Infinity declares... - Page 4

Cbass · 07-27-2004, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RazorGTR

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

The true muscle cars were existing midsizer coupes with the engines from the fullsizers, making for a hot coupe. Compacts such as the Falcon, Chevy II/Nova and the Mopar A bodies weren't really considered muscle cars back in the 60s.

The Mustang and Camaro, as well as the AMX and the Firebird were considered pony cars because of the original name of the Mustang yes, but they were regarded as entirely a different flavour of car, as the American take on a sports car. There is a fair bit of difference between a 289 Mustang and a 383 Road Runner, the Mustang was a sporty compact coupe that emphasized nimble handling over straight line speed, and the Road Runner was a much larger, much worse handling midsizer that could go like hell in a straight line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RazorGTR

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.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't particularly agree with your definition of a muscle car

I come from the old school hotrodding and muscle car school despite my young age, and I've always had it hammered into my head by the old timers that a muscle car is defined as a midsizer coupe, with one of the largest and most powerful engines the carmaker has to offer shoehorned in.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

The Cutlass was never considered a compact, it was a midsizer coupe, actually, it was even a bit big as midsizers went... The 98 was never considered a muscle car, so I don't know who you've been talking to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fordesigner

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

I'm not sure what you're getting at here... The Galaxie was also never considered a muscle car, even though it did quite well for itself in all forms of organized racing, even rally! The Fairlane, a midsizer, was at least in 500 and GT designations considered a muscle car.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fordesigner

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.

The Cutlass, Buick Skylark and the Chevelle were all midsizers, not considered small cars. They were called midsizers because they were smaller than the big cars and bigger than the small cars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fordesigner

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.

By the late 60s, Ford was fattening up the Mustang considerably, it became much larger, heavier and could in fact be considered a midsize coupe. It's debatable whether it remained a pony car, or became a muscle car.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fordesigner

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.

Yenko and COPO Camaros were awesome, definately one of the hottest things going on the street back then. Here's some info for those who don't know about these cars.

http://www.musclecarcalendar.com/WeK...WeknowJack.htm

My personal favourite is the Yenko Deuce, the LT1 powered Nova.

fordesigner · 07-28-2004, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cbass

The true muscle cars were existing midsizer coupes with the engines from the fullsizers, making for a hot coupe. Compacts such as the Falcon, Chevy II/Nova and the Mopar A bodies weren't really considered muscle cars back in the 60s.

The Cutlass was never considered a compact, it was a midsizer coupe, actually, it was even a bit big as midsizers went... The 98 was never considered a muscle car, so I don't know who you've been talking to.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here... The Galaxie was also never considered a muscle car, even though it did quite well for itself in all forms of organized racing, even rally! The Fairlane, a midsizer, was at least in 500 and GT designations considered a muscle car.

The Cutlass, Buick Skylark and the Chevelle were all midsizers, not considered small cars. They were called midsizers because they were smaller than the big cars and bigger than the small cars.

You missed the point. Those were the model line ups for the manufacturers. The Cutlass was Oldsmobile's small car. If you went into a Oldsmobile dealership in 1968 and asked to see their small car....
You would be shown the Cutlass. They didn't make anything smaller. Same with with Ford, would have been shown the Mustang/Falcon. Buick??? You would have been shown the Skylark. What did Ford, Olds, Buick or Pontiac make that was smaller at the time?????
Your looking at cars from todays viewpoint. I maybe dating myself but driving around in the 70s... Cars were HUGE by today's standards. Rent the movie Bullit, watch Dragnet or some other movie of the time. Grand Furies, Newports, 98s, Delta 88s, Galaxies, Impalas, Fairlanes, Buick 225s... These all dominated American roads. Not small or even muscle cars. Cars got smaller from the mid to late 70s, and people(Americans) were very reluctant to give up the big cars. Olds continued to manufacture the huge 98 until 1976, same with Buick and the 225. This is still seen today. Older Americans still cling to larger cars. Three letters S-U-V.
My mother drives and refuses to drive one of these "tiny little crapboxes". She considers the Taurus a tiny car. One guess at what she drives.....

Muscle cars were based on the small cars at the time they were manufactured. They were the smallest cars American manufacturers made. Just look at the build numbers and model line ups.

Cbass · 07-30-2004, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fordesigner

You missed the point. Those were the model line ups for the manufacturers. The Cutlass was Oldsmobile's small car. If you went into a Oldsmobile dealership in 1968 and asked to see their small car....
You would be shown the Cutlass. They didn't make anything smaller. Same with with Ford, would have been shown the Mustang/Falcon. Buick??? You would have been shown the Skylark. What did Ford, Olds, Buick or Pontiac make that was smaller at the time?????
Your looking at cars from todays viewpoint. I maybe dating myself but driving around in the 70s... Cars were HUGE by today's standards. Rent the movie Bullit, watch Dragnet or some other movie of the time. Grand Furies, Newports, 98s, Delta 88s, Galaxies, Impalas, Fairlanes, Buick 225s... These all dominated American roads. Not small or even muscle cars. Cars got smaller from the mid to late 70s, and people(Americans) were very reluctant to give up the big cars. Olds continued to manufacture the huge 98 until 1976, same with Buick and the 225. This is still seen today. Older Americans still cling to larger cars. Three letters S-U-V.
My mother drives and refuses to drive one of these "tiny little crapboxes". She considers the Taurus a tiny car. One guess at what she drives.....

Muscle cars were based on the small cars at the time they were manufactured. They were the smallest cars American manufacturers made. Just look at the build numbers and model line ups.

I think you have entirely missed MY point as well, the Oldsmobile Cutlass was not the smallest American car on the street, neither were the Buick Skylark or Riviera, they just happened to be the smallest car Buick and Olds made.

The musclecars of old, the classic, original muscle cars, were the medium sized cars, not the compact Falcon, Chevy II, Dart or Nash Rambler, although there were some sporty versions of these cars made, some that were quite fast. They were not the Galaxie, they were not the Olds 98/88, the Chrysler Imperial, the big cars.

The muscle cars were the cars that fell in between these categories, the Pontiac Lemans with the GTO package, the Chevelle SS, the Ford Fairlane GT, the Dodge Charger R/T, the Olds Cutlass 442. Medium sized cars, not compacts. Smaller than the biggest things on the road, yes, but not small cars. Midsizer is the industry term.

If you want to call a Cutlass or a Skylark a compact car, I think you need to take a good look at what was actually rolling around on the streets during the 60s, when the muscle car era was in full swing.