Is the s550 platform considered a muscle car or sportcar??

[OldPhart]

For sure, particularly when one considers that the Challenger is sedan based (off the LX architecture), like the originals.

Hi - Interesting. I seem to recall someone saying that the new Challenger body would fit on an old Challenger frame. From what you say, that may actually be true - kinda cool when you think about it. When deciding on what car to get, I was actually attracted to the Challenger as well but decided to go with the Mustang as I never had a Mustang or pony car which I consider an American classic like the Corvette that I owned and was getting rid of. When the Bullitt was announced, my fate was sealed - the beautiful Highland Green color, retro touches and sleeper appearance( ie. no spoiler, no 5.0 call-out numbers, no pony on the grill, etc.). I’m an old school stick shift guy so the fact there was no automatic didn’t phase me... Bruce

Sponsored

 

[I Bleed Ford Blue]

Hi - Interesting. I seem to recall someone saying that the new Challenger body would fit on an old Challenger frame.

That would be hard since both the old and new challengers are unibody designs, meaning they have no frames at all.

 

[OldPhart]

That would be hard since both the old and new challengers are unibody designs, meaning they have no frames at all.

Hi - They say ”it’s never too late to learn” as well as “a day not learning something is a day wasted”. I heard the Challenger interchangeable statement at a cruise night gathering. Not having ever owned a MOPAR, if I knew about the unibody aspect I’ve obviously forgotten. That can happen at my age. He was probably just suggesting that the dimensions of the old and new were essentially the same and thus theoretically interchangeable and I misunderstood him. I’ll place the blame on myself. That raises an interesting question. When people restore an old car they often do what’s called a “frame off restoration”, which was done with my GTO. With those old cars the frames frequently needed to be repaired. How do they repair old unibody cars? Is it called a ”total body restoration”? Is it more difficult? Whatever, it doesn’t take away from the fact that the new Challenger is an excellent retro model with similar body style and size which I’m guessing is part of the reason for its popularity. Even though they were excellent performers, I was never interested in the 2nd generation GTOs by Holden of Australia because they had zero retro appeal. Now I’ll have to check my Bullitt to see if it has a frame or not... Bruce.

 

[Joe B.]

2+2 which would make it a sports car or GT, I think.

 

[I Bleed Ford Blue]

Hi - They say ”it’s never too late to learn” as well as “a day not learning something is a day wasted”. I heard the Challenger interchangeable statement at a cruise night gathering. Not having ever owned a MOPAR, if I knew about the unibody aspect I’ve obviously forgotten. That can happen at my age. He was probably just suggesting that the dimensions of the old and new were essentially the same and thus theoretically interchangeable and I misunderstood him. I’ll place the blame on myself. That raises an interesting question. When people restore an old car they often do what’s called a “frame off restoration”, which was done with my GTO. With those old cars the frames frequently needed to be repaired. How do they repair old unibody cars? Is it called a ”total body restoration”? Is it more difficult? Whatever, it doesn’t take away from the fact that the new Challenger is an excellent retro model with similar body style and size which I’m guessing is part of the reason for its popularity. Even though they were excellent performers, I was never interested in the 2nd generation GTOs by Holden of Australia because they had zero retro appeal. Now I’ll have to check my Bullitt to see if it has a frame or not... Bruce.

The original GTO's were the GM "A" body design and had a full frame underneath, the mustang on the other hand has always been a unibody. there is also a subframe type (basically a cross between a full frame and a unibody) like the first and second gen F bodies (camaro, firebird) that has a small frame section that bolts to the floor and provides a frame like structure for the engine and trans to mount and to hang the front clip from. They usually stop around where the front seat mounting holes are and its a unibody from there back.

 

[Hack]

I think it's fine calling the Mustang (any variant) a sports car. To me muscle car is more of a stretch, but I think that name is reserved more for cars that can't turn. But if you want to call a Mustang a muscle car I won't fight you. I like pony car because obviously it fits.

