What's your favorite muscle car?

[L-1329]

He'd probably say that P-51's, Corsairs, Spitfires and ME-109's are garbage. After all, the FA-18 would fly circles around any of them. No appreciation for the classics... Don't even get me started about the L-1329. It hasn't been made in, what, 30 years or so? Just about anything made today in its class would completely own it.

Hardly. I'd say that P-51's, Corsairs, Spits and Me-109's were superbly designed, high performance machines that excelled at everything they needed to from a performance perspective. They could do it all, climb, dive, accellerate, turn, roll, cruise, everything. Not at all like the one trick pony muscle cars that could only jump off the starting line, and fail miserably at everything else. You comparison is full of fail.

[Psilocybin]

I really dig the look of the new challengers.

. While I understand there are cars that will do better on the tests, I don't give a rats ass. I dig the look and it would be plenty fast enough for me.

For older cars I'm prone to something along these lines.

[Psilocybin]

Not at all like the one trick pony muscle cars that could only jump off the starting line, and fail miserably at everything else. You comparison is full of fail.

 

 

 

Oh noez. Cars made to drag race were good at drag racing.

[Emprov]

Hardly. I'd say that P-51's, Corsairs, Spits and Me-109's were superbly designed, high performance machines that excelled at everything they needed to from a performance perspective. They could do it all, climb, dive, accellerate, turn, roll, cruise, everything. Not at all like the one trick pony muscle cars that could only jump off the starting line, and fail miserably at everything else. You comparison is full of fail.

It's all about what it's designed to do. Those cars were made to go fast in a straight line, not in the corners. And, I think that it's pretty safe to say that just about every car in the thread does a fantastic job at going fast and straight. It's unfair to judge them using a set of criteria that was never used in their original designs. After all, a Jeep would completely own a P-51 in an off-road race. That being said, the Cobra rules all when it comes to cars of that era.

[82Daion]

Nah, I am well aware of what 'muscle cars' are all about. They're all about looks and being able to be called 'fast', which is ridiculous when you know what makes a car 'fast'. Nostalgia is fine, I have no problems with that, as long as things like these cars are remembered for what they really were, and weren't. Fast cars they weren't. I didn't say they weren't cool either, to those who really dig them. I don't see them as anything but poor designs and even poorer performance cars though. From a pure style perspective though things could be different, as long as their true abilities aren't exagerated into performance car legends.

 

All these poor designs making you feel a little insecure about your 'Vette?

 

 

I haven't seen anyone in this thread purporting these cars to be the be-all end-all in performance, handling, or anything in that vein. Having driven and worked on stuff from this age, it's not so much about any physical quality the cars might have as how well they conjure the culture of a bygone era. My '66 Thunderbird (God rest its soul) could never match up to anything modern had I finished it, but it was beyond cool compared to most of the stuff you see on the lot these days. Companies were doing the best they could with what they had at the time, as far as what the American consumer wanted.

 

Sorry if I went off a little half-cocked here-it's just something I'm passionate about.

[Grumpy_Polecat]

For the modern-minded bowtie fans:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0802_2009_chevrolet_corvette_zr1_first_look/index.html

2009 CHEVROLET CORVETTE ZR1
POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS
Drivetrain layout Front engine, RWD
Engine type Supercharged 90 V-8 alum block/heads
Valvetrain OHV, 2 valves/cylinder
Displacement 376 cu in/6162 cc
Compression ratio 9.1:1
Power (SAE NET) 620 hp (est)
Torque (SAE NET) 595 lb-ft (est)
Weight to power 5.4 lb/hp (est)
Transmission 6-speed manual
Final drive ratio 3.42:1
Suspension, front; rear Control arms, transverse leaf spring, anti-roll bar; control arms, transverse leaf spring, anti-roll bar
Brakes, f;r 15.5-in vented, drilled, disc; 15.0-in vented, drilled disc, ABS
Wheels, f;r 10x19; 12x20 in, cast aluminum
Tires, f;r 285/30ZR19, 335/25ZR20 Michelin Pilot Sport 2
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase 105.7 in
Length x width x height 176.2 x 75.9 x 49.0 in
Curb weight 3350 lb (est)
Weight dist., f/r 52/48%
Seating capacity 2
Headroom, f 38 in
Legroom, f 43 in
Shoulder room, f 55 in
Cargo volume 22 cu ft
CONSUMER INFO
Base price $100,000 (est)
Stability/traction control Yes/yes
Airbags Dual front, front side
Fuel capacity 18 gal
EPA city/hwy econ N/A
CO2 emissions N/A
Recommended fuel Premium
On Sale In U.S. Summer 2008

[Grumpy_Polecat]

It's all about what it's designed to do. Those cars were made to go fast in a straight line, not in the corners. And, I think that it's pretty safe to say that just about every car in the thread does a fantastic job at going fast and straight. It's unfair to judge them using a set of criteria that was never used in their original designs. After all, a Jeep would completely own a P-51 in an off-road race. That being said, the Cobra rules all when it comes to cars of that era.

I agree with you and Psylii.

Here's one that did well in the turns:

(winner of the 24 hours of Le Mans four times in a row, from 1966 to 1969)

[L-1329]

All these poor designs making you feel a little insecure about your 'Vette? I haven't seen anyone in this thread purporting these cars to be the be-all end-all in performance, handling, or anything in that vein. Having driven and worked on stuff from this age, it's not so much about any physical quality the cars might have as how well they conjure the culture of a bygone era. My '66 Thunderbird (God rest its soul) could never match up to anything modern had I finished it, but it was beyond cool compared to most of the stuff you see on the lot these days. Sorry if I went off a little half-cocked here-it's just something I'm passionate about.

Insecure?? In a C5? Wha?

I never said anything regarding how cool they seem to different people. I'm all for cars that make you feel cool, hell I feel that way in the 'vette. That is an entirely different subject though. Stating the obvious like these cars can't corner to save their lives should be a matter of fact, not insulting to anyone in love with the cars. They are what they are, and even in their day they were outclassed by cars that could turn and brake. That's just reality.

[RIC N BACKER]

Pretty! ANd that's coming from a 3rd gen. Ford guy. But those low-pro Goodyears just don't fit.

That one in the Pic is not mine. I had Cragars and Coopers

[Grumpy_Polecat]

That one in the Pic is not mine. I had Cragars and Coopers

You're a good man, Ric!

Only thing better woulda been Mickeys (which you probably, like me, couldn't afford at the time...)

[Emprov]

They are what they are, and even in their day they were outclassed by cars that could turn and brake. That's just reality.

They weren't designed to be amazing hill racers, just as a P-51 was never designed to be a heavy bomber.

[L-1329]

That being said, the Cobra rules all when it comes to cars of that era.

 

 

That right there was my exact point. There was a true 'muscle' car that was also a great car. Period. There's no reason it couldn't have had a flood of competition for the crown, but too many people wanted nothing but big heavy straight liners. The Cobra could smoke them all, out corner damn near everything and look good doing it. That deserves respect.

[82Daion]

Insecure?? In a C5? Wha? I never said anything regarding how cool they seem to different people. I'm all for cars that make you feel cool, hell I feel that way in the 'vette. That is an entirely different subject though. Stating the obvious like these cars can't corner to save their lives should be a matter of fact, not insulting to anyone in love with the cars. They are what they are, and even in their day they were outclassed by cars that could turn and brake. That's just reality.

 

No insult taken.

 

I must ask, though-what domestic car could the typical American driver buy in 1967 that could go fast, turn, and brake well? Hell, even the Corvette of the time wasn't great in the last two categories....

 

And how often did you see a Cobra on the street in the 60's, since that seems to be one of the few cars that (relatively speaking) had it all covered at the time?

[bassgirl9]

to a black 1970 Plymouth Barracuda, I would take it, and say: "Thanks, man!"

Heck yeah!

[L-1329]

No insult taken. I must ask, though-what domestic car could the typical American driver buy in 1967 that could go fast, turn, and brake well? Hell, even the Corvette of the time wasn't great in the last two categories....

It might not have been that great, but it was beyond the 'muscle' cars in those area's. I'm sure there were also a number of foreign performance cars back then that were better as well. None of which the 'typical' American driver would've wanted though, which is a shame.

[Dave Campbell]

I love Mopars, my favorites being:
'68 - 70 GTX
'68 - 70 Charger

But for sure, the '70 Superbee. The B bodies all had the lines I like, but this one had the nice front end styling.

A 340 Duster or Dart would be fun, too.

[Grumpy_Polecat]

No insult taken. I must ask, though-what domestic car could the typical American driver buy in 1967 that could go fast, turn, and brake well? Hell, even the Corvette of the time wasn't great in the last two categories.... And how often did you see a Cobra on the street in the 60's, since that seems to be one of the few cars that (relatively speaking) had it all covered at the time?

I'm glad you're on my side here, Chris.

But I just recalled an anecdote (not that I'm really up on Vettes, mind you). One of the early 'L' engined vettes was so fast that management was afraid to offer a heater or radio as stock equipment; thinking that some kid would wrap it around a tree if it had too many amenities.

Fast forward to today and anyone with a license can buy a Suzuki GSX1300R and do 197mph straight from the crate on two wheels.

Go figger...

[Armchair Bronco]

He'd probably say that P-51's, Corsairs, Spitfires and ME-109's are garbage. After all, the FA-18 would fly circles around any of them. No appreciation for the classics...

