rhumb

As things are a touch slow here these days, I thought I'd try to perk things up a touch.

I browsed a new Ford/Mustang mag the other evening which had a fairly extensive interview with Lee Iacocco (sp-?). One of the main points he strongly made was that the Mustang, at least as originally conceived and developed, was definitely NOT to be a musclecar but rather, a smaller, more nimble and balanced car more in the European GT style. Indeed, his conception was, I forget the exact numbers, but a base car that weighed 2400 lbs and sold for $2400. They didn't quite make either mark but were fairly close.

Anyway, many on this board, and other, really see the Mustang at its core now solely or primarily as a "muscle car," whatever that exact definition might be, and I'm sure there are a lot of them.

Awright, the discussion issues:

Is the Mustang now primarily a "muscle car." (Feel free to define what you think a "muscle car" is exactly)

Is the Mustang more a European GT style car?

Is it something different, perhaps in between these two performance car idioms, perhaps best described as a "pony car?"

Is the Mustang line actually some combination of the above and other idioms?

How might the Mustang have evolved over time, and the market around it evolved, to change the Mustang's personality and its place amongst other performance cars?

Finally, how does the '05 in its various guises fit into all this?

My own thoughts is that the Mustang was originally conceived and developed very much as a contrast to the muscle cars of the day, being something closer to a European style GT that also combined some typically American style and motive elements (a V8, albeit very small, high rpm variety). Over time ('67 on), it did develop a more muscle car side to its personna with the advent of the big block options, though it still maintained its more unique Pony car side with such models as the Boss and GT350.

The Mustang II was basically a stylish econo cruiser that kept the name alive if little else.

The FoxStang in '79 was much more of a return to its smaller, lighter more balanced Pony car roots per the original '65-'66 models. Both its Telnack styling and new suspension reflected a very Euro influence. But as the time progressed, the automotive world chandged around it, evolving into primarily smaller FWD platforms. It was really in relation to this overall market evolution that the Mustang, simply by retaining its V8 RWD platform, came to be seen, comparitively, as a muscle car -- an image cemented in the minds of the generation or two weened on the Fox chassis.

Drag racers, with few V8 RWD performance platform options left, adopted the Stang as a latter day muscle car and (over?) emphasized its straight line speed aspect above all else.

It's doddering chassis did little to counter that trend where its other dynamic/performance attributes failed to advance in step with the competition, driving away those enthusiasts who seek a more balanced performance paradigm of the original Stang. SVO/SVT did make commendable efforts in this regard, but you can only make a pig fly so far, or dance about the corners perhaps.

But what about the NextStang? A new, mostly state of the art chassis, new body, styling, etc. so what's this critter gonna be? GT? Pony car? Muscle car? Sports car/coupe? Super car? Styler? All/some/none of the above?

kevinb120

Everyone went for the straight-line pure muscle car durring the power hungry late sixties, hense the demise of the "GT" models. Even a Firebird had a "sprint" package with a 6 meant to be more "euro" for handling. Even the ad campaign stressed on those ponts and its lighter weight. Of course that was later then the early GT Stangs, F bodies didnt start untill 66/67. Why dont you hear about them?..............well, nobody bought them.

BLAKE

There is a reason the Mustang (and even the now-defunct competition, Camaros and Firebirds) have their own designation: Pony Car.

Muscle cars are different, with different proportions. (Think original GTO) Long hood, long deck.

That difference alone is enough to settle the argument for me. I agree that Mustang was created with euro tourers in mind, if for no other reason than the fact that there was no such thing as a muscle car until the '64 GTO, which I'm sure wasn't even a blip on the radar when the Mustang was concieved.

burningman

I think that the mustang has always with the exception of the 70's been a pony car/muscle car. I don't think the mustang was ever a pure muscle car. That is a term alot of people throw around. The engine size/HP was where Muscle car came into play and until the stang had something in the 300+ cube range with equal horsepower I would not have called it a muscle car. The mustang DID NOT start the muscle car era it started the pony car era and the two kinda merged into one with cars like the AMX and the 'Cuda.

As for GT well If you are goin by the european derivation of that then I donb't think the mustang ever was or ever will be one. The GT moniker had ver little to do with what a GT car was in my opinion. And now the GT moniker has nothing to do with the real definiton and is more of a option title.

I see very little european anything in a mustang with the exception of the late 80's early 90's cars (smoothed over headlights, metric rims in the early 80's)

All in all i think the mustang has returned to it's Pony car roots and is not a full blow muscle car anymore with the exception of the machs and cobras. So overall I think the stang is a pony car.

I think there are very few "muscle" cars nowadays. Maybe the viper..maybe the vette. Not sure really. I don't think of them as such but who knows.

kevinb120

Probably the most TRUE muscle car by deffinition that is still around is the Marauder

BLAKE

Hmmm, I'd say GTO.

