Nice... our own Forum (for American V8's that is)
 

I'll start off:

Can we consider the current Z06 and SVT Cobra as "muscle cars"? And would the new GTO fit into this category? What about the Caddy CTS-V?

Is this a new "muscle era" dawning?

Or could you only use the term "muscle car" in reference to cars 30 years or older?

(for the record I hate domestic US cars (including my Z06) for their lack of build quality, fit and finish and zero after sales service - but don't want to consider these facts in this debate)

-Paul

Funny enough the original description I had for this forum was "An area dedicated to American Muscle Cars"

Then I thought that didn't seem quite right for such cars as the Dodge Viper and Saleen S7.....

Anyway if you want the forum name changed to something else that you can all agree on I will be happy to do it :D

I guess there is that misconception that "muscle cars" are 1/4 mile kings ( :twisted: I guess that technically means they are also Drag Queens... ;) LOL ) but are no good around the bends...

And if you will include the Viper, Z06, S7, M900, Cobra R, the Panoz' etc you have a different story.

Perhaps there should be 2 categories - the "classic muscle car" - pretty much the biggest engine stuffed into the lightest body, and the "new era muscle car" - very much a ground up designed, super fast, decent handling world class sports car.

I think the forum title is fine - I mean if folks think that the cars listed can't go around corners - I say "bring it on" ;)

The GTO, as ive said on RF.com needs to die. It is not a Muscle car, and never will be one. Just because you stick a OHV V-8 in it doesnt make it muscle. THing cant even run 13s with a proffesional test driver, how you think any of us can get it in there. The Ford Mustang is a Muscle car, and so is the Z06. The Sound is muscle, the look is muscle, and the speed is muscle. The cobra is damn sexy, and so is the z06. But your right the build quality is shabby at best. Until american companies learn that its Quality not quanity they will keep making crappy cars. Hopefully dodge will do it right if they release the new Dodge Charger.

My thoughts

GM- Bring back the Camaro/Firebird, but push the V-6s thats what ford does with the mustang and look at the sales on that.
-On the C6 make a z06 that can almost compete with the viper, but do not make it so it is too pricey. Then maybe 2 years down the road after dodge revamps the Viper again, go for the kill.

Ford-Bring back the new 05 Lightning to kill the Dodge Ram SRT-10 , keep the truck the same as the concept, because the hood is sexy.
-Make the SVT Cobra be able to compete with the Corvette, that will give Team Vette a lot of overtime.

Changed.

I guess you can blame GM for that..Not us,as our Monaro is a good car.GM should have designed GTO over the states than importing A monaro looka like.

Ironically though, that is how the muscle cars of the 50's and 60's were created.

They simply stuffed big engines into light weight grocery getting mom and pop cars... ;)

The original GTO was a big engine (a 383 tri-power if I am not mistaken) stuffed into the Pontiac Tempest grocery getter.

How else could you do it following that recipe (not a ground up rebuild - but an engine-stuffing excercise)?

Ta there mate.

What about the new Ford GT40??

tryin to please the americans ah guys (jabba/TT) :wink:

Good call - although, much like the original, Ford was "forced" into building it - let's face it, they don't have much other than the SVT Cobra ;)

Im going to have to disagreee, I think the new GTO is a muscle car. Sure it dosent have retro looks or agressive hood scoops. But its got a 350 horse LS1 under the hood and I think it has the balls to make up for its lackluster looks.

On the other hand I do not beleive the new GT40 to be a muscle car. Its more of a super/sports car than a Muscle car... but that is just my opinion.

IMO to be a Muscle car you need to be at least American V8 powered, Front Engine, Rear Wheel Drive, Economical, and straight line oriented(what I mean by that is that IT was one of the primary focus, and I am by no means saying that they cannot take the twisties.)

The GTO actually is the muscle car of the bunch. A muscle car is defined as simply a big sedan with a big engine. The original GTO was also as such.

The Corvette has never been a muscle car, and neither has the camaro or mustang.
The camaro and mustang are pony cars while the corvette is a true sports car.

"a 383 tri-power if I am not mistaken"
Depends on year. The biggest engine for the gtos was a 454 I think. They were always just a tempest or a Lemans with a slightly different body and a big engine.

The GTO actually is the muscle car of the bunch. A muscle car is defined as simply a big sedan with a big engine. The original GTO was also as such.

