The REAL original "pony car"...

[CAL]

Ford had an interesting run of bird and horse cars there for a while, with the Thunderbird, Falcon, Mustang, Bronco, Maverick, Pinto.

Which are all also airplane related.

The USAF Thunderbirds

The F-16 Fighting Falcon

The P-51 Mustang

The 1929 Mohawk Pinto

The OV-10 Bronco

and

Maverick Jets LTD.

weird huh.

Edited November 13, 2009 by CAL

[BigGary]

Close George, the NA-73 a.k.a. P-51 prototype was sent to Britain. The first use by the US Army Air Force was the ground attack A-36 Apache with 4 20m cannon. The USAAF deemed the unsupercharged Allison in the NA-73 unsuitable for high altitude. After the British put a Merlin V-12 in the prototype, then everybody loved the Mustang.

I believe it was Lee Iacocca who approved the name for the Ford Mustang.

If Plymouth had created a new body for the Barracuda in '64 instead of '67, Mustang and Camaroes would have benen Johnny come latelys.

Gary

[CAL]

yup, the British got the first production "Mustangs" arbitrarily named by the BPC (British Purchasing Comm).

It was until after the British got there first Mustangs and put them into service the USAF even placed an order.

The British order placed in Sept 1940 and were seeing combat in May 1942, and wasn't till June 42 the USAF place their 1st order, and most of those ended up with the RAF.

[Greg Cullinan]

I think it helps that mustangs kept at it even when it wasn't popular. I always thought it was the only pony car(it has a pony on it) and the others were just similar.

[CAL]

I think it helps that mustangs kept at it even when it wasn't popular. I always thought it was the only pony car(it has a pony on it) and the others were just similar.

That is kind of how I always felt about it.

And why does everyone consider the Chevy Camaro GM's pony anyway. The Chevy II (Nova) was first and fit the bill. It didn't even make it on the Pony Car list.

[Harry P.]

I guess it's the same question as what exactly is a muscle car. Nobody really knows, the answer you get all depends on who you ask. Whoever made up the name "pony car" probably never bothered to specifically define what exactly is or isn't a pony car.

[Rob Hall]

That is kind of how I always felt about it.

And why does everyone consider the Chevy Camaro GM's pony anyway. The Chevy II (Nova) was first and fit the bill. It didn't even make it on the Pony Car list.

Because the Camaro and Firebird were GM's pony cars. The Chevy II was just Chevy's Falcon equivalent compact (along with the unorthodox Corvair)..not a pony car.

Same reason the Barracuda and Challenger were Mopar's pony cars and not the Valiant and Dart, likewise for the Javelin and not the Rambler American.

What the 'pony cars' had in common is they all had specific body work, sporty styling, and were all 2drs and seated 4, and tended to have the long hood, short deck styling of the era. No 4drs, no wagons. That's what separated them from the conventional compacts like the Chevy II, Falcon, etc.

I tend to think of terms such as muscle car, pony car as specific to the '60s-70s. For today's cars, I think in terms like performance car, sports sedan, sports coupe, sports car, etc.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Rob Hall

[sak]

Before you can answer this question, you must first define pony car. Then find out if the barracuda fits these criteria or not. I don't think engine size options make a difference here and neither do lack of body style options, as long as the one style offered is a "pony car" style. For example, I would consider corvettes to be in a sportscar class, even though the original 'vettes did not have a v8 motor.

Jeff

Edited November 13, 2009 by sak

[CAL]

It was a sleeping pony.

[Rob Hall]

Before you can answer this question, you must first define pony car. Then find out if the barracuda fits these criteria or not. I don't think engine size options make a difference here and neither do lack of body style options, as long as the one style offered is a "pony car" style.

Jeff

As defined in my previous post. Anyway, it's all a moot point. Why is it that much of what goes on on the Internet is just arguing over trivia, over and over again

Edited November 13, 2009 by Rob Hall

[CAL]

I guess it's the same question as what exactly is a muscle car. Nobody really knows, the answer you get all depends on who you ask. Whoever made up the name "pony car" probably never bothered to specifically define what exactly is or isn't a pony car.

But he (Dennis Shattuck) did, and basically outlined the Mustang as the template for the Pony Car.

[CAL]

if you think a Plymouth "Panda" would have been bad, they did later offer the Plymouth Cricket. what a wonderful name for a car, an irritating insect

Dave

That would habe been a great name for it.

[Harry P.]

Crickets are irritating???

What would a summer evening be without them?

[Rob Hall]

Crickets are irritating???

What would a summer evening be without them?

At least they didn't name it the Ant or Tick.

[Harry P.]

Matbe we should start a new thread called "Stupid car names"... and we could start with some Japanese cars that have just about the weirdest names ever! Like for example calling a slick sports coupe a "Fair Lady!"

[Rob Hall]

Matbe we should start a new thread called "Stupid car names"... and we could start with some Japanese cars that have just about the weirdest names ever! Like for example calling a slick sports coupe a "Fair Lady!"

Yeah, or a thread on cars named after animals or mythical creatures...

[E St. Kruiser50]

I guess it's the same question as what exactly is a muscle car. Nobody really knows, the answer you get all depends on who you ask.

That's right HARRY

Both the "PONY CAR" era and the "MUSCLE CAR" ERA, both came into being over time and the terms were, as I said before, created and used over the decades by the the writers of the most popular magazines, which were a huge part of the auto culture back then. Much more than now.

When you look back over time and history, the first Corvette and the first Thunderbird could have been the first pony cars as well as the first muscle cars.The '55 Corvette came out with A V8 and fuel injection, and Fords answer was a Y-block V8 with a Paxton supercharger - So who's really to say for sure.

To me the important thing isn't the argument of - who did this or why something happened -, but that something in those few short years happened that was sort of "MAGIC", that was strickly an American phenominun, with so much rich automotive history, and some amazing automobiles for collectors and restorers to enjoy and to continue to discover in barns, even to this day, with huge excitement , and the satisfaction of bringing them back to life, and showing them at events.

For me I'm just glad that I was blessed to grew up in that incredible 50's/60's SoCal car era, not so much to brag about, but have the wonderful memories that could only come from such a small period of time in our countries history.

NO DRUGS THEN, BUT MAN WE HAD FUN .

[CAL]

it's the crickets that like to come in the house at summers end that i find irritating, not the ones outside

a thread on car names sounds like fun

Dave

i'm in

I kind of like the Volugrafo Bimbo and the Homy Super Long.

Edited November 13, 2009 by CAL

[Peter Lombardo]

OK, I will throw in my two cents. According to the book, "Mustang, Forty Years" by Randy Leffingwell, the foundation of the Mustang was firmly rooted in Iacocca's desire to forge a strong future for Ford.

They were deep into the theme of "The Lively Ones" which was morphing into the theme of "Total Performance". At the time GM, with Chevrolet and Pontiac were tearing up NASCAR and Chrysler's were the king of the drag strip. Iacocca was clear in his understanding of the phrase, "Win on Sunday, sell on Monday" so he built a group of 8 key managers that meet for a weekly dinner. This came to be known as the "Fairlane Committee.

One of the prime functions of this committee was to watch the other brands and see where they were headed. Oddly enough, even though they all considered the Chevrolet Corvair a "Dog", they watched as Chevrolet dropped bucket seats into the car, called it a Monza and sales began to skyrocket. And if you will recall, Chevrolet had a "Hopped up" version called the Monza Spider with a turbo charged engine. In fact, I have read in more then a few places that many think of the Monza Spider as the first "True American Muscle car". I am not saying that I agree with that, but it has been written.

Anyway, Iacocca knew that there was "No Manza Option for the Falcon" so the Ford guys needed to look elsewhere. While this was going on, Carroll Shelby had approached Chevrolet with the idea of dropping a Chevy small block V8 into an AC (British sports car) body and was turned down....after all, Chevy had the Corvette and did not need internal competition. Shelby went to Iacocca who handed him a check and said to get going on the project. Ford was seeing the promise of racing victories and needed to have showroom iron to catch the excitment of young buyers. Iacocca set his team working on a car that would attract the "Baby Boomers" who were just coming of age.

Designer John Najjar designed the fore runner of the production Mustang which was a 2 seat sports roadster with a strange V4 engine. It was an interesting design with a long front hood, short rear deck but not the street version that would soon sweep the nation. Designer Najjar was a fan of the WWII fighter plane called the P-51 Mustang and he thought that the lines of his design brought back memories of that plane. John Breeden who handled public relations for the design team ran the name past the legal department where the name "Mustang" was interpreted to mean the "wild American horse", and so the name was the same, but the meaning was changed. Designer Phil Clark drew the legionary Galloping horse logo and the "Pony Car" was born.

During this time, the Falcon consistently fell behind the Corvair in sales and old Henry Ford II was not a happy camper. Iacocca had an impromptu design competition between the group of designers, and the design manager, Gale Halderman's design was chosen. Iacocca was up against the wall. Henry Ford II was getting impatient with slumping Falcon sales and Iacocca convinced him that the car could be produced quickly and at a reasonable cost using mostly Falcon parts. A clay model was produced and old Henry approved the design on the spot. Production was set at 150,000 units and a budget of $40 million. The rest they say is history.

