ohnoesaz

OOOooo, now you've done it!

Its actually quite true... A V6 has a slower 1/4 mile than, just for examples, a Mazda 3, Mazda 6, Scion TC, Nissan Altima V6. Is it rice to call the V6 a muscle car? Or are all of those cars I just named also muscle cars?

Now I did it! I'm just trying to defend against people saying rice about every single thing they see, when their own brothers on the forums may fall into the same category.

raubt

I was reading an article about muscle cars a while ago, and really, the Mustang isn't even technically a muscle car. Muscle cars were all about straight line power, nothing else. Cheap, light bodies, big nasty engines, lots of straight line speed.

Mustangs weren't about being "muscle cars," they brought in the "pony car" era, which was somewhat about power and straight line speed, but more about building a balanced car with some decent handling too. So, calling a Mustang of any kind a muscle car isn't really correct, it's a pony car. More balanced overall performance as opposed to just drag-strip speed.

***
Here are some quotes from that article:

The "muscle car" was born in 1964 in the form of the original Pontiac GTO. Almost concurrently the Mustang was born, and with it the "pony car" genre.

[Pony cars] were all "compact" cars by that era's standards, with a sporting bent that tilted more toward all-round performance, including handling, than to sheer brute force. They all offered V8 engines, but they were primarily small-blocks, and they earned their performance creds on the road-racing tracks of the day.

"Muscle cars" were bigger – mid-size cars – with big-block engines, typically in the range of 400 cubic inches (6.6 litres) and up. In addition to the GTO, they included such examples as the Chevelle SS 396, Dodge Super Bee, Plymouth Roadrunner, and many more.

http://news.en.autos.sympatico.msn.c...mentid=4912865

***
Oh yeah, to the original poster: Those taillights seriously suck. Please don't deface a perfectly good Mustang with crap like that. It's a good looking car, and those lights just don't belong. Like someone said, if you need a change, go with sequential lights or whatever.

mightymouse

Rice, Rice Baby!!!

PLstang

Not for me!

AmericanICON

Wow.. there sure are some rice-o-phobes in here!

Those lights aren't that bad. They're styled like alot of the newer cars.

Those tails consist of 2 round red lights, and the reverse lights, covered by a clear lens, and you all say rice.
Our headlights are 1 round lens, covered by plastic, and it's NOT rice? Makes sense to me.

They're not "retro" designed, but they are more modern, and if you like them.. do it, it's your car.

jerjan

Yukkin Fugly! Yipes! Just go buy a Honda!

Pantera72

Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing. The lights are not all that bad, they are just not the style that suits the direction of my car. How many of the people who blurted out rice have stick-on window louvers? How about side louvers? If an import has a stick-on item, its called rice, but if a mustang has a stick-on item its called cool. I guess I like rice, because my side window louvers aren't going anywhere. [8D]

hataap

nay to those tail lights.

i am not gonna say anything about rice..because I LIKE RICE! I AM ASIAN -_-. I eat it like everyday...no joke.

FenderParrothead

Someone I work with has either those exact taillights or something very, very similar. I was behind him on the way into the office this morning, and in the day time, I am in the "fugly camp" as well – they look pretty bad. But when we passed through a darkened area (a street that runs through the downtown convention center) and he applied his breaks, I must say that it looked pretty cool lit up in the darkness, IMHO.

Cool enough to make up for how they look during the day? No!!! But cool, nonetheless.

moosestang

super ****ing gay! Damn I just threw up on myself.[:'(]