but i consider my wagon a muscle car
Really?
Specs on my '69 Sport Satellite 4 door (all factory)
383/4bbl, 727, 3.55 8.75 Sure-Grip, 11" drum brakes all the way around (non-power), power steering with a cooler, five full leafs on one side, five full and two half leafs on the other, Magnum 500's.
It's hardly what I'd consider a muscle car, even though it was built from the factory with extra go-goodies.
I wouldn't consider comparably equipped Belvedere's built for police use muscle cars, either.
But that's the thing about muscle cars. The definition is broad and varying.
I'd consider anything B-body size and smaller, with factory performance upgrades (4bbl or multiple carbs, bigger cams, dual exhaust, bigger brakes) to be a muscle car built between the years of '64 (open to personal definition) to about '71 (around the time compression and performance levels came down.)
My '74 Barracuda, factory 318 2bbl
isn't a muscle car, in my opinion.
Hell, I wouldn't consider a factory 318 2bbl '71 Barracuda a muscle car, either.
Cars built from the factory for performance were muscle cars (ironic, then, that my definition includes my Sport... I just can't bring myself to a call a 4 door a muscle car..) except those which are bumped into the "sports" car category ( 'Vettes, Cobras, the little European cars with the horses in the emblems...).
A factory built Duster 340? Yes. A factory built slant Duster? Nope.
Pony cars... E-bodies, Mustangs, GM F-bodies... are in a slightly different category defined as a pony car: long hood, short deck comparably. That '71 318 2bbl Barracuda I was talking about, doesn't really have the muscle, but it's still a Pony.
As for the Neon in the OP? No way in hell will it ever by a muscle car, no matter what is done to it. Chrysler even called the SRT4 a factory tuner.