THis is pretty much spot on. Pony cars were a subset of musclecars, based on comnpact chassis, and often also used for road racing. Full size muscle, liek galaxies and teh like, were also used for circle track and NASCAR for a bit before they went to intermediates.Matt generally has it right - except that musclecars generally were intermediate or mid-sized cars with full-sized engines.
One of the first musclecars - the 1964 Pontiac GTO - was a mid-sized LeMans with the 389 ci engine from the full-sized Bonneville. Four door musclecars were very rare. The only one I can think of offhand was the 1964 Olds 442. But the 442 was basically the police package Cutlass when it first came out. Full-sized cars were never considered musclecars. I have reprinted road test from Car Life magazine back in 1969 where they compare a 427 Chevy Caprice, a 429 Ford LTD, a 440 Dodge Monaco, and a 383 Plymouth Fury. In the article, they repeatedly refer to the cars as "Power Cars". I've also heard the term "Super Car" thrown around - especially when referring to the Chrysler 300 letter cars.
The line between pony car and muscle car has always been blurred. And I think a lot has to do with the handling and the engine size. 1967-69 Camaro Z28s and 69-70 Boss 302s were handling machines - as were the small-block Shelby Mustangs -and are considered pony cars. COPO Camaros with the big block, 428 Mach 1s, and Hemi E-body cars are considered muscle cars because they are all about straight line acceleration. Which I guess makes the Challenger the only true modern muscle car.
To recap: Big engine in a small(ish) car designed for straight line acceleration = muscle car.
... be honest, how much did you have to out of your way not to write "sports sedan", knowing I?d pick the "sports" apart? I would agree that a M5 is a Sports-sedan ... or a (R)S6 ... but Mercedes and AMG have always gone down a different road. They?ve looked at american muscle-cars and then slapped a big engine into their Sedans without worrying too much how they go around corners ...it's a Super sedan.[...]
Without being based on an inexpensive intermediate chassis American car designed for drag racing and occasionally circle track, it's not a muscle car. It could even be said that until the new Challenger, we haven't had a true musclecar in production for a couple decades.I disagree. I don`t think "nationality" has any say on the matter when it?s build in the spirt of a muscle car.
Just like sports and supercars don?t have to be "Italian".
Muscle cars, having lots of torque and live rear axles (mostly) are actually pretty good at going sideways. The reason most drift cars are Japanese tuners is because the sport is Japanese. It started there and is still way more popular over there than over here. In the Red Bull drifting competitions, which are not in Japan, a lot of people actually use Mustangs, and do quite well. A couple years ago, when I first got into the Red Bull drifting, I seem to recall a guy driving a Mustang beat Tanner.I think you're mistaking muscle cars for modified Japanese cars with giant wings and bodykits.
I like what you're saying, and the fact that you aren't being a douche about people disagreeing with you. But if I may try your patience but once more, I would like to point out that any car can cost way more when spec'd up. I just went to Ford's website and found that the Fiesta (base price of 13200 USD) can be spec'd up to 23610 USD. That's over 10 grand of extras on a 13 grand car. The Mustang, by the way, has a base price of 22310 USD. This shows that a cheap car (and I think we can all agree that the Fiesta is very reasonably priced) can cost more than a car several tiers up if you go crazy on the options.I do want to address two things which I've seen propagated here:
A) Cheap/low cost. To challenge this idea I present, the Pontiac GTO "The Judge". The idea behind the project, originally, was to make an "affoardable" GTO (because apparently the 'Goat' was out of the reach of enough people they thought to do this). It turned out being one of the most expensive muscle car packages, with pretty much every option box checked. Pony cars, on the other hand, did go for the 'low cost' angle, but even then you could get carried away with the available options.
Most muscles cars are a lot heavier than people seem to think. Plus, they had shit tires back then. And most of the torque was wasted altering the earths rotation before it could launch the car properly.If they had all that horsepower and all that torque, and weren't burdened by carrying around safety features, why were classic muscle cars so slow? Someone please help, I don't understand.
Tyres were rubbish, suspension was rubbish back then, 3 and 4 speed gearboxes with tall gear ratios, tall diff ratios all play apart in why the pull the times they do.If they had all that horsepower and all that torque, and weren't burdened by carrying around safety features, why were classic muscle cars so slow? Someone please help, I don't understand.