bob

Muscle cars were originally intermediate or large two-door cars fitted with large engines and generally the cheapest car that could be had with the largest engine. Whether they could be tweaked or not was irrelevant.

I guess? Then I suppose per your definition any Mustang after 1985 cannot be a "musclecar" since fuel injection and for the time fairly advanced computers were introduced in 1986.

I don't see where having computers control a lot of functions on the car render it unworthy of being called a muscle car? Instead of jets and power valves or adjusting a set of points or changing out the octane bar in the distributor (anybody remember that in the early FI days on a Mustang) you now can change fuel and ignition directly in the computer with a much greater degree of control.

Modern cars can still be modified much the same as older cars; suspensions still swap out, brakes still swap out, full exhausts can be installed, larger throttle bodies take the place of bigger carbs, injector replace jets, heads ported, blocks bored and stroked and so on.

Computers have just allowed an unprecedented level of precision in the control of the car in combination with things like variable valve timing, variable geometry intakes and exhaust.

As for Modern muscle and Mustangs in particular it seems to mostly come down to intent. The Boss, Bullitt and GT certainly follow the Pony car formula and the Mach1 and GT500 adhere more faithfully to the Muscle car formula.

The GT500 especially is every bit the muscle car its 60's namesake was as it was stuffed with the largest engine Ford could fit between the strut towers and still go down the assembly line.

rhumb

Bob sums things up pretty well, re. muscle cars, pony cars and Mustangs which have straddled that line to varying degrees over its lifespan. In general, musclecar tends to connote a largish, brutish, somewhat overpowered car whereas only some Mustangs fell into that characterization.

Indeed, the 2015 Stang more than matches the raw speed and power of most previous "muscle car" Mustangs while retaining the balance and finesse of the original pony car Mustangs. Basically, the best of both worlds.

JeffreyDJ

First, without quoting: I agree with Bob 100% and rhumb.

Secondly, my view is just like the car itself, the definition of those segments is going to evolve as well. I would not change the definition of supercar. Those cars have evolved to another level, but they're still supercars. The bar moved, the definition didn't.

The car and the technology pushing it forward (and keeping it on the road) are going to continue to change and evolve. And that's a good thing for all of us.

Side note: That's why all of these EB haters (and V6 haters) make me chuckle. There's room for everyone at the table and all of the engines offered in the 'Stang are worthy of the name from a performance standpoint - and that's not something that can be said across the board for all of the Mustang's competitors.

TripleBlack14

I refer to newer Mustangs, Camaros, and Challengers as muscle cars simply because it sounds cool and it is convenient to do so. And an argument can be made that they are indeed muscle cars, abliet 21st century ones. Stack them against 60's and early 70's iron though is like comparing apples to socket wrenches.

The first gen Mustangs, Barracudas, and Camaros were really called pony cars. But once the Big Three started dropping in 428's, Rat motors and Hemis, all bets were off. If a car was designed to appeal to drag racers and younger folk, it was called a muscle car regardless of body size or engine displacement.

Look at all the choices available...Mustangs, Fairlanes, Galaxies, even some Falcons. Then we had GTO's, big block Bonnevilles, Firebirds, Camaros, Novas, Chevelles, Impalas, Buicks, 442's, Darts, Cudas, Road Runners, Satelites, Chargers.....hell, even the AMX was a serious contender in the market. At any given time there were dozens of base choices, and dozens more once you started playing around with model variations and factory upgrades like a COPO, a Mopar Six Pack, or the SCJ package.

Today there are just three as a basis...four if you want to count a 4 door Charger as a muscle car. So in the context of the times, they are in fact muscle cars because they're all we have and we're lucky to have them.

boomer46

I'm a product of the 60's. To get 435 HP out of a lil ol 305 CID (may be a 302 but conversion chart says 305) is a big improvement in my opinion. I don't care about 700 HP. I don't have $60,000 to buy a Hellcat and even if I did, couldn't afford the gas & insurance. For the average Joe, the price of the new Mustang is a pretty good deal and the HP for the street is almost overkill but I'm not complaining at all. Of course, just MHO.

3point7

Actually the original idea behind "muscle cars" was to take a small car and put as big an engine as one could fit in it. I know that by today's size standards what we consider traditional muscle cars are fairly large in size. However, back in the mid to late 1960's those were the small cars of their day. When the Mustang came out in 1965 it was categorized as a compact car. Now if you were to park a 1965 Mustang next to a modern day compact car you might find that hard to believe but keep in mind that back at that time a family sedan was really huge.

Peter Henshaw who literally wrote the book on muscle cars puts it like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car
A lot of people will tell you that the Mustang was never a "muscle car" but instead it was "pony car". Actually the term "Pony Car" was first coined by Car Life magazine in 1964 in an article about the new Ford Mustang. Pony Car was never an official designation of Ford. It is rather like calling a Volkswagen Beetle "the bug". By the height of the muscle car era the Mustang was definitely regarded as a muscle car in some of its various packages that featured big block engines and lots of horsepower. Of course the Mustang still offered the entry level six cylinder and smaller V8 packages as well as these have always been the bulk of Mustang sales making the high end versions financially possible for Ford.

