MattD1zzl3
2 Slow 2 Noisy
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,736
- Location
- Miamishire
- Car(s)
- 1996 & 2003 Mazda Miatas, 1995 Chevy Camaro Z28
But it cant be a muscle car if its german, plain and simple.
I disagree. I don`t think "nationality" has any say on the matter when it?s build in the spirt of a muscle car.But it cant be a muscle car if its german, plain and simple.
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.
... be honest, how much did you have to out of your way not to write "sports sedan", knowing I?d pick the "sports" apart? I would agree that a M5 is a Sports-sedan ... or a (R)S6 ... but Mercedes and AMG have always gone down a different road. They?ve looked at american muscle-cars and then slapped a big engine into their Sedans without worrying too much how they go around corners ...it's a Super sedan.[...]
I disagree. I don`t think "nationality" has any say on the matter when it?s build in the spirt of a muscle car.
Just like sports and supercars don?t have to be "Italian".
^^^ Best car commercial ever made, and dodge is my least favorite of the "Big 3".
I think you're mistaking muscle cars for modified Japanese cars with giant wings and bodykits.
To recap: Big engine in a small(ish) car designed for straight line acceleration = muscle car.
I do want to address two things which I've seen propagated here:
A) Cheap/low cost. To challenge this idea I present, the Pontiac GTO "The Judge". The idea behind the project, originally, was to make an "affoardable" GTO (because apparently the 'Goat' was out of the reach of enough people they thought to do this). It turned out being one of the most expensive muscle car packages, with pretty much every option box checked. Pony cars, on the other hand, did go for the 'low cost' angle, but even then you could get carried away with the available options.
Well back in the '60s 6.2 seconds was quite fast.
If they had all that horsepower and all that torque, and weren't burdened by carrying around safety features, why were classic muscle cars so slow? Someone please help, I don't understand.
I think 6.2 seconds and a 14 second quarter is pretty respectable to this day.
If they had all that horsepower and all that torque, and weren't burdened by carrying around safety features, why were classic muscle cars so slow? Someone please help, I don't understand.