Muscle Cars Today

What do you guys think of the muscles cars from back in the day that are still around (Camaro, Corvette, Mustang...) do you think they are at all what they used to be? What about the GTO that Pontiac is bringing back? Is it worthy of the name of the car that started the muscle car era?
Also what about the Dodge Viper, 500hp and 505lbs/ft torque, the most muscle-car like car around in my oppinion.
I think that of all the muscle cars that used to be great, the only one worth buying anymore is the corvette. now i'm not saying it is still a muscle car, it used to be one but now it's more like a modern sports car without all of the low-end torque of real muscle cars. The camarro that chevy had around for a little while recently was just, in my oppinion, a civic-like small car without any power whatsoever. And the Mustang, used to be pretty good, now a sad excuse for a sports car.
Hope to hear your oppinions.

A: Read up a little on your muscle car history. The horsepower war in detroit started with Chrysler in 1955 when they introduced the 300 with its Hemi. Then you started seeing Paxton blown T-birds, fuelie 283's, and so forth.

B: GTO is a Ferrari name first and foremost. To the point where Pontiac was paying royalties to the Scuderia to keep their asses out of the fire. You want to talk about "worthy of the name" then let's start by asking ourselves if a Tempest option package is worthy of being named after the single most successful GT racer of all time.

C: Explain to me how the 320hp, 340lb ft of torque LS1 Camaros were "Civic-like".

D: I like the alphabet

E: Mustangs aren't sports cars. Never have been. Never will be. They're coupes. They're potent coupes. They're very good selling coupes. But they're far from being sports cars.

F: Corvette has no torque down low? What do you drive? A 455 Stage 2 Buick? Sorry, but 375lb-ft at 4700rpm is some good torque at a nice low rpm to me. Particularly for a small block.

Now, I like muscle cars a lot. Some of my favorites are a little obtuse (I have a weird AMC fetish, with Mother Mopar as a close second). But you've really got your head in the ground with this one, pal.

What do you guys think of the muscles cars from back in the day that are still around (Camaro, Corvette, Mustang...) do you think they are at all what they used to be? What about the GTO that Pontiac is bringing back? Is it worthy of the name of the car that started the muscle car era?
Also what about the Dodge Viper, 500hp and 505lbs/ft torque, the most muscle-car like car around in my oppinion.
I think that of all the muscle cars that used to be great, the only one worth buying anymore is the corvette. now i'm not saying it is still a muscle car, it used to be one but now it's more like a modern sports car without all of the low-end torque of real muscle cars. The camarro that chevy had around for a little while recently was just, in my oppinion, a civic-like small car without any power whatsoever. And the Mustang, used to be pretty good, now a sad excuse for a sports car.
Hope to hear your oppinions.

first i must say that vettes and vipers are NOT muscle cars, they are sports cars! mustang is not a sports car it is a pony car, same with the comaro and firebird, yes the new GTO is worthy of its name, but just barley. GTO was a Ferrari name now its a pontiac name, ah poor Ferrari, getting thier names stolen by pontiac and getting beat by ford. oh the tragedy, ya whatever.

What do you guys think of the muscles cars from back in the day that are still around (Camaro, Corvette, Mustang...) do you think they are at all what they used to be? What about the GTO that Pontiac is bringing back? Is it worthy of the name of the car that started the muscle car era?
Also what about the Dodge Viper, 500hp and 505lbs/ft torque, the most muscle-car like car around in my oppinion.
I think that of all the muscle cars that used to be great, the only one worth buying anymore is the corvette. now i'm not saying it is still a muscle car, it used to be one but now it's more like a modern sports car without all of the low-end torque of real muscle cars. The camarro that chevy had around for a little while recently was just, in my oppinion, a civic-like small car without any power whatsoever. And the Mustang, used to be pretty good, now a sad excuse for a sports car.
Hope to hear your oppinions.

I have to agree with the other posters here the mustang is not a sports car rather a pony or muscle car affordable and in my opinion one of the best for the money today, especially the 5.0s of the last 10-15years as well as the new ones. The Vette and Viper are easily great sports cars. The vette not having low end torque!!?? Don't know where you got that idea. The GTO I think is great finally GM did something right for a change (it almost makes up for uglifying chevy trucks, killing the camaro, killing the firebird, and ressurecting name plates like nova, malibu, monte carlo, and impala as FWD honda wannabes. Come to think of it no it doesn't) An AMC fetish, hell you the man I love AMCs, mopars, alterna-GMs (non chevy) and mercuries. Not that I don't like Ford and Chevy it's just I love all amrican makes it's just not as often you come across something like a quality buick or olds (without a chevy engine no less) like you do a ford or chevy. I love old muscle cars just don't like 60's tech when it comes to rolling stock, suspension, steering, etc.

The 'Vette is the "muscle car" of today.

The 'Vette is the "muscle car" of today.


how? i dont think it is b/c its first off a sports car and second only seats 2 among other things.

Define "Sportscar"

Define "Musclecar"


There is a very thin line between the 2.

Long live Ferrari GTO !


IMO: Muscle car = car that was not really designed to be overly powerfull, but gave the buyer a lot of bang for the buck and yet is still pratical.

Sports car = 2 seats and not even room for a bag of golf clubs or a Lawn chair and a case of beer.

Pontiac has ruined the name GTO by putting out semi fast sedan that looks no more special then a grand am and slapping GTO on it. Where are the trademark lights? the trademark speed?...its a disgrace

the new GTO's suck. pontiac needs to dump the whole body and engine and start from scratch. pontiac needs to pick it up and start making their own V-8's again i mean geez the last real poncho V-8's rolled off the line in the late 70's and they mostly have been chevy engines since then. also they need to get that pontiac creativity back that they had in the 60's. its sad and degrading to the GTO name

Hi all. I'm just an old retired foggie sitting around the computer and ran across this site and love it. I love all cars, but I like the old ones better. Anyway, muscle cars to us in the 1940s and 50s were big mostly 4 door cars with V8 engines. To me the last of the muscle cars was 1959 Cadillac. We didn't have good definitions of what was what back then like we do now either. Old habits are hard to break.

A: Read up a little on your muscle car history. The horsepower war in detroit started with Chrysler in 1955 when they introduced the 300 with its Hemi. Then you started seeing Paxton blown T-birds, fuelie 283's, and so forth.

B: GTO is a Ferrari name first and foremost. To the point where Pontiac was paying royalties to the Scuderia to keep their asses out of the fire. You want to talk about "worthy of the name" then let's start by asking ourselves if a Tempest option package is worthy of being named after the single most successful GT racer of all time.

C: Explain to me how the 320hp, 340lb ft of torque LS1 Camaros were "Civic-like".

D: I like the alphabet

E: Mustangs aren't sports cars. Never have been. Never will be. They're coupes. They're potent coupes. They're very good selling coupes. But they're far from being sports cars.

F: Corvette has no torque down low? What do you drive? A 455 Stage 2 Buick? Sorry, but 375lb-ft at 4700rpm is some good torque at a nice low rpm to me. Particularly for a small block.

Now, I like muscle cars a lot. Some of my favorites are a little obtuse (I have a weird AMC fetish, with Mother Mopar as a close second). But you've really got your head in the ground with this one, pal.

:iagree::1:

Okay, Poncho Boy, while the 421SD remains one of my all time favorite drag racing engines, are you willing to tell me that you'd pay another $4000 on a GTO so that it had a Pontiac specific engine? Plus increased parts costs due to parts rarity?

Going further, how about another $15,000 to pay off development costs of a brand new, GTO-specific chassis platform with its own radically different body? And would you want to pay the insane dealer mark-ups (probably another $10,000) for this radically different car.

The GTO was about acceleration and style on a budget. Something tells me a $50,000+ sport coupe is a bit outside of the GTO's "budget friendly" persona.

The Monaro is competition proven, and quite a looker. The LS1 is a stout engine, and its bigger brother the LS6 is waiting in the wings (Judge, anyone?). The current GTO is a place-holder, an interim car created to gauge public reaction and ready the Aussie Holden plant to produce the next generation of more radically designed America-friendly GTO's in 2006-07.

And, by the way J Lad, what's the GTO traditional light layout? In 1964 they were horizontal quads. In 1965-1967, they were stacked quads. 1968-69 were hidden headlight years, and 1970 through 1972 were horizontal quad headlights. I don't see a tradition there.

However, as far as trademark speed, 0-60 in 5.9seconds and quarter-miles in 13.8seconds trounce about 80% of the car's competitors, such as the Infiniti G35, BMW 330ci, Mazda RX8 (ties RX-8 to 60), and Chrysler Crossfire. Plus .81g's on the skidpad and 63.4mph through the slalom beats out every GTO before it.

Gee, speed, inexpensive, big V8, RWD, looks like just another Pontiac, it's 1964 all over again. Back when GTO was just an option package on the humble little Tempest coupe.

Seriously... with rumors of the Camaro/Firebird coming back in the next few years. The C6 just round the corner, GTO's and monstrous Vipers.

Hell even the new Bonneville's have V8s... FWD but still pretty potent.

It's a very healthy revival of the 'muscle car' era.

The imports are still putting out healthy cars themselves. It's all good... makes for fun stop light encounters.

Okay, Poncho Boy, while the 421SD remains one of my all time favorite drag racing engines, are you willing to tell me that you'd pay another $4000 on a GTO so that it had a Pontiac specific engine? Plus increased parts costs due to parts rarity?

Going further, how about another $15,000 to pay off development costs of a brand new, GTO-specific chassis platform with its own radically different body? And would you want to pay the insane dealer mark-ups (probably another $10,000) for this radically different car.

