Definition of muscle car.

[Pete J.]

I find it interesting that many still try to restrict the class by engine size. I am old enough to remember a lot of the discussion that went on back in the day. I was 11 in 1960 at the beginning of the era and came of age in the heart of the era. One of biggest arguments was about engine size. There was a trade off between the additional weight of the big blocks and the hp they produced. There was a lot of support for the pentastar 340's, whether it was the Duster or the AAR 'Cudas. Those cars were quick and in some cases as fast as the hemi's or elephant motors. Same could be said for the ford Boss, and CJ engines. My friends could argue these points for hours on end. Frankly, I think those discussions had more to do with the fond memories of the "Muscle Cars" than the actual cars themselves. Some were pretty terrible. Burn lots of rubber off the line but didn't hook up real well, couldn't go around a corner on a bet, and stopped like the Titanic, but just a ton of fun to argue about. That is what the muscle car era was all about.

[om617]

Mine might be strange but i have always thought it was models based on the mid-size range,2 door variant

or convertible. But,these models would also be avaliable as 4door,wagon and el-caminos in more down to earth

versions. They where not playing on being sporty from the start like Camaro,Cuda and Mustang`s. So they

chunked a huge engine in,put on nice decals,great colors,maby some heavy duty suspension,and even after

this done it would still be affordable for the majority and maby more spaceious and practical than the sporty

models.

The Chevelle is an excellent example for my definition.

[Greg Myers]

Thinking about it, The '64 GTO comes across as the first planed muscle car. Then as things got moving, bigger cars with bigger engines were pretty muscular ( 442, the Fords with their 427, Chevy's 427 cars and more). Now the thinking part, if these cars were muscle cars why not the older cars with big powerful engines (409, Ford's 352,390,401,HEMI letter cars, rocket Olds)

Now were talking muscle here, why not smaller engines? The 289 Cobra and a bunch of Corvettes were quite muscular.

But by that , does a 318 Charger fit in ? How about a 1969 383 2bbl single exhaust Charger ?

Where do the Trans AM, 302, Boss,Z-28 small blocks fit ? They are muscular.

Does it mater what vehicle this engine is in, at one HP / one Cubic Inch ?

[Craig Irwin]

Something that no one has brought up, It must be factory produced. A Chevelle SS 396 or SS 454 is a muscle car, a Malibu with a big block bolted in is not. That is a street machine.

A 318 Charger is not a muscle car, a Charger R/T is.

[Greg Myers]

I think we're gettin' there.

[Teddy J. Tannehill]

I really like those "Fire Breathing Impala's" from the 60s. I find myself including them in a "Muscle Car" discussion. I would be interested in hearing from the "Builders" input on listing "Top 20 Muscle Cars"...I think the 1970 Chevelle with the 454 would be on the list....Maybe if we just called 'em "Hot Rods" we could all agree.

[Longbox55]

Something that no one has brought up, It must be factory produced.

I would agree with that for the most part. However, what about the "ringers", cars that by definition, would be a muscle car, but were put together by an authorized dealership? Case in point, the Yenko and Baldwin-Motion Chevrolets and the Grand Spaulding Dodge/Plymouths.

But,these models would also be avaliable as 4door,wagon and el-caminos

Funny you mention that. The El Camino could be had with any engine/trans combo that a standard Chevelle could have, just not the Super Sport package until '68. The real question is whether an El Camino is a car or a truck (different discussion for a different time).

Now on the station wagon front, there actually was a Super Sport station wagon. It was only built for 1 year, 1973, but did get the full SS treatment, including an available LS4 454 engine.

Maybe if we just called 'em "Hot Rods" we could all agree.

That's a whole different can of worms there. Generally, a Hot rod is considered to be a vehicle altered aftermarket by the owner, usuallybeing a vehicle of 1948 or older model year. Again, different debate for a different time.

[Cato]

Deleted duplicate post.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Cato

[Cato]

Quoted from Greg Myers:

"The 289 Cobra and a bunch of Corvettes were quite muscular.

Where do the Trans AM, 302, Boss,Z-28 small blocks fit ? They are muscular.

Does it mater what vehicle this engine is in, at one HP / one Cubic Inch ?"

This brings us to a further distinction; the original term 'muscle cars' applied to a maker's greatest power output units put into passenger car bodies. Cobra and Vette are sports cars-a distinction which implies they are not one-dimensional, They can handle on a racetrack.

