End of the muscle car... again?

[Syxx_Killer]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22340556/

Sure looks like a change is coming. It figures, just when things get exciting some stupid new legislation comes along and kills it. Here is a snippet from the end of the article:

Performance cars of the future may be powered by smaller engines or electric motors, he said, but they won't die.

To me, that already makes them sound dead.

 

[Jim Prower]

I dont want to have to wait 15 years to start making decent cars again. let's get things RIGHT this time.

 

[YSSMAN]

No, I don't think that they're reasonably right at all. The thing is, these muscle car power wars are going to happen whether the greenies like it or not. Simply put, these new CAFE regulations don't even begin to go into effect until 2011, and furthermore, won't be fully-implemented until 2020 here in the US.

Furthermore, it isn't as though the automakers are unable to doge the bullet. Creative engineering with transmissions, cylinder deactivation, the use of diesel power, the electric engine "boosters" etc can all help to increase fuel economy while at the same time having a minimal effect on performance overall.

Its not the end of the world with fuel economy regulations, companies just have to be more responsible as to what kinds of cars they offer to customers. This being said, it would be my guess to see many of the truck and SUV offerings disappear, particularly those that only sell marginally well. Of course, that would have to be matched by more-efficient models as well... Be they small petrol, mid-size diesel, or hybrid whatever vehicles.

 

[Jim Prower]

Well, it is true that many manufacturers have too many SUVs already. I could see Chrysler performing a major cleaning, leaving the Wrangler, Grand Cherokee, and perhaps a more capable Liberty or something for Jeep, the Pacifica for Chrysler, and No SUV for Dodge. Well, okay, perhaps one, But I'd make it smaller than the Durango. I mean, If you go to Chrysler for a people Hauler, Don't you usually leave with a Caravan or Town & Country?

Toyota could cut the redundant models, too. Seriously, RAV4 and Highlander? they're a little close for comfort. FJ Crusier, I suppose, is cool, but the hardcore offroaders stil flock to Jeep or the Land Cruiser, so it's really more of an in-between for the H2 and H3. I'd cut the Sequoia, too, before it switched to the trouble-prone Second-Gen Tundra. Undecided on the 4-Runner.

Then again, Toyota is the Hybrid Company...just make a bunch and hope the left continues to love them.

The biggest problem, is that the buyer mentality is different from 1973: there's no rush to Compact cars, Hybrids and such. People still want power in their cars, which is why we're getting so many performance models out lately, and power-sapping luxuries are popping up everywhere. Will this be popular? Can the makers keep the performance at levels where they had it, without making the experience "Less Pure?"

On the other hand, Automakers could save money by using this chance to switch to a Lean Production System like the one Toyota has used...and the one Caterpillar's implimenting right now. (We have an extra waste to look out for, that Toyota doesn't! )

 

[Barracuda]

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

 

[Tornado]

I think this was a necessary step the more and more I think about it.

 

[JCE]

Possible solution:

[*]Buy new crappy car with crap motor that is supposedly good for planet earth that hugs tres and all that nonesense.
[*]Shove large "old fashioned" motor/transmission in it.
[*]Laugh in the face of the Goverment(s) and hippies as you drive by burning rubber.

Or, like someone said just buy a classic car in the future. A 2000 911 turbo in 15 years will be a classic.

 

[Jim Prower]

25 years is the cutoff for antique car, bud.

oh...wait....

(Recalculates)

It'll still be one or two years off, but, yeah.

 

[Sting]

This is just for the US right, I mean George W cant sign something for the entire world, so keep on bring the muscle cars to the U.K. We'll take them gladly.

 

[Danny]

This is just for the US right, I mean George W cant sign something for the entire world, so keep on bring the muscle cars to the U.K. We'll take them gladly.

We already have them.

 

[Joey D]

Good maybe this means American companies will make a step forward in technology and realise not every sports car needs a giant, petrol hungry V8 or V10.

 

[Tornado]

*cough* *cough* CAFE doesn't only apply to American companies *cough* *cough*

 

[Joey D]

Who else makes cars and labels them "muscle"? The Japanese and Europeans don't really call anything they make a muscle car as far as I know. I was just referring to the question addressed in the title of the thread.

 

[Tornado]

I'm just referring to the "step forward in technology bit." BMW, for example, says screw it and just pays the fine rather than bother with the CAFE standards.
Furthermore, American companies can still make big inefficient cars. They just need to supplant those sales with more sales of compacts.

 

[JCE]

Who else makes cars and labels them "muscle"? The Japanese and Europeans don't really call anything they make a muscle car as far as I know. I was just referring to the question addressed in the title of the thread.

Anything with an M, AMG, or S/RS badge from Germany is a muscle car, not to mention the "R" Jaguars. The G35/G37 coupe is borderline musclecar.

 

[Joey D]

I wouldn't call those muscle cars, sports cars sure, but not muscle cars. But since I think car classifications are the stupidest thing ever and people for the most part don't know what the hell belongs where half of the time I just go off of what wikipedia says...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car

 

[Tornado]

Anything with an M, AMG, or S/RS badge from Germany is a muscle car, not to mention the "R" Jaguars. The G35/G37 coupe is borderline musclecar.