The Maurader is a 4 door, no?

mkoesel

Yes, but so were some of the ones from the 60s.

I agree with kevinb, the Marauder is as close to a muscle car as you can get today, unless you take a trip down to Australia.

You could also add the 300C, although the Marauder is more genuine as it is still soldiering on with BOF construction. Not that I am saying that makes it better. Just truer to the originals, or most of them anyway. Then again, the 300C has a pushrod V8 while the Marauder is DOHC V8 - definitely not something you'd find in a circa 1965 production American car.

In some sense, any car with RWD and a V8 could be said to have Muscle car ancestry. So you could throw in some European and Japanese luxury cars. Of course, the price tags violate the bang-for-buck muscle car ideal.

houtex

I think there are two definitions of a Muscle Car:

1) A grocery getter with a LOT of horsepower. RWD V8 car. TWO DOORS, but that's me. I guess the Impala SS and Marauder of recent years could count, but four doors, I don't know...

2) Over powered Pony car, with 390+ cubic inch blocks.

To me, the term "muscle car" always envisioned bigger coupes, like Chargers and SSs, GTOs and Galaxie 500s. Mustang doesn't really fit, it's not big enough. (Neither, BTW, is the new GTO.) It's more a 2+2 than a full sized car, yeah? Although I admit, the 70s Mustangs were Muscle Cars, but then they were HUGE, and had gigantic engines. 428SCJ anyone? So those count, but '69 back and 74 forward are not Muscle cars. And I don't know what you'd call the 74-78 models.

Ponys are what the Mustang was in the beginning, and has been since '79. Sprightly cars that aren't terribly big, but aren't seriously small. Just right, and with enough power to be more fun that ought to be legal.

Even with the recent Cobras, it's still not a "muscle car" It's still a Pony. It's not about HPs, it's about CIs. If they had a 390 or something like in it, then I might could be swayed. Same with Camaro and Firebird. 350 cubes (5.7L) isn't enough cubes to counter act the smallness of the car.

If Ford had put huge engines in the old '90s Tbirds, they'd be Muscle cars. But they didn't. So they're not. I don't really consider ANY car made today a muscle car, BTW. Viper is in the same class as Corvettes, Porches, and Lamborghinis: Sports cars. Mustangs are "Sporty" cars, no matter how macho ya wanna be with it. Mach1s included. Which are *****en, BTW.

Ok, I am now wearing my flame retardant undies, so hit me!

Evil_Capri

Could it also be said that muscle cars of the past had the biggest engine/horsepower combo available from the manufacturer?

So, given today's standards would not the Mustang count as a 'modern' day muscle car. Because it has the biggest engine/horsepower combo available from Ford?

I don't know . . slow day at work! (For a change)

428CJ

The new stang is true to it's heritage, a pony car. That's why the term was coined, to name a car that was like no other. It was very light, and quick. Even the Mustangs up to 1970 were light, the 70 Boss 302 weighed 3200 lbs. That is much more than the 2800lb 66 289's but a LOT less than the 3600 lb and over, Muscle cars from the same era.

The mustang was created to be a fun car, made just for personal use. 2+2 seating and it's miniscual weight made it a blast. The one thing though, I wish the new mustangs would lose weight, and again try to be the light little sports car on the road. It is small, but many times it has to use pure HP to be the quickest car on the road.

In a way, what I'm saying is, the Mustang was always the light car. Compared to other cars in it's day, the Mustang was the lightest. But now days, four door cars such as the Subura WRX STI are lighter.

Even though it is very true to it's heritage, the Mustang can be seen as the Muscle car of this era because it has to use pure HP to be the quickest. The old mustangs didn't have too. They were lighter.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

In 67 the Mustang grew a little, but it was still the same small car.

Now days, the Mustang in comparison to the old ones could be seen as small, but in comparison to other cars TODAY, the Mustang is somewhat large.

I'm not saying the mustang get so small it's like a Miata! But I'm saying lose 200 lbs, and get just a bit smaller..

BLAKE

Yes, but so were some of the ones from the 60s.

In some sense, any car with RWD and a V8 could be said to have Muscle car ancestry. So you could throw in some European and Japanese luxury cars. Of course, the price tags violate the bang-for-buck muscle car ideal. [/b][/quote]
Sorry man, but I've got to disagree with that one. I've never seen a true muscle car with 4 doors. It goes against the whole "light mid-size with huge engine" philosophy. They were purposely trying to get lighter, why go with a 4 door?

Name a 4 door Muscle car from the late sixties, early seventies. I don't think you can.

Tone

My undertanding is that a muscle car is defined as a large engine in an intermediate-class car. GTOs were muscle cars. Fairlane GTs were muscle cars.

