Cheap Muscle Cars?

Yep, really. I'm out in hicksville country though where everybody has trucks, so it's definitely a by-location type of thing.

In reply to TeamEvil:

+1 on the El Caminos. I see really good prices on these. I would also vote for 80s Monte Carlo SS if I did not live in CA where the required swap to make actual muscle is a no-no.

GTwannaB wrote: I would also vote for 80s Monte Carlo SS if I did not live in CA where the required swap to make actual muscle is a no-no.

You know, I keep hearing this but it doesn't make sense. LSx's are the freaking answer, so just bolt one in with all of the factory emissions stuff and be done with it. 100% CARB legal and 400HP is but a few thou away.

wheelsmithy wrote: Still decent deals on comets, falcons, and mavericks, but the door is closing.

That door closed years ago. That is why when CC started up a '67 Mustang build a few years back('07), they said screw it and just went with a mustang because mav/falcon prices where just as high.

Not that there is anything wrong with any of these suggestions, but when we start talking mid 70's and newer vehicles, aren't we really talking about hot rods, not muscle cars? IMHO, the original muscle car era ended in or around 1971, with the exception of just a few cars like the T/A.

Javelin wrote: Yep, really. I'm out in hicksville country though where everybody has trucks, so it's definitely a by-location type of thing.

I am in Alabama home of the pickup.

bravenrace wrote: Not that there is anything wrong with any of these suggestions, but when we start talking mid 70's and newer vehicles, aren't we really talking about hot rods, not muscle cars? IMHO, the original muscle car era ended in or around 1971, with the exception of just a few cars like the T/A.

I agree with the exception of it ending around '74 instead of '71.

bravenrace wrote: Not that there is anything wrong with any of these suggestions, but when we start talking mid 70's and newer vehicles, aren't we really talking about hot rods, not muscle cars? IMHO, the original muscle car era ended in or around 1971, with the exception of just a few cars like the T/A.

Not even slightly, remotely close to being true. I hate GoodGuys and the rest of the wing nuts that continue to perpetuate this myth. You really think a 72 Duster 340, 74 Javelin AMX 401, 73 Mach 1 351, etc aren't muscle cars? The car mags back in the day sure didn't think it was over until 75-76...

93EXCivic wrote:

Javelin wrote: Yep, really. I'm out in hicksville country though where everybody has trucks, so it's definitely a by-location type of thing.

I am in Alabama home of the pickup.

Man I'm from the South and they ain't got nothing on the West. Cowboys and rednecks out here are dead serious about their trucks, especially the short-wides.

93EXCivic wrote:

Javelin wrote: Yep, really. I'm out in hicksville country though where everybody has trucks, so it's definitely a by-location type of thing.

I am in Alabama home of the pickup.

I'm in middle TN. Trucks are going up here, especially the short wides and 4x4s, but they aren't coming close to decent muscle cars. They are coming close to and/or have surpassed a lot of the less popular older cars. Then there are the extremely well done ones that bring good money like this: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1966-Ford-F-100-4X4-/110864730960?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item19d00d8b50

Javelin wrote:

bravenrace wrote: Not that there is anything wrong with any of these suggestions, but when we start talking mid 70's and newer vehicles, aren't we really talking about hot rods, not muscle cars? IMHO, the original muscle car era ended in or around 1971, with the exception of just a few cars like the T/A.

Not even slightly, remotely close to being true. I *hate* GoodGuys and the rest of the wing nuts that continue to perpetuate this myth. You really think a 72 Duster 340, 74 Javelin AMX 401, 73 Mach 1 351, etc aren't muscle cars? The car mags back in the day sure didn't think it was over until 75-76...

Did you even read my post before throthing at the mouth? I said there were exceptions, and I said cars from the mid-70's (you know, like 75-76) on were not muscle cars. The fact is, compression ratios and HP dropped significantly in 1971 and then more in 1972. But the reality is that all the cars you mention above are detuned versions of what they were prior to 1972.

"The muscle car market segment was in high gear "until shifting social attitudes, crippling insurance rates, the Clean Air Act and the fuel crisis removed the cars from the market in the early 1970s."[37] The OPEC oil embargo led to price controls and gasoline rationing, as well as higher prices. "Muscle cars quickly became unaffordable and impractical for many people."[38] The automobile insurance industry also levied surcharges on all high-powered models, an added cost that put many muscle cars out of reach of their intended buyers. Simultaneously, efforts to combat air pollution—a problem that grew more complicated in—focused Detroit's attention on emissions control. A majority of muscle cars came optioned with high-compression powerplants-some as high as 11:1. Prior to the oil embargo, 100-octane fuel was common (e.g. Sunoco 260, Esso Extra, Chevron Custom Supreme, Super Shell, Texaco Sky Chief, Amoco Super Premium, Gulf No-nox); however, following the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970, octane ratings were lowered to 91-due in part to the removal of tetraethyllead as a valve lubricant. Unleaded gasoline was phased in as a result. With all these forces against it, the market for muscle cars rapidly evaporated. Horsepower began to drop in 1971 as engine compression ratios were reduced. High-performance engines like Chrysler's 426 Hemi were discontinued, and all but a few of other performance models were discontinued or transformed into soft personal luxury cars. Some nameplates, such as Chevrolet's SS or Oldsmobile's 442, would become sport appearance packages (known in the mid to late 1970s as the vinyl and decal option-Plymouth's Road Runner was an upscale decor package for their Volare coupes). One of the last to be discontinued, a car that Car and Driver called "The Last of the Fast Ones", was Pontiac's Trans Am SD455model of 1973–1974. In 1975 its performance was markedly reduced."

In reply to bravenrace:

Oh, I did read it, and I don't throth. The gross-to-net HP drop was just in the way it was calculated and the further drops for emissions really didn't start choking stuff until 75. And detuned or not, a 74 401 AMX can mop the damn floor with a 64 GTO, so how is it less "worthy", because the paper specs say it's got a little less power than the 71 version? Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous.

In reply to Javelin:

Sorry, no, horsepower did drop dramatically with a reduction in compression ratios in 1972. AMX and GTO? Yeah, a new corvette is way faster than a '65 Falcon. That's not what I'm talking about. Try an apples to apples comparison. I had both a 71 and a 72 Formula 400. No comparison, not only did the '71 have a lot more rated compression and horsepower, it was also dramatically faster. In fact, Pontiac achieved the reduction in compression with a larger chamber head, so a popular way to gain a bunch of power was to put 71 or earlier heads on a '72 or later block.
I never said there were no fast cars after 1971, so don't put words in my mouth. I said that was considered the end of the muscle car era, with a few exceptions. How does that in any way disagree with you?

In reply to bravenrace:

Sorry, as an edit to my last post, I believe the compression ratio drop, at least on Pontiac engines was from 1970 to 1971.

In reply to bravenrace:

Because the era didn't end until 74. Calling it done at 71 is just asinine (and really, even GoodGuys goes to 72). You are totally ignoring all of the cars made from 72-74 that were still incredibly fast, some even faster than prior years, because of the gas changes and resulting HP "losses". SD455, SS454, 351CJ, etc, etc. You want apples-to-apples? A 74 GTO (nee Nova) was faster than a 73, 72, or 71.

At any rate, only YOU are considering it the end. Far more people, publications, and experts agree that it was later than that and your personal perceptions won't change reality, so I'm really just wasting my breath.

In reply to Javelin:

Man you are up tight! So what if I think it's 1971 and you think it's 1974 or 1975 or 1976, you keep changing your mind. Horsepower started dropping in 1971 and tanked pretty much bottomed out in 1974. Okay? You picked the year it bottomed and I picked the year it started declining. Big berkeleying deal. Your nicking at pits, dude. BTW, I lived through the muscle car era, and I am not in any way the only one with this opinion.

It winds me upo because people like you are the ones running all of the "muscle car" car shows and races in this country, and they want keep out the riff-raff by trying to make the dates earlier and earlier. When I was a kid it was 74, then 73 when I was a teen, and now GoodGuys has it at 72. Now here you are spouting off about 71 and possibly 70. Every time you people change history it rules more and more ACTUAL muscle cars out of participating and competing because of some arbitrary line in the sand. I'm pissed off because I own a 73 and have to park outside of the venue when a 72 is actually slower than my damn car. You people just piss the eff off. Grrrrrrr!

back on track... I like this truck: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1951-Complete-4x4-ton-Rat-Rod-Chevy-Truck-Lifted-Mountain-Hillbilly-Truck-/160786567037?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item256fa04f7d

There is a pic of a lowered 60's Suburban in the hotlink thread...

I would paint the bottom part black, white on top, add LSx and corvette sawblades.

70-72 Olds Cutlass S. Repro 442 Hood and grill (but not badges). Whatever engine/driveline/suspension improvements you want to make.

I think the 70 442 was one of the best looking musclecars GM ever made. The flared fenders, and the aggressive overall look it had were just awesome. It doesn't hurt that my college ride was a 71 Cutlass S. One of only a few cars I'd buy again if I had the chance.

/end thread

akamcfly wrote: Full sized regular cab short box pickup truck? Front V8 engine, rear wheel drive, tons of room under the hood - lots of aftermarket support.

You can get '60s and '70s trucks for next to nothing here in Georgia. I was just looking at one where the owner is asking $2200 for a rough looking (but not much rust) '72 Chevy truck. Non-original 350 and it's running pretty well, just looks like a beater. It is a long box as this thing's going to be doing some work. And I passed up a rusty but running $1500 '71 F100 because my wife couldn't drive the three on the tree.

Xceler8x wrote: Another thing to consider is that most everyone who talks vintage muscle is talking about a V8 car. I'm still waiting for someone to turbo an I6 car and go that route. I'm not sure what the result would be for a daily driver or how well the experiment would turn out. It might make some very inexpensive 6 banger muscle cars performance contenders.

Wish I had more time to work on my Dart; that's exactly what I'm building. Was going to try and have it ready for the Mitty, but we ended up moving into some new shop space at work (where I'm keeping the car) and that kind of tied up a big chunk of my spare time.

At one point I had it running a carbed turbo setup. Unfortunately the carb had been reworked by someone who knew considerably more about milling machines than carbs. Driving that was like trying to pilot Snot Rocket from "Cars" - you'd floor it and get a massive nose-over bog like it was going "a-a-a..." (Ok, the sound effects weren't quite there...), then about two seconds later the "ACHOOO!!!" would come in the form of a fireball out the exhaust and the car would leap forward.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Javelin: Sorry, no, horsepower did drop dramatically with a reduction in compression ratios in 1972. AMX and GTO? Yeah, a new corvette is way faster than a '65 Falcon. That's not what I'm talking about. Try an apples to apples comparison. I had both a 71 and a 72 Formula 400. No comparison, not only did the '71 have a lot more rated compression and horsepower, it was also dramatically faster. In fact, Pontiac achieved the reduction in compression with a larger chamber head, so a popular way to gain a bunch of power was to put 71 or earlier heads on a '72 or later block. I never said there were no fast cars after 1971, so don't put words in my mouth. I said that was considered the end of the muscle car era, with a few exceptions. How does that in any way disagree with you?

That was the year that they switched from "gross" horsepower to "net", which accounted for a pretty significant chunk of that horsepower drop. Some engines that hadn't changed at all lost 30 horsepower or more just from the measurement change.

Xceler8x wrote: Another thing to consider is that most everyone who talks vintage muscle is talking about a V8 car. I'm still waiting for someone to turbo an I6 car and go that route. I'm not sure what the result would be for a daily driver or how well the experiment would turn out. It might make some very inexpensive 6 banger muscle cars performance contenders.

Youtube. "Turbo Slant 6." Come to realization that Australians are inherently superior to every other culture. This realization makes you a racist. You're welcome.

In reply to Javelin:

I'm really sorry about your mis-adventures, but I didn't change history, and I don't organize car shows, just autocrosses.
1971 was in fact the year that started the muscle car decline. I'm not making it earlier, it's always been that. And I'll say this once more, and then I'm done. I NEVER SAID THERE WEREN'T MUSCLE CARS OR FAST CARS AFTER 1971. But I'll tell you what - I'll concede that I'm wrong and you are right, okay?
My point wasn't to define the end of the muscle car era, it was to point out that a 1981 Monte Carlo isn't a muscle car. If you put a fast engine in it, then it's fast, but it wasn't born a muscle car. Its a hot rod.
I'll also say that the Duster was never a muscle car in any year. It was a pony car, but that's an debate for another day.