U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-22-2011, 06:32 PM
 
3,071 posts, read 7,446,659 times
Reputation: 1619

Advertisements

Just so no one can say they were not told.. stangs are not ,have never been and will never be TRUE MUSCLE CARS......sorry..They are what we call performance cars..Its ok to use the word performance....lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2011, 01:20 PM
 
Location: Denver
13,976 posts, read 18,711,525 times
Reputation: 8385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nativechief View Post
Just so no one can say they were not told.. stangs are not ,have never been and will never be TRUE MUSCLE CARS......sorry..They are what we call performance cars..Its ok to use the word performance....lol
Why is that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 01:44 PM
 
1,739 posts, read 4,824,077 times
Reputation: 705
Because they are Pony cars...compact economy cars with performance options. The same can be said for Barracudas, Camaros, Challengers, Firebirds, Javelins, etc. One might argue though that in regards to Mustangs that the 71-73s could be considered muscle cars due to increasing to intermediate size.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 04:43 PM
PDD
 
Location: The Sand Hills of NC
8,776 posts, read 14,146,680 times
Reputation: 11850
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Continental View Post
Because they are Pony cars...compact economy cars with performance options. The same can be said for Barracudas, Camaros, Challengers, Firebirds, Javelins, etc. One might argue though that in regards to Mustangs that the 71-73s could be considered muscle cars due to increasing to intermediate size.
I think you might want to drop the 72-73 Mustang from being called a muscle car.
The 71 was available with the SCJ 429 @ 375HP but for 72-73 the biggest engine was the Cobra Jet 351C 8.0-1 Cr and a net 248 HP @ 5,400 . Not much muscle there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2011, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Pikesville, MD
5,229 posts, read 11,490,489 times
Reputation: 4846
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDD View Post
I think you might want to drop the 72-73 Mustang from being called a muscle car.
The 71 was available with the SCJ 429 @ 375HP but for 72-73 the biggest engine was the Cobra Jet 351C 8.0-1 Cr and a net 248 HP @ 5,400 . Not much muscle there.
The '72 351CJ was rated at 266@5400, but 301lb ft of torque, so it wasn't too bad off. The 351HO only had about 290 lb ft of torque, but 275 hp. Also, the rating system of the hp was changed, to include accessories (SAE Net, vs the earlier SAE gross). That 275 hp in '72 was approx. equivalent to 345hp under the old rating system, so really, the 351 didn't make noticeably less actual power (only about 30 less than the 429CJ big block of '70-71), it was merely rated different.

Of course, you never know with Ford in that era, as the 429 Cobra Jet was rated at 370 hp, the 429 Super Cobra Jet was rated at 375 hp, and the BOSS 429 was ALSO rated at 375 hp...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 04:12 PM
 
Location: Denver
13,976 posts, read 18,711,525 times
Reputation: 8385
This is how I interpret it: Due to advances in technology and emissions standards the cars are no longer "muscle cars?" A 2000 model can flex its muscles just as hard as a '65.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 05:52 PM
 
Location: Harwington CT
240 posts, read 1,167,467 times
Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Continental View Post
Because they are Pony cars...compact economy cars with performance options. The same can be said for Barracudas, Camaros, Challengers, Firebirds, Javelins, etc. One might argue though that in regards to Mustangs that the 71-73s could be considered muscle cars due to increasing to intermediate size.
Ehhhh wouldnt exactly say that..... "compact economy cars with performance options".

Ex: the Chrysler E body ('Cuda and Challenger) hardly compact. Matter of fact, the Pony car designation was coined shortly after the original (64 Mustang) went public. Meant nothing more than the sporting new concept of a long hood, short deck design. The "mid-sized" musclecars were just more traditional styling with both the deck and hood length in proportion to each other.

Back to the MoPar E-bodys...take notice, open the hood side by side of a 1970 Plymouth GTX 440 and a 1970 Challenger R/T and you will clearly see the engine bays are quite identicle in width. Also, you could swap out a complete rear end from one car to the other.

My Plymouth Duster340 on the other hand is actually considered for the time period to be a "compact" car. Same with another outrageous performance compact by the Chevy guys as the Nova SS. The earlier Mopar A-body in the compact line was the early Barracuda (Valiant). The Dodge compact performance model came from the "Dart", and in '71 Dodge mimicked the popular Duster with the "Demon". Ironically the Duster and Chevelle and Olds 442, the Nova and the Buick GS shared the similar and sleek "coke bottle" design. Swoopy, and muscular body desogn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 10:42 PM
 
3,071 posts, read 7,446,659 times
Reputation: 1619
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
This is how I interpret it: Due to advances in technology and emissions standards the cars are no longer "muscle cars?" A 2000 model can flex its muscles just as hard as a '65.
The ones in 65 had soul.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 11:52 PM
 
Location: Eastern Missouri
3,054 posts, read 5,031,003 times
Reputation: 1377
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom62 View Post
If ya can swing it, I wouldnt hesitate. You will need to contact Schumachers for engine mounts and adapters to squeeze that new Hemi into an A body however.

Front and mid motor plates. It's a tube chassis car. The rear tires are little 33x16.5 x 15 Hoosiers on double beadlock Convo Pro rims.
Attached Thumbnails
American Muscle Cars(from the past to the present) vs Exotic European Cars(from past to present)-cuda-beginning.bmp  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2011, 01:17 AM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
22,152 posts, read 26,620,787 times
Reputation: 6441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nativechief View Post
The ones in 65 had soul.
And very little plastic. And you can actually see the engine!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top