I personally think that today's Mustang / Camaro / Challenger are not really "muscle cars" in the traditional sense of the term. Instead they are better described as grand touring cars. Make no mistake, however, that modern versions of the Mustang / Camaro / Challenger will easily outperform just about any muscle car from the late 60's stock v stock. Heck even today's V6 models would easily outrun and out handle most of the cars from the height of the muscle car era. We have certainly come a long way.

DFV

The boys at Road & Track not only believe that the 2015 Mustang GT has caught up, it has surpassed both the Challenger Hellcat and the Camaro Z/28 in their annual Performance Car of the Year competition.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...r-of-the-year/

That said, Car and Driver, named the 2015 Mustang GT one of this year's 10 Best, neither the Challenger Hellcat nor the Camaro Z/28 made the list.

Best comment: Car and Driver on the Hellcat - "It's got one trick. It's an awesome trick."

bt4

Without question, the offerings from Ford, Chevy, and Dodge are the best yet. With the technological advances of the past 50 years, they should be. They are far safer, and much better handling. Outrun? Maybe. I saw where MT got an 11.7 out of a stock Hellcat. A blower-induced 707-hp supplies a lot of muscle. But the '64 Ford Thunderbolt was capable of an 11.6 quarter.

The Thunderbolt wasn't blown, but did sport dual quad carbs mounted on a 427, dropped into a Fairlane body--it was street legal--barely. Anyone with the money could buy one from their local Ford dealer. Ford rated it at 425HP, though most people were suspicious that the actual output was a touch over 500. The new Hellcat is supposed to be able to touch or drop below 11 seconds with drag slicks. Check out this video of a 64 Thunderbolt equipped with drag slicks:
Thanks for posting about the Henshaw book--I'll have to check it out.

3point7

Thanks bt4. Yes that's some serious power. You would be very, very hard pressed to get a modern day Mustang to jerk the front wheels off the ground like that. And two 4 barrel carbs may not be a supercharger but its got to be the next best thing. It has to be easily pulling in over 1000 CFM no problem.
There were indeed some cars in the muscle car era that were scary fast. I was just making reference to your "average" sort of muscle car as it were. Things like a Road Runner, GTO, 442, or 429 Mustang, etc etc.

RedGTs

I see what you're saying but Saleen, Steeda, and Roush are not Ford/SVT. The new SVT GT350 won't touch a '14 GT500 and you can bet a Scat Pack RT will be a lot cheaper than the new GT350. I like the new GT a lot, I just didn't expect it to be arguably slower in a straight line than the 2014 GT.

m05fastbackGT

How can you even compare the new 16 Shelby GT350 which is naturally aspirated over the 14 GT500 which is obviously forced inducted ?

That's like comparing apples to oranges or bringing a knife to a gunfight

As for the scat pack R/T being a lot cheaper over the new GT350 is concerned ? Until we have an official confirmation from Ford, everything is just purely speculation at this point..

I'm also not aware of the new 15 GT being slower over the outgoing 2014 GT in a straight line either..

So if you have actual test results ? I'd be very interested in looking them over, as I find that very difficult to believe..

RedGTs

You honestly believe the new Gt350 will start off its pricing in the $37k range?? C'mon, you're dreaming! That's where the Sact Pack begins. You actually made my point regarding the GT500. I was comparing the outgoing SVT car to the upcoming SVT car and how the new one won't touch it in the power department. The new GT on its best day is AS fast as the 2014 GT when it should be faster. If you want test numbers on the new GT just google it. The car has already been reviewed and the numbers for the '13-'14 GTs are readily available.

Five Oh Brian

Looks like everyone has more or less already chimed in on whether a modern Mustang is a musclecar, but here are my two cents as the prior owner of an iconic musclecar.


Most people can agree that the first volume built musclecar was the 1964 Pontiac GTO. Big engine stuffed into an intermediate sized car. I owned a 1968 GTO for ten years way back 30 years ago. I did a lot of the popular hot rod stuff to that car: balanced/blueprinted 400 cubic inch big block Pontiac bored .030" over, ram air induction, big cam, carburetor jetted to perfection, distributor curved properly, big stall converter & shift kit in the TH400 trans, 3.90 saf-t-trac rear end, 2.5" custom exhaust, etc. This "big" by today's standards car weighed 3900 lbs with me in it and with drag slicks ran the 1/4 mile in the 13.60's @ 99 mph.


Fast forward to my '14 Mustang GT. Similar mods to my '68 GTO: tuning to optimize fuel & spark, big stall converter, 4,10 gears, and off-road mid pipe. My '14 GT weighs 3850 lbs with me in it (just 50 lbs lighter than my '68 GTO) and with drag radials runs the 1/4 mile in the 11.70's @ 117 mph thoroughly trouncing my '68 GTO by a long shot!


Mustangs used to be small, pony cars, but have evolved into seriously quick & bigger musclecars over the years. Especially true for the 2011+ Coyotes that all run in the 12's bone stock which only the fastest of the '60's musclecars could do back in the day. I consider my Mustang to be a true musclecar as it is certainly much more muscular than the '68 GTO I owned that was certainly considered a musclecar.