The Corvette has never been a muscle car, and neither has the camaro or mustang.
The camaro and mustang are pony cars (smaller cars 2+2 with a big engine) while the corvette is a true sports car.

"a 383 tri-power if I am not mistaken"
Depends on year. The biggest engine for the gtos was a 454 I think. They were always just a tempest or a Lemans with a slightly different body and a big engine.

The Viper is the only true muscle car left, because of deplacement, look, and concept. The S7 is not a muscle car, its fast and powerful, but a muscle car needs to take power above all, and you cant have a mid-engine muscle car. The verdict is still out on the z06 being a muscle car or not, i really have not decided in my head. The mustang may handle like a muscle car or the early 70's but it does not have any punch, unless you buy some overprived aftermarket evolution of it, even then it handles like shit, and the displacement is just too low. A camaro is a muscle car. But what about the shelby S1 no one mentioned it, and i would consider it a muscle car.

The ultimate muscle is the 71 cuda with a six pack, and a rag top.

But the Viper falls short of the "cheap body with engine stuffed inside" definition of the GTO's, Chevelles and such like.

I can see the Z06 not being a "classic" muscle car in that theme, nor the S7 (but not because it is midengined) nor the Mosler - the Cobra and Z28/SS and Firebird/Hawk are then as pointed out earlier, the true Pony cars.

The Viper can still lay claim to being the AC Cobra of the modern automotive world though. (not that the Viper is a British sports car, but the SRT-10 is a is from the drawing board of an import guy... right? ;) )

OMG how can you say the corvette isnt a muscle car? The only real thing that makes it alittle iffy now is the transaxle setup... it may not be traditional muscle, but it definately is American Muscle.

Muscle cars arent all sedans. I think of the Mustang/Camaro/Firebird as apart of the Muscle car category.

And the GTO just doesnt have the musculer lines that its predecessor had.

It is definitely American Muscle - but bearing in mind that is was a purpose built 2 seater, that only developed muscles after years of working out ('53 was a six-banger.. ;) ) - while the "classic muscle" cars burst onto the seen as over-powered econ-boxes (paraphrasing here) from the get-go...

The classic muscle cars kind of did with cubic inches, and "economy" cars what the ricers have tried unsuccessfully to do with the econoboxes (civics and integras... ;)) - instead of cubic inches and hp, they got stuck with the hp/litre formula, forgetting to add any more litres... ;)

I would not get caught up in the transaxle debate - that just goes to show the original intent of the Corvette was power and handling - at what ever cost, even if it meant designing anew drive train - where as the "classic muscle" car formula just required a trip to the GM/Mopar/Ford parts bin to find the biggest baddest motor to stuff into Auny Emma's grocery getter... :D

cool we have an American Muscle forum.

as for the topic you started RC45, im not sure. ive always considered the old American cars to be the true muscle cars. big carbed engines, brutal acceleration, frightning handling and braking. most of the American cars have seemed to resolve certain issues that makes the cars seem less beast-like. i do like the Z06, Viper and all the other recent ones, i like anything thats fast.

just my opinion. its just when i think what best describes the term muscle, when applied to cars, is a fast car with comprimises LOL. you can go fast in a straight line, its loud as hell, just dont try a fast turn or stop quickly lol. but i really dont know, its kinda hard to say what is and isnt a muscle car, guess it depends on your own opinion.

"Muscle cars arent all sedans. I think of the Mustang/Camaro/Firebird as apart of the Muscle car category. "

If you look at what was originally termed muscle cars, not all were sedans. All however were big cars for the time. None handled real well either. As for the GTO, your forgetting what the gto looked like when it first came out. They werent all judges with the hood scoop, the original ones looked like just about everything else on the road. Once the gto gets a hood scoop perhaps it will be that, till then it's a good sleeper.


The camaro mustang and firebird are too small to be muscle cars..

American muscle.. thats a new term and it may very well be defined as something entirely different.

o man, i died, went to work, came back, and it was heaven. Lmfao... I love this new section. Great idea. As for this. I dont really consider the Saleen/Viper/Shelby to be muscle cars, more american super cars. I do consider the Stang, vette, and newer maros/birds to be muscle. My question to you is... what about Ford's new vehicles, the Marauder and teh new T-Bird, are they in this category???

Tbird- no, never was. It was always more of a boulevard cruiser.

Maurauder- Is muscle, but seems to be a failure when it comes to actual performance numbers.

Cool, a forum dedicated to the cars Iv'e grown up with!

