I prefer the 2010 Mustang over the 05-09.

[STANMAN]

Oh.....pleeeeeez.......

I thought I was wrong once, turns out I was mistaken Besides it's been proven that 80% of the time I am right 100% of the time

[Voodoo Chick]

I thought I was wrong once, turns out I was mistaken Besides it's been proven that 80% of the time I am right 100% of the time

Well.........I don't even know what to say!! ......suddenly.....my brain hurts....

[MurphysLaw88GT]

they need to give new one more k-jones...otherwise I am not really interested.

[Waver]

I completely agree. At this point I feel that it's Camaro schamaro. It's already old news and dated, we've only been basically knowing 90% of what this car was going to look like if it ever happened, by what, 2003? You can delay production to fine-tune and tweak all you want, but when you're already FIVE YEARS behind the trend, you're already out of the game. I highly doubt the new camaro will convert any Mustang owners. Between the two, I'd still take the stang, slower or not. Camaro always has and always will be a revered name like the Mustang. But Mustang always comes first, in sales, and even if it is in cookie guise, the races as well.

- ninja edit -

IMO the camaro and bird might not have ever died had they not stuck with a retarded hatchback and seating position & ride height being retarded low.

Dan, I think that a lot of the reason why the Mustang has remained a viable platform is because of them doing the mid cycle updates to keep the car looking fresh. They did it with the fox platform by going from the "four eyed" look to the "aero coupe" look for 87, again with the sn95 in 99 with the new edge, and now this one. Besides that, the mustang really has stayed close to its roots over the course of the years, where the camaro/firebird just got bigger/longer for gen 3..........because of that, at least for me, the mustang just seems more fun to drive........I have a lot of respect for the f body, a lot more than what I did before I joined the board, and it is a fun car as well, just not as fun as the mustang.

Last thought.....it was because of the 64 1/2 Mustang that we have the 67Camaro, and the 70 Challenger. Now, history repeats its self, only this time it is the Camaro that is late to the party instead of the Challenger

[Poncho]

Not to correct you Nick, but the 3rd gen was something like 500lbs lighter and quite a bit shorter than the 2nd gens.

"The 1982 Chevrolet Camaro was Motor Trends Car of the Year. It was 500 lbs. lighter, all dimensions were reduced, and had a shorter wheel base than the previous Gen. Windshield slope is 60 degrees, about 3 degrees steeper than anything GM had tried before it. It was also within 70 lbs. of the original 67 Camaro and is also the closest in dimensions yet to the car. The compound curved rear hatch glass at the time was the most advanced piece of glass tech-wise to be put onto a car. It was also one of the most aerodynamic cars ever made when released. "

[TraceDaddy]

I like it. If I didn't already have one I'd buy this one. Funny though, most I've seen before didn't have the rear spoiler and I thought it looked kinda weak back there. (Then again I'm not a big fan of the Bullits spoiler delete either.) These look good. And the interior is definitely nicer.

[Voodoo Chick]

Not to correct you Nick, but the 3rd gen was something like 500lbs lighter and quite a bit shorter than the 2nd gens.

This is true. I have both a 2nd gen, and a 3rd gen, and when parked together, the 2nd gen absolutely dwarfs the 3rd gen. Longer, bigger all around, much higher stance. The '79 is close to a foot longer than the '89.....I hadn't realized the size difference was so dramatic until I parked them side by side. As for "what car is more fun," I think they could both (Camaros and Mustangs) be lots of fun.....I am not a "Ford vs. Chevy" person.....as far as I'm concerned, if it's old, powerful, and American-made, it's fine by me. I'd love a '70 Mustang.....it would make a perfectly lovely "mate" for my Camaros......

[Waver]

really? they just look so much bigger, and I am willing to bet that they are bigger than a 1st gen.....That and when ever I drive one, even I cant see where the hood ends....

[Poncho]

Dimensionally they are extremely close.

From an old review 69 camaro v.s. 90 camaro

The list of parts used to create the '69 Z/28 read like a wish list from any American hot rodder: dual quads, solid-lifter cam, dual exhaust, 11:1 compression, close-ratio four-speed, 4.10 gears, Corvette 15x7-inch wheels, four-wheel disc brakes, performance suspension and plenty more. With a wheelbase of 108 inches, and a curb weight of 3,400 pounds, the old Camaro was a real goer. Both in a straight line and in the corners.


