I guess the Challenger Hellcat is the closest thing to a modern muscle car. Has a fairly ridiculous engine that the brakes and suspension don't live up to, all built on a rather humble platform.
I guess the Challenger Hellcat is the closest thing to a modern muscle car. Has a fairly ridiculous engine that the brakes and suspension don't live up to, all built on a rather humble platform.
what is the Chevy SS?
Ian F wrote: Of course. I'd wager any modern truck would out-perform a 60's muscle car in every category. Also amusing about the OP is how there's a huge cottage industry geared toward making "muscle cars" from the 60's actually turn and stop to match their straight line performance. I test drove a 69 Charger many years ago and I remember vividly how other than the straight line performance it drove like sh!t compared to my '82 Subaru wagon.
Their straight line performance is pretty piss poor compared to anything even remotely close to a performance car today. I have dusted our big block, bored, stroked, cammed 396 Chevelle SS in a Chevy 2500HD and I think I could probably have done it pulling a 36' trailer. If my father didn't love the damn thing I'd have sold it the day we finished building it. It only feels fast because it makes a lot of smoke and noise and everything shakes like the Enterprise when Scotty is Givin' er all she got, Captain!
xflowgolf wrote: what is the Chevy SS?
I'd say it's a sporty luxury car, like most BMWs. The build philosophy is the same.
Muscle cars, pony cars, whatever, but who ever came up with the idea that this sort of car deserved to be called a sports car? Probably people with no experience with traditional sports cars, I guess.
In reply to Huckleberry:
If all of that is true then the car is really not running right. 2500HD's pull 0-60's in the 7 second range if what I'm reading is accurate.
pres589 wrote: In reply to Huckleberry: If all of that is true then the car is really not running right. 2500HD's pull 0-60's in the 7 second range if what I'm reading is accurate.
Or it has crap tires and just does giant burnouts instead actually going forward.
Huckleberry wrote: And I should know as half owne of a '70 Chevelle SS that everyone oogles over when we take it out. If you ever wanted to pick up dudes in their 60's who still carry a comb in their back pocket - this is the car to bait the trap with. It's truly a horrible car in every single way possible. I'm not sure how anyone remembers it otherwise.
I used to make the joke that ALL sporty cars are only good for picking up dudes, but i have found an exception.
My 1965 Mustang is the only car I've ever owned that is universally praised by people I run into. Young, old, male, female, car enthusaists, camry driving car haters, etc. The response really surprised me. So maybe its which muscle car?
Only other car that came close was a ragged cj-7 with no top and a rough and ready level of interior finish. Lots of thumbs up and requests for rides at the beach.
Flynlow wrote: Only other car that came close was a ragged cj-7 with no top and a rough and ready level of interior finish. Lots of thumbs up and requests for rides at the beach.
I hear a Samurai with the roof and doors off turns you into a dude from a beer commercial. I'll have to try it sometime 
pres589 wrote: In reply to Huckleberry: If all of that is true then the car is really not running right. 2500HD's pull 0-60's in the 7 second range if what I'm reading is accurate.
Stock ones do, but it's not all that hard to add significant power to them.
Huckleberry wrote: It's truly a horrible car in every single way possible. I'm not sure how anyone remembers it otherwise.
Were you around when they were new? Drove like any other car of that size at the time. Nothing spectacular for most cars of the time. That's what got me out of muscle cars and into sports cars. Sports cars weren't nearly as fast but handled better. And new cars are better than anything from that era. Thanks to technology advances. A new economy car is faster than an old muscle car.
I was taught that difference between muscle car and pony car was the pony car generally used a small block V8 and muscle cars used big block V8. example: Mustang w/289 = pony, Mustang w/390 = muscle.
codrus wrote: AIUI, the original formula for a "muscle car" was you take the mid-sized car and you put the big engine out of the full-sized car into it.
I guess by that rule, current muscle cars include:
Toyota Camry V6 (biggest engine in Avalon).
Ford Fusion Sport (2nd biggest engine in the Lincoln Continental).
Nissan Altima 3.5 SR (Maxima engine).
And, to a certain extent, the Honda Accord V6 6MT.
Cars that fit the "powerful engine, regular car" formula are everywhere, they just aren't marketed like they used to be.
IMO, the "new muscle car" is the performance diesel truck and the crowd that follows it.
Domestic, body on frame, RWD, massive torque compared to anything else on the road. Capable of being (and feeling) quite fast, particularly in a straight line, but limited actual capability going around a corner.
All three manufacturers putting out 900+ ft. lbs. of torque right out of the box, and modified diesel are putting out insane numbers. Young guys aspire to own them, they turn fuel into smoke and noise. It's basically the big block Chevelle of this decade. They are modified and drag raced, and the GM vs. Ford vs. Dodge rivalries rage on.
