muscle car help for newb

hey all! this is my first lookin into this, and i am really interested in older muscle cars. there is a beautiful red corvette in my garage next to my car and i want to know a bit more and maybe get one for weekend play.

would once in awhile driving take lots of time of work on one? roughly '70 era mustang, camero, etc.. i only have weekends. tho i am planning on working in a mechanic shop for a couple hours (for free) as well to get my hands on cars a bit before buying one so i know whats up.

what are those ram intakes that are above the hood, i would love to have one with it. can u convert any car to have one of those with not TOO much money invested.

is 20-25k enough for a reliable car and about 5k for upgrades n toys such. thanks! -rob

Tecno, First of all, a Corvette is a "sports car", not a "muscle car". Mustangs and Camaros are "pony cars". A muscle car was defined by Pontiac Division in late 1963, when they laid out the parameters for GTO, unofficially, the "first" factory produced muscle car. The true definition is that of an intermediate-size car with a "big car" engine (the 389 was previously only available in full-size Pontiacs). You'll hear others on this site dispute my defintion, but bear in mind, it is not MY definition, but that of the guys (Jim Wangers and John Z. DeLorean) that invented the thing. Every other definition would be a "redefine".
Those "ram air" intakes you speak of... Could you be a bit more specific? Scoops? Carbs? What?
$25K is enough to do a nice one IF you stay away from the high-dollar/high-desire cars. A Chevelle SS454 of any year, a Chevelle SS396 of the '66/'67 variety, a Ram Air Pontiac (of any year), Buick GS/X or Stage 1, Olds "Hurst" Olds, Dodge or Plymouth Hemi-ANYTHING, are examples of high-dollar/high-desire. A plane-Jane '69 Malibu isn't as cheap as it was a few years ago, but still fairly reasonable and ALL the high performance stuff fits.
This can get to be a big bag of worms quickly. I would suggest you pick a body style you like, and begin your research to build the type of performer you desire. Above all else, your plans and requirements must be reasonable. Your budget MUST match your plans.

those intakes im thinking of are the open/close valves on top of engines i suppose that come through the hood. here
http://www.musclecars-and-classics.com/images/61_Impala_4.jpg

im just searching for a mean looking car, black or red, maybe convertable.

found these on the internet, not bad... i definately could buy this one.
1969 Chevrolet Camaro SS / Super Sport
http://www.musclecars-and-classics.com/images/69_Camaro_19.jpg

Chevelle SS 454
http://www.classicalgasmotors.com/cars/0417/pictures/RightFront.jpg

1969 Corvette Convertible
http://www.musclecars-and-classics.com/images/69_Corvette_1.jpg

1969 Mustang Fastback
http://www.holten.demon.co.uk/mustang/images/muz2_low.jpg

Those "Vavles" your talking about are butterfly vavles bro. Thats alot of money to spending on a car. 20-25k. I guess if you have the money. If you buy a car 25k, odds are everything has been done to it. If your looking for something to work on I would take the time to do some research and see if you can atleast find a resonable fixer upper. This is only my opinon, but I like to see people that actually put time and effort into something they care about. Rather than just buying it for someone whos done the work for them.

can i add "butterfly valves" to any car if they would increase anything at all if just a little, air, HP? and yes those cars pictured are near 20k themselves and look nearly flawless so im not worried

If i was you.. Buy a fixer upper for a couple g's.. And dump some money into comletying re doiing it up.. You will get more respect that way.. Im 17 with a 72 gto i get a lot of respect from ppl for just have it sitting in my drive way.. 25k is a lot to dump into a car..

Think about dude, Whats cooler saying "I bought this car from a guy and he fixed it all up doesnt it look great" or saying " Yea I paid 3500 for the car and dropped another 5k ( or whatever) did all the work myself". I dont know dude do what you want. I would think about it first.

i was originally going to buy a 97 viper gts, but a 69 mustang for example would be nice and half the price for now. i would work on cars while owning that then move up. i have to learn first! i dont want too much too fast, constantly working and having a shitty car is not my style heh. my idea was to get help at a mechanic shop on freetime. rebiulding a car is something id do once i have everything under my belt. thanx guys

I understand you dont want to be working on something all the time. Im just saying spending all that money isnt worth it. Atleast get something cheap that still runs and then in time you can build it up.

true true. i shall all talk to dealers and look around. its also a problem i live in chicago and move around alot and dont have a single garage to work :/ ill report when i buy thanx

Buy one that is already restored close to what you want -- it will cost way less than buying a $3500 POS and then spending time and big bucks to restore it! If you start with a $3500 car and spend $20K on it you will probably end up with a car that is worth far less than what you spent. It costs a lot to properly restore a car -- let someone else take the hit! :2cents:

speaketh the truth my man! lol

Oh, and Wangers and Delorean didn't "invent" the muscle car -- something that is obvious and not patentable is not an invention. :rolleyes: They simply put a big engine in a smaller chassis and said it had muscle -- hence it was a "muscle car". During that time (the 60s + early 70s) these cars, as well as big-engined pony/sports cars were often referred to as muscle cars -- they were common (relative to today) and no one at the time felt any need for a strict and arbitrarily limited definition of "muscle car".

Today, however, many who are -- in the strict sense -- "muscle car" fans, feel the need to elevate them to a lofty status to justify their enthusiasm for them. So they defend the title of "muscle car" as having been attributed by a couple of big names to some specific cars that otherwise wouldn't have much claim to fame! The "muscle car" title makes these cars something special to those fans -- and watch out anyone who would use the muscle car title in the generic sense to simply referrence any powerful car. (In fact, watch what happens in this thread!)

I am a muscle car (in the strict sense) fan, but I think it is a bit silly to constantly correct people when they use the muscle car appellation in the generic sense. To me, and most people, you should be able to refer to a hemi Cuda, a 428SCJ Mustang, and even an L88 Corvette as muscle cars without having to worry about being slapped across the mouth for committing a car guy faux pas! :2cents: :2cents: :2cents: :2cents: :2cents: :2cents: :2cents:

I suppose, in the "strictest sense", you could be right. They didn't "invent" it, they simply developed, produced, marketed and named it.

Please accept my apology for the sarcasm. However, it IS necessary to correct people when they are wrong about something quite specific. If you don't, we end up with those that belive EVERY "double hump" head ever produced was a "fuelie" head (ot they were all 2.02's). We get people that believe no car was ever more powrful than the '69 Z-28. We get people that believe Chevrolet is the ONLY engine that's capable of making big power. We get people that believe Viet Nam was a noble cause, and so on and so on and so on.
It is my goal on websites such as this, to dispel myths and superstitions. To bring true "professional" information to an ammetuer society. To make sure you get the facts! Since I have done this for a living for many years, I AM qualified...

I was just trying to make a point about money and time. That was all.