2005 Ford Mustang GT is the "Best Muslce Car"

03 SVT VERT said:
The Nova was a 5 or 6 passenger car, in wagon form they went as high as 9.


Ya so does a VW golf, or Ford festiva, can hold 5 people, hell we got six in my moms lol.... but they are far from fullsize... those old nova are not fullsize they are Midsize... anywho, my point was that not all muscle cars are full size
 
  • Sponsors (?)


Rootus said:
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?

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.

Good point, I agree with that fully
 
Rootus said:
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?

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.


But as an after thought, im not sure if it matters or not if I said the 05 is a muscle car or not over the 04 (not including the SVT or Mach)... Because there are many instances in life where something just might barely fall short of something else by definition...

Or sometimes there are a few things out there that can fit a description of a definition fully, but still not be the same... one example of that is FIRE...If you read what the definition of life is, you will find out that FIRE fits all the requirements, but that does not mean its alive. (lo...l or does it? mwahhahahahhaaaaa)

So anyways Its not a far off notion to say one or the other could or could not be a muscle car or not, just for that fact i stated above alone.

Anyways to sum things up...sometimes it can be really hairy to define all things by definitions alone... I know that sounds funny to say, but meh, sometimes somethings just don't make sence it seems no matter how you look at it.
 
03 SVT VERT said:
A muscle car wasn't just defined by power, if you grew up in the 60's/70's then you would know a muscle car was always a full size car (5 or 6 seats), while a pony car was always a smaller car with 4 seats. A pony car kinda filled the gap between american sports car and american muscle car. The new GTO and the new mustang only have 4 seats, so both are really pony cars. The new 300C/Hemi Magnum is one of the few cars produced today that is a true muscle car: affordable, powerfull, full sized.

Hey! this is an interesting discussion. But if you want to broaden your horizons and find out what I believe is a real muscle car.

Muscle cars that share a competitive 40 year racing heritage with the Mustang.

Take a look and browse http://www.falcon-vs-mustang.com/ford.html

Cheers.
 
XJeep said:
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?

I disagree, that would make the new mustang, new GTO, Camaro, ect a muscle car, when they are clearly pony cars.

American Muscle car:
car
high output motor in performance form
Gearing for accceleration
4 wheels
more then 4 passenger and larger then a pony car
(relitively affordable?)

Pony car:
car
high output motor in performance form
Gearing for accceleration, but also designed with the ability to handle in mind
4 wheels
4 passenger
affordable

Unless you were to argue that the muscle car definition includes the muscle cars of old as well as pony cars, then you would have to include cars like the WRX STI, EVO, ect in the muscle car definition.
 
XJeep said:
Ya so does a VW golf, or Ford festiva, can hold 5 people, hell we got six in my moms lol.... but they are far from fullsize... those old nova are not fullsize they are Midsize... anywho, my point was that not all muscle cars are full size


But, when I said full size I defined it as being holding 5 or more passengers, that way the nova would fit the definition.
 
Being raised in the 60's, I remember the def. of pony car being long hood, short trunk, 4 seater, cars such as Mustang, Firebird, Camaro,ETC.
& muscle cars being the Fairlane, SS, GTO, SuperBird, Datona's, ETC. It was very explict in the 60's that Mustangs were Pony cars. Ok enough history lessons for 1 day, or am I just giving up my age?
 
iwanna05 said:
Being raised in the 60's, I remember the def. of pony car being long hood, short trunk, 4 seater, cars such as Mustang, Firebird, Camaro,ETC.
& muscle cars being the Fairlane, SS, GTO, SuperBird, Datona's, ETC. It was very explict in the 60's that Mustangs were Pony cars. Ok enough history lessons for 1 day, or am I just giving up my age?


Exactly like I remember it. Then again like someone mentioned before the definition changes with time. To a 12 year old kid today they would see no problem in calling a WRX or EVO a muscle car, but to guys who, lets say, owned a Motion Chevelle they bought in '73 it would make their ears bleed.
 
Gloveperson said:
(although I do believe the GNX was a muscle car)

The GN/GNX was the last "true" musclecar IMO. It was a ho-hum family car that became a legend thanks to having way too much power shoehorned under the hood (even though it wasn't a V8).
 
drmustang said:
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.
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?
Without getting involved in a pissing match, yes it can be done, no it can't be done with every model muscle car ever produced. Here are just 2 examples of late 60's muscle cars that have turned in times in the 10 second bracket with just minor modifications to their suspensions and the addition of slicks. Another car very capable of the same feat is the 1969 Chevy Camaro ZL-1. With nothing more than a set of slicks and an aggressive tune, it was capable of 11.6 @122.
1968 Plymouth Barracuda 426 Hemi V8 425 10.5 130
1968 Dodge Hemi Dart 426 Hemi V8 425 10.5 129
 
Unless you were to argue that the muscle car definition includes the muscle cars of old as well as pony cars, then you would have to include cars like the WRX STI, EVO, ect in the muscle car definition.

Interesting concept in that cars like the STi and EVO might sort of be considered a form of neo muscle car, i.e., a smallish sedan body stuffed with a lot of horsepower. But obviously, the difference ends there as the overall performance goals of these cars are far more ambitious and broader than a quick dash down a strip and thus, their approach and hardware is quite different than simply stuffing a big V8 under the hood. Rather, they utilize a NASA level of modern, high tech engineering rather than the broad axe method of a '60's muscle car. Diffrerent, a different driving experience to be sure, but highly effective. While a few of the fastest old school muscle cars could take them on the strip, these new rides would evicerate them in any and every other performance measure.

Probably should come up with a new moniker for them. Rally car? Road rats? Econo Rods?
 
iwanna05 said:
Being raised in the 60's, I remember the def. of pony car being long hood, short trunk, 4 seater, cars such as Mustang, Firebird, Camaro,ETC.
& muscle cars being the Fairlane, SS, GTO, SuperBird, Datona's, ETC. It was very explict in the 60's that Mustangs were Pony cars. Ok enough history lessons for 1 day, or am I just giving up my age?


What about the mustangs such as the old bosses, and mach's.... lots of people think of them as muscle cars, but they still have that long hood, short trunk deal going on

Like I said once before, something's are just very hard to place in a certain class or category since they fit so close to both descriptions, and can sometimes even fit into both as a definition.... its a very hairy ground we are looking at here. I think its one of those things that can be argued until the cows come home, and yet even still there will not be a settlement in this discussion.
 
TR03Mach1 said:
Without getting involved in a pissing match, yes it can be done, no it can't be done with every model muscle car ever produced. Here are just 2 examples of late 60's muscle cars that have turned in times in the 10 second bracket with just minor modifications to their suspensions and the addition of slicks. Another car very capable of the same feat is the 1969 Chevy Camaro ZL-1. With nothing more than a set of slicks and an aggressive tune, it was capable of 11.6 @122.
1968 Plymouth Barracuda 426 Hemi V8 425 10.5 130
1968 Dodge Hemi Dart 426 Hemi V8 425 10.5 129
Goes something like this: Yeah, like, my uncles, buddies, cousin took his bone stock '69 mach1 to the strip and did 12.5. Half a case later it was 11.1, by last call he was runnin with the pro-stockers.
 
I can't even get up the motivation to stop in to Pontiac and look at a GTO. I was all excited and ready to get one when they were announced. WHAT a disappointment that car turned into! I do not understand the looks of that car. All GM interiors and exteriors are at the bottom of the heap, with the possible exception of a Cadillac fopr someone.


Also, the C300 is a Muscle car.
 
Zedoc said:
I can't even get up the motivation to stop in to Pontiac and look at a GTO. I was all excited and ready to get one when they were announced. WHAT a disappointment that car turned into! I do not understand the looks of that car. All GM interiors and exteriors are at the bottom of the heap, with the possible exception of a Cadillac fopr someone.


Also, the C300 is a Muscle car.


Yes, it is obvious that you haven't seen the interior of a GTO. Furthermore, They are made by GM from a Holden Monaro plant in Australia. I am not disappointed with mine. They are actually quite a bit better than what you are babbling on about. I understand the looks might not appeal to all, but the engine and drivetrain are proven...nobody can argue that. The lines are smooth and sleek vs the 05 stang's more aggressive retro look. Both cars are nice, to each his own.
 
The Nova was considered a compact (I drove a 72 SS for many years). The original salt box Chevy II Nova (62-67) was built to compete with the Ford Falcon, which was also a compact. Someone said something about fitting 6 people in a Nova, I guess its possible but you wouldn't want to do that for long (nine in the wagon? no way).

Funny about old performance vs new. I watched that dream car garage musclecar shootout again the other day. The best 1/4 they could pull with the 69 Boss 429 was 13.7 (can't remember the ET). Unless those guys just can't drive, the new bone stock GT can run with what was considered for many years to be the biggest baddest Mustang ever built, thats progress.