 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / January 2007A muscle car revolution
A muscle car revolution The Ford Mustang was built to do battle against the Chevrolet Corvette and the Corvair Monza Spider, the Mustang came out in 1964, at first with a straight six, but by 1965 Ford decided that the car actually needed some kind of power. A straight six could never make the kind power Ford needed, so in 1965 the 225 HP 289 CID V8 was introduced to the Mustang, and this was a brilliant idea for Ford that skyrocketed the Mustang's sales, it was the introduction of the pony car. Basically the idea was to use a smaller mid sized car with a larger engine, thereby producing a much better power to weight ratio, and making the car more exciting to drive. This would make the car a lot more interesting to the babe boomers, the younger people from the 1960's time era, these were the kids that were in their late teens and early 20's, this would be so appealing to the younger people of that time era, that it would set sales records that it would hold for years to come. It would sell 500,000 units it's very first year, and this was an unbelievable feat for any car during those times, and had never been done before, and this had thought Ford a lesson, they learned that they could produce cars at this rate. Ford would keep generating interest in the Mustang by adding grundles of new higher performance models, they created a large stable of these pony cars, during 1965 Ford would release the Mustang GT, yet more power, to make the motorheads go nuts... Read the entire article at http://www.ourcartips.com/car/a_muscle_car_revolution.html > A straight six could never make the kind power Ford needed, so in 1965 > the 225 HP 289 CID V8 was introduced to the Mustang, and this was a > brilliant idea for Ford that skyrocketed the Mustang's sales, it was > the introduction of the pony car. Clifford Engineering might argue that you cant get impressive HP out of a six cylinder, but Ford didnt choose to develop the six. IIRC, the V8 offered in 1965 was the 260 cid. Maybe Im wrong. In 1966, you could get the 289 with either a two barrel carburetor or the four barrel. At some point, there was a 289 high performance version offered, perhaps in 66, which pumped out 271 horsepower. Later you could get the 427 crossbolt wedge (although I never saw one) and the 428 CobraJet (which I sadly have to admit I owned.) This is all from memory, of course, and is subject to correction. >>A straight six could never make the kind power Ford needed, so in 1965 >>the 225 HP 289 CID V8 was introduced to the Mustang, and this was a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > This is all from memory, of course, and is subject to correction. I think the 260 was the original engine offered in the 64-1/2 models. By 65 I think the 289 was standard. nate  Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > A muscle car revolution > > The Ford Mustang was built to do battle against the Chevrolet Corvette > and the Corvair Monza Spider, the Mustang came out in 1964, at first > with a straight six, but by 1965 Ford decided that the car actually > needed some kind of power. I don't think either chevy or ford had their sights on the corvette market with their offerings. Think about the cars for a moment. > A straight six could never make the kind power Ford needed, so in 1965 > the 225 HP 289 CID V8 was introduced to the Mustang, and this was a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > better power to weight ratio, and making the car more exciting to > drive. That's competing with a corvette?? C'mon....think about downmarket from the vette. The Barracuda, Corvair, Camaro and Firebird were more direct if less than effective responses to the Mustang. > This would make the car a lot more interesting to the babe boomers, the > younger people from the 1960's time era, these were the kids that were [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Read the entire article at > http://www.ourcartips.com/car/a_muscle_car_revolution.html A few factual errors glare. First is that the Mustang is not and never was a "muscle car." Although people fuzz the boundaries a lot today because the Mustang is about the only APPROXIMATION to a muscle car still made, the original concept of a muscle car was am American MID SIZE 2-door with an engine basically lifted from a full-size car, and eventually with increased power output. Thus the true muscle cars are things like the Pontiac GTO, Plymouth GTX and Roadrunner, Olds 442, Ford Torino, Buick Gran Sport and GSX, etc. The definition is also sometimes fudged the other way, allowing particularly powerful full-size cars to be included- usually this step is reserved for the Chrysler 300 Letter Series made from 1955 to 1965. By the above definition, the first Muscle car was either the '55 Chrysler 300 (lenient definition) or the Pontiac GTO (stricter definition). And the last "muscle car" was the mid-80s Buick Gran National. As for the Mustang being the first of its kind, it wasn't because the Barracuda beat it to production. It outsold the Barracuda, but it didn't beat it. Taking aim at the Corvette? Nope. The 'vette was always a 2-seater. The first Thunderbird took aim at the corvette, but the Mustang (and Chevy II and Barracuda) were an entirely new class of SMALL (not midsize) coupes with a surplus of power available. The raging success of the Mustang has led to that class being called the "pony cars" and it came to include the Camaro, Firebird, and in 1970 the Dodge Challenger. > A few factual errors glare. First is that the Mustang is not and never > was a "muscle car." Well, you could custom order a Mustang to tool around in, or you could order a pretty muscular one. The 289 high performance engine was awesome for its time. The 351's could be healthy,and the 427, 428, and 429 engines could pack a heck of a punch. >>A few factual errors glare. First is that the Mustang is not and never >>was a "muscle car." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > be healthy,and > the 427, 428, and 429 engines could pack a heck of a punch. True... I never said the smaller brutes weren't as potent than the muscle cars ;-) In many ways it makes sense to call Mustangs, Camaros, and Barracudas muscle cars, but to me it dilutes the definition of the TRUE muscle cars, which only existed for about 20 years and then were gone- probably never to return since no one makes a decent 2-door midsize car anymore. >>>A few factual errors glare. First is that the Mustang is not and never >>>was a "muscle car." [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > which only existed for about 20 years and then were gone- probably never > to return since no one makes a decent 2-door midsize car anymore. Hi, Steve, and others. Just trying to learn a little. I'm curious to know: where should we classify a Chevy SSR with the 6.0 liter engine--as it seems to be a 'vette in disguised clothing? I'm even getting to where I kinda like the looks. Can you imagine a 6 decader driving one? s "sdlomi2" <sdlomi2SPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7kVqh.26783> Hi, Steve, and others. Just trying to learn a little. I'm curious to > know: where should we classify a Chevy SSR with the 6.0 liter engine--as it > seems to be a 'vette in disguised clothing? I'm even getting to where I > kinda like the looks. Can you imagine a 6 decader driving one? s Im a 6 decader, SD, and I can handle just about anything with wheels. Why not? > "sdlomi2" <sdlomi2SPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7kVqh.26783> > Hi, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Im a 6 decader, SD, and I can handle just about anything with wheels. Why > not? You really made my day, HLS. Wish I had room to store them--wife never harped on my having wheels, but doesn't like any to show in the driveway. Definitely getting a T-Am convertible; actually it's on its way from Fla. But lately, I'm considering adding an SSR. Guess I'll just hafta call the building contractor! May I tell Mom you are contributing to this cost? BTW: I enjoy your posts. Thx again, and have a good day and a better New Year. s >>>>A few factual errors glare. First is that the Mustang is not and never >>>>was a "muscle car." [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > seems to be a 'vette in disguised clothing? I'm even getting to where I > kinda like the looks. Can you imagine a 6 decader driving one? s The "Muscle Truck" is a whole new category. Ram SS/T and SRT-10, Ford Lightning, and even the SSR (though its "truck" side is awfully diluted). And actually, MOST of the people I've seen driving SSRs are silver-haired! Probably has a lot to do with the price tag on it. > The "Muscle Truck" is a whole new category. Ram SS/T and SRT-10, Ford > Lightning, and even the SSR (though its "truck" side is awfully > diluted). And actually, MOST of the people I've seen driving SSRs are > silver-haired! Probably has a lot to do with the price tag on it. There is a lot of sentimental buying with those silverhaired people. 'Bluehairs' still buy Cadillacs. We are looking at a possible slide of petroleum into the 30-40 dollar a barrel region again. And I fully expect people to buy gas gobblers again, just in phase with the market that will undoubtedly go UP again. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.