As for the original intention of the thread. It's a damn hard question to answer. I think many of the cars mentioned could fit into the muscle car group, but I don't think they are "muscle" cars. Yes they have a lot of pwer and are definately fast, but they really are entirely different creatures compared to the original muscle cars.
The only current Mustang that I would consider a muscle car would be the Cobra and Cobra R. The only Camaro that I would consider a muscle car is the Dale Earnhardt edition. The SS came close but no cigar.
Firebirds, Camaros, Trans Ams, they are Pony Cars. If you don't know what a pony car is, it's basically a detuned muscle car. During the gas crisis of the 70's, car manufacturers had to decrease gasoline consumption and obviously the muscle car era had died. Most of the cars were still built with more econimical engines, therefore, they has less power.

There has been a few comments on that muscle cars were straight line oriented. That is only partially true. The Camaro was built for GT racing and it did very well. There were a few others as well.

The Saleen S7, in my opinion is not a muscle car. It's a supercar, thats a totally different league.

For a new car to be considered a muscle car, the definition of the term Muscle car has to changed and updated. When I think of Muscle cars, I have a very hard time considering cars built today being part of that group. Even the ones I stated above are very hard to be considered one. Cars today really are completely different from what they were 30-40 years ago.

GTO isnt a sleeper because its slow. it runs a 14 with a professional. It would get smoked by other LS1s. the GTO at its greatest point was the Judge, so thats what im basing what the new GTO should look like. Right now it looks like crap, try again. Muscle cars shouldnt look like BMWs, they should look like they are possed by demons. Example 429 Boss, i think that may be the sexiest muscle car ever!

hehehe,The LS1 in the GTO is WAY DETUNE,lol

Funny, the information on the gtos quarter times have yet to be released. A GM officer announced, and I quote "The 2004 GTO will be among if not the fastest Factory GTO. "F-body like Performance" is expected, meaning low 5 second 0-60 times and sub 13.5 second quarter-mile times."

The car won't be released until Thanksgiving. Wait until someone really tests it first. It wont be as fast as the fbody, but it should be close. And it's a 4 door sedan. It will be a great sleeper.


Wrong, the ls1 engine in the gto actually has more hsp then the standard holden version. Pushing 340hp.

Will I buy the car? No, because it looks like my last car, the 97 grand prix. Do I think it has a place with enthusiasts- yes. Do I think it will be bought by the masses? Maybe if SLP makes a hood scooped version pushing 360 hp which they are discussing.

I've had the opportunity to sit in the GTO and look the car over closely. It is very well appointed. The reviewers have only been allowed a ride in the passenger seat of the car so far, because all they have running is a preproduction show car up to about 2 weeks ago.

*Through my dealing with certain organizations I get to see some of gms cars before most people.

Not too hard since I doubt there is a "classic muscle" car from the 60's or 70's that could run quicker than 14 or 15s in factory stock form - including the orginal GTO. :wink:

Yup, there are exceptions (mainly rare stuff. 69 ZL1 camaro was under 14 I bleieve), but back then a 15 sec car was quick. I do believe the judge ran a low 15. But the point to stress was the sub 13.5 numbers. Thats a far cry from 14 with a professional driver and very quick for a sub 40 k car that can seat 5.

Yea but, back in the day all you had to do was a few tunes, and some mods and you were running into the 13s. The Cars had much more potential back then than some cars now adays. Didnt the GT-500 run like 13.8s? Also, the GTO will not be a sleeper because everyone who knows just a tad about cars knows about the GTO, and the legend.

BTW if im gonna spend upwards to 35 grand on a Car, ill get a Cobra thank you very much.

"BTW if im gonna spend upwards to 35 grand on a Car, ill get a Cobra thank you very much.
"
The cobras not going to seat 4 comfortably. Not to mention the gto would spank the cobra around a turn. Definitly different types of cars. And still very few cars for under 40k seat 5 and have sub 13.5 times. Especially in America. As for sleeper, you yourself thought it would only run 14s with a professional driver and complained that it looked slow. If it made you think that, couldn't it make others think that? It is the epitome of sleeper.

"Yea but, back in the day all you had to do was a few tunes, and some mods and you were running into the 13s."

Some mods= more like alot of mods. A new engine or a blower doesnt equal some mods. Simply what was fast then is no longer fast now. Think about it.

