Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

Honda Accord, Muscle Car?


Recommended Posts

I have to admit that when I saw this article claiming that the Honda Accord V-6 coupe may be the "Last True American Muscle Car" I chuckled.

But the author does make a fairly compelling argument.

I love my Hondas, but I never dreamed that anyone could ever make a convincing claim about a Honda in this department.

 

Steve 

 

                                                                                                           http://www.yahoo.com/news/accord-v6-coupe-last-real-181539070.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno. Honda makes and has made some great stuff, but I'm never going to think of an Accord as an "American Muscle Car", no matter how similar in performance and shortcomings it may be to the real deal, or whether it's built and largely designed in the good ol' USA. The engineering is firmly in the Japanese style, which is a very good thing for reliability usually, but park it next to an old GTO or 442 or 413 Polara and it's like they're not even from the same planet.

Image result for 64 GTO    

                                                       Image result for 66 olds 442

Image result for 413 polara

But then again, as far as I'm concerned, there haven't been any real American Muscle Cars since the gas crisis days in the early '70s. The de-clawed and anemic pretenders that wore the name afterwards were poor echos of a glorious time in US automotive history, and I feel today's ultra-high power Hellcat and its ilk are more caricature than car.

Only my own opinion, and not to be taken as the gospel. ;)

Edited by Ace-Garageguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno. Honda makes and has made some great stuff, but I'm never going to think of an Accord as an "American Muscle Car", no matter how similar in performance and shortcomings it may be to the real deal, or whether it's built and largely designed in the good ol' USA. The engineering is firmly in the Japanese style, which is a very good thing for reliability usually, but park it next to an old GTO or 442 or 413 Polara and it's like they're not even from the same planet.

 

But then again, as far as I'm concerned, there haven't been any real American Muscle Cars since the gas crisis days in the early '70s. The de-clawed and anemic pretenders that wore the name afterwards were poor echos of a glorious time in US automotive history, and I feel today's ultra-high power Hellcat and its ilk are more caricature than car.

Only my own opinion, and not to be taken as the gospel. ;)

I don't really think that the author was trying to "compare" yesterdays muscle cars with anything that may exist today.

He would probably agree that there is little parallel between the two .

I think his gist was mainly that when we think of a true muscle car, we think of a relatively stripped down & inexpensive 2 door with a large powerful "Basically designed" engine, & given the vehicles that call themselves muscle cars today, with every bell & whistle imaginable, turbo chargers, super chargers & a sticker price well over what a house cost in 1964, there are few cars out there that could be "shoe horned" into that category, let alone the "American" part of the equation.

I'm not sure whether or not I agree with his conclusion, but it is definitely food for thought.

 

Steve

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really think that the author was trying to "compare" yesterdays muscle cars with anything that may exist today...

 

I'm not sure whether or not I agree with his conclusion, but it is definitely food for thought.

I read the article through a couple of times, and I think drawing comparisons between then-cars and now-cars is exactly what he's trying to do. He cites comparable 1/4 mile times. He cites not-the-greatest handling and brakes. He cites relative reliability and relatively cheap interior appointments...in the old cars as well as the Honda. And I'll accept that the descriptions of what the cars do and how they do it seems to be quite similar.

But...a cantaloupe and an orange are both round, sweet, fruity, have similar coloring, and are good for you. But they're hardly the same.

I read, I thought, I read again, thought some more. Your results may vary.  :D 

PS. It IS an interesting perspective, and it just might get me to look a little closer at a V6 Accord...especially after reading the 2016 road test...

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-honda-accord-coupe-v-6-manual-test-review

Edited by Ace-Garageguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple fact is that not many kids today will enjoy what we got to enjoy, and some more than others, in finding and getting a "Muscle Car"

Maybe their dad, uncle or grandfather has one, but, they will most likely not. The days of finding even a simple Duster, Falcon or six cylinder anything are gone. At least around here. 

For today's generation, these are their "Muscle Cars" or "Tuners" And to see what they can do is quite impressive. Sure, there are such animals as the Demon, Wildcat, Camaro SS or even a Shelby Mustang, but what kid can actually even come close to affording that? So why not a Subaru, Honda/Acura or Nissan? There are other, but these come to mind. 

To each generation their own. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Jesse on this one.  "Muscle car" has been a generic term that really doesn't set down a specific definition.  It is a broad term that covers a lot.  In my opinion it was a feeling that one got from a car.  A big V8 pumping out a sound that could make your knees buckle.  The departure off the line was full of sound, fury and smoke.  Lots of smoke.  It was about a driver struggling to keep the stupid thing going straight.  Brakes?  Where we are going we don't need no brakes!  It was about sitting at a stop light with your arm cocked out the window, feeling like you were the coolest kid on the block.   It was about making your girl friend squeal with fear when you left the line.  In other words it was about attitude and how the car made you feel.  It was also about doing it on a work a day stiffs budget.  No high end cars here.  Grocery getters with lots of HP's.  It was also about being able to tinker with the car yourself.  Maybe buy some headers or and intake manifold.  Put some cutouts on it.  Make it cool. 

What is wasn't about was ET's or grip or 1/4 mile times. No, that was for the boys at the drag strip.  It wasn't defined by the type of car or the engine.  It was about cool.

Trying to update that just doesn't work.  That is an era that is gone and won't be back.  

Are the new cars, fast?  Oh, hell yes.  Some of the new stuff is scary fast, but it also handles and brakes better than those old cars ever did.  Can you get cheap thrills, yes sir. You sure can.  Can you tinker with the car?  Maybe, but it requires a heck of a lot more than the old Muscle car guys could do. 

The new cars can still be fun and I am happy to see a new generation playing with them and making them cool after their own fashion but they just aren't muscle cars.  They are something else and we need a new non derogatory term for them.

Edited by Pete J.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm...I've had this discussion/argument with friends before.

The original "real" muscle cars of the 60s were basically two door versions of family cars, with a big engine. Big power in a cheap package. Kind of like the base Accord coupes today.

Heck, back in the 50s, the fabled Chevy 55-6-7 was just a run of the mill family couple and wasn't considered special. It was essentially the Accord coupe of the day.

I would never consider an Accord or Camry, or any car in that class as a muscle car, but I get his argument.

 

And if he is indeed comparing performance, you can take it a step further...reduce to the ridiculous.

An 1987 Ferrari 328GTS did the 0-60 in about 6 seconds. A new 2017 Chrysler Pacifica minivan does it in about 7 seconds. That's pretty close. And a new 2017 Accord Coupe with auto does it in 5.6 seconds...faster than the Ferrari. Does';t make the accord a performance car though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the point guys.

The "real" muscle cars of the 60s are gone, never to return.

But I think what some of you have said is what the author of this article was trying to convey.

basically two door versions of family cars, with a big engine. Big power in a cheap package. Kind of like the base Accord coupes today.

 

This is what I consider a basic definition of a muscle car.

What it looks like or what corner of the world the parent company is located has little to do with the subject.

For today's generation, these are their "Muscle Cars"

No, I don't consider an Accord coupe a muscle car in the true sense of the words either, but what I think he was trying to make us think about is, what is out there today that still has a little bit of that feel & can still come closest to adhering to the definition.

Can anybody name something?

We old timers come into an argument like this with preconceived notions & heavy biases because we were around to see this era.

muscle car? - no, not even close

fast japanese car? - yes

to me an accord will never be a "muscle car" , just a fast rice rocket...

What is a '69 Road Runner?

A fast American car.

A stripped down 2 door version of family sedan with a big engine.

I agree... JUST NO !!!  Not even close, fast, yes, but muscle..  NO!

What constitutes the definition of "muscle"?

Horsepower? cubic inches?

I'm not sure I know.

A Japanese firm cannot make an American muscle car by sheer definition. I have no use for anything in the Asian car market so maybe I'm biased.

That was part of his point.

The Accord was more "American" than a Dodge Hellcat.

Muscle cars have 8 cylinders, 4 speeds, and rear wheel drive. 

That pretty much describes nearly everything built in the '60s & 70s.

 

As I said guys, I'm with most of you to a certain extent, but I thought this article made some salient points.

 

Steve

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all comes down to the definition of muscle. Do you go by the capabilities or by attitude? Even the cheapest penalty box Hyundai can outperform and outhandle a 40 year old Ferrari and that's with the radio on and A/C blasting. A 1968 Dodge Charger Hemi did a 0-60 in 7.8 seconds. My wife's minivan does it in 7.6 without spilling her Starbucks and with two kids in the back playing Mario Kart. Any current car sold today is better in almost every measurable way than the old stuff. Safer, faster, better handling and can go 100k miles without breaking down. I wouldn't want to daily drive a classic car, but I'd sure like to have one in the garage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't make the Accord a performance car though.

 

All those cars we put on pedestals now were once just junk used cars back in the day. In High School I was going to buy a 68 Mustang Fastback from my uncle that had a 428 with 4-speed. My dad wouldn't let me buy it because it had some rust in the trunk and it got like 9 MPG. It wasn't anything special back then. My best friend had a 69 Chevelle with a 396 and 4-speed that we used to go to the beach at Port Aransas in until the rust ate it up. He sold it to a scrap yard for a hundred bucks and got a Camaro for next to nothing and repeated the cycle. They were beaters to be used and thrown away. An Accord like they describe isn't a muscle car, it's too refined, more like an old school Grand Touring car, capable of blasting across the country in comfort with a couple of people and all their luggage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Xingu locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...