Mustang is a Muscle car

[Boss429kiwi]

Hi

First time here (and probably the last, after this post
I wasn't going to register, until is read the post "Is a Mustang a Muscle car" (or something like that?). It fustrated me that most were saying a Mustang was not a Muscle Car and this was posted in the Ford area!
Where is this coming from?

My 1970 Boss 429 IS A MUSCLE CAR!!!!!!!!!!
Is a Cobra jet a muscle car? YES!
Is a Shelby a muscle car? YES!
Is a Mach 1 a muscle car? YES!
Is a Boss 302 a muscle car? YES!
Is a Boss 351 a muscle car? YES!
Is a GT 390 a muscle car? YES!

I could go on for ever
Shame on you

Gary
New Zealand

[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.

[MrPbody]

Again, I find myself in complete agreement with MagicRat (imagine that...).

There are four basic performance car types from that era. The "super car" was a full-size car with a monster engine (Chrysler 300s from the '50s, Catalinas from the early '60s, Impala SSs from the late '60s...). The "muscle car" was an intermediate body with a full-size engine (Pontiac GTO is aknowkledged as the first one). A Ford of such a description would be Torino GT or Torino Cobra. (Cobra Jet is an engine, not a car) The "pony car", which the class is named for Mustang, though Barracuda was in the market first. Those are smaller coupes (or ragtops), some with performance options making them very fast. Lastly, there's the "sports car". Usually limited to 2-seat cars primarily designed for cornering, rather than straight-line accelleration. In the late '60s ("muscle car era"), only Corvette was the American entry in this class.

I agree, also, you're taking some of the information as derogetory, when it isn't. You could NOT buy a GTO with a 6 cylinder engine. Period. It was a "delete" option just to use a 2-bbl. carb on the 400, and that only lasted a couple of years. Nor could you buy a 6-cylinder Chevelle SS or Torino GT... etc. Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, Javelin, Challenger, Barracuda, ALL "pony cars", could ALL be ordered with non-performance options. Only the "lesser" intermediates could be had with the non-performance stuff. (LeMans, Malibu, Sattelite, etc.) the term "muscle car" is more the size and type, rather than how much "muscle" the car was capable of. But Mach 1s, SSTs, SS Camaros, etc. are STILL "pony cars"...

Jim

[71nova_lover]

i am a chevy man but i have to agree with this man a mustang is a muscle car sorry

[Msvic]

4 Words
Boss 302
Boss 429
These cars were the apitomy of what an American muscle car was & is.

[gasman1075]

I'm a little late on this topic but the car most people forget or don't even know of is the 1971 BOSS 351.
Which is definetly a muscle car.
This was a limited edition in 71 with only about 1800 produced.This wa one of the fastest badest Mustangs built.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

[Msvic]

MagicRAT - that your CB handle good buddy
Shouldn;t you be out on a ledge somewhere
Speaking of Muscle cars
We all forgot about the Subaru WRX
I thought of it cause one of those little buggers blew my doors off last month
67 stang, 347 stroker with paxton,3:73;s trac lok
not just from get go, but, mid speed, top end
like everywhere!

[MrPbody]

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

[gasman1075]

No didn't miss the definition just gave my opinion.
I personally don't think that the 71 Mustang Mach 1 should fall into the pony car catagory.
It's just as big as the same year Chevelle or GTO maybe even larger.
But this is just my opinion as a dedicated Mustrang guy.
Here's a very interesting definition of muscle car which has several different catagory's of muscle cars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car

[MrPbody]

Any definition of "mucsle car" written after 1964 is irrelevant. They are strictly opinions, having no basis in fact. The class was firmly established by GTO.

'71-'73 Mustangs are nowhere near the size of intermediate cars. The wheelbase is still under 110", and the weight is under 3,500 lbs. (moderately equipped). GTOs and Chevelles have a 112" wheelbase ('68-'72) and weigh well over 3,600. Some of the 429 cars were pretty fast, even with the lower compression, but the small block (Cleveland) cars are no match for a muscle car. The "flat back" cars are my personal favorite of the Mustangs.

We can banter about this all day. It doens't matter. My purpose is to dispel myths and superstitions (why I post on these boards). My experiences over the years add up. My brother is a Mustang fanatic, but even he conceeds, they're not muscle cars. He's seen the tail lights of GTOs and GTXs too many times. He has quite a "stable" now, too. A '65 "K-Code", a '78 King Cobra he bought new (an award winner at the '04 Nashville Birthday Party with one of our engines in it), a '99 Cobra (will STOMP the '65), a couple of Fox-bodies and a REAL Bullit (not the "new Bullit").

I like Mustangs just fine. But the name of the class is "Pony Car". That name is for the premiere car in the class, Mustang. Had the class been named for the FIRST sport compact-based "performance" car, it would be the "Fishy Car" (Barracuda was released before Mustang). There were certainly Firebirds and Camaros with more muscle than ANY Ford of the era, but they're not muscle cars, either. They're "Pony Cars", too. The last MONSTER car of the era was a Trans Am ('73 and '74 "455 SD" cars). A Pony Car... GTO never got the "good" engine after '72.

Jim

[429SCJguy]

I agree, the big block Mustangs were muscular.

I have heard sharply contrasting opinions on 428 vs. 429 in stock trim.

Jim, are you sure the '71-'73 Mustangs were under 3,500 lbs even with a 429 engine?

I think the 429CJs available in '71 still had 11.3 compression. The 429CJ/SCJs were only available in Mustangs in '71. The 429 Boss in '69 and '70.

[MrPbody]

Most uni-body cars of that era were well under 3,500. The GM F-bodies gained a BUNCH of weight in '70, but Mustangs were more of a re-skin than a redesign.

There may have been some high compression engines installed and sold new. I can't say for sure. If so, probably leftovers from '70. I DO know, federal law mandated the use of "regular" gas in '71. EGR was scheduled for '72, but some manufacturers weren't "ready", and it was delayed until '73.

My GTO NEVER got beat by a 428 Ford in any car I raced. That included a couple Shelbys and Mustangs, but mostly Torino "Cobras". I DID lose to a '70 Cyclone GT (429SCJ) one night, but we raced for more than 1/4 mile. I had him until he hit 4th gear (about 1/4 mile plus 100 feet...). His car had 3.50 gears and mine had 3.55s. Overall, a pretty good matchup.

Jim

[429SCJguy]

I am working on two 429 Torinos and a 428 Talladega so I guess I'll get to do my own leg work with both engines.

I am a Lima fan and also like FEs too. I know your Pontiacs are very good engines though, high velocity ports, doweled mains, not overly heavy.

[MrPbody]

So what are you trying to accomplish? Restorations or hot rods?

We built a 504 CID Lima this year, makes right at 800 HP with iron heads ("special" exhaust port treatment, the weak point is this design). We also have a 428 CJ in here right nmow, from a '69 Torino GT (white with red pin stripes and a red interior, NICE car!).

Don't get the impression I believe Pontiac is the ONLY way. NOT!!! Our "motto" is "We don't care WHAT color you paint it, we'll build it!" We build lots of Fords and Chevys. Dodges, too! We even have a 625 HP 455 Buick out there!

If there's something specific you need to know about the Fords, just ask. I can help with engine parts, colors, etc.

BTW, Merry Christmas!!!

Jim

[sub006]

I think a Mustang with a muscle car engine (390, 427, 428, 429) is BOTH a pony car and a muscle car.

BTW a Nova is also "shorter" than a midsize. Does this make the '68 through early '70s 396 models "sport compacts" that have to play with the ricers?