You didnt have to get a new engine, i mean look how powerful the 426 HEMI was in its day. People used to just Bore out the engine. and the GTO cannot run a 13.5 ever. That thing needs to go fall off a cliff.

Old muscle cars werent slow. The 426 Polara from the factory ran 11.4s and the 427 Ford Thunderbold (64) ran 11.6s. These were the fastest two muscle cars that I know of, but pretty much any well-optioned hemi or 425+ CI car was in the 13s range. If you really want to get into it I'll crack out the old "American Muscle Car" book which has most of the 1/4 mile times for most of the cars between 64 and 73.

Bore an engine is not a simple mod either. Not to mention the 426 Hemi and any of those other engines aren't as powerful as your thinking. Engines were measured as gross hsp rather then net, which results in the numbers being larger then they are compared to what we have today. The hsp of the new gto would be very close to that of the hemi your touting.

And as for GTO can't run a 13.5, what are you basing this on? If the car stays relatively similar to the preproduction version(which its supposed to), the car weighs close to the same weight as an fbody and has more hsp then an ss. An ss runs a quarter in a 13.2 by the way. Aerodynamics may not be as good, but they aren't that horrid. Furthermore, I love how you would make such an assumption before anyone other then gm engineers have driven the final product.

In fact, according to the OFFICIAL numbers already released by gm:
5.3 sec 0-60 with the 6 speed manual
350 hp 360 torque

Another one of the designers is quoted as saying expected runs will be less then 14 secs in quarter.


base price 32,495 including destination charge.

source is gto.com- which is a gm corporate web page.

"The 426 Polara from the factory ran 11.4s and the 427 Ford Thunderbold (64) ran 11.6s. "

Your dreaming if you think they ran 11s.

Both ran mid 13s.

Source http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...s-50fast.shtml

64 polar 500- 13.7

Neither were common either.

As you can see, the quickest cars of the era ran 13s. Most of these cars were the high end rare options. Your average muscle car doesn't run 13s, your highest level does. The gtos predicted numbers put it near the top of this list. Now look at modern car numbers. I personally consider the average numbers somewhere in the 15s for cars. Meanwhile, the level of the most expensive cars worldwide has snuck well into the 11s , and thats not looking at tuner cars.

Oh and to make a point which may have been covered up. I like muscle cars. I wanted a charger, I bought an 88 iroc because it was easier to find one in good shape for my budget at the time. I just realize that in general the cars from back then are not as fast comparably as they are now.

And before I hear a comment about how, but the 427 was an option on such a car. The vast majority of all the cars you see on that list had the bigger engines as options. Furthermore, the majority of those cars were ordered with the smaller engine.

Tires sucked back then... no where near the super compounds that we have today. If you just put slicks on alot of those cars 11's were not out of the question.

Major issue there. The slicks from that era sucked as well, so the improvement wouldn't put those cars into 13s. Furthermore, their trap times are not consistant with 11 s runs, I would bet high 12s low 13s. (No way to really know. An all original unrestored car now would be slower then it was so long ago). Lastly, the gto would do better then it does stock with slicks as well. As would any car. I can see your point that the muscle cars would benefit more from slicks, however it's not all that important in an arguement on whether the new gto is a sleeper. The point is, the new gto does everything the stock muscle cars did and manages to handle as well. Putting on slicks moves the car out of the stock category(as well as the street driving category).

its not a sleeper. Everyone knows what the GTO is, and its history. Even the most riced out ricer knows that when you see a GTO badge, theres something good under the hood.

"theres something good under the hood."
your conflicting yourself completely.

So is it fast enough to know it's fast(13.5 sub). But it can't run 13.5 because you think it can't. But you would think it can because it's a gto? huh?

Oh and the name badge isn't exactly all that noticable in the dark.

Quote: "1964 Dodge 426 Hemi (polara body), Representative Performance; 0-60: 4.1s, 1/4 mile: 11.40@125mph, HP: 425, Torque: 480, Weight: 3210lbs, Production: Less than 40. It's a factory build super stock class quarter-miler with aluminum body panels, lightweight interior, race-hemi, and factory slicks. It wouldnt have been pleasant, but this car was street legal" Kings of the street

"1964 Ford Thunderbolt, Representative Performance; 0-60: NA, 1/4 mile: [email protected], HP: 425, Torque: 480, Weight: 3225lbs, Production: 100. to compete in super stock drag racing against lighter rivals, Ford squeezed its competition 427 into the midsize fairlane. Fibreglass panels and an ultra-stark cabin kept its weight down. [it also came with legal slicks]" Kings of the street

There were some 11s cars from the factory, although very few were built and you had to know your way around a special order sheet to get one. Just like the COPO cars from GM. But more muscle cars than you think were in the 13s range. I'll list the ones off from this book.