Separate from the muscle car trend was the emergence of smaller, sportier coupes. The Chevy Corvair Corsa/Monza, with a fully independent suspension and an optional turbo motor sold surprisingly well in the early 60's. The story goes that car's sales success was one of the factors that influenced Iacocca in pushing for the Mustang.

Though less sophisticated than the Corvair, the Mustang offered much of its styling maturity, light weight and decent handling with better straight line performance -- all at a very accessible price. The combination was magic, causing GM to abandon the Corvair and push forward on the Camaro.

Yes, there were big inch Mustangs, Mustang's focused towards drag racing. But, the heart of the marque is its roots as an inexpensive, light, nicely styled "sporty" car.

GM forgot that -- turning the F-bodies primarily into sports/muscle cars and lost the volume needed to make a profit. That's why well done V6 Mustangs are just as important to marque's viability as 300 hp GTs are.

burningman

actually I think the V6 is more important than the GT. I had read somewhere that the V6 is the bulk of the mustang sales.

HairyCanary

It is, something like 65% or in that neighborhood. Although with the coming of the 2005, some at Ford are predicting that it'll get much closer to a 50/50 split between the V6 and GT.

Dave

Lalo

to me, it was derived from the euro gt's at first, but after other american car co.'s started to make cars that would challenge the mustang in sells and in the trans am races, mustang seemed to go towards the muscle car image more. hence the '69 '70 boss and on. the car was lighter and a little smaller than others, but the styling seemed to go for a more aggressive, muscle car styling

Dan

Small side point: its seems to me that most car enthusiasts in North American's are all about pure chest-beating, all out straight line, tire smoking power. Forget the curves, when you dump the clutch and open her up, can I beat you or not. This is all about Male Testosterone.

European performance on the other hand is more balanced. Smaller, higher reving engines, excellent driving dynamics and geared for the road course. It seems to be more about skill and balance than about pure grunt.

Maybe its a cultural thing. Who knows? Which cars are better? We'll depends on your criteria.

IMO, the Mustang is what it is because the majority of mustang enthusiasts want it this way. The mustang is strongest in a straight line. It has gobs of torque available at low rpm. It is meant to beat most other cars on the road from stoplight to stoplight. This does not mean it is incapable in the handling department. In fact, it is pretty good compared to most cars and looks to get better with the new version.

Now, this does not mean that the mustang cannot be offered in packages which make it a better all around performer and in fact the Cobra is that solution.

stango63

The Mustang was created for one purpose, to capture the large upcoming youth market of the mid sixties. It was to be the poor mans Thunderbird!

It had a great concept. Make a really sporting looking inexpensive car like the falcon. And give it as many options as posible, to make it into what anyone wants this car to be!

The 1964 pontiac was the original Muscle Car true.

But the concept of the Mustang was unique. By 67' it was a light weight car, that could be odered with a H.P. v-8 engine. And it was inexpensive.

That sounds kind of like something like a "Muscle" type car to me. I also bet it to away lots sales from Muscle Cars too.

Yes it was not a true Musle Car. But the 67-73 stangs could be odered up to compete with the Muscle Car class.

05Mustangfan

Muscle Car, nuff said

ManEHawke

Muscle cars have big blocks right. Up untill how many inches is it considered a big block. There are only small blocks and big blocks. I've never heard of medium blocks.
I think the mustang cant be defined at a single category, but muscle is close, such as my fave stang (Boss 429) Its different reskinnings make it many things.
429ci is considered big block right?

jsaylor

IMHO, the new GTO is not a muscle car because it just isn't large enough. Not by the "pure" definition of what a muscle car is. It is more like some kind of hybrid, not very easily defined.

Size wise it is closer to what a modern-day interpretation of the Cougar pony-car should be than a muscle car. (Notice I just referred to size and not execution) Seriously, when you first see one it isn't very large. In overall size the new Goat is much closer to the Grand Am coupe than a Grand Prix coupe to my eye.

The Mustang is not a muscle car IMO. And to me, that is a good thing. It is an American GT, a 2+2 that sometimes embodies elements of other automotive genr'es. The 69-70 Mustang definately added a bit of muscle car into the mix, but it was still a pony car with a muscle car "bend".

The 71-73....well, they were kinda like a pony car done with an exotic car flair. Some similarities in styling to the Maserati Ghibili show car, and to the DeTamaso Mangusta are impossible to miss and admitted by FoMoCo as intentional. The super long hood, ultra low roofline, and wide stance kinda lend this pony a more exotic look, but it was still a pony car with other influences added in.

The closest the Mustang ever came to losing it's "pony car" status was the Mustang II. IMO it was still a "pony car", only this time it was the pony car with an economy car slant to it. At it's core I think the Mustanbg has always been about a 2+2 GT with good overall performance and exceptional styling. It hasn't always lived up to all of those, but it has always been in the ballpark.