Our Community is 940,000 Strong. Join Us.


Infinity declares...


focusfreak
06-01-2004, 09:51 PM
I'm sorry, but this has been bugging me for some time. I don't know if this radio add is still on, but when Infinity came out with the G35, the radio add declared it "the next muscle car". Is it just me, or is Infinity stupid? First of all, you don't see GM or Ford or even Dodge declaring their sport compacts the next rice rockets, do you? No, so how does some Jap company think that their foreign tin can will ever be given the title of "muscle car". Muscle cars, in my opinion, are Camaros, Mustangs, Vipers, Saleens, Corvettes, etc. Not G35's or Civics or any other import. Please tell me where Infinity crapped out this idea. By the way, whatever their smoking, I want some of that!

sauron9
06-02-2004, 02:36 PM
Infinity is really beat for saying that. Infinity with a "muscle car"? Please! Imports are not muscle cars or hot rods. It's an over-priced lawnmower.

zx2srdotnet
06-02-2004, 04:13 PM
the clasic GTO and mustang, and goad runner were fast family cars, thats what the G35 is, its a 14sec family car, only now adays small high powered 6 and i4's are what the youth wanna tune, not v8's. its, technicly the Z350 fits it more, but hey, it still fits

03Focus_Guy
06-04-2004, 08:55 AM
Well in my opinion, tuning a inline 4 is much harder than a v8. even with a v8 you already start out with more power and if thats what these tuners are looking for...they need to their story straight

tonioseven
06-04-2004, 09:45 AM
It's "Infiniti"; notice the "I" at the end. This belongs in the Infiniti Forum. Moved. :)

VQuick
06-04-2004, 10:27 AM
I'm sorry, but this has been bugging me for some time. I don't know if this radio add is still on, but when Infinity came out with the G35, the radio add declared it "the next muscle car". Is it just me, or is Infinity stupid? First of all, you don't see GM or Ford or even Dodge declaring their sport compacts the next rice rockets, do you? No, so how does some Jap company think that their foreign tin can will ever be given the title of "muscle car". Muscle cars, in my opinion, are Camaros, Mustangs, Vipers, Saleens, Corvettes, etc. Not G35's or Civics or any other import. Please tell me where Infinity crapped out this idea. By the way, whatever their smoking, I want some of that!

Wrong car. It was the V8-powered M45 that was advertized as the 'Intelligent Musclecar.' There was even a short film made, a la BMW Films style, featuring a mid-40s gentlemen racing two younger guys in muscle cars.

damir831
06-04-2004, 10:33 AM
first off, the thread starter is an idiot. the G35 is a sweet car. I'd pick it over any american muscle! I don't think they should call that car "muscle" and ruin their name. And that "rice rocket" goes 0 to 60 in around 5 seconds and has a pop-up navigation system.

boingo82
06-04-2004, 10:47 AM
Not only does the thread starter have the wrong car (it's the M45 that's the Intelligent muscle car, not the G35) but they have the wrong company too. Infinity makes audio systems.

Thread score? -45 pts.

BP2K2Max
06-04-2004, 12:52 PM
Wrong car. It was the V8-powered M45 that was advertized as the 'Intelligent Musclecar.' There was even a short film made, a la BMW Films style, featuring a mid-40s gentlemen racing two younger guys in muscle cars.
do you have a link to that vid?

boingo82
06-04-2004, 01:18 PM
do you have a link to that vid?
I have a copy saved on my comp. Will have to look and see if I can find it online. I'd email it to you but it's 38 megs.

edit:
I'm not having any luck. I'm pretty sure I initially downloaded it from Infiniti's official site but it seems to be gone from there. They have downloadable commercials for the other cars but not for the M.
Maybe contact Infiniti here (http://www.infiniti.com/form/global/ContactUsApplication/0,,,00.html) and ask them if you can get a copy? I know I downloaded it around April of last year.

I looked on Infinitinews.com and Infinitiartwork.com (which has downloadable commercials and ads for people working in tv and newspaper) but it was not there.

BP2K2Max
06-05-2004, 08:38 PM
i'll poke around and find it. thanks anyway.

focusfreak
06-11-2004, 01:01 AM
this is to damir831, I don't appreciate being called an idiot. you don't see me calling you that. And to BP2K2Max, it doesn't matter what car Infiniti declares a musclecar, they will never produce a muscle car. They are an import manufacturer and that is all there is to it. So damir831, you can sit on it and spin you little panzy. and to BP2K2Max, you have to understand what i'm saying, and that is that when it comes to raw power, american cars are the only ones to rightfully declare their cars "musclecars", I appreciate you clarifying which model it was though, thank you.

focusfreak
06-11-2004, 01:14 AM
zx2srdotnet, where did you get the idea that the mustangs and GTOs were family cars? they were muscle cars or sports cars, not family cars. even insurance companies like AAA title cars like that under sports cars.

aznxthuggie
06-20-2004, 03:32 AM
I'm sorry, but this has been bugging me for some time. I don't know if this radio add is still on, but when Infinity came out with the G35, the radio add declared it "the next muscle car". Is it just me, or is Infinity stupid? First of all, you don't see GM or Ford or even Dodge declaring their sport compacts the next rice rockets, do you? No, so how does some Jap company think that their foreign tin can will ever be given the title of "muscle car". Muscle cars, in my opinion, are Camaros, Mustangs, Vipers, Saleens, Corvettes, etc. Not G35's or Civics or any other import. Please tell me where Infinity crapped out this idea. By the way, whatever their smoking, I want some of that!

well the japanese dont need muscle cars, think about where all your gas is going if you get a muscle car? my friends uncle has an old z28 camaro (i think) and he gets like 6mpg WOW man ur guna get places with that thing, if japan was the size of the US then their cars would own already, but theri whoel friggin country is just a little bigger then ca

focusfreak
06-28-2004, 10:46 PM
I'm not talking about gas mileage because I know that muscle cars (the real ones) do guzzle gas like it's going out of style. If you think about though, no matter what car it is, after you do some mods to it, it will get worse gas mileage with each mod (i.e. turbo, supercharger, etc.)

boingo82
06-29-2004, 01:04 PM
I still don't get the point of this thread. Infiniti can make a muscle car if they want, and Chevy can make an econobox if they want, even though traditionally, "Domestics" make the muscle cars and "imports" make the econoboxes.
And yes, making a car faster usually uses more gas. Again, what's your point?

focusfreak
07-01-2004, 02:39 PM
well, It doesn't matter now because Infiniti might be discontinuing the production of the M45 (yes I know I got the G35 and the M45 mixed up) but it's definitely the M45 which has gotten low sales. I saw it in one of the import magazines, I think it was Super Street or SCC

boingo82
07-01-2004, 04:44 PM
well, It doesn't matter now because Infiniti might be discontinuing the production of the M45 (yes I know I got the G35 and the M45 mixed up) but it's definitely the M45 which has gotten low sales. I saw it in one of the import magazines, I think it was Super Street or SCC

Which just goes to show that you don't know WTH you're talking about...The current M45 is actually not a new car. It has been around for several years before it came here, in Japan. It was sold in Japan as a Nissan Cedric or a Nissan Gloria. They brought this car over to North America half way through its product life, expecting for a new version to come sometime soon.....after a 3 year run they are REDESIGNING the M45....YES it has gotten low sales, but they are not discontinuing the model line...

http://cars.ign.com/articles/504/504930p1.html
http://www.auto-report.net/index.html?m45_concept.html

BhramaBull01
07-03-2004, 05:45 PM
doesnt matter focusfreak

european enginnering > asian engineering > american engineering

focusfreak
07-06-2004, 09:52 PM
ok, thanks for clearing up the redesign/halt on the production of it, I couldn't remember which it was boingo82. BhramaBull01, if you put that down as the order in which each comes in then ok, I agree that european engineering is first, but then when you compare american to asian, which cars are you comparing, and are you just referring to the japanese or other asian manufacturers?

focusfreak
07-06-2004, 09:57 PM
plus this thread was mainly about Infiniti trying to nose its way in on a title the american car market has made and kept for as long as the era had started, I will take it as a compliment somewhat, but I, as a automobile lover, see it as a mislabeling by putting a title on a car which could never live up to a title that has been held by such great cars as the Dodge Charger, Ford Mustang, Chevy Camaro, along with other great american muscle cars. I appreciate you all educating me on the car though, I love learning new things about cars, and theres always something to learn.

boingo82
07-08-2004, 12:41 PM
plus this thread was mainly about Infiniti trying to nose its way in on a title the american car market has made and kept for as long as the era had started, I will take it as a compliment somewhat, but I, as a automobile lover, see it as a mislabeling by putting a title on a car which could never live up to a title that has been held by such great cars as the Dodge Charger, Ford Mustang, Chevy Camaro, along with other great american muscle cars. I appreciate you all educating me on the car though, I love learning new things about cars, and theres always something to learn.

Mustang? How is a Ford Falcon (Ford's low-end cheapo car) w/ new sheet metal and faux "speed holes" a muscle car? At least the Mustang has stayed true to its "pretend air intake" roots over the years. :sigh:

The Japanese have had a corner on the "econobox" market, after all they are the ones who INVENTED the econobox, but you don't see me bitching about Chevy trying to nose its way in with the Aveo.

Are you suggesting that each company should never try to make anything different from the products they originally made? That's kinda stupid. Competition and innovation are what drive our economy. Thanks to the Japanese "nosing in", the domestics will have greater incentive to improve their cars.

focusfreak
07-14-2004, 06:44 PM
this is true boingo82, competition does bring out better ideas for companies, all i'm saying is that the title rightfully belongs to america, thats all. and by the way, infiniti is discontinuing the M45 and in its place is another M series model. check it out in the latest issue of import tuner, the article is towards the beginning. just goes to show i do know what the hell im talking about. plus, i never mentioned the falcon, just the mustang when it came to fords.

boingo82
07-15-2004, 12:36 AM
this is true boingo82, competition does bring out better ideas for companies, all i'm saying is that the title rightfully belongs to america, thats all.

Why? :screwy: They didn't trademark it. The US is making econoboxes now, why can't the imports make muscle cars? And how do you even define domestic any more? Nissan is designing and building their cars here now, and Ford, Dodge, GMC are outsourcing to Canada and Mexico. I mean, COME ON, the Camaro is assembled in Canada! So is the Dodge Magnum! The Chrysler Crossfire (do you count that as a muscle car?) is assembled in GERMANY! Ford, GMC, Chrysler, Nissan, Honda, and Toyota are all global companies now, so your argument is moot.

and by the way, infiniti is discontinuing the M45 and in its place is another M series model.

Huh, really, 'cause I already mentioned that a few posts up. :screwy: Yes it will (supposedly) also be available with a 3.5 liter VQ, and be called the M35, but it will also be available with the 4.5 liter V8 and called the M45. A redesign, exactly like I stated.

just goes to show i do know what the hell im talking about.

Right, you know the stuff I mentioned 2 weeks ago.

plus, i never mentioned the falcon, just the mustang when it came to fords.

The Mustang is based on the Falcon.

aas5
07-15-2004, 01:28 PM
well the japanese dont need muscle cars, think about where all your gas is going if you get a muscle car? my friends uncle has an old z28 camaro (i think) and he gets like 6mpg WOW man ur guna get places with that thing, if japan was the size of the US then their cars would own already, but theri whoel friggin country is just a little bigger then ca

I think you are missing the point. Stating that only an american car can be a muscle car doesn't really give you much credit these days, may be 10 years ago this would fly. Have you tried looking at M5, either the new one just produced or the 2000 model - dude, it will blow off the doors of most of your american muscle cars in no time. Instead of making nonsense statements like you did, why don't you come back to reality and start treating cars not on their origin but by their power - you will be pleasantly surprised.

focusfreak
07-22-2004, 12:22 AM
aas5, I do notice all cars. And yes, the M5 is one of the best cars ever produced from europe. But no, it will not smoke most AMERICAN muscle cars, at least in the 1/4 mile. put it against a '70 charger like in fast and furious, and it will get blown, but up against most stock muscle cars (like a '65 mustang) and it will win. I believe the definition of a muscle car (a true one) is a loud, unrefined vehicle that sounds like a monster on the road, not a quiet refined car like the M45 or M5. And boingo82, the mustang at least in 1965, was NOT based on the falcon. I don't know where you got that idea, but its wrong as far as I know. Also, the M45 is being discontinued, that means NOT COMING BACK. the M45 title will not be seen. It will have a new name and design like you said, but not "M45".

boingo82
07-22-2004, 01:42 AM
...And boingo82, the mustang at least in 1965, was NOT based on the falcon. I don't know where you got that idea, but its wrong as far as I know. Also, the M45 is being discontinued, that means NOT COMING BACK. the M45 title will not be seen. It will have a new name and design like you said, but not "M45".



Popular Hotrodding said.....
In its earliest incarnations, the Mustang was actually a re-skinned Falcon, and utilized a great deal of the former econo-box's platform.
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/features/0405phr_shelby/
:rolleyes:




From NissanNews.com (http://www.nissannews.com/infiniti/concept_vehicles/m45concept/index.shtml), who obviously knows what the hell they're talking about since it is Nissan's OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE SITE,
The Infiniti M45 Concept vehicle not only gives a look at the next generation M45 sedan,




Spoken by the Vice President and General Manager of Nissan's Infiniti division (http://www.autospies.com/article/index.asp?articleId=2813)
"most of which will appear in the new 2006 M45, which is scheduled to arrive in spring 2005."




From Automobile Magazine (http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/04nyas_infinitim45/) The production version of the 2006 M45,

Here is where you are getting confused, also from Automobile mag:
Power will come from either a 4.5-liter V-8 producing an estimated 340 horsepower, for the M45, or the familiar 3.5-liter V-6 in the M35.




Funny you claim to get your info from an actual magazine article, but can't provide a link, a direct quote, or the same info substantiated elsewhere. :bs:

carrrnuttt
07-22-2004, 02:52 AM
put it against a '70 charger like in fast and furious, and it will get blown.

Well, yeah...a blown, and worked drag car...duh.

http://www.autofacts.ca/classics/fast.htm

You might wanna check where the Charger stacks up on that list. Besides the ungodly Ramcharger, all the other "Charger" badged Mopars on that list fall WAY below the M5, and in fact, below the inline-6 powered M3.

As a matter of fact they have a 4-banger, soda-bottle-displacement-having, S2000 quite a few rungs above the exact year and model you are speaking of (1970 Dodge Charger R/T).

I bet, "Focus fan" that you are, you didn't know that the quickest production Ford EVER is not only a 4-banger, but was never sold in the US (1985 Ford RS 200 EVO), as it would have destroyed the image Ford was trying to build for the Mustang. This is still true to date, even with the production of the Terminator ('03-'04 Cobra).

Here's some actual time-slips from an RS200 EVO: http://www.preromanbritain.com/gwem/martbean/rs200/performa.htm

0-60 mph: 3.06 secs
0-100 mph: 7.16 secs
1/4 mile: 10.8 secs @ 128 mph.

Also, with the right gearing (they were designed to have "rally gears", and "street gears"), they top-out past 205 mph.

Although that blurb may say "tuned" to 600HP, that car is completely stock, and that's the factory tune they are talking about: http://www.europeancarweb.com/features/0309ec_fords/

If that's not "muscle" I don't know what is.

I think you are confusing actual "muscle" with the perception of what "muscle" is (or supposed to be)...otherwise called "classic muscle".

Lastly, I probably shouldn't mention the outcome of my race against my friend's Dodge Charger (non-R/T, stock), against my old car (1990 Acura Integra, tuned b16, all-motor). I beat him by a little over a car. He ran that car a month earlier to consistent 15.1's, with one 15.0 at the track.

Quit trying to drive image and perception, and see each car objectively, and your view of the world changes.

Basically, quit being a narrow-minded, automotive ass.

tazdev
07-22-2004, 03:21 AM
What a dumbass.



that is all :)

taranaki
07-22-2004, 02:35 PM
Is it just me, or is Infinity stupid?

It's just you. :sly:

You are getting all wound up about someone who defines 'muscle car' differently to you.Pretty much every auto building nation has cars that have the characteristics of a muscle car,it's not an 'American' thing....but then neither is a ford focus,really. :2cents:

LjasonL
07-22-2004, 02:42 PM
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
07-22-2004, 04:09 PM
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
07-22-2004, 04:19 PM
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
07-22-2004, 04:32 PM
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.


http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/251336

Now how does this look like a 1965 mustang?

focusfreak
07-22-2004, 04:36 PM
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
07-22-2004, 04:42 PM
"based on" was in reference to actual chassis and mechanicals. Look up in my post, I CLEARLY said "new sheet metal".

carrrnuttt
07-22-2004, 05:02 PM
"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
07-23-2004, 10:39 AM
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
07-23-2004, 12:44 PM
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. :lol2: In the 60s, it was a compact.... :eek7: My how times change.

RazorGTR
07-23-2004, 03:23 PM
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.


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.



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. :lol2: In the 60s, it was a compact.... :eek7: 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
07-26-2004, 08:32 AM
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. :rolleyes:



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
07-26-2004, 02:55 PM
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! :icon16:

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
07-26-2004, 07:32 PM
Just one correction CBass, Soarer=SC400, so it was sold in America ;)

RazorGTR
07-27-2004, 01:58 AM
Actually Cbass the Fastback and Mach 1's were muscle cars. The nickname "pony" came from their insignia, the wee little horse :D

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. :naughty:

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
07-27-2004, 08:38 AM
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. :wink: Did you know GM made a Cosworth powered Vega. :eek7: True.

Cbass
07-27-2004, 06:29 PM
Actually Cbass the Fastback and Mach 1's were muscle cars. The nickname "pony" came from their insignia, the wee little horse :D


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.


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. :icon16:


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.


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.


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.


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.


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/WeKnowJack/YenkoWeknowJack.htm

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

fordesigner
07-28-2004, 07:55 AM
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
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.

g35coupe/6
08-02-2004, 12:08 PM
Obviously, this individual does not know what he/she is talking about (referencing the wrong car) and is a racist.

simon bros
09-05-2004, 04:53 PM
oil change light reset . the car has gps and how do you reset the light .

boingo82
09-05-2004, 05:24 PM
oil change light reset . the car has gps and how do you reset the light .

That was random. WTF are you talking about?

slickthellama
09-06-2004, 11:21 PM
oil change light reset . the car has gps and how do you reset the light .

QFT

focusfreak
09-24-2004, 05:17 PM
wow, that wuz HELLA random

Add your comment to this topic!