Earliest Muscle car - Page 2

BIGNASTY GS · 01-28-2005, 05:36 PM

Obviously,
MrPbody has never ran his elusive Ram Air III against guys like Greg Gessler,Rob Chilenski or several others or he would have gotten spanked totally awful.Then he would see just what a myth that the Stage 1 car really is.I bet Greg would be all too willing to show you the taillight whenever you need to be put back in your place..

Pat

MR.BUICK · 01-28-2005, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPbody

According to Jim Wangers' book "Glory Days", John Z. DeLorean coined the phrase when pitching the idea to Pontiac management in 1963.
I have no idea what stroker Dodge you're talking about, but if it isn't at least 450 CID, you're not encountering any modern-built Pontiacs... And the Buick? Much more myth than fact. I ran a couple of those Stage 1s in olden times. My 400 ram Air III would smoke 'em every time. Of course, we're talking real street racing, not magazine tests.

Funny, I know a few people who have stock stage 1's that beat pontiacs all the time...including the Goaties.

GranSportSedan · 01-28-2005, 07:02 PM

A few years back they had a series of races at woodburn dragstrip in Oregon. the races were called the car club challenge. one of the clubs that participated was a portland area gto club. I ran my 70 GS455 4 speed (not stage 1) this club had a judge and a couple ram air III cars as well as your other common GTO's. not one of those cars i was paired up against in time trials could give me a close run and i was having a hard time launching the 4 speed. needless to say i am not at all convinced the performance of pontiacs is superior to all other cars.

matt 69 scrambler · 01-28-2005, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RivGSmusclecar

You can build any car to go fast......and build another one to go faster than that......any car can be made into a killer, it doesn't matter what brand it is. If you can beat a Stage 1 Buick with anything, it certainly won't be by much. I've handed a few Pontiacs and Chevies their ass myself a few times.......does that make my car superior? No.

You guys who think Buicks are slow have never owned one.....and perhaps if you could look beyond the smokescreen created by people who couldn't tell a GS from a Chevelle you would be open minded enough to accept the fact there were other performance cars besides GTO's and Chevelles.

Cars that deserve to be called a "Musclecar" will forever be disputed, that's for sure. What is written in magazines or proclaimed by opinion, there is no clear definition without exceptions to the rule. They are all just that....OPINIONS. I don't race my car, so I could not care less how fast someone's Pontiac or Chevy can go........just don't discredit other brands because you don't know anything about them.

Well said ! ! !
those Buick's were bad ! ! all the cars were great back in those days.
chevy ford and mopars would show up at the track in huge numbers , so the odds were great that one of these cars would win there class ,but it doesn't mean they were always the fastest car ! !
all the cars were fast and could beat any other car on any given day.
it was the driver that had more to do with it then anything, could he cut a good light, shift great,or was he fat so the rest didn't matter.

and for the first muscle car , i guess we should go by who was the first to advertise their car as such. i think that was the GTO (cool cars).

the SC in (1969 Hurst SC/rambler ) does stand for SUPER CAR .

http://www.musclecarcalendar.com/MyG...amblerHome.htm
thanks,
matt
FREEDOM = AMC

65Ponchoboy · 01-29-2005, 05:33 PM

The lemans/GTo is the same as an Impala/SS.....big engine in an ORIGINAL car. What's the difference except the year done.

lol thats funny..there is a whole bunch of differences, its a toataly different car. and how did we get into a buick discussion?

terzmo · 01-29-2005, 05:37 PM

Well, that's what I was posting...the gto was not a trail blazer except for a catchy name...grand tourismo oligoto....the first muscle cars were born in the mid 50's...that's my opinion...and I'm stickin to it....uh oh....did that get stolen from somewhere else ??/ lol

Lord Vader · 01-30-2005, 09:07 AM

The term "Musclecar" was coined when Pontiac stuck what was considered a "large" engine in an "intermediate" body. Nobody said they were the fastest things on the road. At any rate, Pontiac was already making the 389 and the Tempest body so it was simple for them to put these cars together and sell them cheap. That was what made these cars popular. You could run with a 409 Impala, if not beat it, for less money. They were fairly quick, and relatively cheap. Just because an old car has a big motor does not classify it as a musclecar. There are some gray areas but for the most part the mid-size cars using the manufacturers large displacement engines are what we call a "musclecar".

terzmo · 01-30-2005, 07:37 PM

so then; where do pony cars figure in ???? mini size??/

swi66 · 01-31-2005, 11:23 AM

How about the first Chrysler 300..............around 1955?

Hemi Motor, and though a large car had quite a top end speed!

swi66

terzmo · 01-31-2005, 11:38 AM

And the hp on the early hemi ????(231 ci ? ) Not much to brag about. If they were so hot...alot of them would be in rods today.....Even the 392's are scarce.....and who can afford the 426 ??

MrPbody · 02-01-2005, 08:07 AM

All I can say is I saw maybe 10 Buicks over the years, actually racing. I saw twice that many GTOs on any given Friday night. And Chevelles? Even more, though production numbers of SS are much lower than GTO of most years.
My point wasn't that there were NO fast Buicks. I even saw a fast Studebaker once! My point is the volume of fast cars in general production, versus the one-offs and special ordered hot rods. While there may have been a few hundred Stage 1s built, there were THOUSANDS of Ram Air cars, and MANY more 350-horse cars.
So funny how everyone jumps up to swat the leader... And its STILL happening today! Even though '04 GTO could blow the freakin' doors off ANY other American company's offerings, there are nay-sayers attacking it for looks. GTO is NOT a car for those to be seen in. It's not even a car meant to beat up on the world. It's a car for those that love to drive a high performance car. And it fills the bill nicely.

terzmo · 02-01-2005, 02:06 PM

GTO the leader...nice car.....but I've never seen the rearend ...only the front grill in my mirrors.....at a distance.....and the crap they make today gets the "privilage" of the gto name...disgusting.....an egg on wheels....

swi66 · 02-01-2005, 02:15 PM

Come on Mr Pbody........04 GTO Muscle...............?
That new GTO has about as much in comon with the old GTO as the New Charger does with the legendary Charger of old..............

From what I've heard, the poor looks and lack of actual styling cues hurt the sales of that one..............
I'm a MOPAR guy, but I think the new Charger is going to sell more Mustangs than anything Ford could do to advertise it...........

Thunda Downunda · 02-01-2005, 03:00 PM

If a muscle car can be defined through being a performance-oriented model incorporating a manufacturer's largest engine/lightest body combo, then why not 1936-on Buick Century aka 'The Banker's Hotrod'?

Buick's biggest engine (once exclusive to the big LWB Roadmaster and Limited) coupled to their lightest body (Special) and named Century in reference to the sustainable 100mph the model was capable of (100mph was high-performance for any production car back then)

65Ponchoboy · 02-01-2005, 06:21 PM

swi66 i agree the new GTO sucks, i cant wait till 2006 for the new design. one thing i have to disagree on is the charger seeling out the mustamg. will not happen. The stang has the looks, the handling and not so much of the hp but its still good. Yeah im glad dodge re-made the charger but if they didnt make it some panzee lookin 4dr then maybe it will sell more, but as it stands right now, no way no how.

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD