Muscle Cars

[RatFink]

Weird Rat. You just made that long post and never mentioned Corvettes.

A corvette was never a true blue-collared muscle car though. That was more a white-collared sports car. I think by definition you can call a sports car a two door, two seater that is low down, attempts to handle and is decently quick.
The corvette might fall into the muscle car realm because they came with 427s and such - but that's all they had to go fast. They didn't have a small, forced induction engine to lighten the nose and improve handling, they only had these giant iron block V8s that ruined the balance of these cars.

Take for instance the original Cobras, they came in 289 and 427 variants. The 427s were never the handlers the 289s were, but both of them were way too much money to be a muscle car, and they only fit 2 people.

Generally speaking, muscle cars must also fit 4 people. They were decently practical cars - unlike the corvette and cobra.

 

[blugold]

Dude. I know. I was referencing the earlier nonsense in this thread.

 

[RatFink]

Or Mustangs, or Mercedes. Just sayin.

False, I mentioned the Boss 302.

Mustangs, Camaros, Challengers and 'Cudas were the smaller, pony car breed of muscle cars. The original muscle car was bigger than all of those cars - the Mustang was developed from the Falcon, which if you want to bring Mercedes into the picture, would be a C class, while the Torino was an E class, and the Galaxie would be an S class.

Mercedes is where I sort of alluded to with my modern day mention of muscle cars vs. sports sedans. In the historic definition of a muscle car, Mercedes has never produced one because Mercedes has always been a white-collared premium vehicle, while the muscle car was a blue-collared affordable car for the common person.

 

[RatFink]

Dude. I know. I was referencing the earlier nonsense in this thread.

Ahh gotcha. I kind of skimmed over the stuff that was getting thrown out there and attempted to write something that laid it out for those who don't know.

 

[Wake]

False, I mentioned the Boss 302.

Mustangs, Camaros, Challengers and 'Cudas were the smaller, pony car breed of muscle cars. The original muscle car was bigger than all of those cars - the Mustang was developed from the Falcon, which if you want to bring Mercedes into the picture, would be a C class, while the Torino was an E class, and the Galaxie would be an S class.

Mercedes is where I sort of alluded to with my modern day mention of muscle cars vs. sports sedans. In the historic definition of a muscle car, Mercedes has never produced one because Mercedes has always been a white-collared premium vehicle, while the muscle car was a blue-collared affordable car for the common person.

You are right I skimmed past the 302. I was just being argumentative right along with Blu. And obviously the Mercedes isn't a muscle car, no more than any other high end cars/sports cars are.

 

[Oregon Jack]

False, I mentioned the Boss 302.

Mustangs, Camaros, Challengers and 'Cudas were the smaller, pony car breed of muscle cars. The original muscle car was bigger than all of those cars - the Mustang was developed from the Falcon, which if you want to bring Mercedes into the picture, would be a C class, while the Torino was an E class, and the Galaxie would be an S class.

Mercedes is where I sort of alluded to with my modern day mention of muscle cars vs. sports sedans. In the historic definition of a muscle car, Mercedes has never produced one because Mercedes has always been a white-collared premium vehicle, while the muscle car was a blue-collared affordable car for the common person.

Challengers and cudas are bigger than most cars..

 

[CS]

The funniest thing about this whole muscle car debate is most believe 60's and 70's era cars are the end all be all muscle cars and the fact that most of them only ran 14-15 second quarter miles is laughable compared to more modern cars that are not only faster, safer, way more reliable, fuel efficient and comfortable to drive.

A question for the muscle car purists would you consider a 1987 Buick grand national a muscle car?

 

[RatFink]

Challengers and cudas are bigger than most cars..

You're right, they are bigger than most cars today. But in terms of that era, they were small cars. What was a Dart in '68 (A-body, the little one of the mopar stable) is way larger than today's dart, which is still the baby of the stable.

The funniest thing about this whole muscle car debate is most believe 60's and 70's era cars are the end all be all muscle cars and the fact that most of them only ran 14-15 second quarter miles is laughable compared to more modern cars that are not only faster, safer, way more reliable, fuel efficient and comfortable to drive.

A question for the muscle car purists would you consider a 1987 Buick grand national a muscle car?

Yeah, their drag times were bad because of their bias ply tires that couldn't put power down very well. Car Craft used to take factor Mopars, put on a set of drag radials (closer to today's tires) and put Ronnie Sox (King of the 4-speeds) behind the wheel and he would run down into the low 12s, high 11s without too much trouble. There's nothing laughable about that!

 

[Wake]

The funniest thing about this whole muscle car debate is most believe 60's and 70's era cars are the end all be all muscle cars and the fact that most of them only ran 14-15 second quarter miles is laughable compared to more modern cars that are not only faster, safer, way more reliable, fuel efficient and comfortable to drive.

A question for the muscle car purists would you consider a 1987 Buick grand national a muscle car?

An old Jag E Type, Ferrari GTO or original 911 or all inferior to modern cars also, doesn't mean they aren't cool in their own right. No one is putting down any other cars, just saying they don't fit into the muscle car genre.

And the Grand Nationals were badass, but I have a hard time calling anything with a v6 as a muscle car.

