Go for it!

:lol2:

Nope, my 2002 trans am ws6 is everything a strong muscle car should be.

You must be joking. Today's Hyundai's can beat up on most cars made in 1970.

I have 79 trans am with a 403 and my dad has a 68 chevelle with a 396, straight up my am will take the chevelle any day. i rebuilt the motor in the trans am and my dads is all original with 12k miles. i would say true muscle cars died after the second generation trans am. they were the last of the muscle car era in my opinion

I had muscle cares in the 60's and 70's....todays duramax's would beat most of the so called muscle cars of yesteryear. My son has a 2011 CTS V There is no doubt his car would beat any production car of the muscle car era....not to mention still get over 20 mpg + on the highway...

I think this is why large suv's and trucks became so popular people in america still crave a rwd v8 boat with gobbs of power

Opinions, everyone has one.

Muscle cars and fast cars are not the same thing to me. There are fast hondas, but they are not muscle cars in my opinion.

I think muscle cars are gone, but fast cars are still being made.

You must be joking. Today's Hyundai's can beat up on most cars made in 1970.

The next person who talking about one of those stupid little rice burning shit cans being used for anything more then being used to drive to the office or school gets my foot in their ass.
Hyundai's, Honda's, Toyota's... NOT RACE CARS! They are death traps that douche bags ride around in thinking that they are all cool and shit, blasting their subs and loud sound systems. Listening to rap and crap.
I only want a good sound system so I can listen to my Tom Petty CD.

Sorry guys but I've had to much of "my car can go 140mph" BS from my friends that drive honda's and saturn's. I'm sick of it. I'll never stop DD my truck.

For me 1979 was the last year I liked certain muscle cars designs, even that is kind of a stretch. It isn't about power. its about the feel of driving a big hunk of steel down the road with a SBC, a muncie 4spd, and listening to a loud home built exhaust, getting 7MPG and loving it. Doing burnouts on back roads with your friends, or using your muscle car to impress a chick. And if the girls don't want anything to do with my muscle car, I'll find a girl who does.

If you don't like my opinion you can kiss my ass
:homer:


I'm sorry I started this debate. everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

EDIT:

Opinions, everyone has one.

Muscle cars and fast cars are not the same thing to me. There are fast hondas, but they are not muscle cars in my opinion.

I think muscle cars are gone, but fast cars are still being made.
AGREED 1000%

Thread moved to other performance discussion forum.

Check out my 2000 Trans Am in my Sig. Plenty of muscle about 460 rwhp.

Im curious just how many of the above members ever even drove an early 70s muscle car, let alone were born back then.

60s and 70s Muscle Cars were about the sheer brute force of the drivetrain, the rumble of the exhaust, and straightline acceleration. MPG -- huh, what? AC? What the hell was AC? Automakers just put the largest engine they could make into the lightest car they had.
You can thank emissions requirements for their death, and the 20-some year "black hole" that automotive performance went through as a result. Thank goodness the automakers finally figured out how to make power again.

Muscle cars arent really "dead", they are just more refined and get better mpg now. In many ways the newer cars are far superior than the older iron. For example, those CTS-V's are simply amazing in what they can do. They are truly "4-door Corvettes".


The kicker is that my Dmax would beat the ever loving crap out of my old Cutlass or Monte, get better mileage and be more versatile to boot. Now THATS amazing. That said, what I wouldnt give to own a '70-'72 442 Cutlass again.

Look at my signature. I'm not a fan of, nor own a "rice burner". My point here is I personally get tired of how great "muscle" cars of yesteryear were. I am old enough to have driven and owned these cars of yesteryear and I can tell you that a 1970 Vette packing a 454 and 'Dynaglass' tires was lucky to pull off a 6.5 0-60 run when it was new---with a decent driver! Even economy cars today will suck the headlights out of most cars from the muscle car era. Wasn't that the point? To be faster than the next car at the stoplight?
Enough with the nostalgia. We are living in the real muscle car era. The rest can go back to hell with that damned 50's music that every gas station pumps out here. It sucked then and sucks harder now. Embrace the now while there is still fuel in the pumps. Last call folks...

Muscle car ----- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car

The stuff these days would be classified as High Performance cars using engine power and technology to achieve horsepower numbers.

