Totally agree about the definition of "muscle" changing. I do not, however, agree that the sales figures of the Mustang vis-a-vis the Prius necessarily indicate anything other than the Mustang has lost some of its new-retro shine among consumers. It's just not as cool as it was in the couple of years after its release, whereas the Prius is the car that all of the Hollywood glitzers talk about having, thus conferring it the "cool" status despite it being a really dreadfully boring car.

• Tue, 02/12/2008 - 10:22
• • reply
  • report this page

'Traditional' muscle is dying unfortunately. Yes they are packing more power into the cars, but they are also packing on a lot of weight too (not too much unlike the owners who will snap them up j/k). The Challenger is ther perfect example of that. 425hp and 4100 pounds? Come on.

The muscle car will evolve like everything else has - new powertrains, new technology, etc. But comparing Mustang sales to Prius sales is a bit silly. They are two completely different cars that fill two completely different needs. If a company made a hybrid car whose specs and use were directly comparable to a Mustang, that would be the most telling comparison.

• Tue, 02/12/2008 - 11:20
• • reply
  • report this page

"the concept of the muscle car will probably evolve into a really fun-to-drive, stylish vehicle as opposed to something that just breathes fire and has more cubic inches than the next guy"

So muscle cars will evolve into the stylish, more fuel efficient, lightweight, and sharp handling Japanese sportscars that have been eating up Detroits market share since the 90's?

What a novel concept. Maybe it's time to move beyond 1967.

• Tue, 02/12/2008 - 11:31
• • reply
  • report this page

Get the Camaro to 3000lbs and put the Ecotec turbo in it and you get the speed and fuel economy. Why is this so hard to do? That will sell more than the V6 Mustang model ever would.

• Tue, 02/12/2008 - 12:13
• • reply
  • report this page

I just looked at previous road test in Winding Road of the Jaguar Xk8 and Xkr. the Xk8 was rated at 16.9 mpg city & 34.9 mpg highway, the Xkr test showed 18 mpg city/ 27 mpg highway.
I checked Corvette-2006 Zo6-16 city, 26 highway
I checked Nissan 350z 19 city 25 highway
In their comparison test between the 350z, Mustang Gt, and Mini Coopper S the following fuel mileage figures were shown:
350z 20mpg city/ 26 mpg highway
Mustang Gt 20 city/ 29 highway
Mini Cooper S 25 city/ 32 highway
A Bmw 650i 15 city/ 23 highway
Porsche 911 turbo 12 city/24 highway estimated
Porsche Cayman S 20 city/28 highway

I just mention these cars to show that performance can be had with decent mileage. I looked up other cars from Winding Road tests, but noticed that Winding Road has a pretty dismal record of listing fuel mileage for high performance cars. I doubt if anyone buys a muscle car for primary transportation, they are much more likely to be purchased for weekend fun vehicles. As such they may not accumulate nearly the mileage of a daily driver, and I think that also needs to be taken into consideration.

I can't afford a new "super car", so I'm building up a 1987 Firebird Trans Am that has a 350 small block with tpi, and 5 speed trans. I only get 20-22 mpg on the highway, but I only drive it on the highway or around town just enough to keep it from deteriorating in my garage. Around town mileage is somewhere less than 50 miles per month. The total mileage on the car since the last oil change in June of 2006 is about 900 miles. I can afford to get only 20 mpg on a car that is driven less than 2000 miles per year.

• Tue, 02/12/2008 - 15:26
• • reply
  • report this page

EXACTLY. uragan is spot-on. Read the print media of 1980. In fact, look at the sporty vehicles coming out from that time. The Gen III Camaro was available with a base 4 cyl. engine. The Monte Carlo came with a turbo inline-four. The Mustang SVO had the same. Dodge had its own inline-four-powered front-drivers to appeal to the youth market. In the end, those options died out as oil cruch hysteria faded.

This is such a stupid philosophy. The 2020 mandate is a long time compared to the harsh regulations that were slapped on in the 1970s. You had the cuts coming into 1972, after a warning sign in 1969--'67 at the earliest. This also comes down to what the EPA hike is. Is the mileage mandate the combined average, or the highway rating? Is it using the strict 2008 standards, or the ones before? Info has been messy on these details. What the EPA hike means is that a manufacturer will not be focused on assembling 1.5 million full-size light trucks as it does now.

The Prius/Mustang comparison is foolish. The Prius is a high-mileage, four-door economy car. It's also the only gas-electric vehicle selling in that number. The Mustang is a coupe, a product for a limited market. The late 1990s and early 2000s were a much harder time for the sport coupe. GM was bailing out. Nissan, Chrysler, Mitsubishi, and Mazda jumped ship on their flagship two-doors.

The EPA hike could mean leaner aero bodies hitting the roads; or truly higher-end muscle cars available in $35K V-8 trim only. Personally, I think the Mustang and Challenger should only be available with a V-8 (and stick, too). It could make for a "purer" market.

• Tue, 02/12/2008 - 23:21
• • reply
  • report this page

[...] fuel economy standards signaling a switch away from high performance machines, what is the next generation of Hot Rodders going to [...]

• Fri, 02/29/2008 - 12:01
• • reply
  • report this page