Well, I don't consider my 65 289 powered Mustang a muscle car. When I think of muscle Mustangs I think of the big block boys. Cammer, 427,428,429, 396....you get the picture.
Does this mean that a 1964 Ford Fairlane SportsCoupe with a 289 HP engine (plus some trick stuff) was not a 'Goat Killer', was not a 'muscle' car? And I guess it means that I got to go back to Massachusetts and apologize to the 'Goats' I whupped on, both on the street and strip. Do the owners of 65 and 66 GT-350's need to hang their heads in shame because they are 'strong no more'? And my 66 'K' car is now classified as a 'former muscle' car by you? Shame, Glen, shame, hang your head in shame. Jim
That is exactly what it means. Not even the 289 Cobra was a 'muscle' car. SPEED had nothing to do with the term. The 427 S/C Cobra was NOT a 'MUSCLE' car. A 'muscle' car was a mid-sized big block powered car. Period. What is so difficult about that? I hate to say this but this is almost like talking to my 4 year old granddaughter. Tell her the same thing over and over, and it isn't complicated, and she still questions the answer. God, deliver me from people who will not listen.
ONE more time.....a 'MUSCLE' car was a MID-SIZED, BIG-BLOCK POWERED, AFFORDABLE 5 OR 6 SEAT car starting with the GTO option on a LeMans in 1964 and continuing until the last BIG-BLOCK, MID-SIZED, HIGH-PERFORMANCE car was offered for sale to the public.
Does this mean that a 1964 Ford Fairlane SportsCoupe with a 289 HP engine (plus some trick stuff) was not a 'Goat Killer', was not a 'muscle' car? And I guess it means that I got to go back to Massachusetts and apologize to the 'Goats' I whupped on, both on the street and strip. Do the owners of 65 and 66 GT-350's need to hang their heads in shame because they are 'strong no more'? And my 66 'K' car is now classified as a 'former muscle' car by you? Shame, Glen, shame, hang your head in shame. Jim
That is exactly what it means. Not even the 289 Cobra was a 'muscle' car. SPEED had nothing to do with the term. The 427 S/C Cobra was NOT a 'MUSCLE' car. A 'muscle' car was a mid-sized big block powered car. Period. What is so difficult about that? I hate to say this but this is almost like talking to my 4 year old granddaughter. Tell her the same thing over and over, and it isn't complicated, and she still questions the answer. God, deliver me from people who will not listen.
ONE more time.....a 'MUSCLE' car was a MID-SIZED, BIG-BLOCK POWERED, AFFORDABLE 5 OR 6 SEAT car starting with the GTO option on a LeMans in 1964 and continuing until the last BIG-BLOCK, MID-SIZED, HIGH-PERFORMANCE car was offered for sale to the public.
Yeah "big block" is the opperative word. Our little 289's were just pony cars. I6's were just Mustangs that couldn't get out of the way of their shadow.
Hi again. A person might be able to argue that a hipo Fairlane isn't truly a muscle car without sounding stupid, but I just don't see how that would be the case for a t-bolt or a 63 1/2 R code galaxie 500. Or a 64 hemi belvedere, or any of the stage III max wedge cars, or a 62/63 408 tri-power, or.........
I do believe the Thunder-Bolt was an A/FX strip only aluminum bumper, plexi-glass side window, no high-beam head lights (used for the ram air ducts) DRAG CAR. NOT street legal. Said so right on the id plate. And the other cars you listed were behemoths based on full sized cars.
Mustang, Camaro, Barracuda............PONY car. GTO, SS-396, 442, Road-Runner.......MUSCLE car Cobra, XKE, tr-250,..........................SPORTS-CAR Galaxie, Fury, Chrysler 300...............full sized cars with great big motors. Too heavy to keep-up.
It was the CLASS of the car not the SPEED of the car. Kind of like a M-B S-class LUXURY car that has a 600 hp engine.....it is first and foremost a LUXURY car....it just happens to be very fast.
Dose that explain it in term we can all understand?