1962 Pontiac Catalina Super Duty 421 - [email protected]
1963 Plymouth 426 Wedge - 13.66@107
1963 Pontiac Super Duty 421 - 13.7@107
1964 Didge 426 Hemi (above) - 11.40@125
1964 Ford Thunderbolt 427 (above) - [email protected]
1966 Plymouth Satellite 426 Hemi - 13.8@104
1967 Dodge Coronet R/T Hemi - 13.5@105
1968 Dodge Charger R/T Hemi - 13.8@105
1968 Dodge Dart GTS 440 - 13.3@107
1968 Hurst/Olds (455) - 13.9@103
1969 Yenko Camaro 427 - 13.5@102
1969 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 (427) - 13.16@110
1969 Chevrolet Chevelle COPO 427 - 13.3@108
1969 Yenko Nova 427 - 13.2@103
1969 Dodge Super Bee Six Pack (440) - [email protected]
1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1 428 Cobra Jet - 13.9@103 (yes a mustang made it)
1969 Plymouth Road Runner Hemi - 13.55@105
1970 Buick GSX Stage 1 (455) - 13.8@101
1970 Chevelle SS 454 - 13.7@103
1970 Dodge Challenger R/T 440 Six Pack - 13.7@105
1970 Dodge Charer R/T SE Hemi - 13.9@105
1970 Ford Torino Cobra 429 - 13.99@101
1970 Plymouth Hemi 'Cuda - [email protected]
1970 Plymouth Roadrunner Hemi - 13.49@106
1970 Pontiac Trans Am (400) - 13.9@102
1971 Dodge Charger R/T Hemi - 13.7@104
1971 Ford Mustang Boss 351 - 13.9@102 (somehow made it, but boss 429/302 didnt?)
1971 Plymouth GTX 440+6 - 13.7@102
1971 Firebird Trans Am (455) - 13.9@103

The brackets are for Displacements, Hemis are 426ci (if u didnt know that then I dont know why ur here). out of approximately 200 cars, those are the sub-14s ones. Mostly Hemi or special order. Slowest car in the book is the 1960 Chrysler 300F at 16.00@85, almost all of the other cars were in the 14s, with a few in the 15s, and none in the 12s. If u want n e more detailed info on n e cars i'll look it up for ya just tell me. If you were wondering, the Boss 429 stang was 14.0 even so i didnt include it lol, but i bet u didnt think there would be that many cars in the list. I think theres 29 in my list, unless I counted wrong, and that site that was posted up a few posts has 50 sub-14s cars so there are a lot of them. Im tired now, better catch some Z's.

My point is, the cremdelacrem of the 60s and 70s ran 13s. Your avg muscle car ran 14s and 15s. The top crust now is well beyond the 13s. A 16s muscle car you came up with. Now please close your eyes and think of what cars run 16s. Would you call them performance cars? Would you call a current v6 mustang (they run a 15.2) a performance car? I wouldn't. (ignoring cornering ability which is a seperate issue) What's fast has steadily increased over the years. A 02 ss camaro runs a 13.2. That new gto is expected to be sub 13.5. Neither of these cars are the top of the speed food chain. Mean speed of all vehicles has clearly increased, as well as top speed, and mode speed.

As for the hemi and thunderbolt, never heard of them. However, please note they are kind of inconsequential to the arguement that the gto holds up to the performance mantle and standard of its forebearer. It has the performance and the sleeper look for a reasonable for the masses price. That is the definition the makers of the original car gave it.

Something good under the hood, as in the LS1, but i still dont think it will run a 13.5 If you believe hype from a GM worker, then i dont know what to tell you. You can see badges at night, its really not that hard.

And gray, those cars he listed are some of the most famous cars of that time. The Hemi Super bee is just a awesome car, when you think of muscle those are the cars you think of. Also the Boss 429 is a beast!

"Something good under the hood, as in the LS1, but i still dont think it will run a 13.5 If you believe hype from a GM worker, then i dont know what to tell you. You can see badges at night, its really not that hard.

