2005 Ford Mustang GT is the "Best Muslce Car"

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.

Click to expand...

I found this on the web and it follows what I've always believed:

Strict Definition of a Muscle Car:


A muscle car, by the strictest definition, is an intermediate sized, performance oriented model, powered by a large V8 engine, at an affordable price. Most of these models were based on "regular" production vehicles. These vehicles are generally not considered muscle cars, even when equipped with large V8s. If there was a high performance version available, it gets the credit, and not the vehicle that it was based on.

Examples: Buick GS, Chevrolete Chevelle SS, Dodge Charger R/T, Ford Torino/Cobra, Plymouth GTX, Plymouth Road Runner, Oldsmobile 442, Pontiac GTO

Click to expand...

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

Plymouth Road Runner and Plymouth GTX were full size cars. They were not intermediates in their day.

drmustang said:

Plymouth Road Runner and Plymouth GTX were full size cars. They were not intermediates in their day.

Click to expand...

I'm just repeating what's on the website. I'm not responsible for the content.

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).

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

Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that the C6 didn't beat the Mustang. Did they not give a test car?

JonJon said:

I find it hard to believe that the C6 didn't beat the Mustang. Did they not give a test car?

Click to expand...

The C6 won best sports car I believe.

hmm. I see.

drmustang said:

Plymouth Road Runner and Plymouth GTX were full size cars. They were not intermediates in their day.

Click to expand...

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.

drmustang said:

Plymouth Road Runner and Plymouth GTX were full size cars. They were not intermediates in their day.

Click to expand...

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:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

XJeep said:

I dont' think they have to be full size car to be considered a muscle car.... Look at the cars like the NOVA. It and a few others are not what I would call afull size car, yet they were considered muscle cars...

Click to expand...

The Nova was a 5 or 6 passenger car, in wagon form they went as high as 9.

TR03Mach1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

TR03Mach1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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?

XJeep said:

Does anyone disagree, and why?

Click to expand...

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.