Ok.. But I didn't say they weren't pony cars. I was more or less saying it is irrelevant.
A Pony car basically IS a Muscle car. You could debate that to the end of the world. Not all Muscle cars are Pony cars... But a Pony car still satisfies the definition of a Muscle car. Compact or not, it's still an American high HP "affordable" rwd coupe suited for the street or the strip. You will find the Mustang on both "Muscle car" and "Pony car" lists.
Muscle car is a term used to refer to a variety of high-performance [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile"]Automobile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame].
[1] The
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster%27s_Dictionary"]Webster's Dictionary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] dictionary defines muscle cars as "any of a group of American-made 2-door sports coupes with powerful engines designed for high-performance driving."
And be realistic here, the 64 was more or less a 65... And the mustang had already reached modern Mustang weights by 69-71. (Much sooner than 2005)
The light weight lasted 2ish years? And then jumped nearly 500 lbs. And then by 69-71 they were already in the 3100-3500+ neighborhood. They shed a little weight in the 80's but jumped right back up to modern weights for the redesign.
The Mustang has just as much history as a "Muscle car" as it does as specifically a Pony car.. which I'd still argue to be a sub-genre of Muscle cars.
Moving on..
Not sure what the FR-S/BRZ has to do with Pony/Muscle cars. The ft86 is related to the ae86... Not the old Mustang.
The 64-66 stangs were really nothing like the FR-S/BRZ. I'd say comparing them based on weight alone is a stretch.
The current 86 was designed with a very specific driving dynamic in mind.. Minimal power, with a focus on handling and balance. The kind of balance & handling that I'm pretty sure did not exist in the old Mustangs.
The 64-66 stang's were about the cheap power that the Muscle cars have always been more about. The handling seems to be more of an afterthought in the form of "track packs" and such. Nothing compared to the low COG & balance in the ft86.
Safe to say I don't need to elaborate on the differences in torque... As even most of the old Mustangs had more torque than the current 86.
I also think the '64 stang had a much larger historical impact, and appealed to a different kind of car culture. It was that car, that really inspired the birth of a long history of magnificent cars from different brands. (Including toyota)
The '64 stang as well as the modern Muscle exist for a culture that likes to stack absurd amounts of power and go fast in a straight line. Street & drag cars. Marketed with rear seats to still have some appeal as daily drivers.
The FT86 is not about that whatsoever. You'd be hard pressed to get one to move quick in a straight line... It is about the handling/balance...(If anything the rear seats were the after thought for insurance purposes... more so than DD purposes. )
The ae86 was appreciated for it's handling... Not it's power..And not the drag strip.... As the ae86 was underpowered for it's time too, but a very well balanced lightweight platform which made it a fun car that was ideal for modifying and whipping around a track.
Thanks for the spelling correction. Not sure I see the need for that though in a casual forum post.
I think it is interesting that people seem to take issue with those of us who enjoy the retro styling influences that have always existed in Mustang designs throughout it's history... And also, do not confuse "retro styling" as having anything to do with weight or size. You could scale down the size of the current "Muscle" cars, and retain the exact same styling. So all these weight arguments are irrelevant.
And as I already stated, late 60's early 70's they already reached modern Muscle car weights. It's not such a new development.
But yeah, the Mustang has pretty much always been influenced by it's roots. The '15 has some to it too. Just not as much. I just think if they step too far away from 50'ish years of consistency.... It would feel weird to call it a Mustang.
Not that "Modern" styling is bad. The '15 concept looks great. I'm really just curious how far from "Mustang" they're willing to go before they come up with a new name. To be honest, I feel like they came up with a fantastic new car called the "Evos" but, because the Evos is new it has no history to help push sales.
The Mustang however is the grandfather of affordable RWD high powered go fast coupes. That history = sales just by using the name... Not everyone would want to go buy the new Evos... but the new Mustang? Guaranteed sales.
If it wasn't called a Mustang, and was instead labelled Evos I would wager a handful of people might be tempted by a 13 or older stang, or even move on to a Camaro or Challenger instead.
So I think using the Mustang name for the '15 is more about selling a new design.. And less about heritage.
Basically my argument is not that they shouldn't design NEW cars. I just think new cars deserve new names. Let Mustangs be Mustangs. Let an Evos be an Evos imo.