Earliest Muscle car - Page 4

PMDtempest · 02-07-2005, 03:34 PM

the 3.1's are reliable engines, i had one in my Lumina with 225,000 miles on it and they guy i sold it to says he drives it everyday. I havent herd much about the knocking of the 3800's. I dont think they would use the LS6 because its a GenIII engine, they might use a LS2 or a LS7 which are the new GenIV engines. hows a Twin Turbo GN sound guys?

wedgemotor · 02-07-2005, 05:29 PM

As far as GM having quality issues I agree. Most front drive GM vehicles in the 90's are lacking in refinement. The car doesn't even have to be retro to me. They already have the platform in the GTO, why is there not a Chevelle, Skylark variant out yet. I hope the people at GM are listening. They could produce a Skylark GS and use that platform and hell put in a modern 6 with a good turbo, AND a manual transmission. As far as a Chevelle, LS2 racing stripes, SS badges you get the idea. If GM is ever to be successful again they need to bring this kind of thing back or performance minded people are going to look elsewhere. I mean that is why we like the cars that we have because they created a legacy that still stands today. I think Dodge has severely missed the mark with a 4 door charger. I know that some people say that you just have to be more open minded about it but come on, a 4 door Charger? Maybe call it a Monaco or something but that is like producing a new Camaro and giving it a user friendly 3rd door ala the RX8! Wake up and smell the Mustang because it will sell, and sell alot because people want that kind of car. Not necessarily because they want a Mustang, but because people can IDENTIFY with that type of vehicle. Bring back Camaro and make it a COUPE, not a 4 door, not a 3 dr, hell not even a hatchback. Make a GS we can all be proud of. Something we can throw threw the corners at nearly 1G, and bump the boost up to 20 PSI and go to the drags and knock out some 11 second times. Do you hear me auto makers? We've been patient for 30 years, it's time!

BleedDodge · 02-07-2005, 06:05 PM

I wasn't old enough to remember it, but I never heard of people making this kind of fuss when Chrysler introduced the 4 cylinder Charger in the early eighties. If it happened, nobody talks about it now...

wedgemotor · 02-07-2005, 06:15 PM

Dodge was changing the charger over time before it became an omni though. If you recall the last big Charger was essentially a cordoba then an omni. If you are going to bring it back after 18 years of not having it make it memorable. I had the last charger made, an 87 shelby charger, although I consider it an Omni and less of a Charger.

terzmo · 02-08-2005, 07:42 AM

Was no "fuss" because the cars were so screwed up that what's wrong with really screwing them up.It was just the final nail in the coffin for that model. What stock car in 84 could run a sub 14 sec qtr ...

MrPbody · 02-08-2005, 12:37 PM

Another reason you don't hear about the '80s Charger/Challenger fiascos, is nobody took them seriously. They put out a TV ad that claimed they (Chargers) were faster than both TransAm and Z/28. They even showed cameos of the early Charger, T/A and Z/28, in the "background". Dodge people were VERY insulted they would try to captitalize on the real Charger, with a 4-cylinder ANYTHING.
And they (those 4-cylinder Chargers) WERE faster than T/A and Z/28, 0 to 60. Nowhere else...

wedgemotor · 02-08-2005, 05:19 PM

agreed

PMDtempest · 02-09-2005, 05:24 PM

i think the only car in the US that could run 14's in 84 was the GN, but im not toataly sure i remember seeing numbers for it somwhere. I think the charger isnt going to sell well, im guessing the main buyers for it will be the average family man looking for a somewhat powerful car. Now if they went with the 99 concept that would of looked real good and probobaly would of sold pretty good. The Omni charger...what a load of junk, 4 cylinders is just sad, i bet my tractor has more balls...

wedgemotor · 02-09-2005, 05:57 PM

not a tractor

PMDtempest · 02-09-2005, 06:53 PM

its a joke if you ddint understand

wedgemotor · 02-09-2005, 07:44 PM

I know, I was just joking too. I wouldn't mind having a Charger Shelby GLHS though.

RivGSmusclecar · 02-09-2005, 11:45 PM

Getting back on topic........

Not to rock the boat any more than I already did.......

but I have in my hand a publication that proclaims Buick to be the first musclecar......"Buick centurys...Introduced in 1936 They were America's first Muscle Cars!"

Are you ready for this????

The 1936 Buick Century! 0-60 in 19.6 seconds........By 1938 they ran 100 MPH........light Special body, 320CI 120HP motor (a lot for that time period). The others had trouble going 90 MPH! By 1938, the motor was rated at 141HP and the car would do 0-60 in in 16.6 seconds.......not too shabby for 1938! And they went 101MPH with 3.90 rear end gears!

When Ford and Mercury realized they could not beat a Buick in 1939, the only way they could win at Daytona was by changing the rules......that effectively banned the Buicks from the competition.

Then in 1941 Buick brought out dual carbs, the engines made 165 HP and could go an unheard of 110 MPH.......these were the strongest cars in the country at that time. No wonder the engines were called "fireballs".

The facts I stated here are from the article I have......Buick Bugle, February 2005.....I would copy and post it in it's entirety here if I knew how. (can anybody help?) Written articles prove nothing, I'm just sharing what I have read.

terzmo · 02-10-2005, 06:27 AM

More ammunition for first car "muscle" title. 16 sec times.....lol !!!

PMDtempest · 02-10-2005, 04:10 PM

how in anyway does that compare to a muscle car? you have to have big cubes in a smaller body. the buick is ass backwards, smaller engine in a bigger body. Thats the first time ive ever herd 0-60 in 16.6 lol

MrPbody · 02-11-2005, 08:15 AM

I suppose, if we're going to go pre-war, we should mention Chord and Auburn. Both had BIG engines with blowers, and were a whole lot faster than anything else at the time.

There's an article in an obscure issue of Smoke Signals (the BIG Pontiac club newsletter) a few years ago, about the 1919 Oakland "war wagon" (an armored car for the military) that sported a V8 (Maxwell, I think) and was designed to outrun the enemy. They (POCI) jokingly called it Pontiac's first muscle car. It's stretch, agreed, but no more than the '36 Century...
And let's not forget the Hudson Hornet! Among the most dominant stock cars in history... Butt ugly, but very fast for it's day. And the Olds Rockets, and Silver Streaks, and the list can go on and on. None of it matters, as it all occured before 1964...

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD