I prefer the 2010 Mustang over the 05-09.

[Prince Valiant]

What about the 1962 Impala SS 409, or the early Super-Duty Pontiacs? Chevy guys point the Impala SS car out when you talk about the first "muscle" cars.

I agree that both the Imp and SD pontiacs were rightly considered "muscle cars"...BUT, when you get those guys that argue that a muscle car needs to fit these criteria (which are the most I often come across):

A) mid-sized
b) Two door
c) Seats 4-6
d) Big engine

Both the imp meet b, c, and d...but as for a, they are truly full-sized. Which is why I single the mopar's out...because even if you don't change that definition, the mopars definitely fit.

The B-body was actually conceived as a full-size platform, and many initially viewed it as such. Much of the press literature of the time (and yes, I do have repo articles that bear this out) harped on Dodge and Plymouth (with the plymouth being slightly shorter in length than the dodge) for producing such a small full-size. The authors wondered if the buying public would pay as much or more for a smaller car?

It turns out though, these cars would eventually come to be roundly considered "mid-sized" as other mopar models would come out surpassing the B platform by both size and weight substantially (the C-bodies). No dimension ever changed...their size was their size, dimensions kept essentially through 1969.

Which takes us back to 1962...Here was a car, not quite "full-sized" that we now consider "mid-sized". Engines three different 413 ci available for it with HP rating up to 415hp. So per those "criteria", one can say...okay, HERE is the first to meet such criteria.

But as to the Imp/SD's, it's criteria like that that purist use to not only say "well those cars aren't true muscle cars" (see criteria) and that "niether are cars like the corvette (sports car), 396 Nova's, 440 ci Darts (compact cars), etc.

As a matter of fact, some purist also state that the engine must be a minimum of 400 ci...which is REALLY bizarre as it leaves out the segment defining GTO with it's 389! And of course, all the small block equipped (Camaro Z 2/8 or Boss 302's each with 302's of course, 340, 343, various 350's and 351's), or 383, 389, 396 (even the ones that are 402's), 390 FE's, etc,.

Some Purist will also put years on it too...restricting it to cars from 64-72, or 64-71, or more.

It always irks me because it seems to be a fishing expedition the more restrictions they put on it...define narrowly enough, and you can end up with anything you want, really. It's like when you read the threads for "King of the HWY", the slower guys always want to change the rules to eliminate the faster guys (can't be back-halfed, must use THIS tire and width, must have this specific model super-charger!).

But, back to the "mid-sized" B-bodies. Every time someone sees my coronet, I chuckle when they remark how big it is (that was Kieth GRNDNL first remark at the track, lol)...and it does seem big. It's not AS wide, nor AS long as J's Biscayne, but it's pretty close. Certainly as a mid-sized car, it's big...and as a full-size, it's smaller.

Personally, I don't agree with the purist who define muscle cars too narrowly though...though I don't put the vette in muscle car category (it is truly a sports car), but I do the Impy's and other full-size cars as well...

[BOSS LX]

Some of the Ford's that beat the GTO in my mind, are the starliners, and the 406-427 galaxies!