Mustang Muscle??

[87_Mustang_GT]

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.

[BadA$$Snake]

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 But that's what I drive my Uncles Daytona for

[emokid15]

so ur saying that a 87 mustang 5.0 is not muscle

[Musclecarclub]

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.

[artistic]

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

[87_Mustang_GT]

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

[BRE68STANG]

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

[stanger42]

Originally Posted by artistic

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.

[1g1yy]

Good Lord!! It's all just a question of symantics. Some people consider Corvettes "sports" cars and therefore they can't be "muscle" cars. 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.

[03&69Mach]

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.

[1g1yy]

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!)

[duplox]

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.

[1g1yy]

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

[duplox]

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!

[1g1yy]

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!