Can we please talk muscle

Not many people daily 60s cars in the US (or much of anything from before the mid 90s unless it's a Volvo or Mercedes), because as you suggested, a Camry is an objectively better car than a Fairlane or whatever.  Anything modern will be more reliable, lower maintenance, stop faster, handle better, probably accelerate faster (between inflated SAE gross power ratings and transmissions with more than 3 or 4 gears), get better gas mileage, and be less likely to kill you in a crash than a comparable 60s car. 

Big cruisers with big engines are frequently just rolling sculptures. Fast? No. My grandmother had a 1966 Thunderbird, 390-4v. I could have owned it for not much money but after driving it had no desire. Why? 4000 lbs is a lot for even a big block to push around. The thing was a slug. Looked purty though and had the swing-away steering wheel feature.

To counter some of the early comments, my 4th gen Camaro wasn't bad at all to live with as a daily. Ingress/egress isn't horrible if you're young and spry, fits a weeks worth of luggage under the hatch no problem, and the rear seat will haul real adults in mild discomfort in a pinch. Handling improves dramatically with some mild tweaks (the stock shocks are garbage, Konis totally transformed the character of mine). The huge doors suck in parking lots, though, you'll want to kick anyone's ass who parks within 3 feet of you. Fit and finish also suck, being a 90s GM product, and it's not the most refined thing in the world. Don't think I'd seek out another one, but given what I was shopping at the time I don't think I'd rather have bought anything else either, though S197s have gotten a lot cheaper in the last 4 or so years. 

I've also got a bit of an infatuation  big old American boats, particularly of the 60s vintage. I'd love to do an epic road trip in something like an Impala or Galaxy, with a mildly built big block (fuel mileage be damned), 4 speed, and bench seats a mile long. 

I hate old cars. Like, really can't stand them. I was looking at a former fantasy car of mine, a grabber blue '72 Mustang Mach I. It had that long, mean hood, the rear window that was nearly horizontal, a big, angry V8, Torque Thrust wheels, and a 4spd manual. I got behind the wheel and my excitement was still higher than my sense of comfort. I didn't get farther than the end of the guy's street before I turned around and brought it back. I hated hated hated being in the thing.

I really enjoyed my old Spitfire... Until I got a Miata and learned that things didn't have to be that way. 

The only old cars I seem to enjoy at all are old Porsches. My '72 911 didn't drive all that differently from a ten-year-newer SC. My 914 was a little bit soft, suspension-wise, but I was shocked at how much the 914 drove like a modern car (aside from the shifter). But even the 914... For less money, I could have a base-model Boxster that is superior in every measurable way, so I really can't make a case for owning a 914 anymore.

I drove a BMW 2002 a while back and hated it, too. soooooo ooooooold... (Not on topic of "muscle," but on topic of "old")

I like progress. I like ergonomics. I like emission reduction devices. I like comfy and supportive seats. I like listening to podcasts and audio books and XM radio. I like it when my lights and wipers work at the same time. I like going fast and still getting 28mpg.

I can't stand old cars, and muscle cars are usually even worse-driving than regular old cars. Blah.

Old cars are terrifying to drive. They look great and sound great, so you really want them to be great. But they're not. Because they're 60 year old technology. 

To answer OPs original question: s197 hands down. LS1s to me have never gotten cheap enough to live with the massive compromises that they inflict upon you. I do love me some Fox bodies, but the reality is by the time you fix the suspension and add a few bolt-ons, you could've just bought an s197 and spent less. 

Furious_E said:

To counter some of the early comments, my 4th gen Camaro wasn't bad at all to live with as a daily. Ingress/egress isn't horrible if you're young and spry, fits a weeks worth of luggage under the hatch no problem, and the rear seat will haul real adults in mild discomfort in a pinch. Handling improves dramatically with some mild tweaks (the stock shocks are garbage, Konis totally transformed the character of mine). The huge doors suck in parking lots, though, you'll want to kick anyone's ass who parks within 3 feet of you. Fit and finish also suck, being a 90s GM product, and it's not the most refined thing in the world. Don't think I'd seek out another one, but given what I was shopping at the time I don't think I'd rather have bought anything else either, though S197s have gotten a lot cheaper in the last 4 or so years. 

 

I've also got a bit of an infatuation  big old American boats, particularly of the 60s vintage. I'd love to do an epic road trip in something like an Impala or Galaxy, with a mildly built big block (fuel mileage be damned), 4 speed, and bench seats a mile long. 