Harry, you may be the best one here to show us why the Mustang was needed by Ford. Why not take a picture of the Falcon and put a true fastback roof on it. I know the Falcon Sprint had a "fastback" roof, but I mean like the Barracuda had.....big honken' plate glass. I don['t think it would have been as successful as the Mustang was and is. Truly the right car at the right time in history.

It is no surprise that Chrysler had to steal and build a "cheap" copy of the Mustang concept. They did not have the resources that Ford had. Ford got their $40 million back in spades and Chrysler and AMC were forced to graft on fastback roof lines to their family sedans, well family coupes anyway. GM had the deep pockets so they were able to create the Camaro and then the Firebird to go head to head with the Mustang and early ( first two years of production) Cougars.

[Roadkill2525]

I've seen nobody mention the fact that the Mustang's horse emblem is running the opposite direction of thourghbreed race horses would run on the track.

[Harry P.]

I've seen nobody mention the fact that the Mustang's horse emblem is running the opposite direction of thourghbreed race horses would run on the track.

Depends on whether you're watching the race form the stands or the infield...

[tim boyd]

Couple of comments on this very interesting thread...

First, some of you have mentioned that the '67-'69 Barracuda was the first "real" pony car from Chrysler, and like you, I like this car, particularly the '67 and '68 fastbacks. But if you really wanna weep over what "might have been", check out the Barracuda "SX" concept car from 1967. Sources suggest this is the REAL Barracuda that the MoPar Design Studio created for '67-69, but it required too many changes from the Valiant/Dart platform (most likely in the very expensive cowl/windshield area), and ultimately it was turned down for production. During the debate, the car fell behind schedule and the car we finally got (which bears a vague resemblance to some of the SX design themes), hit the market in mid November 1966, two months behind the normal 1967 model intros.

By the way, if you don't find pictures of the "SX", I'll just say it would have made the '68 GTO look like old grapes if the "SX" had hit the market for the 1967 model year. AND it would have fundamentally altered how the Pony Car market developed. As it was, the use of the carryover Dart/Valiant cowl height and windshield on the '67-'69 Barracuda continued to limit its visual appeal vs. the Mustang and new Camaro. Chrysler didn't really get a true ponycar until the '70 Cuda and Challenger, and by then it was too late. Yet another missed opportunity, unfortunately for Chrysler.

And, one of the posts above suggests that the Corvair suddenly started outselling the Falcon, and that is one of the reasons why the Mustang was approved. If you go back and check the year sales figures, my recollection is that the Corvair never even came close to outselling the Falcon. In fact, the Corvair was an utter sales disaster compared to the Falcon, whicy is why GM rushed the Chevy II to the market in 1962. What WAS happening was that among the lackluster Corvair sales, the sporty Monza version was comprising more and more of the sales base (at the expense of the lesser series), and that definiately caught everyone's attention in the industry.

Best regards all....TIM

[Pete J.]

Before you can answer this question, you must first define pony car. Then find out if the barracuda fits these criteria or not. I don't think engine size options make a difference here and neither do lack of body style options, as long as the one style offered is a "pony car" style. For example, I would consider corvettes to be in a sportscar class, even though the original 'vettes did not have a v8 motor.

Jeff

OK, now we've opened a different can of worms. A V8 does not define a sports car - There are a ton of sports cars without V8s - ie - Porsche-flat 6, 240Z inline 6, XKE - inline 6/V12, MG Tseries - inline 4, Ferrari 250 series - V12, Austin Heley - inline 6 etc., etc.

Defining a class of car is now, was, and always will be difficult. There are a lot of gray areas. As far as the Barracuda - can you imagine if the first Mustang was a fastback Falcon. Boy Ford would have sold 2 or 3 of those!

[FASTBACK340]

Couple of comments on this very interesting thread...

First, some of you have mentioned that the '67-'69 Barracuda was the first "real" pony car from Chrysler, and like you, I like this car, particularly the '67 and '68 fastbacks.

Best regards all....TIM

To most of you guys I'm a stranger, but I'm s-l-o-w-l-y getting back into the hobby....after a LONG hiatus.

I'll offer my un-solicited opinion on this topic: The term "Pony Car" was coined as a response to the success of the Mustang after GM joined the party with the Camaro. This way all cars built to copy the successful Mustang was called a "Pony Car", in deference to the Mustang origins. Like mentioned earlier, if the initial car that defined the category was indeed the Barracuda, the term may have very well been referred to as Fish... or for that matter, Bird cars, if it was the Firebird. For that matter, if the Cobra was the car, it could have very well been Snake cars also. It all sounds silly in retrospect, but think about it.....

And as for MY vote on the appearance of the Barracuda's, well.... I'm biased.

Here's my `68 340-S Fastback with a few modifications....

[Harry P.]

Here are a few renderings of a new Barracuda by Brazilian designer Rafael Reston. Too bad Chrysler killed off Plymouth!