Duster 340 not a muscle car...

-
RustyRatRod said:
It can be argued that it's really not a muscle car. It's built off the Valiant which was a grandma car. I don't necessarily agree with that, BUT it's a valid point. It was not originally created as a muscle car line. That cannot be argued. Now, what it evolved into is another thing altogether. I actually think it's cool as all hell that it came from utilitarian roots.
Click to expand...

68hemidart2000 said:
RustyRatRod...I don't agree with that!!
Click to expand...


Hmmm................


View attachment duster-340.jpg


1970 Valiant Duster 340
 
95teetee said:
I don't think 68hemi was saying he didn't agree that the Duster was built off the Valiant (up here, my registration even says my car is just a Valiant).
Click to expand...

Nor was I saying the Duster 340 is NOT a muscle car.
 
At work the other day a coworker who I see from time to time came up to me and asked me how I liked my Dart. I said its a great straight line performer from the muscle car days. He responded "The Dart isn't a muscle car! Its a Fiat with a Dodge nameplate and I'm thinking about buying one.". So I showed him a photo of my 69 Dodge Dart.
"That's not a Dart. That's some old car."
He just turned 20.
Some people wouldn't even understand this conversation. Or FABO.
 
in 1968 my friend bought a new 340 barracuda 4 sp. was the first year for the 340, and the AVS carb. in that body that year the 340 was faster than the hi po 383. and it was so fast that NHRA re factored the 340 horse power at least 2 times cause it beat the the other brands so bad. chrysler made the 340 as a high performance engine. and was that throu its life. the proof is that it ALLWAY had a 4 bbl carb and NEVER a 2 bbl carb. note ALL other engines under 400 ci came as a low hp engine AND hi hp engine. the 340 was ONLY a hi hp engine. but do note the 440 was ALLWAYS a 4 bbl as low hp or hi hp in some models.
 
from what I've always understood, GM never did anything really to upgrade their "musclecars" suspension or brakes??? at least Ma mopar did address that somewhat.

to me a "musclecar" is a good fast factory built car. barebones, high performance engine, upgraded brakes and suspension. the list was long for mopar. AND if a 340 duster could run with a 68-70 383 road chicken...

doesn't matter to me if an A body or B body, but I guess someone in some mag decades ago decided it needed to be midsize and have a few emblems!? LOL

as I have aged, I learned to love the cars that i love, and not what someone else or some mag tells me to love!??
 
Buying car Insurance in 1968, I can say that The Insurance company opinion of what a Muscle car was mattered the most, as Any small or Intermediate car with over 275 HP was charged a 50% premium hike for any driver under 25 years old. That is why I believe Chrysler rated the 340 at 275 HP in 1968, although it was really higher. My best friend back then Wanted a 1969 Charger 383, but the 290 HP two barrel was too expensive, so he bought the 69' lemans 350, at 265 HP. He wished years later he had stepped up, as he always pined for a Charger. All I could afford was a 60' Desoto, which I pine for now as well! To me any 340 car was and always be a Muscle car, they didn't call them baby Hemis's back then for no reason. Ask any Ford guy, they mention 340 Dusters the most, out of respect.
 
oldmopardude said:
To me any 340 car was and always be a Muscle car, they didn't call them baby Hemis's back then for no reason. Ask any Ford guy, they mention 340 Dusters the most, out of respect.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to redirect this thread but do you guys feel that the Ford guys seemed to respect Mopars more than the bowtie crowd? Maybe not so much with the newer Mustang kids, but with the old school Ford owners. My experience says that seems to be the case.
 
1967 'cuda said:
I don't mean to redirect this thread but do you guys feel that the Ford guys seemed to respect Mopars more than the bowtie crowd? Maybe not so much with the newer Mustang kids, but with the old school Ford owners. My experience says that seems to be the case.
Click to expand...

I agree with that personally. in general, the GM, Ford, and Mopar camps tend to have their own set of characteristics. in general.

now the Vette people are another whole ballgame!
 
I laid awake trying to figure out how to buy a 340 Dart back in 1969. I was told when pigs flew, go on down! (Mother) My Painter is a die hard Ford Guy, calls me Mr Moped. BUt he always says nice things about 340s', be they Darts, Dusters, or Cuda's. He doesn't like the young Mustang crowd either, saying they are a rude bunch of brats.
 
Who cares what a dictionary says a muscle car is, or which car coined the frase? Fact of the matter is when someone says, "hey, what's ur favorite muscle car?" They're not ruling out mustangs, camaros or a bodies. They want to know which classic, nastolgic, 4 wheeled piece of history makes u smile!! When I go to cruise nights to check out muscle cars, do I turn away when someone pulls in with a classic truck?! No! Do I look away when someone has a vette...maybe...but that's cuz they're all owned by doutch bags. Anyway, the point is I love muscle cars! I appreciate the time and effort someone put into their build no matter what it is! And if u didnt build it, I appreciate the historical significance of it! And these old cars remind us of something. They remind us of when things were easier, not bogged by emissions standards and u don't need a computer to work on em! In my opinion muscle cars are any old american made vehicle that can leave a patch of rubber on the pavement or at least can be modified to do so. That's right! I believe /6's can be considered muscle cars too! And anyone who is so close minded so as to say someone else's car isn't a muscle car is definitely wearing their bowtie a little too tight!!
 