Trans Am and all 'pony cars' blur that distinction-big power, good handling and (originally) seating for 4.

And I stick by 1 HP / CI; yes the first GTO was not but soon became a 389 / 389 and more.

My '11 Optima (a 4 door sedan) makes 2.2 HP / CI; is IT a muscle car?

[Teddy J. Tannehill]

When you are sit'n 'round the campfire Talk'n Muscle Cars. This one comes to mind.

[Greg Myers]

[Teddy J. Tannehill]

I was "kid'n around" when I suggested calling 'em all Hot Rods....In 1955 Chevy coined the phrase "The Hot One"...Then in 57 the 283 came out and the phrase became "The Hot One Just Got Hotter." And that was the "One to have."....Small Block Chevy's ended up going into a lot of really fast Hot Rods. Gregory Thanks for posting the Pics. of the motors...I think in its most strict definition the 64 GTO was one of the first "Muscle Cars"....But the 57 Chevy was sure a "Hot" car...And then the "Legendary 61 SS with a 409"....I guess my point is like the term "Hot Rod" has strict interpretation...In our "Hearts and Minds" the term is "Ever Expanding" to include all the cars we love....Maybe the same can be said for "Muscle Cars".....Still I think a top 20 list would be fun.

[Brett Barrow]

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.com/cgi-bin/statsexplorer.cgi?year=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.

[Cato]

Brett,

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.

[Brett Barrow]

Brett,

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.

[Randytheroadrunner]

The Max Wedge Plymouths were B Bodies. There were C Bodies made in some of those years.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Randytheroadrunner

[Cato]

Just for fun; earlier I mentioned my street car making factory 2.2HP / CI and 274HP. This is a sedan, running 87 octane, 11 + compression and 17 pounds of boost.

Now imagine back in the day if, say a 327 could make 2.2HP / CI? That would be 719HP...

A very few actually did-in Jr. Fuelers on injection and nitro...

[Joe Handley]

Just for fun; earlier I mentioned my street car making factory 2.2HP / CI and 274HP. This is a sedan, running 87 octane, 11 + compression and 17 pounds of boost.

Now imagine back in the day if, say a 327 could make 2.2HP / CI? That would be 719HP...

A very few actually did-in Jr. Fuelers on injection and nitro...

I've thought about the same when it comes to using the tech from Chrysler's Pentastar V-6 on Chrysler proposed DOHC Hemi from the late 60's. When you can get a naturally asperated 283-305hp out of a 220 inch motor that can get over 20mpg in just about every vehicle it comes in and is daily driver reliable, what could it do for that monster?! Think about it, lighter aluminum block and heads, variable valve timing on all 4 cams, the ability to self tune for different octanes (from 87 octane pump regular to 105 octane E85), and such on an engine that already is a complete monster in just the original 60's tech and OHV form.............that could be an unholy monster to unleash on the street or track.

[lordairgtar]

2.2L = 134.25in³

149 Horsepower in my HHR panel. Pretty impressive considering early V8 engines had close ratings if it was a basic 2 bbl carbed engine. I'm getting slightly more that 1 HP per cid. The SS model gets 260 HP out of a 2 litre turboed engine...and they are wicked fast.

Edited March 15, 2014 by lordairgtar

[DonW]

I've heard people talk recently about big Mercedes being muscle cars. That's just wrong, although they have big V8s and lots of power, they're just not American!

[Joe Handley]

I kinda have a hard time thinking of Mercedes as musclecars too. Now those Australian built bruisers though, I put those on par with our best and brutal muscle cars!

[Greg Myers]

Today in the news : http://www.bankrate.com/finance/auto/best-american-muscle-cars-of-all-time-1.aspx?ic_id=tb_10132

[Harry P.]

I kinda have a hard time thinking of Mercedes as musclecars too. Now those Australian built bruisers though, I put those on par with our best and brutal muscle cars!

Why are Australian cars muscle cars, but German cars are not?

[Austin T]

Why are Australian cars muscle cars, but German cars are not?

The Aussies had a similar muscle car war around the same time as we did in the US. Some of the cars they had over there even had the same parts on cars we had. Germany may have had a similar deal but with sports cars. As close as I would say Europe had to a "Muscle car" comparable to American standards was the Jensen Interceptor II and the Iso Grifo, but both of those had American internals.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Austin T

[Harry P.]

What about a Trabant with a big spoiler?