I see the AMG point, but otherwise I disagree.

 

[YSSMAN]

Who else makes cars and labels them "muscle"? The Japanese and Europeans don't really call anything they make a muscle car as far as I know.

Goshn had the stones to call the GT-R a "muscle car," when clearly it was not. That was odd.

Dunno, I think the term really only applies to mid-size cars with V8 engines and RWD...

===

As for CAFE standards being the solution, it depends on where you stand on the issue. I'm in greater support for higher fuel taxes to create demand for more efficient cars, not the other way around. Oh well...

 

[JCE]

Again, everyone has their own definition of words like Muscle car. That is what makes the world great.

And by YSS' definition the new M3 is a muscle car as well as the new GT-R.

 

[V1P3R]

Gotta agree with Tornado on this one.

 

[Barracuda]

Anything with an M, AMG, or S/RS badge from Germany is a muscle car, not to mention the "R" Jaguars. The G35/G37 coupe is borderline musclecar.

Are you kidding me? A muscle car is an American car (the exception being Australia) with a large engine, from the mid 60's to early 70's. I hate how everyone misuses the term. At least if your going to use the term for a modern car, please make it a powerful American car.

 

[Tornado]

A muscle car is an American car (the exception being Australia) with a large engine, from the mid 60's to early 70's.

To which you could also easily add any of the non-forced induction V8 AMGs made before the 6.2L.
The fact that you look at it as purely an American car is totally irrelevant (and rather silly).

 

[JCE]

Are you kidding me? A muscle car is an American car (the exception being Australia) with a large engine, from the mid 60's to early 70's. I hate how everyone misuses the term. At least if your going to use the term for a modern car, please make it a powerful American car.

Go away hypocrite, we don't need your bias in here.

To which you could also easily add any of the non-forced induction V8 AMGs made before the 6.2L.

Actually, I'd classify any of the non-forced inducted AMG Mercs as muscle cars regardless of year--except the SLK55. I would conceed that from Germany the AMG cars make the best case for being muscle cars.

 

[Barracuda]

sure, whatever false information makes you sleep at night.

I'm not being biased, ask anyone else and they'll agree that my definition is correct. Even look at shows on the Speed Channel for example. If they're doing a special on muscle cars, all of the cars are American. The classification you're looking for would be sports car, not muscle.

 

[Joey D]

Are you kidding me? A muscle car is an American car (the exception being Australia) with a large engine, from the mid 60's to early 70's. I hate how everyone misuses the term. At least if your going to use the term for a modern car, please make it a powerful American car.

The new Camaro, Mustang, Challenger, etc. would be muscle cars in my opinion. But you are right, they tend to be American, Australian (from an American company) or South African (wiki said it). Any car with a V8 can not be called a muscle car.

 

[YSSMAN]

Certainly not. I definitely wouldn't consider cars like the IS-F or RS4 "muscle cars," but the M3 and the C63 certainly fit very well in the end. I generally see no reason why these German cars can't be included, however, they generally carry the name "bahn-burner" more often than not... Odd really, as the CTS-V fights in the same category, and yet is considered a "muscle car."

 

[Dave A]

As far as I'm concerned there is no rule that says a Muscle car has to be American, sure the Muscle car culture originated in America (unless America just popluarised it) but to say a muscle car can only be an American car is akin to saying that an exotic can only be Italian and a city car can only be Japanese. Perhaps not an accurate connection (cars to the countries) but the point is valid.

 

[JCE]

As far as I'm concerned there is no rule that says a Muscle car has to be American, sure the Muscle car culture originated in America (unless America just popluarised it) but to say a muscle car can only be an American car is aking to saying that an exotic can only be Italian and a city car can only be Japanese. Perhaps not an accurate connection (cars to the countries) but the point is valid.

Thank you for being intelligent. Americans that feel they need to "own" the phrase "muscle car" are portraying the stereotype that pisses off the rest of the world--especially Europeans. And they (Americans) wonder why so many people around the world hate them. Its little things like this that add to the problem.

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.

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.

 

[Tornado]

sure, whatever false information makes you sleep at night.

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

I'm not being biased, ask anyone else and they'll agree that my definition is correct.

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

Even look at shows on the Speed Channel for example. If they're doing a special on muscle cars, all of the cars are American.

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?

The classification you're looking for would be sports car, not muscle.

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.

 

[YSSMAN]

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.

Meh, people are going to do it no matter what. I'd generally agree for the most part that Americans and Australians "do it the best," but of course, that always depends on who's definition you use when describing the "muscle car" in question.

Everyone, generally speaking, has done one. Whether or not they fit the definition completely is a whole 'nother thing... And even then, that whole definition thing is as much of a problem within itself.

I'd still go with the Tempest GTO model: Mid-size car, RWD, big V8, nothing to special outside or inside, and only a badge or two to separate it from the others.