforementioned pony cars in any kind of race. That from experience, not advertisements or "historic" records. That's why we race the races... Paper lions can't "hang". It took a 429 in a Mustang to run with my GTO. Most of the 428 Mustang I ever saw were pretty slow. 390 cars seemed to have an edge over them, though none beat my GTO with me in it. When I put the Pontiac 428 in it, even the 429 cars couldn't hang.

PAX

Jim
MrPbody is offline   Reply With Quote