Earliest Muscle car

[RivGSmusclecar]

Originally Posted by MrPbody

None of it matters, as it all occured before 1964...

Maybe in your mind

I was challenged by a punk in a Dodge Neon "DEMON" yesterday while driving my Caravan........no, I wasn't stupid enough to engage him but I thought to myself "at least Chrysler is on the right track".

I wonder how long it'll take for one to show up at a cruise night?........or even worse, a judged car show?

[Twitch1]

The origin for the term Musclecar can be attributed to the 1964 GTO. There were other 'muscular' cars compared to their contemporaries as such decades before in every era. When I worked at Bond Publishing in the late 60s the Car Life and Road & Track people considered the GTO as the beginning of the musclecars.

[terzmo]

So who made road and track "THE" authority ???/ The world was flat for a long time before people realized the truth...GTO's are nice cars...up to 72 of course.....but that "muscle car label" in MY opinion, does not fit.

[Twitch1]

The explanation was illustrative of what was stated in the times contemporary with the cars instead of looking back 40 years later and guessing who said what and why. The GTO was not considered the best muscle car it was simply considered the catalyst for the genre to propagate. It's like simply acknowledging that the Mustang is the 1st ponycar- another phase that defined a new classification of autos that did not exist before.

Any singular car that did not commense a movement immediately thereafter could not be considered the 1st.

The GTO was what was called a mid-sized car back then. A different definition applies today. All the 1st muscle cars were of this class. Later the definition stretched to include larger cars and compacts with heavy metal too. Technically Ponycars fell into the category but always were defined separately since they ALWAYS didn't have big engines.

The GTO muscle car concept hit at just the right time to catch on with the public and competitors hurried to cash in on the idea with their own cars. Marketing exploited an already interested group of people that were attracted to the muscle car concept.

The GTO could have come in 1958. But if it wouldn't have stimulated the market it would have been just another beefed up car.

Is a 63 Belvedere with HD suspension and a hemi a muscle car? Yes but it wasn't THE muscle car that sparked the trend.

Car Life personnel were simply calling muscle cars by that term because everyone was and all the print media easily traced the origins to the 64 GTO and stated that just as they did speaking of the Mustang regarding pony cars.

[MrPbody]

Well, it's said, "Great minds think alike"... While I usually avoid this, I must tell you what I just read. In the current edition of "Muscle Car Milestones" (an obscure, but informative magazine), the editor wites, in his introduction: "1964 Pontiac GTO. This is the car that's credited with starting the muscle car revolution, because it was the first car to take a 389 cubic inch V8 from the full-size Pontiac line up and put it in the intermediate-sized Tempest. Clever advertisement cemented the GTO's youthful image".
"People can and will argue about when the muscle car revolution really started, but for the purpose of this article, we're placing the start in the mid-'60s, specifically 1964, but with credit to the earlier cars."
"1964 was chosen because that was the first year of the Pontiac GTO, the car that's most often cited for starting the whole muscle car phenominon. It was the first factory intermediate model with an engine from a full-sized car."
"There were performance models long before 1964, but the basic muscle car premise is a big engine in a smaller car."
"Some favorite models, such as Camaro and Firebird, are no longer with us, but others have been resurrected. Probably the most famous name to return is the 2004 Pontiac GTO. This is a true muscle car, not some cheesy maketing ploy to sell cars with decals of famous models."

So, I may have the mind that believes GTO as the first, but I'm hardly alone.... Never saw any articles on the '39 Buick... Just get a grip!

[detroitvstheworld]

Speaking of Buicks, let's not forget the early Riv GS with the 425 and dual quads...

[MrPbody]

Detroitvstheworld, that car was already mentioned by a disgruntled Buick owner. It meets the critea for a "personal luxury" car, not a muscle car. Same as Grand Prix and Toronado... "A-Body" Grand Sport was the only Buick entry in the muscle car era. But, just to make sure Rivguy doesn't get all bent out of shape again, the Riv GS is definitely a high performance car, as was the Grand Prix SJ ('69 had a 390 horse 428 in it). They're too big to be muscle cars. Just don't confuse "high performance" with "muscle"... While one (muscle) may mean the other (high performance), the reciprocal is not necessarily true.

[Thunda Downunda]

Originally Posted by MrPbody

[Quotes from magazine]
"It was the first factory intermediate model with an engine from a full-sized car."

"There were performance models long before 1964, but the basic muscle car premise is a big engine in a smaller car."

So, I may have the mind that believes GTO as the first, but I'm hardly alone.... Never saw any articles on the '39 Buick... Just get a grip!

As the first poster within this thread to mention Buick Century, let me say that RivGuy is not alone either ..

Regarding the first magazine quote (above) which you present as an authoratitive source, let me point out a few 'inconsitencies':

Ironically, isn't that precisely what Buick Century was - a factory intermediate (Special) with an engine from a full-size (Roadmaster, Limited) ..?

Similarly I find it slightly amusing that according to the second (highlighted) quote from this dubious magazine the pre-war Buick Century exactly fits 'Muscle Car Milestones' stated core definition of what a muscle car is .. even more so than a '64 GTO!

Again .. Buick's biggest most powerful engine, which previously was only available only in their largest, heaviest models ..

