2005 Ford Mustang GT is the "Best Muslce Car"
- Thread starter Stang2k5
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
Never seen any exact definitions of a muscle car. There are no high or low limits on weight, wheel base, etc. Speed Channel's Amercan Muscle Car is 75% Mustangs, Camaros, Novas, Javelins, Firebirds, etc. None of which were anywhere even close to what was considered a "full size" car. Maybee they need straightened-out on their definition of what is or is not.
03 SVT VERT said:
I found this on the web and it follows what I've always believed:
That being said, they're are cars that don't fit this mold that are considered muscle cars (i.e. Mach 1's, Boss Stangs). Here's the link:
http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-definition.shtml
It doesn't really matter because the overwhelming majority of that eras "muscle" cars were rather weak in the 0-60 and 1/4 mile when compared to what are the performance models today. A bone stock 05 GT posts #'s that only a few cars then could approximate. The average muscle car of the day ran high 14's-high 15's. The mojority of those cars fell in this bracket and came off the showroom with braking and handling characteristics that are laughable today. Todays factory performance models have noteably more muscle when the hard figures are compared.
I agree pretty much with the definition TomServo92 cited, that muscle cars, at least originally, were mid-sized and larger chassis with big motors that were pretty much focused solely on straight line acceleration. But the definition has blurred somewhat over time.
The Mustang was originally conceived very much in contrast to the large, lumbering (proto-) muscle cars of its day - those big, hulking 352/390/406s sedans back in the day. Fast and powerful, but rather lumbering behemouths otherwise. The Mustand was invisioned to be a smaller, lighter alternative that combined some aspects of a European GT (handling, balance, sophistication) with some American traits (V8 (albeit a small high-winding 260/289), simplicity and affordability). Ford actually was aiming more for the Chevy Corvair rather than the larger "muscle cars" of the day. Thus, the Mustang created its own distinctive niche, the Pony Car.
However, these classes did have blurry boundries.
With the advent of the big block Stangs several years later, the Stang started taking on a more typically muscle car personna by emphasizing simple straight line speed to the detriment of its other dynamic qualities and balance. But other models such as the Boss 302 were very much in the well rounded Pony Car vein.
With the demise of the original big chassis, big motor, RWD muscle cars in the '70's and '80's, the Stang, with its V8 and RWD sort of assumed the role of a muscle car. Given that many of today's Stang enthusiasts grew up in this time frame, naturally they grew to see the Stang purely as a muscle car rather than distinctly as a Pony Car, for better or worse. Probably the worse part is that now a not insubstantial portion of the Stang fan base focus purely on straight line speed, disregarding the broader, somewhat more sophisticated approach to performance that originally defined the Mustang and thus, Pony Cars.
You can hear this dichotomy in the debates over live vs IRS axles on the '05, with the old Pony Car sect seeing IRS as a natural aspect of a modern pony car while the Muscle Car contingent see it as a needless expense, irrelevent to the drag strip. The SVT Cobra seems to try to meld the original Pony Car traits with the muscle car aspects the Stang later assumed: big V8 power yet retaining a high level of sophistication, refinement and dynamic balance. The Mach I, then and now, is probably the most purely "muscle car" Mustangs, being aimed pretty much for stoplight, street and strip.
My hope is that Ford will flesh out the Stang lineup to appeal to all its various personnas: Pony Car (GT, a new Boss), Muscle Car (Mach I) and Sophisticated GT (Cobra).
The Mustang was originally conceived very much in contrast to the large, lumbering (proto-) muscle cars of its day - those big, hulking 352/390/406s sedans back in the day. Fast and powerful, but rather lumbering behemouths otherwise. The Mustand was invisioned to be a smaller, lighter alternative that combined some aspects of a European GT (handling, balance, sophistication) with some American traits (V8 (albeit a small high-winding 260/289), simplicity and affordability). Ford actually was aiming more for the Chevy Corvair rather than the larger "muscle cars" of the day. Thus, the Mustang created its own distinctive niche, the Pony Car.
However, these classes did have blurry boundries.
With the advent of the big block Stangs several years later, the Stang started taking on a more typically muscle car personna by emphasizing simple straight line speed to the detriment of its other dynamic qualities and balance. But other models such as the Boss 302 were very much in the well rounded Pony Car vein.
With the demise of the original big chassis, big motor, RWD muscle cars in the '70's and '80's, the Stang, with its V8 and RWD sort of assumed the role of a muscle car. Given that many of today's Stang enthusiasts grew up in this time frame, naturally they grew to see the Stang purely as a muscle car rather than distinctly as a Pony Car, for better or worse. Probably the worse part is that now a not insubstantial portion of the Stang fan base focus purely on straight line speed, disregarding the broader, somewhat more sophisticated approach to performance that originally defined the Mustang and thus, Pony Cars.