I would characterize Mustangs (all of them) as Grand Touring cars. Ford has made all Mustangs very comfortable road cars. Great for long trips and for eating up the miles in style with performance also available for you. Some of the competition I wouldn't want to drive on a long trip, but Mustangs are really good.

 

[Fly2High]

Only because no one read the R&T link:

In the postwar era, a "sports car" was any car that seated two, had a soft top, and could be used for competition. Thus, the Sports Car Club of America. An MG-TC was a sports car, as was an XK-120 or a Jowett Jupiter.

By this definition, a Mustang (non convertible) is NOT a sports car.

In some cases, the "sports car" name was used for something that was meant to be an antidote or alternative to traditional sports cars—see "911, Porsche" and "240Z, Datsun." This depresses me; a Porsche 911 is certainly not a sports car. I know. I own one. A Boxster, which I also own, is definitely a sports car. That's why the Boxster, er, 718, and the 911 can co-exist. That, and the fact that the 911 is basically the same car as the Boxster for much more money, and no manufacturer with its head on straight would permit such a thing to disappear.

With all that said, however, there are cars out there that should not be referred to as "sports cars" by anybody who considers himself or herself to be a member of the sainted automotive cognoscenti. The list of such cars includes:

• SUVs, CUVs, or anything else that doesn't require the use of a floor jack to change the oil and is not a Porsche 959 Dakar. Which is also not a sports car. So leave that in.
• Fast sedans, like the BMW M5, or their two-door variants, like the BMW M6, or the four-door variants of the two-door variants, like the M6 Gran Coupe, or the crossover variants of the four-door variants of the two-door variants of the four-door, like the X6M.
• Hot hatches, like the GTI.
• Rally-reps, like the Mitsubishi Evo or Subaru WRX.
• Big-money cruiser droptops, like the Bentley Azure, recent-generation Mercedes SL, or Lexus SC430.
• The Honda CRX or anything else that was meant to be a copy of the Honda CRX.
• The Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, Challenger, Cougar, Javelin, Barracuda, Genesis Coupe, Accord Coupe, Mazda RX-8, or Mercedes-Benz CLK63 Black Series.

That last one seems to be where most of the confusion occurs. The Mustang is a sedan. Don't like it? Take it up with the Sports Car Club of America, which classifies the Mustang in the "American Sedan" class. The Mustang was always a sedan. It has always been a sedan. It always will be a sedan, unless it changes significantly. If the word "sedan" offends you, then choose the term "pony car," which is also fine and respects the Mustang's unique role in history as a sporting sedan variant of a non-sporting sedan, in this case the Ford Falcon.

Don't call a Mustang a sports car. It's not a sports car. The word "sports car" doesn't mean "car that I like and think is really cool." Were that the case, then I would call the Rolls-Royce Wraith a "sports car," because I really like the Rolls-Royce Wraith and I think it's just the bee's knees, old boy. Come to think of it, I also like the Phantom Drophead, which is also not a sports car by any sane estimation.

What's the harm in calling a Mustang a sports car? Why, Sir, the evidence is all around you. True sports cars are almost gone from showrooms nowadays, simply because we've used the phrase and its attendant social baggage so carelessly. If everything is a sports car, then nothing is a sports car. If people who are not self-taught car experts decide in middle age or retirement that they've finally earned the right to have a "sports car," and that search leads them to an Audi SQ5 or Toyota Tacoma TRD Pro because nobody is willing to draw that line in the sand between things that are sports cars and things that are not, then why would any automaker bother to build a sports car?

Therefore, I beg of you, dear reader: start using the term "sports car" to apply to things that are truly sports cars, or close to them. The Miata. The Porsche 718 Boxster (not the 718 Cayman). Stuff like that. In the end, the life you save could be your own, because who wants to live in a world where the smallest and most nimble "sports car" for sale is a Mustang, no matter how excellent said Mustang might be?