A road trip like that would be awesome hahahaha. Yes, the S197s look nice, I prefer the look to the newer Mustang. Although the current gen is waaaay better looking from behind. It's perfect.

In reply to Lugnut :

And restomoded? Still, fair answer, but this thread is about new cars as well haha, so what do you like from this era? Or are you simply not into american cars? That's fair too

Also, have you seen old cars that are pretty much new underneath? Like that 356 that appeared on Jay's Garage? It was basically a Cayman underneath the 356 body.

BrokenYugo said:

Not many people daily 60s cars in the US (or much of anything from before the mid 90s unless it's a Volvo or Mercedes), because as you suggested, a Camry is an objectively better car than a Fairlane or whatever.  Anything modern will be more reliable, lower maintenance, stop faster, handle better, probably accelerate faster (between inflated SAE gross power ratings and transmissions with more than 3 or 4 gears), get better gas mileage, and be less likely to kill you in a crash than a comparable 60s car. 

Fair enough, but it seems people don't even take them out on the weekends around here. Sad :/

penultimeta said:

Old cars are terrifying to drive. They look great and sound great, so you really want them to be great. But they're not. Because they're 60 year old technology. 

To answer OPs original question: s197 hands down. LS1s to me have never gotten cheap enough to live with the massive compromises that they inflict upon you. I do love me some Fox bodies, but the reality is by the time you fix the suspension and add a few bolt-ons, you could've just bought an s197 and spent less. 

Well, the post was really just an excuse to talk cars, not really one of those "what car should I buy thread". In other words, I just wanted to know what you guys like and own. Anyway, I do appreciate the advice a lot. I always see Mustangs are put down because they are slower and can't be tuned easily like Chevy Small Blocks. I still prefer the Ford because I'm more of a Ford guy and the S197 in Bullit trim is gorgeous. I would have to make my own Bullit though, because they were not sold here in Mexico.

I want a compact muscle car. Like a Nova SS or Hornet SC/360.

I drove a BMW 2002 a while back and hated it, too. soooooo ooooooold... (Not on topic of "muscle," but on topic of "old")

I like progress. I like ergonomics. I like emission reduction devices. I like comfy and supportive seats. I like listening to podcasts and audio books and XM radio. I like it when my lights and wipers work at the same time. I like going fast and still getting 28mpg.

On the topic of old cars being uncomfortable or feeling like E36 M3 or whatever I like how 80s cars drive. They have all of this. I put a bluetooth hd radio with XM and all that with new speakers in my 80s Skyline and the car is not far off from a modern car. Just "lighter" by a mile to a similar modern vehicle. Another thing is in Japan leather isn't considered important so you can get some high specced cars with cloth interior which is nice. I hate leather interiors myself lol. Another thing is 80s and early 90s Japanese cars have crazy gadgets and strange modern tech you don't expect.

If you want muscle, good handling, and relatively modern interiors build an 80s car. A Merc 560SEC comes to mind, foreign markets had beastly cars in the 80s that definitely fit the muscle car type. Or LS and T56 swap an 80s Camaro. The E36 M3ty emissions depowering cars was only a US thing in the 70s and 80s. Radios are easy to swap in and many cars had good seats and ergonomics back then. 

In reply to kanaric :

You bring very interesting points to this topic. I also do not care about all that because seats, radio and what not can be changed. An old car can be modernized.

I too love quirky cars, I love the headlight wipers in my Volvo. Honestly, I'd rather not build a car at first. For the sake of cheapness and reliability, I think the S197 is the answer, and replies to this thread just reinforced that belief haha

A 3rd gen Camaro with an E-Rod LS3 would be awesome. Or a T/A for that matter. Also, one of my dream cars since two years ago or so is a T56/LS3 swapped BMW E39. The car and the engine suit each other soooo well.

Boy, I really couldn't disagree with some of you more. I love old cars. I love the way they drive. I haven't driven anything built much past 1980 that I have enjoyed driving. I'm talking about street driving of course. There is no question new cars are better for performance driving. I loved all my second gen T/As, my 77 Monte Carlo and my 76 Cutlass. The 64 Electra 225 was an absolute joy going down the open road. I can't place what it is but something very important is missing in newer cars.

This thread has me pining, again, for my first car.  A '64 Plymouth Savoy.  The most base of base models, this was when you could order a number of cars with radio deletes and the only option my car had was the pushbutton automatic.  Slant six, etc.  It's great because it wasn't huge, it wasn't as heavy as a lot of cars then, but if I had it today, I'd want to swap in an engine from the 90's (5.2 Magnum), a transmission from the 80's (GM 200-4R with an adapater), lord know what for brakes, an axle from a 90's Mustang, etc etc.  