By comparison, the new Z/28s specs look a bit lackluster. It's hard to get as excited about computer-controlled timing and fuel delivery as it is about dual-fours, solid-tappet cams and ignitions you could tweak with. But slide behind the wheel of a '91 Camaro and prepare to be impressed in a big hurry. With a shorter wheelbase (101 inches), wider track, longer overall length, shorter height, and less weight (3,298 Ibs.) than its predecessor, the new Z/28 has the stance to be a real road-going athlete.

[Prince Valiant]

Last thought.....it was because of the 64 1/2 Mustang that we have the 67Camaro, and the 70 Challenger. Now, history repeats its self, only this time it is the Camaro that is late to the party instead of the Challenger

Not entirely correct.

While the Mustang is considered the "father" of the "pony car" (hence the term), it actually wasn't the first. The Plymouth Barracuda beat it to the market by a few weeks in 64. Thankfully that doesn't leave us calling them "fish car"

Both the mustang and Barracuda were basically sported up versions of compact cars of course...The mustang being a sported up, or fast-back version of the Falcon; the barracuda being a fast back version of the Valiant. Both being available with basic six-cylinders (both of 170 ci) up to and eventually with higher output v8's. While the mustang far outsold the Barracuda, the Barracuda was by chrysler sales numbers, an unmitigated success.

67 would change things for the pony car market. The camaro joined the party...and by then, pony cars were starting to take different shapes. The camaro represented a radical departure from the basic shape assumed by "pony cars" up til that point. Resembling a larger, swoopier mustang notchback. With it's larger engine bay, big block pony cars would become a reality.

67 also brought a new, sleeker Barracuda...but having been built on the old valiant A-body platform (albeit with an engine bay widened by a couple inches), Mopar would have to find a way to shoehorn in a big block...which they would in the form of the 383. However, so many modifications would be required to do so that Mopar would eventually in 1970 place the Barracuda onto what was essentially a shortened B-body platform (called the E-body)...producing the 'cuda and challenger we are all familiar with.

67 would also bring the larger mustang to the fold...and virtually every 2 years after that, the 'stang would get incrementally larger until the devolution to the pintostang in 74. But 67 would also bring for ford it's first big block pony car in the 390.

It's somewhat telling that while we all consider the mustang the "father" of the pony car, it was hardly the only, or even major influence in morphing what it would become to this day. All three manufactures played fairly significant roles in shaping the early pony cars.

But, it's also ironic that the real spiritual successor to the original pony cars could probably be considered cars like the SS cobalt and SRT-4's...sporty versions of compact cars.

[Poncho]

GTO is father of the muscle car.
Mustang is the first pony though. Ironically the only pony that never died.

[Prince Valiant]

GTO is father of the muscle car.
Mustang is the first pony though.

Did you not just read what I wrote? Basically, it wasn't the "first".

Same with the GTO/musclecar...many would argue the 1950 olds might take that moniker. Or the 55 chrysler 300. Or the 57 Studabaker Hawk...or some (few) even the 59 Lark. Or heck, even the 62 mopars if we want to be picky about mid-size/big block cars.

It's like saying Christopher Columbus "discovered" America. That might be how popculture recalls it...but it's not entirely correct.

Ironically the only pony that never died.

Many would disagree. 1974 Pintostang, anyone? I mean, at least the 75-78 you could option a v8. Not so for 74; at least every iteration of a pony car prior had a v8 available.

Also, the 80-81 stang, would be charitable to call those years "pony cars" when it's top engine was a 4.2 liter, 120hp v8. Also back to the pintostang, it's v8's never exceeded 140hp iirc.

The name may have lived on...but the spirit wasn't there for a few years. Ironically again...for ~ the same number of years that the camaro will have been out of production.

[Poncho]

God I love it when you split hairs, must totally make all the girls hot.

Please write the entire automotive press and tell everyone your news that the mustang is no longer the instrumental car in kicking off the pony cars and the GTO is no longer the instrumental car that started the muscle car area.

You don't have to split hairs on every single topic, though I do enjoy your enthusiasm.

ninja edit

the sky is blue
grass is green.

