I'm new to the pony car scene, so try to go easy on me when I ask this question. It was mentioned in another thread that a V8 defines a a muscle car. The current Mustang V6 almost matches the power of the previous GT (stock), so if the 2010 GT is considered a muscle car, why would it be improper to use the term for the 2011 V6? I understand that it's the extra 2 cylinders that make the 2 engines stand apart, but looking at stock power, aren't the 2010 GT and 2011 V6 comparable? Is it the size of the engine or the power it generates that defines a muscle car? I'm not making the argument to call the V6 a muscle car ... I'm just curious to hear some insight and opinions. Thanks.

 

v8 = muscle car (my opinion)

The new V6 is an amazing car however and deserves all the praises and accolades it gets.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car#Definition

this new V6 does blur the meaning doesn't it....

 

I was the one that said a V8 defines a muscle car. And I stick by my statement. Back in '89 when the SHO first came out, it actually outpowered the 5.0 Mustang. But the SHO was not a muscle car, the Mustang was.

Power alone does not a muscle car make. It's styling and attitude that define it. Big, bulging rear fenders, big ol' bulged hoods and snarling V8s (among other things) are what make a muscle car. And that's why the Genesis isn't a muscle car... oh it's got plenty of muscle, but it's too suave, too stylish, too sophisticated to really fit in. It's like a Beethoven aficionado at a Nine Inch Nails concert.

 

There aren't any "Muscle Cars" any more, at least not in the classic definition of the term.

Muscle cars were, back in the 60's, mid-size cars with big high HP V8 motors and not much else. All they did was go fast in mostly a straight line. They didn't go around corners particularly well and didn't stop very well. They were the GTO's, Hemi Road Runners, SS Chevelles, 427 Fairlanes, etc.

Mustangs are "Pony Cars", cars that may well have a big high HP engine, but they also handle and stop well. They are the all-around athlete of the car world instead of the staid heavy-hitter cars that only do one thing well.

 

 

The Buick Grand National/GNX is V6 muscle to me.

 

+1. Mustangs have muscle, but are not muscle cars.

 

A Muscle car is all steel, no plastic bumpers or crap on the outside (scoops, louvers, kits, this & that, etc...), they were built with a total disregard for fuel consumption and environmental impact and made to go fast as hell in a straight line. Lots of over steering. Brakes were good enough to get you to stop. With all the gauge outputs (minus traction control...) and a functional interior. Purely menacing in it's day.

I'm not saying you can't have a modern muscle... but the original muscle is long gone (for better or worse). Horsepower alone doesn't enter you into the American muscle car club. A V8 in my book tho was/is the starting point.

Today however these are more or less pony cars. Because everything described above is the exact opposite...

But again this is all technicalities.

 

Agreed with all the above posts on Muscle Cars, big, hulking beast that usually only do one thing well, plant the *** and scream forward. Alas, the Muscle reference, lots of muscle, doesn't do a whole hell of a lot with it but show off.
The original pony car, the '65 (64.5) Mustang did include an inline 6 cylinder engine. Most who owned the car at that time and possibly any time would argue that the car was certainly a pony. Pony being muscular, athletic, quick and/or spirited, much like a pony. I would agree that the inline is a great eco option for a pony car. Now owning an inline 6 powered car (335i) I wish there were more American I6's still around.
The modern V6 proved to be a viable power plant. Still couldn't replace that torque of an inline though. So, given PONY car's past and present, I would say that YES, the new V6 with incredible output, much like the original 6 cylinders, are a perfect example of a new age pony.
The GT may still be a pony, but originally it was very convenient that the engine didn't weigh much more than the 6 and was shorter, for a bit more balance. Not to mention the sensational output of **** near any V8. Just seemed to fit. I contest though that the GT is exactly what it says it is, a Grand Touring car, i.e. see 60's model Ferrari GTO, GTB. A 2+2 with a lot of power, super handling, smaller than family car dimensions and feel, sporty looks and elegant performance for "Touring" the twisties and blazing a path on the open road. So my opinion may open a can of worms but I almost contest that the V6 is truly the pony as opposed to the GT being the Touring car of choice.

Once again, just my perspective on the issue.
That said: GT500 - Muscle Car, at least in the late 60's.

 

interesting discussion, not sure it really matters, but fun stuff regardless . . .

just for the mix: on the window sticker, Ford calls the Mustang a "4-passenger sports car" , which actually seems to describe it better than in the past

 

I kind of agree with you, but is there room in the definition of muscle car to recognize times change and that muscle car owners wanted their cars to go around corners better, and the generation that grew up with them is now older and wants more refinement? i.e. the muscle car has evolved?

OP - I find the power of the V6 to be enough to satisfy me, but if I get a Mustang it will likely be the 5.0 b/c there are options like NAV that you can't buy on the V6 and I want them. Plus a part of me says if you own a Mustang it should be an 8 cylinder.

 

Not sure if you have seen V6 Premium yet, but you should check it out. It has NAV, SYNC, HID's and even leather! Sorry, not to be a smart ***, but someone else would have caught this soon enough.

 

Or everyone.

 

Look in the EPA ratings and it shows a graph comparing it to all "subcompacts".

 

A lot of car mags are using the term "hustle cars" for the new V6's, which I like. It has all the connotations of "muscle cars" but still appease's the die-hard people who say a v6 can't be a muscle car.

I'll tell you, the '11 V6 blows my '02 GT out of the water in pretty much every category, and mine was called a pure-bread muscle car 10 years ago.

 

I don't think the Mustang is an evolution of the "Muscle Car", the Mustang is, and continues to be, the evolution of the original "Pony Car" concept. A 4 place, smaller car that combines power, handling and fuel economy in a sporty body shape and is quintessentially American!

All the convenience options available on the 5.0 premium are also available on the premium V6 cars.

 

I think the Wikipedia link shows another one the problems with applying the old definitions of pony and muscle car to today's cars. There is no more Chevelle or Torino. Dodge has has both the Charger again but it's a four door sedan.

 

My opinion is that the term "Muscle Car" denotes a car that is just muscle, no finesse, no precision, just bull muscle.

"Pony Car" is smarter than that, combines power with finesse and precision.

That's the kind of car that I want.

 

Thanks everyone for all the info! The way I'm understanding it, it seems like the term "muscle car" wouldn't really apply to any modern day production car since I don't think cars are made to just go in a straight line anymore? Or maybe the definition of "muscle car" has evolved to include such things as handling, but still requires the engine power to make it stand out from the rest?