I think the draw of classic muscle cars is you can't just go to the new car dealer and by one and this is also where the definition comes from.

Im curious just how many of the above members ever even drove an early 70s muscle car, let alone were born back then.

60s and 70s Muscle Cars were about the sheer brute force of the drivetrain, the rumble of the exhaust, and straightline acceleration. MPG -- huh, what? AC? What the hell was AC? Automakers just put the largest engine they could make into the lightest car they had.
You can thank emissions requirements for their death, and the 20-some year "black hole" that automotive performance went through as a result. Thank goodness the automakers finally figured out how to make power again.

Muscle cars arent really "dead", they are just more refined and get better mpg now. In many ways the newer cars are far superior than the older iron. For example, those CTS-V's are simply amazing in what they can do. They are truly "4-door Corvettes".


The kicker is that my Dmax would beat the ever loving crap out of my old Cutlass or Monte, get better mileage and be more versatile to boot. Now THATS amazing. That said, what I wouldnt give to own a '70-'72 442 Cutlass again.

Should close this thread with that statement. Muscle cars were a genre, newer cars maybe faster and stop better, but they arn't the same thing

Muscle car ----- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car

The stuff these days would be classified as High Performance cars using engine power and technology to achieve horsepower numbers.

I think the draw of classic muscle cars is you can't just go to the new car dealer and by one and this is also where the definition comes from.

From your own link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car#Muscle_car_revival.5B43.5D

I don't think muscle cars are dead.

vettes arn't muscle cars, they are sports cars. and so are todays cars

vettes arn't muscle cars, they are sports cars. and so are todays cars

x2 60's was the era of the muscle car with 69 probably being the year that all three manufacturers produced their best versions. 67 was a good year too.

I think the memories are better than reality. I still have my Nova (see garage) that I bought new. It is still relatively fast, it is hot, I smell like gas and exhaust when I drive it. It is loud, ergonomics suck, visablity through the narrow windows is crappy, ride and handling are piss poor. it is not P.C.

And I love it. :cool:

Id say no way ! The current camaro ss is a 6.2 liter 400 plus hp. Chevy just sent us the info on the new camaro coming out , 427 with a few hp options one is a 427 ci turbo charged at 750 hp , no way could the 60 s cars even come close to what they can do now!

IMO muscle cars are dead. Like said above cars of today are fast cars.

Muscle cars is not just about being fast. Its the experience. Raw, hot, power. Just the basics, a fast car's heritage. I have one of those fast cars even though its not a V8, but driving it then going to my 69 Mach 1 with no power brakes and a 4-barrel carb is no comparison.

Look under the hood of new Camaros, vette's, mustangs, challengers and there's a metric f ton of plastic. Just because a car is fast doesn't mean its a muscle car.

Sparknotes: Muscle cars dead. Muscle cars were more than being fast it was the experience, the memories and era they represent.

EDIT: Also muscle cars were something you could continuously work on, and improve. Try doing more than BPU mods with solely a garage full of hand tools.

vettes arn't muscle cars, they are sports cars.
I couldn't agree more. I also don't like when "pony cars" are classified as muscle cars. Anyone else agree?

I couldn't agree more. I also don't like when "pony cars" are classified as muscle cars. Anyone else agree?


I don't like the term "pony car" to describe anything other than a mustang. By the way, the first "pony car" was NOT the mustang, it was the barracuda, which beat the mustang to the market by a few months.

Don't be smack talking my Hyundai. :rolleyes:

It'll spank my last Z-28 in every way, but, it is NOT a muscle car, by any means.

A muscle car can roast the tires in 2nd, or even possibly third, gear, handle like a soaked loofah, and stop worse than a schoolbus.

So, yes, muscle cars are dead.

I, for one, do not miss them.

So, yes, muscle cars are dead.

I, for one, do not miss them.
But do you still admire the classic body lines?

You see, there is the rub. The classic style of muscle cars has a draw (an allure, if you will), BUT, without proper brakes, suspension, and drivability, they shall remain ANTIQUES, and, as such, do not lend themselves well to daily driving.

You give me a '69 RS/SS with fuel injection, breakerless ignition, 4 wheel discs, and upgraded suspension (and tires), and, yes, I will switch from reminiscing to drooling and longing.

Oh, and since I live in the Rust Belt, it would have to be "hole" free.

