Is the foxbody considered a muscle car?
- Thread starter Theiceman
- Start date
Pony car.
Muscle cars are the full size, mostly big block cars of the 60s and 70s.
Pony cars are smaller lighter and for the most part have smaller displacement v8 engines.
Muscle cars are the full size, mostly big block cars of the 60s and 70s.
Pony cars are smaller lighter and for the most part have smaller displacement v8 engines.
Always wondered about that when Chevrolet started stuffing 396's and 427's in Camaro's, Ford put 428's, and Boss 429's in Mustangs, and Chrysler put 440's, and 426 Hemis in Challengers...
According to Summit its a Muscle car . At least thats what I push on . The cowl makes it a muscle car lol...
What if I had a three gauge pod on my pillar . Does that count . Probably more than a giant tach.
- Mar 2, 2015
- 6,945
- 5,816
- 213
That would make your car a ricer...
I still look at the size of the vehicle as the main criteria. The mustang started small, got big for a few years and started stuffing big blocks in, but then they went small again.
But then again...I’m not the person setting criteria, just my opinion
I say it's the last muscle car. I have told this story before, but I'll say it again. I didn't notice it until I bought a similar year Ford Escort. After driving that escort for awhile, I started to notice things. The interior was virtually identical, the window cranks were identical, the fender bolts were identical. The Foxbody did not come with good brakes, or ABS, etc. Quality wise, that Ford Escort was identical to a Foxbody Mustang. Everything about the two cars; the choice of materials, the way fabric was integrated into the door panels, etc. The Foxbody is a basic Ford 2 door coupe with a more powerful engine, and a better axle, and nothing more. From my perception, that's the definition of a Muscle Car; what you need to go faster, and nothing more. That all changed in 1994.
Kurt
Kurt
91TwighlightGT
20+ Year Stangneter 
This debate comes up from time to time, and I think the basic answer is that in order for something to be designated as a "Muscle car" then there would have to be a standard definition that outlines the criteria. Unfortunately, there is no such definition - at least, not one that has been universally agreed on. To me, "Muscle Car" did have an original meaning that Mustang5L5 outlined, which was a full size vehicle with a big block. The problem is that the definition changed over the years as people started to lump in anything that was fast, sporty, and had a relatively large engine into the category.
You have to realize that in 1970, a 302 V8 was considered a small engine, a ~350 sized engine was middle of the road, and 390+ was the large option. Fast forward to 1985, and the GM 350 was pretty much the largest engine you could get in a car (Trucks and Vans were different) and the 302 and 305 in the Mustang and Camaro were the most common size for a V8. There really weren't a bunch of other V8 powered performance cars, so the Mustang and Camaro/Firebird pretty much took the "Muscle Car" title at that point.
With all that said, I think Muscle Car is a situational term these days. If Ford calls the Mustang a muscle car one day, it is because their marketing spin has decided that is what they think will appeal to buyers. It isn't a "real" term with "real" criteria.
You have to realize that in 1970, a 302 V8 was considered a small engine, a ~350 sized engine was middle of the road, and 390+ was the large option. Fast forward to 1985, and the GM 350 was pretty much the largest engine you could get in a car (Trucks and Vans were different) and the 302 and 305 in the Mustang and Camaro were the most common size for a V8. There really weren't a bunch of other V8 powered performance cars, so the Mustang and Camaro/Firebird pretty much took the "Muscle Car" title at that point.
With all that said, I think Muscle Car is a situational term these days. If Ford calls the Mustang a muscle car one day, it is because their marketing spin has decided that is what they think will appeal to buyers. It isn't a "real" term with "real" criteria.
Like the term ' hot rod'
I guess my mustang could be called a jalopy because of the condition and parts used.
I guess my mustang could be called a jalopy because of the condition and parts used.
that's because the above statement is totally eronious, and without basis.
The day a fckin' Mitsubishi Expo made more power than a 94 Mustang gt was the day somebidy swapped it's engine for a 5.0
The day a fckin' Mitsubishi Expo made more power than a 94 Mustang gt was the day somebidy swapped it's engine for a 5.0
I forget that the US didn't get the nifty JDM cars like what we do ;-)
Even the poverty pack Resort Runner GT has 10kw more than a '94 GT Mustang, is 4wd and 600lb lighter - Ours has the 180kw motor, totally stock it spun up 177kw on the Dyno.
Long story short, take the engine from a Lancer Evo 2, the gearbox, transfer case and diff from a Lancer GSR, the brakes from a 3000GT and hang a ball bearing turbo off it and you've got what we have.
It'll happily peg the speedo without even going into 5th gear.
Even the poverty pack Resort Runner GT has 10kw more than a '94 GT Mustang, is 4wd and 600lb lighter - Ours has the 180kw motor, totally stock it spun up 177kw on the Dyno.
Long story short, take the engine from a Lancer Evo 2, the gearbox, transfer case and diff from a Lancer GSR, the brakes from a 3000GT and hang a ball bearing turbo off it and you've got what we have.
It'll happily peg the speedo without even going into 5th gear.
That's not accurate at all. Shoot, a huge chunk of the Mustangs and Camaros came with straight 6s back then. I think you would be a little astounded if you actually went back and got the production numbers for those cars. They didn't sell that many big block cars. If that were the perception of a muscle car, there wouldn't have been many of them.
Kurt
Habu135
5 Year Member
Valid point. A straight six '67-'69 Camaro would not be considered a Muscle Car any more than a early Nova with a 307, but later versions had 396 and in some cases even a 427. If you had a stock '93 Cobra it wouldn't be considered a muscle car, but swap in a 408 and I would say yes.
I submit that you have two categories of muscle cars. Those that came equipped from the factory with large displacement engines: Boss 429, tri powered GTO, Hemi Cuda, etc. and then those vehicles that were modified with larger engines: Shelby Mustang, Yenko Camaro, etc. The early Shelby Cobras with the 289 weren't muscle cars, but a 427 equipped Cobra certainly would be.
BTW, if you haven't seen Ford v Ferrari yet you should.
It's on my to do list. I'll wait for the DVD release though.
I would say that the number of cars that came with a big block from 1960-1974 was likely about 1%, I mean if that. The lion share of big blocks went into trucks. I think that's a hard position to defend. I would say that a Muscle Car is more about the spirit of intent, not a physical measurement of the engine. Especially when one considers that the big block engines really didn't make much more power. Hell, GM's 327 fuelie engine made near as much power as their big block, more in most cases.
Kurt
Similar threads