LOL. That's kinda what I was thinking. Add to that list the P-47 Thunderbolt, the FW-190, the P-38, the Avenger, and the Hellcat. Honorable mention goes to the ME-163 and the ME-262, but as rocket-powered and jet-powered planes, respectively, they really don't belong in the same category as the piston-driven classics of WWII.

Sure, a modern F-16 is fast, but is it a "classic" like a P-47? NO freakin' way!

[Grumpy_Polecat]

We forgot the underestimated and undisputed mutt of musclecardom: The AMX.



(Ship arriving too late to save a drowning witch.)

[L-1329]

Hardly. I'd say that P-51's, Corsairs, Spits and Me-109's were superbly designed, high performance machines that excelled at everything they needed to from a performance perspective. They could do it all, climb, dive, accellerate, turn, roll, cruise, everything. Not at all like the one trick pony muscle cars that could only jump off the starting line, and fail miserably at everything else. You comparison is full of fail.

 

 

I appreciate quality designs, whenever they were built. Muscle cars are not quality designs in my book. The shame is they could have been great, but they were built to please the people that only care about the stoplight GP. Car builders back then sure as hell knew how to make a car that could go fast and corner, but who wanted to buy them?

[82Daion]

I'm glad you're on my side here, Chris. But I just recalled an anecdote (not that I'm really up on Vettes, mind you). One of the early 'L' engined vettes was so fast that management was afraid to offer a heater or radio as stock equipment; thinking that some kid would wrap it around a tree if it had too many amenities. Fast forward to today and anyone with a license can buy a Suzuki GSX1300R and do 197mph straight from the crate on two wheels. Go figger...

 

 

You're thinking of the Corvette ZL-1.

[lug]

Agreed...but it'd probably still dust a GT.

0-60 at 4.9 vs the GT's 5.1 but about $5000 more. I hear the new 350Z is supposed to be dropping over 200 lbs and adding 30 to 50 horses. That will put it between 4.5 and 4.7 0-60. Look for a Lug trade-in.

[Armchair Bronco]

I guess I have my own (probably skewed) definition of a muscle car. I was born in 1963, and to me, a muscle car was the Challenger, Charger, or Barracuda down the street that my best friend's twenty-something big brother drove around.

It was brash, loud, sexy, muscular, and it was faster than just about every other car parked along the side of the street, including the VW Fastback wagon that my mom drove. The guys in those cars were always heading out to a party somewhere, tossing a guitar or a bass into the HUGE trunk, and they always seemed to have one or two really cute girls in tow.

I was pretty sure that if I could just get my own Challenger or Barracuda, then I'd be in a rock band before I knew it with girls hanging off each arm.

I never imagined going straight down a quarter-mile raceway in one of these muscle cars. But I did imagine going zero to sixty in nuttin' flat on my way to school or the supermarket and accelerating past all the station wagons and LTD's and Pintos on the freeway.

[GreaserMatt]

1970 Hemi Cuda

[Grumpy_Polecat]

I appreciate quality designs, whenever they were built. Muscle cars are not quality designs in my book. The shame is they could have been great, but they were built to please the people that only care about the stoplight GP. Car builders back then sure as hell knew how to make a car that could go fast and corner, but who wanted to buy them?

 

 

 

I'm not entirely convinced that the American public of the '60s didn't want them but it is very true that there was a different thing going on between here and Europe. Probably affordability had a great deal to do with the apparency that certain things were unwanted though.

 

Being mostly a bike-nut I can say that I was always most fascinated with the so-called 'cafe-racer', which was a Euro concept and is the precedent for the 'sport bike' we see today. It's important to understand the differences in application though.

 

At the end of WWII there were a lot of flyboys who came home from the war with a serious need for speed. To sate their demand morcycles filled the bill. From this, the chopper and bobber were born. But they were also suited to our roads.

 

Europe had its own share of veteran pilot-maniacs but the roads were different and cafe racing was all about putting a nickel in the juke box, hopping on your bike, and racing down to the next cafe and back before the song ended (meaning an average speed of 60 including the mount, dismount and turnaround.)

 

While american musclecars were born mostly of the bootleg liquor trade, the concepts were very similar.

 

I know of many WWII vets that wanted the euro sports cars but they were quite unaffordable as imports, what with the tarriffs and all. This is not to say that the Porsche 362 was a good handling car (actually, it was on the roads for which it was built, but that's not where James Dean was running his...) but the Italians in particular knew how to make them both go fast and handle like velcro. Nobody could afford the price of a Maserati though, after taxes esp.

 

So, we got NHRA & NASCAR with road racing as an afterthought, and Europe got TT & GP instead.