How do you define 'Muscle Car'?

How do you define 'Muscle Car'?

  • A V8

    Votes: 46 56.8%

  • A big engine (displacement wise, V10, W12, whatever)

    Votes: 36 44.4%

  • Front engine

    Votes: 51 63.0%

  • Rear drive

    Votes: 68 84.0%

  • Power

    Votes: 51 63.0%

  • Torque

    Votes: 58 71.6%

  • Cheap

    Votes: 34 42.0%

  • Practical

    Votes: 9 11.1%

  • Something else (please tell us)

    Votes: 9 11.1%
  • Total voters
    81
Ryotsu

Ryotsu

Active Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
156
Location
Poway California
Car(s)
2012 Ford Mustang V6 Performance
To me, a muscle car is a relatively cheap, medium size, 4 or 5 seat car with a big engine (not just a powerful engine, no 2.0 turbos, I mean at least 300ci) that give LOTS of torque. This is a car that goes 0-60 in under 5 seconds, but that you could drive to school, or to work in, and then drive you and your friends to a movie. A car that doesn't cost and arm and a leg, and that is equally capable of winning drag races as it is to go shopping. This definition rules out the C63 AMG, due to cost, and the Dodge Viper, due to cost and practicality. But, if Porsche brought out a new car with a rear mounted flat 6 that gave 400 ftlbs of torque, and that only cost $35000, it would be a great muscle car.

P.S. I also think rear drive is essential.

P.P.S. Vote for EVERYTHING that you think defines a muscle car.

Please talk about what makes a muscle car. I know a lot of people will say that the Dodge Viper (which I call a sports car, not a muscle car) is a muscle car. Some say the C63 AMG is a muscle car. Some say that a muscle car must have a front mounted V8 (thus ruling out my imaginary Porsche). Whatever you think is a muscle car, you make the case for.

If you pick 'Something else, please tell us what it is.

(votes from Americans count triple) :p
 
Last edited:
The traditional definition is a full size (and thats american full size by 50's definitions, IE square and massive.) sedan with a large, torquey V8. Not to be confused with a sports car, or a pony car (which is a cousin of the muscle car developed out of "compact" cars, by late 60's definitions.) I would say this catagory of vehicles only applies to north american cars, australian vehicles are often included but this obviously depends on who you ask. Would a cheap RWD flat 6 porsche be awesome? Yes. Would it be a muscle car? Not even close.

Examples of muscle cars:

250px-Dodge_Coronet_500_Coupe_(Orange_Julep).jpg

2464090330103886947S425x425Q85.jpg

impala.jpg


Not examples of muscle cars:

shelby-gt350-mustang-6_460x0w.jpg

0904_01_z+2010_rCR_series_4_chevy_camaro+front_three_quarter_view.jpg

1982_porsche_944-pic-1126.jpeg



Remember this is the traditional definition and it often varies from person to person but when the term was invented, this was what it meant.
 
Last edited:
Thanks you. Please vote too, though, so that we can keep track of all of this.
Also, I wouldn't say that the traditional definition includes large or four door. I would say that the Charger was a muscle car, even though it started being mid size and two door. That doesn't stop it from being a muscle car today though. The modern four door Chargers (with the big engines) of all times count as muscle cars in my book. The ponies (Mustang, Camaro, Challenger) have grown more powerful engines and also become bigger, and so are more muscle-y. They are sort of half way between pony and muscle cars for me.

P.S. Thank you for understanding the difference between pony and muscle cars! and thank you also for posting pics.
 
Last edited:
Matt generally has it right - except that musclecars generally were intermediate or mid-sized cars with full-sized engines.

One of the first musclecars - the 1964 Pontiac GTO - was a mid-sized LeMans with the 389 ci engine from the full-sized Bonneville. Four door musclecars were very rare. The only one I can think of offhand was the 1964 Olds 442. But the 442 was basically the police package Cutlass when it first came out. Full-sized cars were never considered musclecars. I have reprinted road test from Car Life magazine back in 1969 where they compare a 427 Chevy Caprice, a 429 Ford LTD, a 440 Dodge Monaco, and a 383 Plymouth Fury. In the article, they repeatedly refer to the cars as "Power Cars". I've also heard the term "Super Car" thrown around - especially when referring to the Chrysler 300 letter cars.

The line between pony car and muscle car has always been blurred. And I think a lot has to do with the handling and the engine size. 1967-69 Camaro Z28s and 69-70 Boss 302s were handling machines - as were the small-block Shelby Mustangs -and are considered pony cars. COPO Camaros with the big block, 428 Mach 1s, and Hemi E-body cars are considered muscle cars because they are all about straight line acceleration. Which I guess makes the Challenger the only true modern muscle car.

To recap: Big engine in a small(ish) car designed for straight line acceleration = muscle car.
 