And gray, those cars he listed are some of the most famous cars of that time. The Hemi Super bee is just a awesome car, when you think of muscle those are the cars you think of. Also the Boss 429 is a beast!"

I wasn't referint to the super bee or boss 429. I meant the thunderbolt and polara bodied hemi.

And it's not just basing on gm workers. Look at the performance versus weight and the gearing. Those numbers all point to a speed in the neighborhood of 13.5. Obviously the sleeper image works if you don't think its that fast.

hahaha, the GTO would be a sleeper if it were home-made, but this thing no doubt will have some kind of exhaust kit and when a ricer pulls up beside it expecting to hear a V6 rev back, hes going to notice just a little bit of a different sound dont you think? regardless if he could see the car or not. Older cars are better sleepers because even the slow ones could have a throaty V8 sound to them.

[quote="graywolf624"]"Something good under the hood, as in the LS1, but i still dont think it will run a 13.5 If you believe hype from a GM worker, then i dont know what to tell you. You can see badges at night, its really not that hard.

And gray, those cars he listed are some of the most famous cars of that time. The Hemi Super bee is just a awesome car, when you think of muscle those are the cars you think of. Also the Boss 429 is a beast!"

I wasn't referint to the super bee or boss 429. I meant the thunderbolt and polara bodied hemi.



theres alot more to running a fast Quarter mile than considering weight, and gearing. You must conisder drag, weight distribution, how the ECU works, lots of other things.

My guess is that the car will run 13.8-14.3 or so. The Holden its based of runs about a 14.6, and the only big difference is that the GTO will have just a few mor horses, and more torque in lower revs. And

"You must conisder drag, weight distribution, how the ECU works, lots of other things.
"

The ecu working has nothing to do with the times of the car, perhaps you are more refering to the power distribution curve of the engine. Weight distribution is also minimal, perhaps you mean suspension geometry in that case( the lighter the rear springs comparably to the front and less the compression on the shocks the more ability of the car to shift back pushing traction on the rear wheels). Coefficient of drag in this case is minor, the difference between the cd numbers of this and a camaro are minimal. However, only power distribution is as important or makes as large an impact as hsp and gearing (the ls1 has a nice even power curve, always has). The car does not have a traction problem, thus you should realize most of the power reaches the ground. Watch what you assume about my engineering abilities, I have helped design and am currently designing custom suspension systems for older cars for the purpose of road racing.


And theres a few things wrong with your mentioning the aussie holden. For one the power difference between the two cars. Furthermore weight and weight distribution(handling) for the cars has changed. The things that I know for sure from my one over: the body, the placement of the gas tank(11 inch difference due to federal standards), interior).

And then there is the fact that the holden would beat something like the cobra around a track with ease(granted thats a given, cobras are as solid as a wet noodle).

GM is notorious for underrating their cars. They don't have to refund money like Ford(ie Mazda). If they say it will run 13.5s and most of the numbers seem to point to 13.5s, I believe them. I will give you this for sure though, being that you haven't ridden in, seen someone test, or driven the car, challenging the word of engineers on the times of the car takes some guts.

Oh and for the record, most of the magazine numbers aren't some proffessional driver. Most of the magazines drivers couldn't drive the cars out of a paper bag(with a few exceptions, tiff). I've run times in a stock car similar to what c/d and m/t say for several new cars, and frankly I can't drag for crap.(nor do I care too. I'll beat my opponent when we get to the turn at the end of the straight)

Muscle cars are dead. They lived from 1966-1971. It's an era that will never be relived. The Corvette, as well as the Cobra, is not a muscle car, it's a sports car. When you start costing twice as much as any other 400 hp car, you lose the privilege of calling yourself a muscle car. Bang for your buck, bang for your buck!! Anybody from Uncle Jim to Cousin Joey can open up a hood and fiddle around and tweak those extra horsepower. Electronics, wires, and chips ended that. Muscle cars are ugly and mean, not pretty! Ugly and mean don't sell no more! And catalytic converters are for pussies!!!!!!!!!!! (As are restrictive mufflers, grrrr!)

Uhm - actually - the fully performance optioned cars from that era were not that cheap.

You often had a base car costing $2500 - with $3000 or more to fully realize the "big numbers history shows us"..

:)

That being said, by your very definition the muscle car is going onsale at your pontiac dealer.

The new GTO ;)

Cheap, powerful and unbalanced... :D

wtf?

:shock: did you just popped up a 3 years old topic?! :lol: WTF?! :lol: