End of the muscle car... again?

[JCE]

An opinion cannot be false, especially not when the only thing that disproves it is another opinion. Get a clue.


Actually, the hilarious thing is that most of the people who are discussing the definition disagree with your opinion in some way or another.


Oh, are you talking about the show that is called American Muscle Car?!
Did it come as a surprise to you that they only talk about American cars?


Lets see:
AMG CLK55 AMG W208. Low tech, not eager to rev V8. RWD. More or less on the small side. Power and acceleration have greater priority over handling. Sounds an awful like the Mustang or the Camaro.
AMG 500E W124. Low tech, not eager to rev V8 with lots of torque. RWD. Mid sized-ish. Power and acceleration have greater priority over handling. Sounds an awful like the Malibu.
Mercedes SL500 R129. Low tech, not eager to rev V8 with lots of torque. RWD. A convertible. Power and acceleration have greater priority over handling. Sounds an awful like a Mustang or Camaro convertible.

+virtual rep

Nicely put. 👍

 

[Barracuda]

I can accept the definition that it has to have a V8, it has to be full size, and it has to be RWD. But under ZERO circumstances will I accept that it cannot originate from any country not begining with "America" or "Australia". Saying so puts you into the "hypocrite stereotypical American" box, and I want to throw that box away.

How exactly does that make me a hypocrite?

I can't look at a Mercedes and say it's a muscle car because it just isn't. Same goes with other European cars. I'm not just saying this because i'm 'the big bad American guy'. If you look at classic European cars they had 10x better handling than the American cars of the same time period. Muscle cars were designed to be wild, and to be fast on the drag strip, so handling wasn't even a thought. Europe doesn't exactly have the vast wide open roads that America has either, so such cars would be absolute pain to drive in Europe. The cars you are trying to pull off as muscle cars are either sports or luxury.

And to prove my point even more:
Muscle car on google images
Muscle car on yahoo images

I'm not going to try to argue my point any further, because i just can't win with a person like you. Whatever thing you think is right will always be right in your head and in the end i'm just going to be tired.

Oh, are you talking about the show that is called American Muscle Car?!
Did it come as a surprise to you that they only talk about American cars?

I wasn't talking about that show

 

[Tornado]

How exactly does that make me a hypocrite?

Because your opinion (and that is all it is) is right, and everyone else is a fool. Which, forgive me, is a VERY American attitude.

If you look at classic European cars they had 10x better handling than the American cars of the same time period.

Which really has nothing to do with anything.

Muscle cars were designed to be wild, and to be fast on the drag strip, so handling wasn't even a thought.

The funny part is that that isn't even true. I can easily rattle off a good number of muscle cars that could handle, just like I can rattle off a good number made in Europe and a good number made after the 70's.

The cars you are trying to pull off as muscle cars are either sports or luxury.

A muscle car doesn't have to be a spartan piece, and you know it. There is no reason that any of the cars I listed aren't directed parallels to what I compared them to, and if all you have got is "the interior is too nice" then you are more narrow-minded then you let on before.

And to prove my point even more:
Muscle car on google images
Muscle car on yahoo images

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=muscle+car&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
Which really proves nothing.

Whatever thing you think is right will always be right in your head and in the end i'm just going to be tired.

Lulz Irony.

 

[Joey D]

A MUSCLE CAR IS NOT SOLELY AMERICAN. Or Australian either. And I've never heard of a South African car, what brand(s) do they make down there? Exactly.

It's what wikipedia said.

I can accept the definition that it has to have a V8, it has to be full size, and it has to be RWD. But under ZERO circumstances will I accept that it cannot originate from any country not begining with "America" or "Australia". Saying so puts you into the "hypocrite stereotypical American" box, and I want to throw that box away.

So I'm a stereotypical American because I think muscle cars can not come from European or Japanese based automotive companies? Whatever you need to think to make yourself feel better.

Car classifications are nothing more than opinions. There is nothing set in stone to what goes where, but it's obvious that many people on these boards don't seem to understand...so I'll just sit back and wait for some stupid ass remark about how my opinion is wrong or something.

Anyways maybe you guys should go back to talking about how high performance cars will be affected by the new fuel regulations rather then bitching about what is a muscle car or not. Frankly I see no need for big inefficient cars to be driving around. You can have fun in a smaller, lighter car with less horsepower...Lotus has proved that for years.

Look at the Elise, it has 190hp 1.8L engine which Lotus says will get 24/29mpg. It also will do 0-60 in 4.9 sec. The price is $46,270. A nicely equipped Dodge Charge SRT-8, something I would consider a modern muscle car, (no I don't care they aren't in the same goddamn class) is about the same price as the Lotus, but only gives you 14/20mpg.

I'm not comparing the cars since I know someone will jump all over me for that, and I realise the Charger has more room and is more practical...but I'm looking at this purely from the aspect that smaller lighter sports or "muscle" cars with less horsepower is something companies should strive for under this new energy bill. I see no reason why cars can not be fast, fun, and efficient at the same time.

 

[Dave A]

Now you've shared your opinion everyone should drop it eh .

You're wrong about WIkipedia as well, and I quote "The term principally refers to American, Australian and South African models", see that word, the one I've bolded, makes a big difference to the meaning.

No one would argue that muscle cars are principally American or Australian, I have no idea about South African. But the fact remains a muscle car is just another type of car, like a hot hatch to a familay hatch, a sports coupe to a regular coupe.

Not that I'm ignoring you but there is a difference between a definition and an opinion. If the opinion doesn't match the definition then the opinion is wrong, you have cited Wikipedia as a source for your definition, but that doesn't agree with you. For example, the MG ZT260 was a muscle car in every sense of the definition.

 

[Joey D]

I was just showing what wikipedia said on the subject, I'm not saying they are 100% right. In my opinion muscle cars are typically from an American based company and I do not feel that a Mercedes or Nissan can be classified as such.

 

[Dave A]

I appreciate the fact that opinion often fills in the holes left by the definition and I don't mean to single you out, it's just that you were the last to comment on the matter, but the definition doesn't state where a Muscle car can come from. Your free to feel that a Mercedes can't be a muscle car (and I know you put "I think" first Joey, this is directed to anyone) but the definition is open to cars from any manufacturer and from any country. Whatever bits you add to that definition is personal and people shouldn't get out of sorts when somone else dissagrees and says' no this is the definition it does not state that xxx is a requirement.

I agree with you Joey in that muscle cars are typically from American companies, but I can think of a few from Europe.

 

[super cirrus]

a muscle car is a car that recieves an engine bigger than it was originally designed for, like the original gto or the first cts-v.

 

[Syxx_Killer]

I was always under the impression that a muscle car was a front-engine, rear-wheel drive coupe with 2+2 seating. Cars like the Mustang, Camaro, Challenger, etc. would fit into that category. If a car is a coupe with front-engine, rear-wheel drive but only seating for two was classified as a sports car. I realize that there are a lot of sports cars out there with seating for two but may be mid- or rear-engine.

 

[super cirrus]

mustangs and camaros are techically pony cars, but most people consider them muscle.

 

[Tornado]

So I'm a stereotypical American because I think muscle cars can not come from European or Japanese based automotive companies? Whatever you need to think to make yourself feel better.

I do not think he was referring to you. Rather, I think he was referring to Diablo who was coming out and saying "Muscle cars can only ever be from America" as if it were fact rather then his opinion.

 

[Joey D]

I didn't agree with his statement so I was responding to it.

 

[Onikaze]

mustangs and camaros are techically pony cars, but most people consider them muscle.

People these days, but yeah, they're Pony Cars.

The BMW M3 is more like a Pony Car.

The M5 is a Muscle Car.

Muscle Car in the broadest definition that I can think of.

A fairly normal production car, with little to no obvious external modification, and a great stonking enging crammed down its throat.

See also: Sleeper, Factory Special, Factory Tuner... as most of those have examples that fit the category well.

You know a Muscle car when you look at two cars that at first glance appear the same, then one of them roars, smokes its tires up, and bellows off down the road in a glorious display of hooliganism and foolishness.

 

[Jim Prower]

To me,the term Musclecar is more of a genre, a car that exudes muscular tones. It can handle, but the ability to drive irreponsibly is a must.

A classical musclecar, by definition, is an intermediate with a high performance engine. Mind you, I'm talking the '60s definition of intermediate, which is now fullsize. Pony cars are sporty Compact (Again, '60s) to lower-midsize coupes with an FR layout, a different bodystyle from a normal Compact model in the same range, and A V8 in most models sold...(which is where the Mustang II failed)

I also consider the Mini-Musclecars, a Japanese 1970s compact coupe or 2-door Sedan with a high-performance 4- or 6-cylinder engine, and American-inspired styling. Mistubishi Galant GTO, Isuzu Belett GT-R, and KPGC110 Nissan Skyline 2000GT-R fastback fit in this category. add to those the numerous Compacts with V8s, the Australian Hemi Six Valiants, (And if we include them then we have to include the OHC Sprint Pontiacs, too!) suddenly, the definition of musclecar is beginning to become very broad. My final count: No less than a high-performance six for America and Australia, no less than a high-performance four for Europe and Japan, and that only applies to Hardtops and Coupes buit before 1972.

Even the "V8 Supercar" category, basically a full-size (modern terms) sedan with fornt-rear and a V8 available, can be classified as a form of musclecar. Even AWDs. The Charger's available with it, after all. The super-lux...well, you have to remember the Big-engined Buick Riveria GSs.

So I really have a tough time trying to figure out what a musclecar is and isn't. I've come up with some loose rules.

1. Coupe or 2-door Hardtop/sedan, 4-door allowed after 1989
2. Front engine. RWD or AWD.
3. High-performance engine in lower-level car. (no less than I6 for US and AUS, I4 for JPN and EU before 1973.)
4. seating for at least 4 in normal model. (allows for cars like AMX.)

 

[JCE]

No one would argue that muscle cars are principally American or Australian, I have no idea about South African. But the fact remains a muscle car is just another type of car, like a hot hatch to a familay hatch, a sports coupe to a regular coupe.

I would agree with that.

Not that I'm ignoring you but there is a difference between a definition and an opinion. If the opinion doesn't match the definition then the opinion is wrong, you have cited Wikipedia as a source for your definition, but that doesn't agree with you. For example, the MG ZT260 was a muscle car in every sense of the definition.

Hey, I know its offtopic but I love that particular MG--and I would call it a musclar.

mustangs and camaros are techically pony cars, but most people consider them muscle.

This is quite correct. 👍

I do not think he was referring to you. Rather, I think he was referring to Diablo who was coming out and saying "Muscle cars can only ever be from America" as if it were fact rather then his opinion.

I wasn't, but he has his opinion and I do respect it. I just disagree.

Now that we are off of this arguement. lets resume our hatred for the goverment trying to kill of the best thing to happen to the USA in 30 years. POWER IS BACK! DON'T KILL IT!

 

[Tornado]

Hey, I know its offtopic but I love that particular MG--and I would call it a musclar.

I still don't understand how that car worked.
"We need to find a way to spice up our generally terrible Rover 75...Got it. Mustang engine."
Which they spent $56 on developing it, and it came out not half bad.

 

[JCE]

I still don't understand how that car worked.
"We need to find a way to spice up our generally terrible Rover 75...Got it. Mustang engine."
Which they spent $56 on developing it, and it came out not half bad.

Why couldn't Ford USA do that with the Lincoln LS? Honestly? There's food for thought eh?

For those of you who don't know what were're on about:

My god that's one sexy looking car. Yes, I said it.

Oh, and the estate is almost as sexy...

My only complaint is that the bonnet openings along the edges are a bit distracting and pronounced.

 

[Tornado]

Why couldn't Ford USA do that with the Lincoln LS? Honestly? There's food for thought eh?

Because the Lincoln LS already had more than 260 horsepower when the MG ZT260 came out.

 

[Jim Prower]

Yes, but I'd have liked the Mustang motor in it. it's ease of modification and relatively high torque would've been beneficial. The problem might be smoothness, and if it'd fit. It's quite a bit bigger than the LS's, and the SOHC Mod Motor heads arent' exactly small...

 

[Tornado]

It didn't fit that well, but they did it. Chalk it up as another failure for Ford Motor Company that could/should have been a success; just like the Lincoln LS overall, the Mercury Marauder and the MN12 based cars.

 

[Gil]

Before I go any further, please note that I only skimmed the posts before mine.

The muscle car is not dead, nor IMHO will it ever die.
Like it has evolved, it will continue to evolve.
Back in the 60's the hottest Corvettes, for example, would get to 60MPH in about 6.5-7 seconds, get 11 MPG, and stop from 60-0 in about 180-250 feet.
Today, the Vette has a smaller engine, will turn 25MPG on the highway, 0-60 under 5 sec, stop from 60 in well under 130 feet.

