I accept your correction of the 389 power ratings. I did not do homework to research my claim-my bad. Never was a GTO guy but raced against a lot of 'em. 442 Olds' too. But lets examine what the yardstick was...
I base my claim on this simple fact; the mfgrs were using bogus ratings in the day. My personal experience; my '67 (advertised) 396 / 375 Chevelle.
Fit my definition of 1 per 1? No. But that's at advertised power rating. They were found by magazine testers to be over 400HP easily based on track times with no changes to stock. Indeed the ('65 I believe) 'Vette version of the solid lifter 396 'Mystery Motor' (same as mine with I think different iron exhaust manifolds) was factory rated at 425HP.
I had friends with the hydraulic lifter 396 / 360's and I was in another time zone against them. Indeed easily 3 tenths, without slicks. So I guess they we're not 'muscle cars' by my definition but by the timeslips, cars running 13's or lower were.
And they all did it; 426 Hemis made considerably more than 426 advertised HP to run high 11's. So were 12 second 455 Olds' and 427 Fairlanes.
So my point was based on the premise that-in this case-the early 389's were actually nearer their displacements than advertised.
Harry is surely correct that there are many ways to define the term.
I agree that "advertsied" and actual HP didn't always match up The 50's were probably overrated (more sales), and 60's were probably underrated (better insurance premiums). Thanks for explaining, I see where you're coming from. Makes sense.
And I stick by 1 HP / CI; yes the first GTO was not but soon became a 389 / 389 and more.
When did the 389 ever make 389 or more HP? In the 389's last year, 1966, the Tri-Power made 360, and it's replacement, the 400, never made more than 370. http://ultimategto.c...all&f1=dtengine
I don't mean to keep pressing on this, but the 1hp/ci rule would negate a lot of classic, universally-agreed-upon "muscle cars", making 1hp/ci wasn't very common during the carbureted, push-rod V-8 era. Now, pretty much everything on the road does it, but that's with OHC's, multiple valves, fuel-injection, computers, etc.... You're the first person I've ever heard that said that 1hp/ci defined a muscle car and I'm interested as to why you think so, and then what cars you believe actually qualify under this standard.
Hmmmm, I wonder if they're actual brand name (Bridgestone it looks like?) or gibberish, which is how some aircraft and armor models and resin upgrade are getting around licensing, with names like "CONTINENTAU" and "GOOO YEAB" Actual brand names are nice, but I'd take that over nothing.
So you're saying that the 64 GTO - 389ci/348hp w/ Tri-Power- a car that pretty much everybody would say is a muscle car was not really a muscle car, but a 57 De Soto - 354ci/354hp - a car that I doubt anyone would ever classify as a "muscle car" actually was? That's a new one.
edit - by that calculation my 2002 PT Cruiser 2.4L(146ci)/150hp is a muscle car!
Or maybe you meant that the first cars to break the 1hp/ci barrier were the first muscle cars?