BRZ next to a Challenger

[Admiral Ballsy]

They were mid-size coupes, not sedans. A class of vehicle that doesn't really exist today (BMW 6-series, maybe). In which was installed the largest engine that the maker had, or would fit.

Pony cars almost never got the most powerful engines. Challengers and 'Cudas were an exception (as were Boss 429s, but they existed only for homologation), but the Chrysler cars were much bigger than the rest of the pony competition.

The last muscle car, in the original definition, would be the '87 Buick GN. However, I think the current Camaro and Challenger fit the description too, since they are essentially shortened, two-door versions of their makers' respective sedans (G8/Charger).

[Hanzo]

Originally Posted by MVJ1975

If you look at the same entry, it also specifies that they are built on full or mid-size sedans. Performance versions of smaller cars are usually referred to as pony cars (like the Mustang).

Yes so to me Mustang is more of a muscle car than the Challenger.

[MVJ1975]

Originally Posted by Admiral Ballsy

They were mid-size coupes, not sedans. A class of vehicle that doesn't really exist today (BMW 6-series, maybe). In which was installed the largest engine that the maker had, or would fit.

Pony cars almost never got the most powerful engines. Challengers and 'Cudas were an exception (as were Boss 429s, but they existed only for homologation), but the Chrysler cars were much bigger than the rest of the pony competition.

The last muscle car, in the original definition, would be the '87 Buick GN. However, I think the current Camaro and Challenger fit the description too, since they are essentially shortened, two-door versions of their makers' respective sedans (G8/Charger).

I agree - the new V8 Challenger meets the "standards" of a muscle car. V8, built on a full-size sedan chassis (Charger/Chrysler 300).

The V6 Camaro is definitely still a pony, but you make a good case for the V8 SS.

As an aside, the Genesis Coupe meets the standards for a pony car almost exactly! It's a sporty version of a standard model (Genesis), it's budget priced, and it uses mostly off-the-shelf components. The new Mustang is actually questionable in this regard, even though it's the classic pony, as the new Mustang isn't a sporty version of anything, it is a unique chassis used only by it.

[shadoquad]

Originally Posted by Hanzo

Yes so to me Mustang is more of a muscle car than the Challenger.

It can be argued as such, but the Mustang has always been a "pony car". The camaro once was this as well.

But the Challenger is all muscle car. It is a midsize coupe with a monster engine, designed for straight line grunt, and that's about it.

[JoeBoxer]

Originally Posted by CoRi J

They drive heavy too. I haven't regret trading in my v6 Pentastar Challenger for the FR-S at all. Even if I didn't get the FR-S when I did, I was still planning on trading it in by the end of the year. Definitely a big difference between the two. Nice shot.

I made the same trade

[jimbobrand]

I'll be happy when 2015 comes around and the newer generation of pony cars come out. Both the Mustang and Challenger are said to be going on a diet, with higher power smaller displacement engines available (a 2.3 ecoboost 4cyl with around 325 hp is being tested and has been said will go into one of the mustang models) and addition of IRS in the stang. There is also some talk that the Challenger name will be dropped in favor of the Barracuda/Cuda name.

[Admiral Ballsy]

Originally Posted by MVJ1975

The new Mustang is actually questionable in this regard, even though it's the classic pony, as the new Mustang isn't a sporty version of anything, it is a unique chassis used only by it.

I don't understand this - the Mustang was never "a sporty version of anything", at least until 1979 when it went to the Fox platform. The original Mustang (and Camaro, and Firebird, and Cougar) were 'unique chassis used only by it'.

The '68 and up Nova used the first-gen F-body chassis, but the Camaro came a year earlier.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Admiral Ballsy

I don't understand this - the Mustang was never "a sporty version of anything", at least until 1979 when it went to the Fox platform. The original Mustang (and Camaro, and Firebird, and Cougar) were 'unique chassis used only by it'.

The '68 and up Nova used the first-gen F-body chassis, but the Camaro came a year earlier.

The '64 Mustang used the 64 Falcon's frame design as its base. Not sure where you are getting that it was unique, unless I'm misreading what you are sayiing.

[MVJ1975]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

The '64 Mustang used the 64 Falcon's frame design as its base. Not sure where you are getting that it was unique, unless I'm misreading what you are sayiing.

Right. It took a lot of parts from the Falcon (and some from the Fairlane, IIRC). The new 'Stang is completely unique.

ETA: The 74-78 Mustangs were Pinto-derived. Eww.

[Admiral Ballsy]

Falcons (and Mustangs) didn't have frames; they were unibody. Yes, they shared a lot of components, but then just about everything shared components since all cars were FR layout back then. The BRZ shares a lot of components with the Impreza, but that doesn't mean that they're all that similar.

Are you saying that Mustangs were just "sporty versions" of Falcons? I'd have to disagree with that.

[Natheria]

Originally Posted by MVJ1975

I agree. It's supposed to be a full-size car, and I love the retro styling. I like the concept in general, and I'm glad GM made it.

Ummm... i think you made a typo...

[Turbowned]

Originally Posted by Hanzo

"According to Muscle Cars, a book written by Peter Henshaw, a "muscle car" is "exactly what the name implies. It is a product of the American car industry adhering to the hot rodder's philosophy of taking a small car and putting a large-displacement engine in it. The Muscle Car is Charles Atlas kicking sand in the face of the 98 horsepower weakling."[7] Henshaw further asserts that the muscle car was designed for straight-line speed, and did not have the "sophisticated chassis", "engineering integrity", or "lithe appearance" of European high-performance cars.[7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car

Let's remember that back then, the Challenger/Camaro/Mustang were small cars compared to the gargantuan sedans that people used to drive around in. Now everything else has gotten comparatively small, although in the past two decades, most cars have been getting larger thanks to more efficient engines and drivetrains (and fatter Americans)

[MVJ1975]

Originally Posted by Natheria

Ummm... i think you made a typo...

Yes, you're right. Dodge is Chrysler, I keep forgetting that.

[MVJ1975]

Originally Posted by Admiral Ballsy

Falcons (and Mustangs) didn't have frames; they were unibody. Yes, they shared a lot of components, but then just about everything shared components since all cars were FR layout back then. The BRZ shares a lot of components with the Impreza, but that doesn't mean that they're all that similar.

Are you saying that Mustangs were just "sporty versions" of Falcons? I'd have to disagree with that.

Not really a "sporty Falcon", but clearly Falcon-derived.

The BRZ actually shares very little with the Impreza, Subaru has even indicated as much in their own press releases.