In the comparison that it's the model with the excessive engine, these are essentially the big power version of the plebian 1/2 ton crew cab that every suburban dad commutes in now and is basically the modern day equivalen to that eras midsize family sedan (rwd, v8, body on frame)... except these are the ridiculous overkill version. The 1/2 ton is the base Malibu, and the 3/4 ton diesel is the big block SS.
Does a muscle car have to fit a specific criteria based on horsepower/torque, physical dimensions etc?
Maybe muscle cars can only be made from say, 1964-1973...
What was the Lil' Red Express? A muscle truck? It certainly wasn't a car, and it's made after 1973...
My point is there's no cut-and-dry formula that a vehicle HAS to fit in my opinion.
I must be crazy because I feel like if I bought a 1972 Maverick with a 250 and swapped in a 351 with a lumpy cam and a big 4bbl, I MADE a muscle car. But it wasn't "factory" so I'm outta luck calling it one.
In reply to ebonyandivory:
I'd say the bare minimum requirements for a muscle car from the factory are:
RWD
V8
Loud
At least somewhat analog (Can have OBDI, but not OBDII, infotainment or driver aids save for ABS).
Does good burnouts.
Relatively cheap to extract more power.
Can be reasonably used as an everyday car.
Made by an American company.
In reply to G_Body_Man:
Right, and that's my point. Loud is subjective, not within a specific range of decibels. RWD I'd agree there too. The V8 leaves out any V10's but I see your point.
And my point is there's no way to agree on many specifics if any. It's a little more ephemeral than that.
G_Body_Man wrote: Made by an American company.
Some Australian and British companies have made cars that are undeniably muscle cars....Holden and Jensen off the top of my head.
In reply to GameboyRMH:
They follow the muscle formula, but with a slightly different ethos. Jensens are much more refined than 442 W-30s or GT390s. Holdens are the closest, but hot Commos and Falcons never really died out and weren't usually built for oval track or 1/4 mile races. Since they were built for the Supercars series and became infamous with the "Supercar Scare,", it would probably be good to differentiate them as "Australian Supercars" or "Australian Muscle."
I think the lines between what is a muscle car/pony car/sports car ect. have been so blurred that everyone's definition is so different. Until that is defined to a point that everyone agrees this is a mute point.
ebonyandivory wrote: Does a muscle car have to fit a specific criteria based on horsepower/torque, physical dimensions etc? Maybe muscle cars can only be made from say, 1964-1973... What was the Lil' Red Express? A muscle truck? It certainly wasn't a car, and it's made after 1973... My point is there's no cut-and-dry formula that a vehicle HAS to fit in my opinion. I must be crazy because I feel like if I bought a 1972 Maverick with a 250 and swapped in a 351 with a lumpy cam and a big 4bbl, I MADE a muscle car. But it wasn't "factory" so I'm outta luck calling it one.
The local Pontiac GTO club hosts an annual muscle car show, it's one of the more highly regarded shows in the country for stock or restored muscle cars. Their criteria are:
If you look at muscle cars of the era, these things do a pretty good job of separating them from the standard Chevelles, Tempests, etc. (one year I took 2nd in class with my 1961 Pontiac Bonneville. 
)
In reply to xflowgolf:
I never could figure out why everybody building a hot rod truck starts with the heaviest version of it they can get.
G_Body_Man wrote: In reply to ebonyandivory: I'd say the bare minimum requirements for a muscle car from the factory are: At least somewhat analog (Can have OBDI, but not OBDII, infotainment or driver aids save for ABS).
Just from this... Yeah, no wonder there are no more muscle cars. You will never have this option again.
Ian F wrote:racerdave600 wrote:Of course. I'd wager any modern truck would out-perform a 60's muscle car in every category.Ian F wrote: So... you want a car that goes like hell in a straight line and doesn't turn or stop so well... The big 3 all have plenty of 4 door trucks to sell you.Have you driven a new truck lately? They drive pretty damn good. Our F150 at work drove better than my Mustang, and my son just bought a new F150 that almost is a sports car.
And after dispatching the muscle cars I would like to see a comparison between a modem 1500 series truck and the "muscle car era" trucks. I bet our 1/2 tons put thei old 1/2, 3/4 and 1 ton trucks away in every category as well
In reply to John Brown:
The new 1/2 ton trucks put away 60's-70's muscle cars in almost every way too!
Having just driven a Challenger "Scat Pack" there is no berkeleying way in hecking heck I would call that thing a Sports Car. That thing is a muscle car, through and through.
It's built on a gosh darned SUV PLATFORM that they used for 4-door passenger cars, that they used for the two door Challenger.
And then they took the regular Challenger, and without upgrading the suspension or brakes, shoved the biggest motor they had available into the thing at a reasonable price.
That's the definition of a muscle car.
More importantly - it handles like a muscle car. In other words, it moves like a drunken 350 lb man trying to complete a Ninja Warrior course.
You'll need to log in to post.
