Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online! Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online!
Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online! 
-
Latest | 0 Rplys
Go Back   Automotive Forums .com Car Chat > Engineering/Technical
Engineering/Technical Ask technical questions about cars. Do you know how a car engine works?
Reply Show Printable Version Show Printable Version | Email this Page Email this Page | Subscription Subscribe to this Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-27-2005, 03:44 PM   #1
terzmo
AF Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Buffalo, New York
Posts: 57
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Earliest Muscle car

I was watching speed channel last night and they annointed the 64 GTO as bing the first muscle car. Their definition of a muscle car was a production car with a big motor and poformance options.

I'm not here to argue, but rather;submit the following cars for discussion....In 1957 ..cadillac had a V8 with 2 4 barrels...chevy had a fuel injection system in 57....in 58,,chevy had a 348 with tri power... although the caddy in 57 was a 2x4 barrel setup..it was a luxury car...with balls...the 57 chevy with the injection system was unique. Who wanted a luxury car in 58 with tri power. I submit...even though I am a mopar guy...that chevy...in 1958 through 63 started the whole thing with the 348 tri powr and then making the "SS" an option with engines as big as 409. Mopar stated in with the wedge in 62...ford had a 406 tri power in 62 or 63. (not here to argue....supportive info more than welcome) I believe the SS chevy was the first true muscle car
terzmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2005, 04:58 PM   #2
65Ponchoboy
AF Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Danbury, Connecticut
Posts: 169
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via AIM to 65Ponchoboy
no the SS is not the first muscle car. muscle cars were considred muscle cars when u took a larger sized engine, dumped it in a intermediate body and sold it at a low price. Since the GTO's were sold anywhere from 2-3.5k and with that price many people could afford them. On the other hand the Impalas were a nice car but that "nice" came with a higher price tag that many drivers couldnt afford so of course the turned to the smaller cars or went somewhere else. You can call the impala SS a muscle car all u want but it does not meet up to being a smaller car with a big engine and a low price. If im wrong guys, correct me.
65Ponchoboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2005, 05:58 PM   #3
PeteRR
AF Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: S. Jersey, New Jersey
Posts: 155
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I'm partial to the '49 Ford with the Flathead V-8. The Max Wedge Mopars were deliberately aimed at dragracing, not as a streetfighter like the '64 GTO.
__________________
Pete.

1968 Plymouth Road Runner
451 Stroker + Keisler 5-Speed OD manual trans
PeteRR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2005, 07:12 PM   #4
matt 69 scrambler
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: uniontown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 15
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Earliest Muscle car

i think it would be the 1957 Rambler Rebel, (1,500 were built and had the AMC 327 v8 ) ! ! the only car that was faster in 1957 was the fuel injection Corvette.

see my Hurst SC/rambler,
http://www.joiesjeeps.com/1512_membe...attwilson.html
thanks,
matt

Last edited by matt 69 scrambler; 02-08-2005 at 05:58 PM.
matt 69 scrambler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2005, 07:20 PM   #5
terzmo
AF Regular
Thread starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Buffalo, New York
Posts: 57
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Earliest Muscle car

The 64 GTO was a lemans with the GTO options. A 58 chevy impala was way less than 3500.00. The lemans/GTo is the same as an Impala/SS.....big engine in an ORIGINAL car. What's the difference except the year done.
terzmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2005, 09:01 PM   #6
M3FordBoy
AF Regular
 
M3FordBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: O'Fallon, Missouri
Posts: 439
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Earliest Muscle car

I think that the '64 GTO is revered as the first muscle car because it is were the name originated with that car (correct me if i'm wrong). It is similar to pony witch came with the Mustang why there were other cars that can be considered muscle cars before the GTO the name wasn't around until the GTO.
__________________
'91 Kawasaki Ninja 600R
Newest Toy: V&H, Stage 1 carbs
'89 Honda Accord DX
A20a1 5spd Daily Driver
'68 Ford Galaxie 500 XL
390fe C6 First Car/Project Car

See/hear the ride.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO0C-qxj6qA
M3FordBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2005, 06:16 AM   #7
terzmo
AF Regular
Thread starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Buffalo, New York
Posts: 57
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Earliest Muscle car

On that same program...the barracuda,mustang,camaro,challenger were the "pony" class. The bottom line as I see it, The early SS cars were the first muscle cars...GTO copied them later, same idea for both...a standard stock production vehicle with a performance engine.
terzmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2005, 08:14 AM   #8
MrPbody
AF -Advisor
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chesterfield, Virginia
Posts: 2,549
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Re: Earliest Muscle car

So the '57 Bonneville doesn't count? All of them were fuel injected, using a similar system as the '57 Chevy (Rochester "Ram Jet"). How about the '58 Bonny with the 370 Tri-Power? They dominated NASCAR and NHRA in the late '50s through '62, when GM pulled the money... I 've never seen a '63 Impala 409 car that would TOUCH a Catalina SD car.