Long gone are the days of shops with distributor machines (to set the proper advance) and the techs who could dial in the carbs for lag-free performance. Not to mention generators vs alternators, and 100# clutch pedals and bias tires.

Look at my signature. I'm not a fan of, nor own a "rice burner". My point here is I personally get tired of how great "muscle" cars of yesteryear were. I am old enough to have driven and owned these cars of yesteryear and I can tell you that a 1970 Vette packing a 454 and 'Dynaglass' tires was lucky to pull off a 6.5 0-60 run when it was new---with a decent driver! Even economy cars today will suck the headlights out of most cars from the muscle car era. Wasn't that the point? To be faster than the next car at the stoplight?
Enough with the nostalgia. We are living in the real muscle car era. The rest can go back to hell with that damned 50's music that every gas station pumps out here. It sucked then and sucks harder now. Embrace the now while there is still fuel in the pumps. Last call folks...

Sure today's cars are better in most areas. If that's the criteria you go by, you are missing the whole point. I owned and drove those cars and they had STYLE. Sorry you don't like 50's music, you probably hate cars with fins, too. The music and cars of the 50's and 60's DIDN'T suck then, and they don't suck now. THE WHOLE POINT WAS TO BE FASTER THAN THE NEXT CAR AT THE STOPLIGHT! Sorry you don't get it....

I don't like the term "pony car" to describe anything other than a mustang. By the way, the first "pony car" was NOT the mustang, it was the barracuda, which beat the mustang to the market by a few months.


Correct me if im wrong, but i believe AMC put out something that would have been competitive with those cars a few years before the fact and it failed miserably. People felt it was before its time. I wish i could remember what it was called.

The AMC Javelin / AMX came out in Sept . 1967 ... It had 3 motors the biggest 343 / v8 and in 1968 they went to a 390 v8 (317 hp. ) . They were turds , I use to eat them up all the time in my vette (327/ 350 hp.)

The AMC Javelin / AMX came out in Sept . 1967 ... It had 3 motors the biggest 343 / v8 and in 1968 they went to a 390 v8 (317 hp. ) . They were turds , I use to eat them up all the time in my vette (327/ 350 hp.)


Definitely not the javelin im thinking of. It was something obscure, maybe even got dropped a year or two before the mustang hit the scene. I doubt ill see or talk to my buddy that would know anytime soon. Maybe it was just some piece of crap that the AMC buffs alleged was before its time. I just threw out there thinking maybe someone else would remember.

As far as muscle cars go.... I dunno, i drool over a nice chevelle when i see one, but to me there just old turds. My grandfather got his start working on model As and the like. So about 10-12 years ago him and my father restored an old Model AA dually. Gramps had a blast doing it, but i think i was the only person that drove the thing more than once. I also got to tool around in a 55 t-bird a few weeks ago, what a treat that was, it doesn't stop, it doesn't go and it doesn't steer. Like Heymccall said, just another antique.

SO heres another twist. Take a 70 chevelle, dump a bunch of modern parts in it Ls1, big brakes, hotchkis suspension parts etc ..... Is it still even really a muscle car or is it a street rod? I doubt muscle cars will ever "die" persay, maybe retired is a little better?

AMC Rebel SST? The 67 model had the 343 V8 and produced 280 hp

AMC Rebel SST? The 67 model had the 343 V8 and produced 280 hp


No, whatever it was it predated the mustang.

It could have be the "Marlin" it came out in 63 or 64 and was only around one or two years. My dad sold them but I was to little to know much about them. It looked like a Barracuda only longer more back window.

Rambler Marlin 1965 to 1967
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambler_Marlin
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/1965_AMC_Marlin_FrontRightSide_RedWht.JPGhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/1965_Marlin_aqua_white_md-rr.jpg/800px-1965_Marlin_aqua_white_md-rr.jpg

Rambler Marlin 1965 to 1967
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambler_Marlin
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/1965_AMC_Marlin_FrontRightSide_RedWht.JPGhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/1965_Marlin_aqua_white_md-rr.jpg/800px-1965_Marlin_aqua_white_md-rr.jpg


Maybe, that doesn't sound familiar though. Is it lame that we jacked a muscle car thread to talk about AMCs......?

Maybe, that doesn't sound familiar though. Is it lame that we jacked a muscle car thread to talk about AMCs......?

