https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car

Lots of different types of muscle cars according by definition. Apparently Challengers and Camaro's are a "Pony Car Muscle Car" as well. Muscle car = 4 passenger car with a large displacement V8. We could argue what a large displacement V8 is these days. Nonetheless the Mustang is a 4 passenger car and does boast a V8 as an option. Any way. I am not here for an argument as to what is and isn't a muscle car but when Barrett Jackson or other Auction houses auction off the 1969-1973 Mustangs they are always referred to as muscle cars. I'm done with this topic. If you view the lists of the cars that are designated as muscle cars each had 6 cylinder options.

 

Is smaller displacement + turbo the future? For passenger cars and small to mid size SUVs I think so. Chevy Cruze has a 1.4l Turbo, Fusion has a 2.0l turbo, Hyundai's have 1.6 and 2.0 turbos. I like that.

But a Mustang? The only reason the S550 got a EB was so it can sell it Europe and Asia. At ~$7/gallon a large displacement car will not sell well over there.

But this is not Europe or Asia. This is 'Murica (F*** YEAH!)

Our gas is still cheap compare to the rest of the world. And we still have more V8 than anywhere else in the world.

And if the EB was the future the GT350 would be rocking a 3.5 or 3.7 EB. But it doesn't. Nor should it. V8s are getting better and better too. 526hp out of a 5.2l V8, while the MPGs keep climbing. God bless America.

 

FYI.. I'm not here to provoke an argument either, but rather just voice an opinion in a constructive and positive manner in which I never posted anything towards you in neither a disrespectful nor negative manner whatsoever..

As a matter of fact, I clearly stated in my previous response that IMO certain variants of the Mustang did indeed evolve into what you define as " Muscle Cars.. Therefore how is this provoking an argument ?

I'm also fully aware of what the definition of a true muscle car is, as the Muscle Car era was coming to a close during my teenage years.. So I don't need for you to post a definition quote from Wikipedia.org to explain it..

As far as I'm concerned, once the 67 GT 390 models arrived, this was when the Mustang began to evolve from Ford's original concept of an all affordable 4-passenger "Sporty Car" built for the masses into a high-performance "Pony Car" or as you define as a "Muscle Car"..

At any rate, all I was attempting to point out in my response to your post, is what Ford's original design concept for the Mustang was intended for from their perspective and not from my own, as that wasn't my intention to begin with anyhow.. Therefore for the most part, I was agreeing with your post..

With that being said.. The purpose of these forums were designed to bring folks together when discussing a particular topic despite whatever disagreements might end up taking place as a result..

The key, is being able do so in an adult and respectful manner..


End of story !

 

Sorry if I started an argument / sent this off on a tangent . . . but it gave us something to talk about, LOL

Personally I don't really care what wikipedia says, I know what "muscle car" means to me, and I know I don't want one. I want a "four passenger sports car" or "sporty car" meaning a car that can go around corners fairly well (everything is relative . . . relative to an SUV) yet still seat 4 people (in a pinch) and that's why I want / like my mustang.

 

Lol to this thread. We all just need to enjoy our FMSC, family muscle sports car.

 

HA HAAAAAAAAAAA
Nice one bro.

 

It's all about the context of the times.

The distinction between the terms 'Pony Car' and Muscle Car' might have mattered in the mid 60's to the early 70's when there were dozens and dozens of examples of cars and performance packages available for either genre.

Once the manufacturers moved away from performance orientated cars and emphasized fuel efficiency, 'Muscle Car' became a generic term for performance cars which were no longer being built. The power wars were over to the lament of many.

Fast forward to now. Sadly we have access to but a fraction of American performance cars that we once had decades ago. There are too few cars to make a distinction between 'Pony Car' and 'Muscle Car' anymore. Mustang, Camaro, Challenger, Charger, Viper and the Corvette have evolved into 'Modern Muscle'.

Even at car shows these days there is a class for 'Modern Muscle' which usually includes the above. What else should we call them? It's a lot less cumbersome than saying 'Four Passenger Sports Coupe with 350+ Horsepower.'

The whole argument is kind of silly actually. Let's face it...whether you have a stock 300hp V6 Mustang or a GT with 420hp, you still have more power, torque, and handling under your right foot that most 60's 'Muscle Car' owners could only dream about.

 

I am glad my Bad *** Mustang sparked such a heated debate!

 

She is a beauty bro! Enjoy.

 

IMHO you didn't start up an argument ! As far as I'm concerned, you voiced your opinions about what your Mustang means to you..

As I mentioned in a previous post, the purpose of these forums are to bring folks such as yourself together who are passionate about their cars that are interested in sharing their experiences along with seeking advice and discussing topics with others who share similar interests in common..

At any rate, we're all car enthusiasts that share a common bond despite whatever disagreements that may take place.. Therefore once again, the key is being able to do so in an adult and respectful manner

 

Hey, that's a 2010 GT! I didn't notice that before, greetings brother.

I had a 1970 Olds 442 with the 455 big block. That was a "muscle car." It went pretty good in a straight line, but don't ask it to go around a corner anytime soon.

My 2010 GT could run circles around that car.

 

It's great how much progress these cars made in the last decade even. Lol, with your Olds did you find yourself shouting commands like "Corner, 1/4 of a mile, hard a-starboard!"

 

Did I say something disrespectful?

 

LOL, yes indeed, and that's exactly why I am not crazy about "muscle cars"

Then again, I would love to still have that thing all restored up, but it would have cost a small fortune, back in the day they rusted away . . .

 

This is the second 2010 I have owned. I am not sure why but I love this odd year. I like talking about it at car meets. Most people think the 2009 was the last year of the 4.6.

 

Its the red headed step child of the S197's. Ha ha

 

I love em!

 

No ! You didn't say anything disrespectful Robert.. I just didn't want to give the impression that I was responding to your post to provoke an argument, but rather to agree with your opinion describing how the Mustang evolved into a Muscle Car..

However my response had very little to do with my personal opinions, as my intention was actually meant to describe Ford's definition of the Mustang from they're perspective as being considered a 4 passenger "Sporty Car"..

So I suppose that I was playing devil's advocate for Ford lol.

At any rate, I just wanted to make certain my post wasn't interpreted as provoking an argument, as that clearly is not my purpose for posting on this site at all

 

All good. I just wanted to be certain I didn't say anything off color. I can be very opinionated and direct. Sometimes that is a bad combination.

 

I agree that sometimes it can be taken in a negative way, but I also look at being opinionated and direct as part of expressing just how important something is to you and how passionate you are about it..

So that's not a bad thing at all, but rather as a positive one