The GTO was about acceleration and style on a budget. Something tells me a $50,000+ sport coupe is a bit outside of the GTO's "budget friendly" persona.

The Monaro is competition proven, and quite a looker. The LS1 is a stout engine, and its bigger brother the LS6 is waiting in the wings (Judge, anyone?). The current GTO is a place-holder, an interim car created to gauge public reaction and ready the Aussie Holden plant to produce the next generation of more radically designed America-friendly GTO's in 2006-07.

And, by the way J Lad, what's the GTO traditional light layout? In 1964 they were horizontal quads. In 1965-1967, they were stacked quads. 1968-69 were hidden headlight years, and 1970 through 1972 were horizontal quad headlights. I don't see a tradition there.

However, as far as trademark speed, 0-60 in 5.9seconds and quarter-miles in 13.8seconds trounce about 80% of the car's competitors, such as the Infiniti G35, BMW 330ci, Mazda RX8 (ties RX-8 to 60), and Chrysler Crossfire. Plus .81g's on the skidpad and 63.4mph through the slalom beats out every GTO before it.

Gee, speed, inexpensive, big V8, RWD, looks like just another Pontiac, it's 1964 all over again. Back when GTO was just an option package on the humble little Tempest coupe.



I was watching an episode of car and driver where they actually tested the GTO and all that shit about 13.8s and what not wasnt true. It came out little better then any other sedan driving on the road.

I was watching an episode of car and driver where they actually tested the GTO and all that shit about 13.8s and what not wasnt true. It came out little better then any other sedan driving on the road.


maybe they didnt know how to drive it or maybe they were 10,000ft up????? :dunno:

Define "Sportscar"

Define "Musclecar"


There is a very thin line between the 2.

Long live Ferrari GTO !


IMO: Muscle car = car that was not really designed to be overly powerfull, but gave the buyer a lot of bang for the buck and yet is still pratical.

Sports car = 2 seats and not even room for a bag of golf clubs or a Lawn chair and a case of beer.

I can't agree with this opinion. You could get a 1970 plymouth roadrunner (or challenger or 'cuda) with a 426 Hemi that put out 425hp/490ftlb of torque but no radio. COPO Camaros with 454 Big blocks... Extremely practical... Race them on sunday, sell them on monday. Not a lot of kid bearing mothers raced to the showrooms because they thought these cars were practical... It was a war of bragging rights. If you have ever heard a big block muscle car idle, I dare you to tell me how practical that is. And these cars came from the FACTORY that way...

yea i guess i never really read Dave's post, its not correct at all(the muscle car part). so i will agree with task.

How many people here have actually riden in, or driven the new GTO? I, for one, have. That is a sleeping beast(just like '64). I am a Mustang lover, fully supporting the Cobra's new supercharged apparel, but you have to love that deep, throaty, naturally aspirated V8. The manual tranny in the car shifted like butter(even not being aquainted with the layout or clutch). The powerband never fell out, and it stuck to the asphalt like glue. The seats were practical yet well bolstered for racing. I had my doubts about this car, but not any longer! As much as I love my Fords and Mustangs, I would have to think twice if I had 35 g's in my pocket. Favorite muscle car-'69 Mustang Boss 429 :evillol:

Pontiac has ruined the name GTO by putting out semi fast sedan that looks no more special then a grand am and slapping GTO on it. Where are the trademark lights? the trademark speed?...its a disgrace


the new GTO is actually a Holden (Australian company) Manaro with Pontiac badges on it. Holden is apart of GM but they design and make thier own cars. The Manaro has been out in Australia and New Zealand for about four years now.

So what a Nova considered? LOL! maybe a Dumb Question. I was curious!

Hi all. I'm just an old retired foggie sitting around the computer and ran across this site and love it. I love all cars, but I like the old ones better. Anyway, muscle cars to us in the 1940s and 50s were big mostly 4 door cars with V8 engines. To me the last of the muscle cars was 1959 Cadillac. We didn't have good definitions of what was what back then like we do now either. Old habits are hard to break.


Most people believe that the muscle car years didn't start untill the Tempest GTO, in 64. Also, most people believe that 10 years later, the muscle car was effectively dead. I am one of those people.

Most people believe that the muscle car years didn't start untill the Tempest GTO, in 64. Also, most people believe that 10 years later, the muscle car was effectively dead. I am one of those people.
Most people agree with your claim--64 GTO first muscle car. I don't. I would have to give it to either the first Impala SS 409, or dodge or Plymouth 413 or 426 wedge 62 or 63. Those bodies turned into the 65 Mopar intermediates. Or how about ford Galaxie 406? Early 60's full-size were similar in size and weight to mid to late-60's intermediates.
Early 70's muscle cars got smaller. duster 340, nova 350. They died with the advent of catalytic converters, air pumps, and 2.45 rear ends.

this is an old thread, don't post in it, moderator please lock.