:hehe: no, its all cool. Thread was moved from 6.2 section. By now they'd have derailed it to apple pie recipes.
I looked at the list of AMC cars produced, and couldn't see much else it could be

Depends on what you consider a muscle car.
From everyones post it apears is a fast powerfull sharp looking car that handles and stops like chit.. If thats the case they are pretty much over.
I guess a sports car is just a muscle car that drives well lol...
I consider a muscle car to be a sharp looking car with so much motor its almost impractical for normal use. So to me they are alive and well. Seems like there is more of them then ever. There are plenty of cars out there with so much power they are hard to drive with wet roads.. How would you not consider that a muscle car.. Now if you just miss bad suspension and drum brakes I'm sure you could screw a new car up with those mods :(

BTW I kinda of agree with the comments on Rice burners. There are plenty of them that are pretty fast. But there is a difference between driving a quick car and one with raw power... There are pleny of cars with just raw power though..

:hehe: no, its all cool. Thread was moved from 6.2 section. By now they'd have derailed it to apple pie recipes.
I looked at the list of AMC cars produced, and couldn't see much else it could be


Apple pie recipes you say? Maybe i can get my wife to go lurk in the 6.2 section a bit. I like pie :D

Studebaker Avanti was what i was thinking of. Studebaker, AMC same junk different badge.

I will take a 68 Chevelle and go race any one today and then we lock the hoods down so you can't jack with it, come back in 14 days with the same miles on them and then see if you can keep up with me. The little hot rods of today may be great but if you turn them up and drive them turned up they don't last. But a true Muscle car can't be turned down it is always up 24/7!!!

Studebaker Avanti, never liked the looks of them, but they have a big following. Studebaker and AMC made a lot of parts for each other and were inter twined to try and survive the big 3.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Studebaker_Avanti.jpg

There were only two American motors cars worth having....Rebel and AMX unless of course you like the timeless styling of the Rambler American:eek:

There were only two American motors cars worth having....Rebel and AMX unless of course you like the timeless styling of the Rambler American:eek:


The push button tranny was kind of cool in the american i drove.... You dont want a Levi's edition gremlin with the demi seats? Or a pacer that could double as a mobile greenhouse? Ive got a buddy whos dad is a big rambler buff, i think he has 8 or 10 cars, an assortment of AMCs/Ramblers.

How about my 1987 Buick Grand National? :cool:

How about my 1987 Buick Grand National? :cool:

One of the best cars ever made...

How about my 1987 Buick Grand National? :cool:


I dont like sick cars that are to valueable to abuse :p:.................I should rephrase, sick cars that are to valueable to abuse are not for me.

No they are not dead.

Drive one of these!

6 speed manual, 400 hp, 400 ft lbs tq. Can squeal them in 3rd.

Granted it handles and stops better than any muscle car ever could.



http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt280/dreamspunta/CTS-V/IMG_0870.jpg

I say the real raw HP muscle cars died in 1972 with the push on emissions. But there are other cars since then that may fall into the muscle car definition such as the Grand National, Mustang SVO, T-Bird Turbo-coupe, 454SS truck, Lighting truck, Pontiac Firehawk, etc. But these cars all relied on technology such as fuel injection and turbo's. The 1972 cars and earlier relied on big cubes, big cams and carbs that just dumped raw gas down the neck of the engine. These cars had manual linkage standard trannies, manual valve body slush boxes. Not hydrolic clutches or electric shift auto's that took the manliness out of banging gears. How often do you see the "new" muscle car that does have more power and is faster than the true muscle car but does not have the FEEL of muscle. The old muscle used to have a cable to keep the engine in its bay when the motor mount broke. Back then you could feel the twist of the car, the movement of the clutch and how the clutch changed behavior through out the rpm. The cars seemed to have more personality back then IMO.

1973-74 Superduty Trans Am and Formula. 1986/87 Turbo Buicks.

go look at a 2010 v-6 camaro ,it makes 300+ hp almost as much as a 69' z28 camaro,,look at new caddys 550hp family cars,,638 hp corvettes,,740hp lambo's,400hp/700tq diesel trucks,,should i add more?,,muscle cars from the 60's-70's could only go straight -try driving on a twisty road in your 440-6pack roadrunner or stopping too,,,cars today put muscle cars to shame