You can hear this dichotomy in the debates over live vs IRS axles on the '05, with the old Pony Car sect seeing IRS as a natural aspect of a modern pony car while the Muscle Car contingent see it as a needless expense, irrelevent to the drag strip. The SVT Cobra seems to try to meld the original Pony Car traits with the muscle car aspects the Stang later assumed: big V8 power yet retaining a high level of sophistication, refinement and dynamic balance. The Mach I, then and now, is probably the most purely "muscle car" Mustangs, being aimed pretty much for stoplight, street and strip.
My hope is that Ford will flesh out the Stang lineup to appeal to all its various personnas: Pony Car (GT, a new Boss), Muscle Car (Mach I) and Sophisticated GT (Cobra).
JonJon
Founding Member
Stang2k5 said:They compared it to last years winners. The other nominees are either new or significantly updated for 2005. The list of nominees also had to meet three further criteria: Base price no higher then 70k; Must be scheduled to go on sale no later than January 2005; Finally, the automakers had to cough up thier wares by mid-September for C&Ds evalution process. They tested 44 cars in all and picked the best for 10 different catagories.
The Mustang won "Best Muslce Car" of 2005
I find it hard to believe that the C6 didn't beat the Mustang. Did they not give a test car?
JonJon
Founding Member
426H
New Member
drmustang said:
Sorry, but you are wrong. By todays standards, we might consider these cars full size but in the 60:es these were mid size cars.
Mopar full size cars were the C-body (Plymouth Fury, Dodge Polara etc.) Mid size cars were the B-body (Plymouth Belvedere, Dodge Coronet etc)
The RoadRunner and GTX were based on the mid size B-body belvedere.
TR03Mach1
Member
No, these were NOT full size cars! They were considered "intermediates", much like the Chevelle, Torino, Skylark, and Tempest were. All cars fitting the muscle car genre in the 60's and early '70's were intermediates, with the possible exception of the Chevy Nova, I don't know if that was classified as intermediate or compact.drmustang said:
TR03Mach1
Member
The only thing holding those cars back were the suspension and tire technology of the day. I've already seen numerous examples of people taking those cars, and updating the suspensions and tires, and they can rip off mid 12's without even breathing hard. Put some modern technology into the motor and trans, and these beasts will be into the 10's and 11's pretty easily.drmustang said:
TR03Mach1 said:
Even the motor technology wasn't anywhere near what we have today. My '73 Lincoln Mark has a 460ci (7.5L) 4v motor that only made around 208hp, the 3.0 V6 in my 2002 Mazda Tribute makes about that. However, i've seen a 460 with modern heads and I think a modern cam making over 450hp.
How would you take a 60's muscle car and put it in the 10's "easily"? Amatuer drag racers convert these vintage machines into drag cars. I personally know several people who have done this. They start with massive weght reduction.TR03Mach1 said:
Then you build or have about a 600 HP engine built. A transmission and rearend that can handle this kind of power needs to be aquired and installed.
Then your ready to mess with different variations of springs, shocks, ladder bars, slicks etc. This process envolves knowledge, time and cash. None of this would matter to you because you can run 10's "easily". Are you a performance enginering genius or do you not have the slightest idea of what you're talking about?
If I was to make a definition of muscle car it would be this...
Car (lol), high output engine (six cylinders or more along as there is at lease 300 horses), geared to haul ass, has four wheels, and a back seat.
I think that can define all the muscle cars out there... And sooooo, yes that would place any high output mustangs in that category... V6's or smaller don't' count. So along as there are at lease 300 ponies under the hood, then you can classify any mustang fitting that description a true muscle car.
Does anyone disagree, and why?
Car (lol), high output engine (six cylinders or more along as there is at lease 300 horses), geared to haul ass, has four wheels, and a back seat.
I think that can define all the muscle cars out there... And sooooo, yes that would place any high output mustangs in that category... V6's or smaller don't' count. So along as there are at lease 300 ponies under the hood, then you can classify any mustang fitting that description a true muscle car.
Does anyone disagree, and why?
Rootus
Officially Addicted
1. Saying you have to have 300 horsepower is tailoring the question to match the answer. Are you suggesting that a 2004 Mustang GT is not a muscle car, but a 2005 is?XJeep said:
2. Horsepower is a crappy definition anyway, since you generate max horsepower relatively high in the RPM range. If you are defining a MUSCLE car, use torque.
Similar threads