But the bottom line is the first true muscle car was indeed, the '64 GTO. The phrase was coined to describe that car. Chevelles didn't get REAL power until '66. The handful of '65 BB cars shouldn't be considered, as the L-78 was a RARE car. Same is true of Thunderbolts, Ramchargers, and all the other wannabes. At least GM sold their cars in volume, to the general public. MOPAR didn't really have a good one until the '67 GTX or Hemi Charger, but again, Hemi cars are too rare to compare. Ford NEVER stepped up in volume. It's easy to say a car built in low volume (less than 2,000 cars) can beat a true stocker. Let's see what cars were built in excess of 30,000 units, that could compete with the '64 GTO IN '64. Or 80,000 units in '65, 90K in '66, 80K in '67, and so on. Badmouth GTO all you want. It's still "The Godfather" of muscle cars.
MrPbody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2005, 08:24 AM   #9
RivGSmusclecar
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: buffalo, New York
Posts: 26
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Re: Earliest Muscle car

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrPbody
Badmouth GTO all you want. It's still "The Godfather" of muscle cars.
The term "musclecar" was not even used until the late '70's......performance cars of that era were called "supercars".

It makes me laugh when so called "experts" try to classify performance vehicles as musclecars or not.......when they know ALL the facts about ALL the cars and not just some of them perhaps then they would be qualified to make that judgement.
RivGSmusclecar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2005, 10:42 AM   #10
terzmo
AF Regular
Thread starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Buffalo, New York
Posts: 57
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Earliest Muscle car

My posts were opinions and to leave out other mid 50's cars as 'muscle cars" was not a mistake....just lumped in with the caddy's and early chevy's. I didn't submit that I was an expert...just submitted info and MY OPINION. I like all the cars....but when I'm on the street/track, the only cars I worry about beating my stroker Dodge is a 455 Buick and not a GTO.
terzmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2005, 11:37 AM   #11
RivGSmusclecar
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: buffalo, New York
Posts: 26
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Re: Earliest Muscle car

Quote:
Originally Posted by matt 69 scrambler
i think it would be the 1957 Rambler Rebel, (1,500 were built and had the AMC 327 v8 ) ! ! the only car that was faster in 1957 was the fuel injection Corvette.

see my Hurst SC/rambler,
http://www.joiesjeeps.com/mattwilson.html
thanks,
matt
There's my case and point.......perhaps if 30,000 were made and everybody had one it would fit in.........I've never even heard of that car for '57. IMO, that's a musclecar too!
RivGSmusclecar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2005, 11:49 AM   #12
1970455Riv
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Mpls, Minnesota
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Wink Re: Re: Re: Earliest Muscle car

Quote:
Originally Posted by RivGSmusclecar
The term "musclecar" was not even used until the late '70's......performance cars of that era were called "supercars".
(Joe?)

I specifically remember the term musclecar being used back in the late 60's and early 70's.

My father would curse them.
"Damn kid's and their musclecars!"
1970455Riv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2005, 02:15 PM   #13
MrPbody
AF -Advisor
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chesterfield, Virginia
Posts: 2,549
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Re: Earliest Muscle car

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.
MrPbody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2005, 04:58 PM   #14
RivGSmusclecar
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: buffalo, New York
Posts: 26
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.
RivGSmusclecar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2005, 05:01 PM   #15
terzmo
AF Regular
Thread starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Buffalo, New York
Posts: 57
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Earliest Muscle car

440 stroked and bored to 493 cubes.
terzmo is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD


Bookmarks
Go Back   Automotive Forums .com Car Chat > Engineering/Technical

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:43 AM.

Community Participation Guidelines | How to use your User Control Panel

Powered by: vBulletin | Copyright Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
 
 
no new posts