Thread: Iron Dukes??
View Single Post
Old 05-02-2012, 06:16 AM   #35
goinbroke2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NS CANADA
Posts: 898
Likes: 1,670
Liked 397 Times in 156 Posts
Default Re: Iron Dukes??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Wright View Post
Where do you see the difference?
Well Ed, the sports cars of the time were tiny european open top cars with 4 wheel independant suspension and the focus was on handling. (triumph/mg's/porche/etc.
While the mustang did compete in some "sporty car" races it was a 2+2 car that handled well (for that time period) and the focus was more on fun and affordability. It was at home on a twisty track but was also home on a dragstrip and had optional v-8 engines strictly for straight line.
Sports cars on the other hand were solely twisty cars and didn't accellerate well enough to compete in drag racing. A 1500lb car with 75hp was great zipping through the S's and switchbacks but laughable on a straightaway or dragstrip.

Now people car them musclecars which isn't right either. Musclecars were cars designed to purely go in a straight line, all muscle. A bigblock chevelle or torino or various hemi's fit that bill.

Camaro's/cuda's&challenger were all pony cars because they were built to fit into the "new" class of vehicle that the mustang started. Mustang, being a horse the class was called "pony".

Semantic's for the most part but the mustang was not intended to be or ever was comparable to a MG or triumph. (the same as a camaro was never meant to be)

Of course this is just my opinion too, the same as me hating imports is my opinion. hehehe
goinbroke2 is offline   Reply With Quote