Matt's definition is generally what I operate on, with the caveat that I consider pony cars to be a sub-set. This may be a bit of a contridiction as Muscle cars were sedans or based on sedan platforms (always 5 seats or 2+2 config), whereas Pony Cars were purpose built on their own underpinnings. Contrast Dodge Charger (Coronet) vs. Dodge Challenger. Or the Pontiac GTO (Tempest, Tempest LeMans) vs. the Chevrolet Camaro. Both were built with straight line speed in mind, by stuffing large engines under the hood, though this is also not completely true of the pony cars. Remember, GM never "officially" put a big block into the "compact" Camaro (the COPOs were special order and the Yenkos had their engines swapped at the dealership). Also, oddly enough, the GM Pony cars and the Ford Mustang raced on tracks (Trans Am and SCCA events, iirc), while pure muscle cars (Torinos, Chargers, and Monte Carlos, although GM was absent for most of the 60's, and for one or two years Ford was the only manufacturer on the track).

Cost is not, in my opinion, a factor. Muscle cars were up trimmed sedans, which meant their price point usually put them above the cost of an average family sedan, which could be very cheap in the most spartan trim (and then swap the engine out for a bigger one in your shed). Pony cars were introduced specifically to bring the sporty fun of the larger muscle cars to a lower price point, and is evident especially when you see that Ford targeted women secretaries in their advertisements.

The Corvette and Viper are not muscle cars, nor are they pony cars. Many euro types and those who embrace European cars over American may label them as such, because (moreso with the Viper) they have large, low-revving engines, and are low on the technology side (as in driver aids, electronics and "tricks"). Pony cars still maintain the 5-seater or 2+2 layout. The Corvette and Viper are through and through sports cars, with speed, accelleration, and handling in mind. Of course, the first few 'vettes were poor in any of those aspects until Zora got his hands on the project.

With that in mind, one could argue the Nissan Z is a pony car (it can be had with 2+2 seating), and the C63 AMG is a muscle car. The main thing that gets in the way with most people is they aren't American.
 
Last edited:
YF19Pilot has done quite a good job defining the differences here, although I have to disagree about the 350z thing... the main thing that makes a Muscle/Pony Car what it is, is that it has a V8. The only non V8 Muscle car in my eyes is the Buick GN(X) because of the ridiculous power it manages to put down with it's turbo V6. It would out run Corvettes and Ferrari's of it's day.
 
Front engine, RWD, V8, loud exhaust, and medium to large body. There are too many "official" definitions of the term to know 100% what is what. I still consider the "pony" car a muscle car because they meet my criteria. But of course the Crown Victoria fits into my criteria. :lol: So blah.
 
ford-falcon-xr6-turbo-6-big.jpg

I'd say this is an Australian modern day muscle car. It's big, RWD, has 533nm of torque and stock versions have been known to dip into the 12s down the 1/4 mile.

EDIT: You can a low km used example for under 30k. (thats decent in Aus)
 
Last edited:
Would you guys really consider muscle cars "small cars"? I think a 4 door giant car (cornet, 4 door chevelle) back in the day was more likely to be considered a muscle car than a small pontiac.
 
Cheap and powerful. While a V-8 and RWD are important I always considered the old Neon SRT-4 a modern muscle car. It was extremely cheap, yet powerful with absolutely no refinement...
 
Last edited:
too jasonof2000, just powerful? Or torque too?
too MattD1zzl3, not small cars. None of these cars are really small.
And just so everyone knows, 533 nm is the same as 393 ft lbs.
And I'll have to agree with that last post, 4 cylinders does not a muscle car make.
 
Last edited:
I think it's a relatively archaic term that has crept into modern society. A big, ugly, 2 door version of a boring sedan, which basically consists of only the current Dodge Challenger. Sort of a useless, boring, version of a pony car, Mustang & Camaro, for the geriatric set, who find those cars too small and hard to get into to.
 
Your criteria for the muscle car being a sub-5 second 0-60 car basically rules out most of the cars from the 60's and 70's that we otherwise consider muscle cars.
 
For me it's all about ridiculous amounts of power, to the point where the car itself is pretty much incapable of handling it. If a car is very well engineered to handle all it's power and put it down to the ground efficiently, then it's not a muscle car. I think American cars did that well because we built a lot of giant land yachts that required giant engines to move them around. So they pulled those giant engines and found the smallest and lightest cars they had with engine bays big enough to fit them, and shoehorn them in. I think pony cars came a bit later, because they wanted smaller cheaper cars for people with smaller budgets to afford, but who still wanted that muscle car look, and eventually they stuffed some giant engines in those too.

But personally, I think the muscle car is dead. You can make a case for a few cars, like the Dodge Viper, but I think they're all a bit too advanced in terms of handling and grip to be a true muscle car.
 
TomCat said:
But personally, I think the muscle car is dead. You can make a case for a few cars, like the Dodge Viper, but I think they're all a bit too advanced in terms of handling and grip to be a true muscle car.
Click to expand...

300C and Charger are the closest thing to traditional muscle cars, but are a little on the small side. The 1996 chevrolet impala SS (google it) was the last true muscle car.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top