I think these can be great cars to use on a normal basis if you treat it like a canvas, aren't afraid to spend a bit, and are always inspecting it for problems.  Or I could just spend 10k on a 12 year old Mustang GT and still have something fast, probably more comfortable, etc etc.  Lots of ways to skin this cat.

A '64 Plymouth Savoy...they were good looking cars.  It seems like most people want to build Max Wedge clones with them, but I'd like to see something that was more like a combination of a vintage Nascar look with modern pro-touring handling and ride

In reply to stuart in mn :

Yeah, mine was the really light blue color that looks white in certain lighting.  Two door sedan, not the checkmark top with the bubble back window, which I think looks much nicer.  The nice thing is that even these cars have good enough aftermarket support to make it nearly as functional as a 2006 Mustang GT for more money....

Yes my 1970 Ford F250 is slow compared to a modern truck. Yes it's noisy, ill handling, has scary brakes, shifts poorly, and has the ergonomics of, well, an old truck. But I love it. I love driving it, and I love looking at it. Sometimes things that are measurable aren't the only things to consider. If I just needed to get to work am I going to choose the truck? Hell no. But if I'm going to drive around on a Friday night just for the fun of driving it's at the front of the line.

I also have modern cars, and they definitely have their advantages and their place.

My current mode of thinking based on experience so far is that it's much easier to make updates to an old car than it is to take the numbness and blandness out of a newer car. My '12 WRX and the current '15 Mini were more akin to the Leaf than to my BMW 2002. I admit I actually haven't really made any attempt to remove numbness; the warranty and cost of these cars meant they stay bone stock. Not that I think there are any fixes out there for the Mini's electric power steering, or "Novocaine for your hands."

Old cars have *plenty* of shortcomings, and sometimes resolving them is... non-trivial.

I think my biggest misgivings about old cars are down to safety. I can put in a fuel cell, bigger tires, and better brakes, but no amount of rework is going to give my 40 year old car modern crumple zones or intrusion protection. I don't really ride motorcycles on the street at this point, but I'm not ruling it out, and for the joy they bring me, old cars seem like less of a gamble than bikes.

I *am* concerned about giving the '63 Ranchero acceptable driving dynamics. The 2002 is one thing, that is another, speaking of muscle.

In reply to Ransom :

I ride almost daily. Safety is not a concern I have. It's not even on the list of things I consider.

I'm personally a Pontiac fan, but only because of styling.  Truth is, most of the American iron from that era was prime fodder for fun.  That is to say, I'm not brand-loyal, I just like how Pontiacs look.

As far as engines go, my two all-time faves are the Buick 455 and the Caddy 500.  The Buick I love because of all the GM biggies, it has a huge bore and a short stroke.  That pays off big time, both in piston speeds and breathing ability... if you're into upping the power.  The Caddy is just a monster and makes insane torque.  Up to about 400-500 hp, its just as cheap to build as a 454, but it only weighs about 35 lbs more than a small block chevy if you ditch the iron intake for an aluminum.  A modestly warmed-over Caddy 500 is another big win because with the broad (and massive) torque curve, you don't need expensive overdrives.  I had one in my 66 Bonneville for a while with 2.73s and a TH400.  There was enough torque to melt the tires (even with a lower stalling converter) and it cruised all day at OD-level RPMs on the highway.  The one drawback to the 500 is that it doesn't like to spin fast for several reasons.  1, 4.3" pistons on a 4.304" stroke means weight, and since inertia is your enemy, they don't like to spin fast.  2, incredibly high nickel content in the blocks makes for great wear, but the blocks like to "sing" and that makes things break. (sidenote: 500s don't have a harmonic balancer on the crank).  3, that same high nickel content means that porting heads to make airflow is a time-consuming process, or requires very expensive aftermarket heads.

Its not uncommon to find a caddy 500 with 200k miles that still has crosshatches in the bores.

My original plan for my 67 Lemans was to put in a Buick 455 or Caddy 500, but I opted for easy EFI and went with a 6.0L LS truck block and CNC ported heads.  Easy 550 hp in a compact package that easily accepts a T56.

Spiritus_Spatium said:

secretariata said:

In reply to Spiritus_Spatium :

Were you formerly a host of a BBC automotive show?  Is your nickname "Hamster"?...

lol I dont get the joke, but my name’s Ricardo... maybe...

Was referring to Richard Hammond one of the original hosts of the BBC show Top Gear.  He has an affinity for American muscle cars and his cohosts took every advantage to mock him for it...

I hate to do it, but this thread almost forces me to bring up my Fairmont (and, aren't Fairmonts pretty plentiful in Mexico?).

Light chassis, amazing swappability, easy handling upgrades (want IRS?  Cobra stuff bolts in), easy brake upgrades.  For all that, at the end of the day, it still looks just as E36 M3ty as you want it to, wether that's to make it less of a theft target, or a sleeper, or whatever. 

Mine is definitely unpleasant to drive long distances, what with the lack of A/C and interior stuff, an AM radio, and barely padded Corbeau seats. But, those are all things that could be easily changed. All the Mustang stuff up to about '04 fits. 

Just one more data point. 

Fairmonts are kind of awesome. When you mention "Fairmont" and "Mexico", I think Christopher Walken.

Spiritus_Spatium asked:

And restomoded? Still, fair answer, but this thread is about new cars as well haha, so what do you like from this era? Or are you simply not into american cars? That's fair too

Also, have you seen old cars that are pretty much new underneath? Like that 356 that appeared on Jay's Garage? It was basically a Cayman underneath the 356 

From this era, I love my Camaro. I just made some other posts about it so you all probably already know it. 

Even restomod and pro touring cars aren’t my thing. I don’t like being in old cars. Honestly, they don’t even have to be that old anymore. I’m getting rid of my 997 because compared to the Camaro, it just feels old and antiquated. And it’s only 11 years old! But it’s missing modern necessities and even though it was fast for its day, it’s really not fast now - especially when you compare it to the car parked next to it with 130 more horsepower.

To build a restomod 72 Mach One that would be comfy and quick with the amenities I need, I could buy a new Mustang GT (at least! For what it would cost to build I could probably buy a GT350!). And the safety features are already built in to the new car. How do I put dual airbags and side curtain airbags and seat airbags and crumple zones and ABS into a 72 Mustang?

No thank you. I want my well-built, comfy, eco-friendly, safe modern car.  The only thing you get in an old car is the nostalgic appearance. I’ll take all the rest of the stuff that makes driving good. 

Lugnut said:

Spiritus_Spatium asked:

And restomoded? Still, fair answer, but this thread is about new cars as well haha, so what do you like from this era? Or are you simply not into american cars? That's fair too

Also, have you seen old cars that are pretty much new underneath? Like that 356 that appeared on Jay's Garage? It was basically a Cayman underneath the 356 

 

From this era, I love my Camaro. I just made some other posts about it so you all probably already know it. 

Even restomod and pro touring cars aren’t my thing. I don’t like being in old cars. Honestly, they don’t even have to be that old anymore. I’m getting rid of my 997 because compared to the Camaro, it just feels old and antiquated. And it’s only 11 years old! But it’s missing modern necessities and even though it was fast for its day, it’s really not fast now - especially when you compare it to the car parked next to it with 130 more horsepower.

To build a restomod 72 Mach One that would be comfy and quick with the amenities I need, I could buy a new Mustang GT (at least! For what it would cost to build I could probably buy a GT350!). And the safety features are already built in to the new car. How do I put dual airbags and side curtain airbags and seat airbags and crumple zones and ABS into a 72 Mustang?

No thank you. I want my well-built, comfy, eco-friendly, safe modern car.  The only thing you get in an old car is the nostalgic appearance. I’ll take all the rest of the stuff that makes driving good. 

Fair enough. This brings another question. Do you think we will be able to see the current offers as classics in the future? I think yes. I think the current Mustang is one of the best lookingcars out there, and the fact that it's pumping over 400 hp is awesome!

snailmont5oh said:

I hate to do it, but this thread almost forces me to bring up my Fairmont (and, aren't Fairmonts pretty plentiful in Mexico?).

Light chassis, amazing swappability, easy handling upgrades (want IRS?  Cobra stuff bolts in), easy brake upgrades.  For all that, at the end of the day, it still looks just as E36 M3ty as you want it to, wether that's to make it less of a theft target, or a sleeper, or whatever. 

Mine is definitely unpleasant to drive long distances, what with the lack of A/C and interior stuff, an AM radio, and barely padded Corbeau seats. But, those are all things that could be easily changed. All the Mustang stuff up to about '04 fits. 

Just one more data point. 