I would say it is a muscle car because the factory said so.

The rapid transit system ad campaign was created for a reason.

more importantly ....I say who cares what your "friend" says. I went to auto school with boys from every walk of life with just about every stupid idea anyone can think of.

Unfortunately this has to be a hobby and profession that includes people running the mouth often more than the wrenches, so who cares. When your in you duster on a nice quiet road, maybe with a significant other.....all you will be thinking then is "yea, Plymouth makes it" :) and that is all that matters.

As pointed out in this thread, people from other car groups have different ways of thinking.

I recently got involved with a Cadillac group because I now have a 64 Cadillac and those people think WAYYYYYY different than anyone I know in the A-body crowd. To these people an A-body would be an inferior economy car compared to the "wine taste of perfection". LOL

I know they think it but luckily everyone in the group has more tact than that and even if someone did say it........I don't care!!!
 
Bill Dedman said:
The term "MUSCLE CAR" was coined, (as I remember it,) by the automotive press in 1964, when the first GTO.'s were introduced. (I was 26 in 1964, when this all started...)

The writers described a muscle car as an intermediate body (there were no pony cars, yet... the Mustangs came a bit later in the year...) into which the factory had fitted a supposedly powerful, big block engine, ostensibly, giving the car "muscular" performance capabilities.

There were no Mopar "muscle cars" fitting this definition, although Ma built many, many cars that would handily outrun the purported "muscle cars" without half trying... the great bulk of the early muscle cars, the GTO's, the Olds 442's, Buick Gran Sports, Ford Fairlane GTA's, and big block Chevelles would only run in the low 14's at best, while the Mopar Super Stock 413's 426's and 426 Hemis were worlds faster.... but, they were not not true "muscle cars" because their engines were in full sized cars, not intermediates.

I guess the only "musclecars" back then, to come from Mopar were the big block (and Hemi) Barracudas and Darts of 1967, 1968 and '69. The Challengers and 1970-up Barracudas were not intermediates; they were ponycars (patterned after the Mustang; hence the name "ponycar.") In the area of performance, the so-called musclecars of the era were weak tea... A 340 Duster will open a can of whoopass on a whole lot of them (early GTO's included) but in the parlance of the automotive writers of the time, it is not really a musclecar because it doesn't have a big block engine, regardless of the fact that it may be faster... and, usually is.

So, the term "musclecar" in not about speed... it's just a way to classify a big block engine in an intermediate chassis. Has nothing at all to do with how fast (or, slow) it may be...

That's the best explanation I can think of... from someone who was an NHRA Area Tech Advisor at the time... and was paying attention.

It's really just a slang term with no roots in performance... just a big block intermediate.

Hope this helps:glasses7:
Click to expand...

Bill has given the correct answer here with the history of the term. Of course, over the past 50 years or so the term has evolved, as have the cars. Also many people born after that time have no knowledge of the history of the term.

Mopar hit the nail on the head with the '68 Road Runner, a big block motor in an intermediate body (the original definition, as Bill said above). It was deliberately a stripped down model so they could be sold at an affordable price. They sold far above expectations.

How do you top this act? Put a hot small block (340) into a compact car!!! Now you have an even more affordable car that will run with the 'big boys', the intermediates.

Personally I would call the 340 powered a-bodies 'affordable muscle' lol.
Dallas
 
"1970 Model Year Musclecars"

'Big Blocks Only'

* Plymouth Road Runner
* Plymouth GTX

* Dodge Coronet R/T
* Dodge Super Bee
* Dodge Charger R/T

* Chevrolet Chevelle SS 396
* Chevrolet Chevelle SS 454

* Oldsmobile 4-4-2

* Pontiac GTO

* Buick GS

* Ford Fairlane 'Cobra Jet'

* Mercury Cyclone GT

* American Motors 'Rebel Machine'
 
69 Cuda 440 said:
"1970 Model Year Musclecars"

'Big Blocks Only'

* Plymouth Road Runner
* Plymouth GTX

The GTX is a full-size car... too big to be a "muscle car" if you go by their definition of "a big block engine in an intermediate chassis."

Just sayin'...:banghead:
Click to expand...
 
Bill Dedman said:
69 Cuda 440 said:
"1970 Model Year Musclecars"

'Big Blocks Only'

* Plymouth Road Runner
* Plymouth GTX

The GTX is a full-size car... too big to be a "muscle car" if you go by their definition of "a big block engine in an intermediate chassis."

Just sayin'...:banghead:
Click to expand...


GTX was an intermediate .....the Fury was the full size. B-bodies were actually the true muscle cars.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top