Infinity declares...

[LjasonL]

Originally Posted by focusfreak

I believe the definition of a muscle car (a true one) is a loud, unrefined vehicle that sounds like a monster on the road

Man, I used to have a bitchin 86 Nissan pickup truck with a busted exhaust that fit that bill perfectly!

[focusfreak]

lol, thats helarious IdelayisionI. but no, sorry bro. still funny though. and to boingo82, I guess the adage of "don't believe everything you read" is true. I won't ever believe another article from import tuner again. sorry. and for the falcon/mustang discussion we were having.

"The Mustang was actually a re-skinned Falcon, and utilized a great deal of the former econo-box's platform."

All this means is that the mustangs used the same chassy and other related items, not the same body style. I thought you were referring to the body style not what was under it. misunderstanding.

[focusfreak]

Ok, another thing that is lame is that everyone calls me a dumbass. I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation with everyone here. quit acting like highschool kids and lay off the names. I am learning things also about infiniti, so at least i'm trying. and at least im not staying outside the bubble by thinking that only american cars are the best. I give props to a lot of cars. I like the styling of the G35, I love BMW's, In fact I like alot of cars (except echoes, prius', and H2's) but thats another story, so please guys, help me understand by having a nice adult like conversation. I appreciate all the info i'm getting from you all though. and I will find a link to the article I read in import tuner.

[focusfreak]

http://www.importtuner.com/toc/

This is the issue with the article I read. Just go to a local supermarket, pick it up and look within the first like 15 pages, its somewhere in the beginning of the mag abou the M45 boingo82. Im not bullshitting you.




Now how does this look like a 1965 mustang?

[focusfreak]

D'oh, ok, lets try this again, go to this site to see what a 1965 Ford Falcon looks like and then (if you were referring to body style boingo82) tell me how it resembles a 1965 Mustang.
http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/251336

[boingo82]

"based on" was in reference to actual chassis and mechanicals. Look up in my post, I CLEARLY said "new sheet metal".

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by focusfreak

"The Mustang was actually a re-skinned Falcon, and utilized a great deal of the former econo-box's platform."

All this means is that the mustangs used the same chassy and other related items, not the same body style. I thought you were referring to the body style not what was under it. misunderstanding.

A Ford Falcon was to a Mustang, what a Chevy Cavalier is to a Pontiac Sunfire.

[89IROC&RS]

hmmm, well, where to start, focusfreak, ill have to agree with most the people on here, in that you do come off as very small minded, and that your arguments are not very well baised. i agree with what your saying, but not for the reasons you are pushing. personally, i thought that was a dumb add myself, its definatly not a muscle car, for the same reasons you said before, a muscle car, is a big engine, street brawler, noisy, crude, unrefined. all the things an infiniti is not. its kinda like advertizing a ford F350 king cab dually deisl truck as the next econobox because it has low emissions. so i argue it baised on stupidity. but you are saying that they cant use the name, just because they are an import company, which is closed minded. and thats what is annoying people. domestic companys have made econoboxes, which shows imports dont have the edge there, and imports can very easily make muscle cars, but have not done so as of yet in my opinion. i think this therad would have gone over much better, had you simply attacted the ad in question, about the G45 and pointed out its shortcomings, rather than attaced the import world as a whole, and tried to say that car companies can only build one kind of car depending on their nationality. import vs domestic threads never go well, and people always wind up coming off as stupid. just something to think about in the future.

[fordesigner]

Infiniti never has and never will make a muscle car. period.

First and simple. "Muscle car" was a era. It was a time when people didn't care about miles per gallon, air bags( or safety in general), oil embargos, green house gases.... and big blocks ruled.

It was about either grabbing a small car and stuffing in a V8 ie Mustang, Tiger Sunbeams, AC Cobras or taking family sedans and stuffing them with monster big blocks. 427 Thunderbolts, GTOs, the 426 Hemis, 455 Cutlass, 454 Chevelles.

The muscle car era is long over.
Even though the current Mustang Cobra produces very generous amounts of torque and horsepower, you'd be hard pressed to get people to call it a muscle car. No different than a Ferrari. They get classed as a sports car.

The Mustang was never considered a family car. It was a 2+2. Calling the Mustang a family car is like calling the Fairlady/300ZX a family car. In the 60s, it was a compact.... My how times change.

[RazorGTR]

Originally Posted by fordesigner

Infiniti never has and never will make a muscle car. period.

Well that is a pretty biased opinion isn't it. One has to understand what a "Muscle car" is first. You're close but no cigar for you.

Originally Posted by fordesigner

First and simple. "Muscle car" was a era. It was a time when people didn't care about miles per gallon, air bags( or safety in general), oil embargos, green house gases.... and big blocks ruled.

It was about either grabbing a small car and stuffing in a V8 ie Mustang, Tiger Sunbeams, AC Cobras or taking family sedans and stuffing them with monster big blocks. 427 Thunderbolts, GTOs, the 426 Hemis, 455 Cutlass, 454 Chevelles.

That isn't totally true. While the term "Muscle Car" was first brought up in the mid 60's, it was so by hotrod and power performance car enthusisats. This was a new generation of hot rodders who believed in bigger is better as far as engine displacements. The automotive factories caught onto this as the "gearheads" or "petrol heads" love it. The original "muscle cars" were the Corvette, Chevelle, GTO, GTX, Mustang, Charger, Challenger, Super Bird, and Camaro. I think I've named them all. These were factory built powerful road cars. The term had nothing to do with one off's, custom builds, or modifying other vehicles.

Originally Posted by fordesigner

The muscle car era is long over.
Even though the current Mustang Cobra produces very generous amounts of torque and horsepower, you'd be hard pressed to get people to call it a muscle car. No different than a Ferrari. They get classed as a sports car.

The Mustang was never considered a family car. It was a 2+2. Calling the Mustang a family car is like calling the Fairlady/300ZX a family car. In the 60s, it was a compact.... My how times change.

While the original era is over. It has been since 1972 although the Corvette continued its heritage and V8 power plant as did the Camaro. The term muscle car is and still is originally thought of as those cars produced during a very very short time span, but in fact if you look at the relevance of what the automotive industry and the car scene shared in the 60's it is well and truly alive today, it is just the term and relationships are slightly different as compared to back then. Just as the cars have changed so has the relationship between them.
It seems in today's vision of what a muscle car is, is a complete package rather than something that is only good for straight line acceleration, gas guzzling, boxy, and brute strength.

You term them as a non-sports car but infact what do you think those older cars were? Sports Cars. They were also NOT compacts but midsized cars. The only car that could be considered a compact was the very short production AC Cobra, and Ford GT40 both of which were extremely limited production.

[fordesigner]

Originally Posted by RazorGTR

Well that is a pretty biased opinion isn't it. One has to understand what a "Muscle car" is first. You're close but no cigar for you.
No. No cigar for you. Even you mentioned the original era is over. The muscle car era is over. Get on with life.



That isn't totally true. While the term "Muscle Car" was first brought up in the mid 60's, it was so by hotrod and power performance car enthusisats. This was a new generation of hot rodders who believed in bigger is better as far as engine displacements. The automotive factories caught onto this as the "gearheads" or "petrol heads" love it. The original "muscle cars" were the Corvette, Chevelle, GTO, GTX, Mustang, Charger, Challenger, Super Bird, and Camaro. I think I've named them all. These were factory built powerful road cars. The term had nothing to do with one off's, custom builds, or modifying other vehicles.
No, you left off the Lemans, Cutlass, Thunderbolts, Galaxies, Cougars, Falcons, AMX and many others, including Impalas. Bigger and better??? The original Cobras and Corvettes were small V8s, same with the Tiger Sunbeams. Are you saying the Cobra and Corvette isn't considered a muscle car???? Again, when most people refer to "muscle cars", they are refering to that era. While many cars can fit into the catagory, they are not referred to as muscle cars. Let's see, a 350 whp Ford Focus by your definition should be considered as a muscle car. Uummmmm, NO.