Of cooooooourse we have them here! I have actually been toying with the idea of buying one and swapping a whole Explorer V8 drivetrain into it ( I've been checking the classifieds for a Fairmont and a donor Explorer), with the 5 speed auto as is. Yeah, manual is fun and all, but this would keep the build super cheap and I love the way "my" '99 Explorer XLT drives. Shifts smooth. I'd also love to put a turbo in that project (Fairmont), but it may be a bit brutal. The Explorer is not fast, but no slouch either. I can only imagine having that SBF in a Fairmont.

secretariata said:

Spiritus_Spatium said:

secretariata said:

In reply to Spiritus_Spatium :

Were you formerly a host of a BBC automotive show?  Is your nickname "Hamster"?...

lol I dont get the joke, but my name’s Ricardo... maybe...

Was referring to Richard Hammond one of the original hosts of the BBC show Top Gear.  He has an affinity for American muscle cars and his cohosts took every advantage to mock him for it...

Oh, I do know the hamster, I just didn't know he was into muscle cars. Or dont remember... I used to see the show a lot.

Ransom said:

My current mode of thinking based on experience so far is that it's much easier to make updates to an old car than it is to take the numbness and blandness out of a newer car. My '12 WRX and the current '15 Mini were more akin to the Leaf than to my BMW 2002. I admit I actually haven't really made any attempt to remove numbness; the warranty and cost of these cars meant they stay bone stock. Not that I think there are any fixes out there for the Mini's electric power steering, or "Novocaine for your hands."

Old cars have *plenty* of shortcomings, and sometimes resolving them is... non-trivial.

I think my biggest misgivings about old cars are down to safety. I can put in a fuel cell, bigger tires, and better brakes, but no amount of rework is going to give my 40 year old car modern crumple zones or intrusion protection. I don't really ride motorcycles on the street at this point, but I'm not ruling it out, and for the joy they bring me, old cars seem like less of a gamble than bikes.

I *am* concerned about giving the '63 Ranchero acceptable driving dynamics. The 2002 is one thing, that is another, speaking of muscle.

Same issue here, I too have an issue with safety :/

pres589 said:

This thread has me pining, again, for my first car.  A '64 Plymouth Savoy.  The most base of base models, this was when you could order a number of cars with radio deletes and the only option my car had was the pushbutton automatic.  Slant six, etc.  It's great because it wasn't huge, it wasn't as heavy as a lot of cars then, but if I had it today, I'd want to swap in an engine from the 90's (5.2 Magnum), a transmission from the 80's (GM 200-4R with an adapater), lord know what for brakes, an axle from a 90's Mustang, etc etc.  

I think these can be great cars to use on a normal basis if you treat it like a canvas, aren't afraid to spend a bit, and are always inspecting it for problems.  Or I could just spend 10k on a 12 year old Mustang GT and still have something fast, probably more comfortable, etc etc.  Lots of ways to skin this cat.

Looked that car up, it's beautiful!

I had a muscle car, but it was British. Fibreglass body, big block Chrysler sixpack.  But then again it also handled and stopped pretty well - does that diqualify it from being considerd a muscle car?

snailmont5oh said:

I hate to do it, but this thread almost forces me to bring up my Fairmont (and, aren't Fairmonts pretty plentiful in Mexico?).

Light chassis, amazing swappability, easy handling upgrades (want IRS?  Cobra stuff bolts in), easy brake upgrades.  For all that, at the end of the day, it still looks just as E36 M3ty as you want it to, wether that's to make it less of a theft target, or a sleeper, or whatever. 

Mine is definitely unpleasant to drive long distances, what with the lack of A/C and interior stuff, an AM radio, and barely padded Corbeau seats. But, those are all things that could be easily changed. All the Mustang stuff up to about '04 fits. 

Just one more data point. 

I forgot to say, the ones I've seen are around 2k to 3k, in fair condition. I found a nice one with the V8. I just don't know if I would go two or four door. Four door most likely.

wspohn said:

I had a muscle car, but it was British. Fibreglass body, big block Chrysler sixpack.  But then again it also handled and stopped pretty well - does that diqualify it from being considerd a muscle car?

 

Jensen?

Spiritus_Spatium said:

wspohn said:

I had a muscle car, but it was British. Fibreglass body, big block Chrysler sixpack.  But then again it also handled and stopped pretty well - does that diqualify it from being considerd a muscle car?

 

Jensen?

Nah.  Can't be.  JENSEN on the valve covers wouldn't mean that