^^^thats the one I like!

But they have risen steadily for years. The fastbacks are a sure bet to continue to rise as they were built in much smaller numbers.

Yup. Part of the reason that the Mustang is still affordable when most muscle cars have escalated to silly prices. It's pretty easy to find a nice driver classic Mustang for $15k. Obviously the rare models command higher prices, but who needs an all-original numbers-matching Shelby GT350 to drive to the burger joint on Friday nights?

The all original numbers matching gt350 will be more than $100k for a project car. Decent clones are in the $30-50 range .
Regular Mustangs are not muscle cars and a good one can be found for probably $10-20.
The muscle car 428 Cobra Jet or the boss 302 cars are crazy prices like Shelby,s

I generalize, anything big and American from the 1960/1970 era is a muscle car. I know that the Mustang and Camaro are technically considered "pony cars", but I don't much care.;)

The Mustang created the term "pony car".
A muscle car, to me anyway, is any car with a much bigger engine than usual.
mid size with a big block or a compact car with a high perf small block.
There are special versions of the Mustang which would be muscle cars .
I suppose the 930 is a muscle car version of the 911, with special versions like authentic RS Carreras being similar to a limited edition like a Shelby or Boss 302. As you pointed out it,s all in the production numbers. A million 65-66 Mustangs and Shelby converted around 550 to real 65 gt350,s and another 1500 into 66 gt350,s . Few and far between makes for higher collector demand.

From Mustang Forums...
 

"A true movie star will make its way down Mecum's signature red carpet this May in Indianapolis. Known by most simply as Eleanor, the modified 1967 Ford Mustang from Touchstone Pictures' Gone in 60 Seconds will cross the block as Lot S135 at Dana Mecum's 26th Original Spring Classic auction. You better snatch her up while you can!"

Gee, think it might sell for more than Randy's 911 would? :rolleyes:

Thanks to everyone for keeping this thread going and for the great information... to summarize what I have gathered as fairly general consensus is this:

1) Ford built over 1,000,000 in the first couple of years, so short of it being something with a rare or special package or with some sort of historical pedigree, they are more affordable to buy than restore.

2) They were called Rustangs for a reason (gee, sounds oddly familiar to our 911s) but parts are plentiful new and used to rebuild them.

3) Everybody loves fastbacks (myself included) because they look cooler and were built in fewer numbers. Because of this, coupes may be less expensive to get into a decent driver.

4) Tis cheaper to buy than build... I imagine this holds true with many if not most classic cars when restored by an individual whose day job is not in the industry.

5) New Mustangs are incredibly beautiful, reliable and all-around great cars (but defeat the point of the thread).

6) After 70 or so, the Mustang grew in size and are less collectible than the earlier cars... grew in size, that is until the introduction of the Mustang II.

7) I'm sure there are lovers of Mustang IIs but I am not one of them.

8) Because of the qty that were built, numbers-matching drivetrains don't seem to have as much significance to the Mustang crowd as it does to the 911 crowd, especially when the replacement drivetrain is an improvement over stock.

9) V8s seem to be where it is at.

As a side note, a coworker of mine showed up to work yesterday with a 2013 GT500. It was incredible!

I'd say you about summed it up...

except possibly:

Some here have a hatred for Mustangs...;) Also, Sidney secretly lusts for one.

fixed it for you.

What can I say? Other than that the '09 Bullitt Mustang is a much better driver than a 1972 911S is....I DO have a good basis for comparison. Not many here do.

Less. Much less. :p

Jim, May you continue to pay homage to the Gods of Stuttgart...

no no no!

must have a BIG motor!

I'm a non-religious sort, Paul. :p But this is a Porsche enthusiast forum. So, when in Rome, don't act like a Visigoth.

Yep. The size of the car didn't factor in, only that it was high performance (HP/torque).

To me a "pony car" vs a muscle car is that the pony car can turn. Where a muscle car is a drag car. A 67 Shelby is a pony car, a 68.5 Cobra jet was designed for the strip so it's a MUSCLE CAR

awraht, Jim, now you done did it...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/743940-muscle-car.html#post7379151

A 65 -66 is a pony car the 67 was widened so the FE big block would fit still had the long hood short deck but was also heavier.
So unless the 67 Shelby was a gt350 it didn,t turn in very well . Most Shelby,s in 67 were gt500,s weren,t they?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1365640316.jpg
Heres my '65 289 4speed, Springtime yellow