.. married to Buick's smallest, lightest bodyshell


Not even Pontiac could claim that for their (mid size) GTO




Yes to some extent it's a case of semantics and individual perceptions. However it's a bit unrealistic to exclude a pre-war performance car because you "never saw any articles on the '39 Buick" or that it wasn't promoted by some trendy TV advertisement campaign you once saw, as the model (almost) predates television itself. Some magazines claim GTO as the first muscle car. However quite a few other publications I have read point out that the Century might predate the muscle-car phrase - but not the specified formula

Given the oft-cited criteria trotted out by self-appointed experts like journalists etc of what a muscle car is - in essence, it boils down to being a unique model specification of big engine in small body, with a clear model focus on high performance - then it's not unreasonable to illustrate that ... based on the very definition of core value that is repeatedly cited and quoted by GTO proponents, including yourself ... then like it or not the Century also fits that billing

[Twitch1]

With all respect to other fine cars, the muscle car era as we know it began with the GTO. Other cars did have the formula before, for sure, but the fact that the marketing chemistry affected the buying public to want more of the same was all Pontiac and the GTO.

It's like everyone says how the Edsel was a "bad" car. It wasn't. I simply came at an inappropriate time to comsumers as the economy was dipping into a mild recession then. It also was widening the Ford lines and really wasn't demonstrably better than Merc or Ford models.

Also today we look back and classify more cars into the muscle car category than we did back then. I do it and I know better. A Galaxie hardtop with a 427 and HD suspension wasn't considered a muscle car in 68 but I'd call it that today. I know that's wrong but compared to the stuff we had in the 70s-80s and all the rice ball 4dr. sedan econo boxes flying around now, yeah, it's a muscle car.

I lived through the era and it's tough to not apply modern values on the times.

Branding was a very decisive factor in auto purchases throughout auto history. IE., certain cars had perceived or real niches. Buick, Cadillac and Olds were considered fairly dull and Chevies, Fords Pontiacs were more mainstream. Some of it was pricing and a lot of it was who you saw in the cars. Buick was never a young guy's car. It was step away from a Caddy. The Olds was actually an almost neutral car- not too "old folks" but not a youthful Chevy or Ford either.

There are quite believable stories about August Whitehead, a German immigrant, flying powered aircraft a couple years before Orville and Wilber Wright. If he did fine, but the Wrights did it at a time when the spirit caught on and the economic world and the media got into it. From their flights on things began to happen.

Trend pioneers are not trend setters. That's up to the fickle public. There have been tons of inventions that didn't take off until revisited in later times when their concepts became right for the time.

The auto companies were surprised at the GTO concept success and scrambled to put together their own muscle cars from their parts books. Frankly muscle cars were kind of a happy accident.

[terzmo]

Big motor...in a mid size car..walla!!! first muscle car...1955 chrysler 300...who had over 300 ponies in 55.....jump on the rag bandwagon all you want...gto was NOT the first muscle car...what did the ponch have in 55 ????..oh...it was cute....just like the mustang and camaro....

[PMDtempest]

look terzmo your not getting the point... we dont care if the big bad 300 had 300 pones. the gto was coined as the first muscle car so from then on muscle cars were made so get on with your life man.

[RivGSmusclecar]

For those of you who don't think they made muscle before 1964, here's some specs to chew on: (copied from another board)


1951 Cadillac 331 V8 - 160hp, 312 ft/lbs
1951 Chrysler 331 V8 - 180hp, 312 ft/lbs
1951 Lincoln 337 V8 - 154hp, 275 ft/lbs (flathead)
1950/1951 Olds 304 V8 - 135hp, 263 ft/lbs

1957-1958 peak numbers:

364 Buick - 300hp, 400 ft/lbs
365 Cadillac - 335hp, 405 ft/lbs*
348 Chevy - 280hp, 355 ft/lbs*
392 Chrysler - 380hp, 485 ft/lbs*
361 Desoto - 345hp, 400 ft/lbs*
361 Dodge - 320hp, 400 ft/lbs
410 Edsel - 345hp, 472 ft/lbs
352 Ford - 300hp, 395 ft/lbs
327 Hudson - 255hp, 354 ft/lbs (1957 Nash motor)
430 Lincoln V8 - 375hp, 490 ft/lbs
383 Mercury - 330hp, 425 ft/lbs
327 Nash - 288hp, 350 ft/lbs** (1957 motor)
371 Olds - 312hp, 415 ft/lbs*
350 Plymouth - 305hp, 370 ft/lbs
370 Pontiac - 310hp, 400 ft/lbs**
289 Studebaker - 275hp, 333 ft/lbs***

* multi-carb
** fuel injection
*** supercharged

[Twitch1]

PMDtempest- they just don't get niche marketing and consumer response. If big engines was the only criteria, hell, we can go back to the 1931 Marmon V-16, the 1910 Hispano-Suiza or 1899 Cannstatt-Daimler.

[terzmo]

but if the 20's motors had the power and torque the 55 chrysler had; proportional speaking, by the 70's we'd be in warp factor...ponch boy...you are missing the point....alot of print, time, and money, does not make it right....64 tempet with 335 hp...55 chrysler with 300.....what took so long

[Twitch1]

Look, nobody used the term "muscle car" in 1955! So we can't call the 300 the first muscle car if no one had yet coined the phrase. If you want to simply say what was the first muscular car= beefed up- we gotta go back to the beginning of cars in the early 1900s.

There were powerful cars relative to power-to-weight ratio a long time ago. The term was 1st used in the mid 60s.