What's wrong with its wheels?![]()
Sub Zero.
This car followed the original muscle car formula. It had everything you needed to go fast, and little to nothing else. Because of this, they were lighter and faster than the smaller 'Cudas.
@Jahgee1124 If we're voting on the car @Custom878 posted in the nomination, can I up my vote to a cool? The one used in the OP is photographed so unflatteringly that I really can't give a fair opinion of it as a result.
I'd say the Duster fits the bill even better, particularly since Plymouth just stopped building it when it couldn't be a performance car anymore (as opposed to immediately being used as a sticker package on the Fury or... Volare...).This. The Road Runner is, I think, the car that best represents the escence of the muscle car formula: big-ass engine in a middle-size, relatively lightweight body (yeah, I know) with several options to make it a stripped-down street brawler or a flashy street-brawler. These could be had with practically nothing but an enjgine on wheels, or with enough stuff to pair it with it's more luxurious Plymouth GTX cousin.
I'd say the Duster fits the bill even better, particularly since Plymouth just stopped building it when it couldn't be a performance car anymore (as opposed to immediately being used as a sticker package on the Fury or... Volare...).
They just waited a while before dusting off the nameplate (ha!) to drag through some mud.I'd say the Duster fits the bill even better, particularly since Plymouth just stopped building it when it couldn't be a performance car anymore (as opposed to immediately being used as a sticker package on the Fury or... Volare...).
Who says you need a big block though? Sure cubic inches are always cool, but even the small blocks by most world standards, displacement wise that is, are ENORMOUS.Wellllllllllllyeh but the Duster is kinda a more compact car, and well, it never offered a big block. They could be pretty damn fast cars, but they never had the power aura of thee Road Runner because leuss cubic inches.
Who says you need a big block though? Sure cubic inches are always cool, but even the small blocks by most world standards, displacement wise that is, are ENORMOUS.
I don't know about you but I'm pretty sure these days most people know better than to mess with small blocks just as much as a big block.Muscle car talk taking place here son. Anything under 383 cubic inches will be laughed at on the spot. Thanks for your comprehension.
I don't know about you but I'm pretty sure these days most people know better than to mess with small blocks just as much as a big block.
It's real easy to mess with both small blocks AND big blocks, just get an engine smaller than 3.0L (preferably from Japan), with at least 1 "decent sized" turbo on it.![]()
Yes, it's funny to me how 5 or 6 litre engines are called small blocks.but even the small blocks by most world standards, displacement wise that is, are ENORMOUS.
Because in America, we typically go by the physical size of the engine block instead of by displacement. Although most modern V8s are considered small blocks. Though some people go on bore spacing, but that's more complex and I won't get into that.Yes, it's funny to me how 5 or 6 litre engines are called small blocks.
'Merica, But in a good way. Sub-Zero. I require a 383 and Hurst shifter though.
It's real easy to mess with both small blocks AND big blocks, just get an engine smaller than 3.0L (preferably from Japan), with at least 1 "decent sized" turbo on it.![]()