[Adrien]

My new favourite one. The 2010 Mustang.

And Christine is a really cool movie. I'm trying to get my hands on The Car too.

[guzzipat]

I simply don't understand what American "muscle cars" are for, what they are supposed to do.

Consider the new Mustang;
Could someone please explain how a car with a rear suspension borrowed from a Roman Chariot, hopeless brakes and a horse power figure that any self respecting European or Japanese maunfacturer would get out of an engine half the size, could possibly be described as a muscle car?
Unless the term means a pile of junk in anything but a straight line.
It is easy to see why the American car industry is in trouble if this is what they build. It's an irrelevent design with nothing to offer to the future. Take that monstrosity onto a track (Leguna Seca would do) and any European sports car includng a tiny Catherham 7, would murder it.

[mburmei1]

I simply don't understand what American "muscle cars" are for, what they are supposed to do.

Consider the new Mustang;
Could someone please explain how a car with a rear suspension borrowed from a Roman Chariot, hopeless brakes and a horse power figure that any self respecting European or Japanese maunfacturer would get out of an engine half the size, could possibly be described as a muscle car?
Unless the term means a pile of junk in anything but a straight line.
It is easy to see why the American car industry is in trouble if this is what they build. It's an irrelevent design with nothing to offer to the future. Take that monstrosity onto a track (Leguna Seca would do) and any European sports car includng a tiny Catherham 7, would murder it.

It's a style vehicle, that no different from any other style vehicle, appeals to a certain consumer.

Keep in mind many of these designs are over 50 years old. It's a part of their heritage and that may be why some have a loyalty.

When I purchased my motorcycle speed didn't determine what I chose. It was style, how bike in all categories appealed to my personality and liking among other things.

Thats why kids are dying so often now a day. They're all getting litre bikes as their first motorcycle and killing themselves within a month. Try to look a little bit beyond that.

[Muck]

It's a style vehicle

I don't believe that we get such things in Europe, so the idea of being retro styled purely for the sake of it is slightly alien. We do have the Mini and Beetle, but both perform their roles quite well in their own right.

[guzzipat]

mburmei1;

If you re-read what I said I wasn't refering to speed but handling. IMO a car with a powerful engine but stone age suspension and poor brakes is inherently unsafe.

Your comments on Motorcycles I entirely agree with.
I chose an 1100cc Moto Guzzi, big engine but not fast, a touring bike.

In the UK people can't ride anything above 125cc, before passing test and then can't move straight to a litre bike for a while, they are still restricted to I think 400cc. The law also includes power weight limits.
It doesn't sound sensible to me to allow a beginer on a 1000cc bike, although power weight ratio is more important than cc.[/quote]

[Dave]

and a horse power figure that any self respecting European or Japanese maunfacturer would get out of an engine half the size

This is irrelevant, and I don't know why people harp on it. Power per unit of weight and specific fuel consumption are what matter, not power per displacement, which is misleading anyway since a higher displacement engine can be more compact than a lower displacement one. People often disparage the Corvette for its relatively low power per liter figure, yet the Corvette engine is better on power per pound than most "efficient" sports car engines and offers excellent specific fuel consumption. It also high levels of usable torque at low engine speed. This is why Ward's Autoworld consistently names it one of their ten best engines.

[Doomhammer]

I have a soft spot in my heart for a car that is packed with muscle-carness but doesn't totally fit in the definition usually accepted, the Chrysler 300C SRT-8.

My mom owns a 300M.

[guzzipat]

guzzipat wrote:

and a horse power figure that any self respecting European or Japanese maunfacturer would get out of an engine half the size

This is irrelevant, and I don't know why people harp on it. Power per unit of weight and specific fuel consumption are what matter, not power per displacement, which is misleading anyway since a higher displacement engine can be more compact than a lower displacement one. People often disparage the Corvette for its relatively low power per liter figure, yet the Corvette engine is better on power per pound than most "efficient" sports car engines and offers excellent specific fuel consumption. It also high levels of usable torque at low engine speed. This is why Ward's Autoworld consistently names it one of their ten best engines.

I said nothing about the Corvette engine, this is irrelevant.
Although I would admit to liking the Chevy V8.

Of course power weight ratio matters most, but not the engine alone. The weight of the vehicle counts too, it matters little if the engine is super efficient in a bloated dog of a car with lousy suspension and brakes.
The end result is a poor handling unsafe car.

Your aparant contention that you can consider the engine in isolation from the car is ridiculous, I hope I misinderstood.

[Dave]

My comment was specifically related to your comment about the engine. Obviously you cannot isolate the engine from the car in evaluating a vehicle, and it's possible for a bad engine (or one poorly placed) to ruin an otherwise good car. It's also possible to have a great engine in a bad car.

I brought up the Corvette engine simply because it's a wonderful engine that's often attacked on the spurious grounds I outlined. The Mustang doesn't have a good engine (nor is it a good car isolated from the engine).

[Adrien]

http://www.autogaleria.pl/fotografie/ford/ford_mustang_gt_2010_01.jpg

Couldn't resist. Isn't that an amazing view?!

[myowndrummer]

GTO!!

[Oxymoron]

GTFO!