 

[CS]

You're right, they are bigger than most cars today. But in terms of that era, they were small cars. What was a Dart in '68 (A-body, the little one of the mopar stable) is way larger than today's dart, which is still the baby of the stable.



Yeah, their drag times were bad because of their bias ply tires that couldn't put power down very well. Car Craft used to take factor Mopars, put on a set of drag radials (closer to today's tires) and put Ronnie Sox (King of the 4-speeds) behind the wheel and he would run down into the low 12s, high 11s without too much trouble. There's nothing laughable about that!

I am well aware of what the cars can do with a little modification... But all these debates always end up with the old car being modified and the newer cars have to be 100% showroom stock, so to be fair I like to compare stock to stock.

 

[RatFink]

I am well aware of what the cars can do with a little modification... But all these debates always end up with the old car being modified and the newer cars have to be 100% showroom stock, so to be fair I like to compare stock to stock.

I understand where you are coming from, but in that case, it only makes sense since the world has had 40 years of development to drop those times.

 

[motoo344]

My dad had a 69 z28 when he was a teenager, I'd like to find one some day but that will get harder and more expensive as time goes on. Can't say I've had a muscle car of yesteryear but I've owned; 2000 Camaro SS, 1994 Camaro Z28 and a 2000 Mustang GT. That ls1 was such an awesome engine but GM might as well have let Fisher Price build the interior.

 

[CS]

I understand where you are coming from, but in that case, it only makes sense since the world has had 40 years of development to drop those times.

100% agreed! My whole point here is it doesn't matter if a car was built in 1970 or 2001 if it fits the criteria of a "muscle car" then it is a muscle car. A new camaro or mustang is just as much a muscle car as anything from the 60's-70's

 

[RatFink]

100% agreed! My whole point here is it doesn't matter if a car was built in 1970 or 2001 if it fits the criteria of a "muscle car" then it is a muscle car. A new camaro or mustang is just as much a muscle car as anything from the 60's-70's

My only beef with today's muscle cars is that how many people in their mid 20s can go and afford one of these 'muscle cars' when the whole point of them back in the day was to be cheap!

 

[Oregon Jack]

An old Jag E Type, Ferrari GTO or original 911 or all inferior to modern cars also, doesn't mean they aren't cool in their own right. No one is putting down any other cars, just saying they don't fit into the muscle car genre.

And the Grand Nationals were badass, but I have a hard time calling anything with a v6 as a muscle car.

Yes. This x 9000.

 

[Oregon Jack]

100% agreed! My whole point here is it doesn't matter if a car was built in 1970 or 2001 if it fits the criteria of a "muscle car" then it is a muscle car. A new camaro or mustang is just as much a muscle car as anything from the 60's-70's

Yep. As hard as it is for me to call anything fairly new a muscle car, they still are.

 

[blugold]

Can a muscle car be a muscle car if its am automatic. Or does it have to be manual?

 

[Oregon Jack]

Can a muscle car be a muscle car if its am automatic. Or does it have to be manual?

I dont think it matters too much

 

[blugold]

I dont think it matters too much

The manual would have more horse power, I would think.

 

[Wake]

The manual would have more horse power, I would think.

With the older cars, and we are talking stock automatics, that is absolutely true. With modern transmissions not so much, but the manuals are still a ton more fun.

 

[Oregon Jack]

The manual would have more horse power, I would think.

The transmission has nothing to do with how much power the engine has. The only negative to having an auto is its not quite as quick. Just as fast, but not as quick.

By fast, i mean top speed, and by quick i mean how fast it can get to its top speed.

 

[SharkHat]

The transmission has nothing to do with how much power the engine has. The only negative to having an auto is its not quite as quick. Just as fast, but not as quick.

By fast, i mean top speed, and by quick i mean how fast it can get to its top speed.

When you're talking about how many horses you can get to the ground (such as on a dyno), the transmission and gear ratios can be a factor.

 

[Mulligan9111]

The transmission has nothing to do with how much power the engine has. The only negative to having an auto is its not quite as quick. Just as fast, but not as quick.

By fast, i mean top speed, and by quick i mean how fast it can get to its top speed.

Um...have you ever seen some of the automatic transmissions set up with stall converters and shift packages? Sorry but that was a very naive thing to say.

A lot of drag racers that I know actually prefer an auto tranny with a high stall converter (3000+).

And while the transmission has nothing to do with the engine's power, it most certain effects how the power is put to the ground. Which is why most people are concerned with rwhp and rwtq numbers over bhp.

As far as the what is a muscle car and what isn't, like everything else in this world, the definition is going to change/evolve as new technology is introduced. There are still muscle cars being made today, the only difference is that with everybody going green, muscle cars are now usually on the more expensive end of the spectrum. I would certainly consider a lot of the Mercedes AMG's to be modern muscle cars. Corvettes have never and will never be considered a muscle car, it's a sports car.

Those are just my opinions though.

 

[OUZO Power]

haha the impaler. nice.

and UOZU, the first step to being a muscle car is it's made it america. 2nd- made in detroit. prefferably made in the '60's or early '70's.

Was this a bad attempt to spell my handle? Was it for me?

 

[blugold]

Was this a bad attempt to spell my handle? Was it for me?

You get used to people misspelling your username.