There are currently electric cars on the drawing boards that offer exceptional performance, without the use of fossil fuel. There is a high school shop class that has built a high performance diesel hybrid, that is no slouch on the road.

While the provision of high performance is definitely going to change, it won't be going away as long as there are gearheads out there to carry on the legacy, either thru demanding it of the manufacturers, or building it out of common grocery getters.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Forget about the new cars. Buy a classic, get your antique license plate, and tell those hippies to shove it

Amen. 👍

 

[JCE]

Unless tey plan on having a recording of a petrol enginein that electric sports car I won't evne give it the tgime of day. The NOISE to me is as important as the speed (both laterally and vertically). The overall experience will be dimiished with an electric sports car without some sort of engine noise that isn't just a whine.

 

[Joey D]

So when oil is almost $1000 a barrel and it's petrol is no longer a viable fuel option then what? At some point we need to switch to a better, less expensive, fuel source.

 

[Azuremen]

Unless tey plan on having a recording of a petrol enginein that electric sports car I won't evne give it the tgime of day. The NOISE to me is as important as the speed (both laterally and vertically). The overall experience will be dimiished with an electric sports car without some sort of engine noise that isn't just a whine.

Your car flies? Can I have it?

I don't think anything will be diminished, at all. Maybe thats because I am use to the whine of high revving four cylinders, I don't know. But you'll likely not have much of a choice when the decision gets made to go to electric cars, and that is where they will go.

 

[Jim Prower]

Nah, there'll be piston-poppers for a long, long while, unless our government starts oppressively legislating them out. At which time I move to China.

(I mean, they took the last of their steam locomotives out of service in the late '90s...they'll hold onto piston power longer than anyone...)

 

[Joey D]

Why are people so against changing from petrol powered engines? Oil isn't going to run out for a long time yet and I'm not one to believe that the car is destroying the environment, but soon, like within the next 10 year oil will not be economically viable for us to use. Electric cars will get better and not look like complete ass or fail miserably (ala EV-1), hydrogen will be become easier to store as well as "make", bio-fuel will be more available and so on. Petrol engines have served their purpose, now it's time to move on to newer and better technology.

 

[Azuremen]

Why are people so against changing from petrol powered engines? Oil isn't going to run out for a long time yet and I'm not one to believe that the car is destroying the environment, but soon, like within the next 10 year oil will not be economically viable for us to use. Electric cars will get better and not look like complete ass or fail miserably (ala EV-1), hydrogen will be become easier to store as well as "make", bio-fuel will be more available and so on. Petrol engines have served their purpose, now it's time to move on to newer and better technology.

Agreed. And lets remember kids that petrol engines are only about 15% efficient versus the 90% or so from an electric motor.

 

[Jim Prower]

1: an electric car has about as much soul as Ben Stein's character in "Ferris Buheler's day off." The only thing that seems more like a living machine than a good, piston-powered car is a Steam Locomotive.
2: You CANNOT modify the motor of an electric car. I dont care what you say, It can't be done without replacing it, and it won't really matter, anyway, because putting a bigger electric motor in a car of the same size will cause more problems than solutions.
3: Biofuel, that you mentioned, can be used in Piston powered cars, and, furthermore, it makes more power, since you can crank up the compression ratios in said cars.
4: The only way you'd completely eliminate gasoline powered cars is to scrap every single one of them. The only way you'd do that is to force everyone to buy an electric. Dictatorship, anyone?

 

[Joey D]

1: an electric car has about as much soul as Ben Stein's character in "Ferris Buheler's day off." The only thing that seems more like a living machine than a good, piston-powered car is a Steam Locomotive.

Just because they don't have the same sort of "soul" as petrol cars that makes them bad?

2: You CANNOT modify the motor of an electric car. I dont care what you say, It can't be done without replacing it, and it won't really matter, anyway, because putting a bigger electric motor in a car of the same size will cause more problems than solutions.

Uhhh yes you can, better batteries, different gearing, etc. You obviously know nothing about electric motors. There won't be a bunch of problems with them. When I was on the FIRST robotics team we modified our electric drill motors to be better all the time.

4: The only way you'd completely eliminate gasoline powered cars is to scrap every single one of them. The only way you'd do that is to force everyone to buy an electric. Dictatorship, anyone?

Wrong. When the price of petrol reaches $10-$12 (or higher) per gallon people will just change based on economic concerns.