The Mustang is a fun performing car but it is an American sedan!!

Cannot call anything with a back seat and a hardtop a sports car. The 911 isn't one either.

 

[BrettT]

I think it's closest fit is a GT.

 

[Fly2High]

I think it's closest fit is a GT.

a GT is a hardtop sports car which it isn't.

The Mustang is

a sporty car
a pony car
a powerful car
a track capable car
a fun car
a car to tour in


but it is not a grand tourer nor a sports car.

 

[OldPhart]

I think it's fine calling the Mustang (any variant) a sports car. To me muscle car is more of a stretch, but I think that name is reserved more for cars that can't turn. But if you want to call a Mustang a muscle car I won't fight you. I like pony car because obviously it fits.

I would characterize Mustangs (all of them) as Grand Touring cars. Ford has made all Mustangs very comfortable road cars. Great for long trips and for eating up the miles in style with performance also available for you. Some of the competition I wouldn't want to drive on a long trip, but Mustangs are really good.

Hi - I’m new to Mustangs (a ‘19 Bullitt). Based on your Grand Touring comment are the GT 350 and GT 500 comfortable trip cars? Just curious. I’m quite pleased with the Bullitt as a multi use car. Thanks, Bruce

 

[Norm Peterson]

Hi - I’m new to Mustangs (a ‘19 Bullitt). Based on your Grand Touring comment are the GT 350 and GT 500 comfortable trip cars? Just curious.

Describing a car as a 'comfortable trip car' is inherently a very subjective evaluation. But the GT350 at least, could be considered at least a reasonably comfortable trip car. That's based on knowing what the stiffnesses of its suspension springs are and what that feels like in terms of effective wheel rate. You do have to be able to appreciate (better yet, prefer) a fairly firm ride, though.

Lamborghini's Jarama (a 2+2) was very much a GT car, if not the very definition of the genre.

Norm

 

[13GetThere]

I'm sorry I didn't start reading this thread earlier.
It's been fun reading all the comments and arguments about what the Mustang is. With all the comments, it's a wonder the Mustang even knows which garage to use.
I did notice there are a lot of guys in my age group who were around when the Mustang was introduced with strong opinions, but that's not unusual for my age group. Arguing was our past time, and all of my points have already been covered. I will say that when the Mustang was introduced, most of my cars came in matchboxes.
Now I could give my opinion on what the Mustang is or isn't, but I don't think anybody really gives a schitt, but I didn't come this far to not say anything.
The Mustang is a long range fighter with excellent speed and handling characteristics. While not superior in every envelope, it is superior in enough to defeat an opponent if used well. It's also a wild horse with no true breeding.
And That's what the Mustang is all about Charlie Brown.

 

[OldPhart]

I'm sorry I didn't start reading this thread earlier.
It's been fun reading all the comments and arguments about what the Mustang is. With all the comments, it's a wonder the Mustang even knows which garage to use.
I did notice there are a lot of guys in my age group who were around when the Mustang was introduced with strong opinions, but that's not unusual for my age group. Arguing was our past time, and all of my points have already been covered. I will say that when the Mustang was introduced, most of my cars came in matchboxes.
Now I could give my opinion on what the Mustang is or isn't, but I don't think anybody really gives a schitt, but I didn't come this far to not say anything.
The Mustang is a long range fighter with excellent speed and handling characteristics. While not superior in every envelope, it is superior in enough to defeat an opponent if used well. It's also a wild horse with no true breeding.
And That's what the Mustang is all about Charlie Brown.

Hi - From one of those guys in your age group, good comment... Bruce

 

[VenomousSVT]

Just MHO but the "3" series is considered a sports sedan. The "Z" series would be considered a sports car.

duly noted... that's a good point

 

[Bikeman315]

With all the comments, it's a wonder the Mustang even knows which garage to use.

Ok, that is really, really funny!

Sponsored