The Definition of "MuscleCar"

-
rumblefish360 said:
To answer the OE question......

Muscle cars were regular cars that were equiped with large, powerful engines that often came with higher than normal gear ratios. (But not allways since big blocks had the torque needed to power the cars very well without a high gear ratio.)

IMO, the GTO back in the day may have gotten the title of first muscle car....and with good reason, but, if you go back in time and look at how the even in the 50's the big 3 started getting the engines to produce alot of power by compare to the earlier engines in a big way.

Chrysler came out with the early HEMI's and installed them in the 300's @ 1 hp per cube. That was enormous power back them. This started the HP wars.
Click to expand...


Thank you! The early Hemi's actually started touching off the horsepower wars. As said, the 354 dual quad in the C300 was rated at 355hp. (Much to the confusion of the Chevy guys who thought the FI 283 in '57 was the first horsepower per cubic inch). But take a look at when the idea of low buck, high horse cars first started appearing: with the option sheet the '50s Hemis could be had in just about anything (with the exception of Plymouths), the 312 "Interceptor" engine being available in the lighter Fairlane, the 283 dual quad or FI being available in a stripped out type 210. Spring forward a couple of years to Pontiac's 421, Chevy's 409, Chrysler offering a dual quad version of the 350, Ford's advent of the FE engines. To me the idea of labeling the GTO as the "first" musclecar can really be laid at the Pontiac PR's department with the help of DeLorean, and the press going for it.
To be a purist does the musclecar really need to be built between '64 and say '72 when the insurance industry started forcing cars off the market?
Can anything being home built with the idea of high horsepower mods be included in that term or does the blanket term of "hot rod" cover that? Before the factories were building "muscle cars" guys were taking light bodies, putting in big engines and making "hot rods." That being said, my Diplomat, with a built 360 and the performance upgrades falls into the "hot rod" category. But does my factory built 383 4bbl powered 4 door sedan fall into the muscle car category? Afterall, with the exception of five less rated horse and a better interior it's a Road Runner with two more doors...
 
LOL, that last line, I'll have to say no.
On the flip side, like you were saying, does it have to built in a bracketed set of years. That I say no as well.
I have a '73 Cuda, 4spd. It was a 340 car. While the comp ratio dropped and valves got smaller, it was still a good running engine/car set up. Everyone is quick to point to the HP lose even though they know but don't acknowledge the fact that the way the rated the power changed in a big way from naked engine to full systems installed.

True, it took a hit in power, but since the entire car didn't change a bit except the way the power was rated and a hit in compression and valve size change it only alittle, it was enuff to get snubbed at in a big way at every place it went.
 
rumblefish360 said:
LOL, that last line, I'll have to say no.
On the flip side, like you were saying, does it have to built in a bracketed set of years. That I say no as well.
I have a '73 Cuda, 4spd. It was a 340 car. While the comp ratio dropped and valves got smaller, it was still a good running engine/car set up. Everyone is quick to point to the HP lose even though they know but don't acknowledge the fact that the way the rated the power changed in a big way from naked engine to full systems installed.

True, it took a hit in power, but since the entire car didn't change a bit except the way the power was rated and a hit in compression and valve size change it only alittle, it was enuff to get snubbed at in a big way at every place it went.
Click to expand...


And you hit the nail on the head...my Sport Satellite doesn't fall into the "muscle car" category because of the extra two doors, even though the 383 was rated at 330hp, the rear is a 3.55 8 3/4 Sure Grip, it's got the six full leafs on one side with the five full and two half leafs on the other, the big brakes all the way around, etc. Who wants to look at a car that decodes as a "towing package" as a muscle car? None of the purists want to look at the mid-70s cars like your E-body or the lower rated 440 or 400 B-bodies with the net rating as a musclecar because of the smog era, either. Which brings us into the debate of different eras, altogether!
Folks want things to fall into nice, neat little categories. Otherwise it brings us back into our real lives of chaos where organization and categories doesn't necessarily fit. Personally, I'll take the term "hot rod" as a blanket cover for what I own, factory built or otherwise. The Sport Satellite might not fit the term muscle car, but for all those who saw it's taillights I don't think they'll argue with the term "hot rod." :-D
 
Homecloned- "SpeedThrills, you brought up some memories when you mentioned the Schuylkill expressway. I was born in Reading and lived in the area untill 1980. :happy10:"

I lived in Philly the first 47 years of my life. -That was 3 years ago we moved. I did have to check the spelling. :happy10: Though it's more commonly known as the "Surekill Distressway", of course!
 
moparker said:
A car that puts the fear of God into you when you see it.
Click to expand...

Moparker, just got to looking at your avatar and thought it looked familiar. In my notebook for my duster project I have your car's centerfold calendar spread from with March and April 2002 calendars on it. Don't remember which magazine I pulled it from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top