Hi again. Not to be trying to make a big deal out of it, but the mopar 'B' bodies were mid-sized cars, unlike the Chrysler 300s and galaxies. The t-bolts were drag cars but the fairlanes had an available 427 option starting in 66. Then there was the stage I, II, and III max wedge. Mopar introduced it's stageI 413 max wedge in '62, and it was available in a variety full and mid sized dodges and plymouths.In 63 the stage II max wedge bumped the displacement up to 426, which the stage III also had, and they pretty much reigned supreme until the introduction of the 426 Hemi. A tri-powered goat had absolutely no business lining up with a hemi belevedere. Many seem to think of the goat as the first true muscle car, but by any reasonable definition, mopar beat them to the punch by a couple of years. Ford started putting the Special Power big block 352 in mid sized cars in 1960. It isn't really as clear cut as some seem to believe on what the first actual muscle car was. The mustangs weren't muscle cars, neither were the foriegn fireballs like Ferrari or Cisitalia, but I really don't see how folks could exclude the mopars. Yet, somehow they do.
Hi again. Not to be trying to make a big deal out of it, but the mopar 'B' bodies were mid-sized cars, unlike the Chrysler 300s and galaxies. The t-bolts were drag cars but the fairlanes had an available 427 option starting in 66. Then there was the stage I, II, and III max wedge. Mopar introduced it's stageI 413 max wedge in '62, and it was available in a variety full and mid sized dodges and plymouths.In 63 the stage II max wedge bumped the displacement up to 426, which the stage III also had, and they pretty much reigned supreme until the introduction of the 426 Hemi. A tri-powered goat had absolutely no business lining up with a hemi belevedere. Many seem to think of the goat as the first true muscle car, but by any reasonable definition, mopar beat them to the punch by a couple of years. Ford started putting the Special Power big block 352 in mid sized cars in 1960. It isn't really as clear cut as some seem to believe on what the first actual muscle car was. The mustangs weren't muscle cars, neither were the foriegn fireballs like Ferrari or Cisitalia, but I really don't see how folks could exclude the mopars. Yet, somehow they do.
I think the term "muscle car" as used these days comes to mean basically any American built car with a V8. Though that's a result perhaps of no clear definition out there that most people knew of for years. Yeah, Mustangs(with the exception of the BB Shelbys perhaps) are technically pony cars.
_____________________________
Who cares how much horsepower it has, all that matters is how fast it goes!
Best run 13.23 at 106.97mph with a 2.183 60' Times from before tune and driver mod.
i was at my friends house and there is a a big swamp down behind his house, getting down there is no big deal so we got in the bronco and drove down there and went through a few mudholes, one of my other friends then decided it would be cool to back it a little bit into the swamp and get a vid of it driving out
Hi again. It should be pointed out that Mikethebike is correct in that the definition of a 'muscle car' has pretty much always been the manufacturer's biggest motor shoe horned into a mid-sized car. That's why it has always struck me as odd that people call the Pontiac GTO the first true muscle car. Technically, the Pontiac 389/400 motor isn't even a big block. Certainly not in the same sense that Ford's FE motors, Mopar's big block wedge heads or even G.M.'s 409. GTO wasn't even a car model for the first couple of years. It was an option package that they had to back-door because the big executives didn't even like racing or fast cars. The Mopar 'A' body cars like the Valiant and Ford's Falcon were compact cars. They only coined the term 'pony car' to describe compact cars that were quite a bit sportier than your typical compact, and used the word pony instead of fish because the mustang was far and away the most popular, even though the barracuda came out in the beginning of the regular 64 model year. But, back to the topic, I don't drive mustangs because they were the fastest car on the road. They weren't even close. If 'go fast' was all that mattered to me I would be driving a Mopar with a 426 Hemi. But, with the exception of the 'E' bodies, Mopars are hideous, so I don't drive one. The 'E' bodies, while actually kind of pretty, are some really flimsy, rattley cars, and I don't like riding down the road and having something just fall off of my car. Mustangs are pretty. They are also reliable. DCohen's ex-girlfriend wasn't as far off as she might have sounded to some. At least, not by my way of looking at things. Imagine that. That's the kind of car I like also. The pretty kind. But it also needs to be reliable and quick enough to not embarrass me.
< Message edited by VeronicaScz -- 5/28/2007 11:46:06 PM >
Printable Version
RE: A Psychological Assessment of Classic Mustang Owners - 
Well, I don't consider my 65 289 powered Mustang a muscle car. When I think of muscle Mustangs I think of the big block boys. Cammer, 427,428,429, 396....you get the picture.
A person might be able to argue that a hipo Fairlane isn't truly a muscle car without sounding stupid, but I just don't see how that would be the case for a t-bolt or a 63 1/2 R code galaxie 500. Or a 64 hemi belvedere, or any of the stage III max wedge cars, or a 62/63 408 tri-power, or.........