While the original era is over. It has been since 1972 although the Corvette continued its heritage and V8 power plant as did the Camaro. The term muscle car is and still is originally thought of as those cars produced during a very very short time span, but in fact if you look at the relevance of what the automotive industry and the car scene shared in the 60's it is well and truly alive today, it is just the term and relationships are slightly different as compared to back then. Just as the cars have changed so has the relationship between them.
It seems in today's vision of what a muscle car is, is a complete package rather than something that is only good for straight line acceleration, gas guzzling, boxy, and brute strength.
So did the Mustang (and the Camaro is gone). It's still held to the V8 and continued with the Cobra. The spirit is alive, but things change and evolve. Just because you have a V8 doesn't mean your a muscle car. A Seville and a Town car both had V8s. Most people can see a clear separation from the current generation of cars and those of a by-gone era. A era with 4000 lb cars with no A/C and NO POWER STEERING!! All for the sake of speed. Let's see you pass that off today.

You term them as a non-sports car but infact what do you think those older cars were? Sports Cars. They were also NOT compacts but midsized cars. The only car that could be considered a compact was the very short production AC Cobra, and Ford GT40 both of which were extremely limited production.
You really need to look things up more. The Mustang WAS a compact or small. It was a 2+2. It was not a mid-sized. And the Corvette was a mid-sized????? A mid sized car from the 60s was a Pontiac Tempest. And they were called sports car at the time they were being manufactured, not today. The simple fact that it WAS "the muscle car era" means past tense.

ERA: A fixed point of time, usually an epoch, from which a series of years is reckoned.
The foundation of Solomon's temple is conjectured by Ideler to have been an era.

Today's cars are every bit as exciting as those from the Muscle car era. And if you pardon my opinion, even more so. Today's technology allows for better safety, far less pollution and we are trying to do more with less. With pressing electronic controls with sensors, we can get more and more power from smaller engines. The replacement for displacement is technology. I always hated playing with carbs. My 68 Cutlass 455 cid had duals 4 barrels....
I prefer fuel injection.

[Cbass]

The definition of a muscle car is, and has always been taking a large displacement engine, usually from one of the larger cars that the manufacturer produced, and putting it in a lightweight midsizer body. The first true muscle car was in fact the Plymouth Barracuda, followed by the GTO, and then the slough of musclecars that came afterwards.

Before the Barracuda and the GTO, the fastest cars going on the street were the big full sizers, Impalas, Galaxies, Imperials etc.

Regardless of who makes it, a muscle car is a midsizer, with one of the largest and most powerful engine that the manufacturer produced. The Mustang was never a muscle car, because it was a compact, emphasizing sporty handling over straight line speed. That's why they called it a Pony car, as well as the Camaro.

The M45 is a midsizer body, with the largest engine Nissan makes for passenger cars under the hood. 4 doors it may have, Japanese it may be, but it counts a muscle car by the classic detroit definition.

For that matter, so does the Nissan Skyline, the Mazda Cosmos, the Toyota Soarer, and so on. Those are all Japanese cars, and they don't even sell them in America!

As for the '64-66 Mustangs, they were rebodied Falcon 500s. All of the running gear was the same, the only differences were a few body panels and a new interior. Lee Iacocca had to fight tooth and nail to convince Ford to spend even enough money to do that. In 1967, the Mustang received a complete redesign that made it larger, heavier and somewhat less sporting, although the later suspension was arguably superior.

And yes, the Focus was designed by Ford of Europe, and they are built outside of the US.

[Jimster]

Just one correction CBass, Soarer=SC400, so it was sold in America

[RazorGTR]

Actually Cbass the Fastback and Mach 1's were muscle cars. The nickname "pony" came from their insignia, the wee little horse

Now to fordesigner sarcasum is sweet, IF I KNOW YOU, which I don't so be very careful how you use it. The lord giveth and we take it away.

Your arguments are still flawed and still personal perception. The term midsized car is just that. Between full size such as your impalla and also GTX, fury, 67' Chevelle, charger and challanger. I know I put them in, my bad but yes they can be considered muscle cars even though the size. The 68-70 Chevelle SS, Yanko SC, Camaro SS and Yanko SC ( bet you didn't know about the Yanko SC most don't and if you did sweet you'll know what I'm refering to) Corvette to name a few are midsized cars. What determins midsized? Simply put the Amercian Automotive Industry and the Dept of Transportation did. The dealers thus caught onto and advertised as such. A full size car such as a caddy or Lincoln is pretty obvious, while the smaller car such as the amc javelin, early model mustangs (standard ones), are small midsized and can be argued as compacts but they weren't. There were much smaller cars produced and the term sub compact came in due to the japanese imports coming in at the time which were smaller yet. Wheel base, width, body size all play a part in making this relationship. The seating arrangement had nothing to do with how they were classed.
These cars also DIDN'T weight 4000 lbs, generally they were in the 3,400 lb range give or take a couple of hundred for the larger cars.

Muscle cars in the 60's were known for simply one thing. V8 powered sports cars full stop. 6's and 4's weren't ever considered during that period. They didn't produce enough power factory standard to warrent it. It was all about power, pure ground pounding, earth shaking power and torque to match.

I know I'm in New Zealand but I wasn't born here but moved here a few years ago. I also grew up around these cars and owned a few but my step father was an avid fan of them so I did get to spend a lot of time around them.

[fordesigner]

Muscle cars were NOT mid-sized. Sorry but that's just wrong. Simply look at the car line ups...
Olds 1970
Full sized = Olds 98
Mid sized = Delta 88 or Toronado
Small sized = Cutlass

Ford 1964
Full sized = Galaxy
Mid sized = Fairlane
Small sized = Mustang/Falcon

Cutlasses, Skylarks, Chevelles, Cameros..... they were all considered small at the time they were manufactered. They were not considered family cars. A 1970 Olds 98 is larger than almost anything currently produced, and it wasn't the biggest. Caddy made bigger! Size is relative.

Mustang had the 1968 500 KR with a 428 cid motor, that qualifies as a small body with a big block. 1971 Mustang had a 429 cid Cobra Jet engine. Mustang = muscle car.

I know they didn't actually weight in at 4000 lb, it was a point. You couldn't produce those cars today and expect them to sell. You'd only sell a few. People expect more today.

Another minor point.... The Barracuda beat the Mustang to market by two weeks.... And it came with a 273 cid motor...... The V8s had a 1/4 times of around 17.8 seconds..... VS 1964 Mustang 289 16.5 seconds and the 289 hipo 15.9 seconds. (yes, both had 6s. So we'll ignore those.) And the Barracuda was just a reskinned Valiant. Same suspension and everything.
It wasn't until 1965 that the Barracuda had a 273 with over 200 hp. In fact, in 1966 Car and driver and R & T both had the Barracuda as 17.7 and 17.6 respectively.
The 1964 GTO had two 389s that ran 15.0 and 14.1 according to R & T.

RazorGTR you even said "While the original era is over.
The muscle car era is over, you said it yourself. Todays cars should be judged by their own standards. Define their own era. People should quit looking for validity from cars 40 years old. After all, we may be soon seeing the end of pure petrol powered cars. Electrics and hybreds will be taking over. I'd hate to see gearheads going out looking backwards. The current lot can do everything that those from the muscle car era could do and more.
Shoot for something better.

I have some knowledge about Yankos.... I knew someone with a Yanko Nova with the 427 L-72 package. Did you know GM made a Cosworth powered Vega. True.