[Voodoo Chick]

really? they just look so much bigger, and I am willing to bet that they are bigger than a 1st gen.....That and when ever I drive one, even I cant see where the hood ends....

They (2nd gens) are pretty damn big. Mine has a big-a** cowl hood besides, so seeing over her hood is always a challenge, lol! I never realized how big they were too, until the time I had them parked together. As for the rest of this thread, I think it could be argued until the end of time about "what car is what" but in the end it comes down to this, IMO: Camaros, Mustangs, GTO's, whatever, are legendary, iconic cars no matter what you call them. Although I will ALWAYS prefer the old ones, I'm glad they are still going, even though the future of the new Camaro is uncertain. I sometimes wish all the "this car vs. that car" wasn't such a big deal, and we could just appreciate them.

[Poncho]

IMO: Camros, Mustangs, GTO's, whatever, are legendary, iconic cars no matter what you cal them.

agreed

[Prince Valiant]

God I love it when you split hairs, must totally make all the girls hot.

I'm scared that it makes you hot.

Please write the entire automotive press and tell everyone your news that the mustang is no longer the instrumental car in kicking off the pony cars and the GTO is no longer the instrumental car that started the muscle car area.

Why? many who seriously consider those question already debate it (the issue is far from, and will likely never be, "settled") . There is no news flash, as there is no news. All it does is give greater historical accuracy and context. For some, they may appreciate it...to me, it makes the history of cars, particularly cars that we call "muscle" or "pony" cars, just that much more interesting.

Just like had the AMC "Tarpon" come out (similar to the barracuda, it was a seperate model built as a fastback based on the AMC Rambler...looks like a smaller AMC Marlin), and along with the Barracuda, this class may well have come to actually being called "fish cars". Hell, I find that neat to consider...but still thankful we call them pony cars.

If that bothers you, I don't apologize.

IMO, it depends on how one either defines the "father" or the "first". No doubt the Mustang was the first to be called a "pony" car...and the GTO the first to be called a musclecar. But each were fathered or proceeded by other models that fit the segments.

IMO, the father of the muscle car is debateable...either 1950 Oldsmobile super 88 or 55 chrysler 300. The 88 deserves consideration as it was the first car to really seriously leave it's competitor behind in terms of power in a platform readily available. The 300 because it was the first to crest a significant barrier...300hp, and to do so by FAR leaving everyone in the dust (most other engines were FAR less powerful, I think it's closest competitor was only 180hp). This would start the so-called horsepower wars...

The first of the muscle cars would imo, be the 62 mopar B-bodies...undoubtedly mid-sized with engine options up to 413ci and later 426 ci with up to 415 and 425hp respectively. We correctly term these "muscle cars" today. When they first came out, they were seen as smaller full-sized cars; however, they would come to be considered mid-sized...without ever changing a diminsion.

What set's the GTO apart was it was the first wholly serperate dedicated model...it wasn't a "Lemans GTO" per se, but a GTO. It was the first time that there was a mid-sized car meant to fill but one particular niche. This is why the GTO is significant...but "father" or "first", not as much.

I'd call the GTO the car that "defined" the segment.

Likewise the "pony car"...I'd argue that the "father" and perhaps the first was truly the 59 Studabaker Lark...a small compact car with a variety of engines, including a v8. Not many term this car a "Pony car", the era was wrong, it was a basic compact car, not an altogether model like either the Barracuda or Mustang (or the tarpon would have been if it had been built).

But the lark was the car that got the cog wheels turning towards sporty, powerful compacts. This is thus what lead to the other pony cars. So if not the first, certainly then the father.

Of course, it's without dispute that the Barracuda was a pony car...and it no doubt beat the mustang to the market. Unlike the Mustang, it wasn't a segment definer...neither in terms of sales, or peoples conception of the pony car.

So, like the GTO "defined" the musclecar segment if neither fathered or was it's first, the mustang defines a pony car, unlike any other car.

But, I still stand behind my statement that Ford did NOT continuously produce a pony car...despite the mustangs continous production during that time. Particularly 74, and to a lesser extent, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81.

[Cjburn]

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.

[Poncho]

good "write-up" and I'm not being a smart-ass, it's good to be informative.

[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!