Critical Mass

What Ford is doing with their engines is pretty awesome IMO. Other companies have to go with much higher displacement to put out similar numbers. Ford is working on advancing the technology of existing displacement engines.

This is a first year new model from the ground up. Give it a year. They rarely introduce the big guns in the first model year.

5.0 Liter engine, 302 cubic inches producing 435 horsepower. That's efficiency and technology at work. Ford has already said they are moving in a different direction than Dodge and Chevrolet are with their Challenger and Camaro, and it is apparent. The 302 has been one of the most efficient engines made. Ever... And that continues to this day.

They're all muscle cars, but there's only ONE pony car. the Ford Mustang.

This is a transitional period for Ford as they bring are their special vehicle teams under one roof. SVT, Ford Racing, The Focus RS teams are all being brought under one global umbrella, Ford Performance. Chevy (except for the Corvette) and Dodge are doing nothing under the hood to improve their technology and eek out more performance out of smaller engines. Ford is the only one doing that of the Big Three.

And the starting price has been leaked for the new GT350 at around 55k.

And so what that the new 2015 Mustang is a 10th of a second slower in a straight line than the 2014. That's all due to weight and the rear axle changes Ford made. Ford is trying to compete on a global scale. Dodge and Chevy aren't even in their sights anymore. They are attempting to compete with Euro Sports cars now.

The 60's version of a muscle car was to stuff a huge engine in it without upgrading suspension, brakes, etc. So you had a car that was great at straight line performance, but couldn't handle a curve for crap then so be it. Today's Musclecars, and the Pony Car, can do both.

And seriously, what good is 700 horsepower on the street? It's a one trick "pony".

TripleBlack14

Agreed whole heartedly Brian. I prefer to view our cars in the context of the 21st century and not compare them with the Golden Age of the 60's and early 70's. Completely different animals that have shared DNA.

I don't know the demographics of S197 owners, but I'm willing to bet that many of us are in the 50 year old + range and we grew up in an era when muscle cars ruled the earth, snorting fire and scaring the bejesus out of children and old folk. I think the old guys (that's you and me) are more likely to refer to them as muscle cars than perhaps younger owners. Besides, at my age the only signifcant muscle I have is sitting in my garage.

Time will tell if Ford's marketing will bring in a whole lot of much younger S550 owners, and then they'll probably call them something different. And that's OK, as long as Ford keeps stuffing 420 hp+ V8's into our Mustangs.

RedGTs

Small detail I know but the current Coyote 5.0 is not a 302. It closer to 305. In fact, the old 302 actually wasn't 5.0 liters as advertised; it was really a 4.9. So, th song should really go: "Rollin' in my 4.9...."

2k7gtcs

Not true

It's 302 c.i.

But it's 4951cc instead of old 4942cc

m05fastbackGT

If you honestly believe your going to be able to buy your 392 scat pack for $37k ? Then it's you who's dreaming.. As the stealerships are going to add their ADM markups, just as GM and Ford do when it comes to they're SE cars..

As for making your point regarding the comparison over the GT350 not being able to touch the outgoing GT500 goes ?

You have no point, as the upcoming GT350 wasn't intended to compete with the outgoing 14 GT500 to begin with.. So the point you attempted to bring up is irrelevant anyhow..


As for you claim regarding the 14 GT being faster over the new 15 GT ?

Yeah ! I did your google search and just as other members have posted, the outgoing 14 GT was just a mere 10th of a second quicker over the new 15 GT, so what, big friggin deal..

Perhaps if you bothered to take into consideration the new 15GT weighs slightly heavier over the outgoing 14 GT ? you would then understand why, as the new S550 now has an IRS, larger brakes, new front suspension, plus forged internals..

And yet despite all these upgrades over the outgoing 14 GT, the new 15 GT came in only a lousy 10th of a second slower.. WOW, so once again, what's your point ?

Personally with all the new features and all new platform, as far as I'm concerned, the benefits far outweigh your disadvantage comparison in which you brought up.. Therefore I'll take that 10th of a second slower anytime..

With that said, if you feel the 392 scat pack is the more superior and better overall bargain over the new S550 Mustang ?


Just as Lee Iacocca used to say, if you can find a better car ? Then buy it

70monte

Right now Dodge has the Mustang beat in the HP wars because the GT350 or GT500 is not out yet and I've not seen anything that suggests that either cars are going to have more HP than 707.

While I like the looks of the 15 Mustang, I think the Challenger is a better looking car and I even like how it looks over my 14. For a variety of reasons, I chose the Mustang over the Challenger last year when I was looking to buy a performance type car but I still would like to own one some day.

For me personally having the most HP or being able to go around a track faster doesn't mean much to me. I want something that looks good and has enough power to make driving the vehicle fun. I'm glad that Ford, Chevy, and Dodge are all upping their games as it just makes it better for us consumers.

Wayne

m05fastbackGT

So if you feel the Challenger is so superior in performance along with being a better looking car over the Mustang ?

Then why did you choose the Mustang over the Challenger for to begin with