Earliest Muscle car

I was watching speed channel last night and they annointed the 64 GTO as bing the first muscle car. Their definition of a muscle car was a production car with a big motor and poformance options.

I'm not here to argue, but rather;submit the following cars for discussion....In 1957 ..cadillac had a V8 with 2 4 barrels...chevy had a fuel injection system in 57....in 58,,chevy had a 348 with tri power... although the caddy in 57 was a 2x4 barrel setup..it was a luxury car...with balls...the 57 chevy with the injection system was unique. Who wanted a luxury car in 58 with tri power. I submit...even though I am a mopar guy...that chevy...in 1958 through 63 started the whole thing with the 348 tri powr and then making the "SS" an option with engines as big as 409. Mopar stated in with the wedge in 62...ford had a 406 tri power in 62 or 63. (not here to argue....supportive info more than welcome) I believe the SS chevy was the first true muscle car

no the SS is not the first muscle car. muscle cars were considred muscle cars when u took a larger sized engine, dumped it in a intermediate body and sold it at a low price. Since the GTO's were sold anywhere from 2-3.5k and with that price many people could afford them. On the other hand the Impalas were a nice car but that "nice" came with a higher price tag that many drivers couldnt afford so of course the turned to the smaller cars or went somewhere else. You can call the impala SS a muscle car all u want but it does not meet up to being a smaller car with a big engine and a low price. If im wrong guys, correct me.

I'm partial to the '49 Ford with the Flathead V-8. The Max Wedge Mopars were deliberately aimed at dragracing, not as a streetfighter like the '64 GTO.

i think it would be the 1957 Rambler Rebel, (1,500 were built and had the AMC 327 v8 ) ! ! the only car that was faster in 1957 was the fuel injection Corvette.

see my Hurst SC/rambler,
http://www.joiesjeeps.com/1512_members_pages/mattwilson.html
thanks,
matt

The 64 GTO was a lemans with the GTO options. A 58 chevy impala was way less than 3500.00. The lemans/GTo is the same as an Impala/SS.....big engine in an ORIGINAL car. What's the difference except the year done.

I think that the '64 GTO is revered as the first muscle car because it is were the name originated with that car (correct me if i'm wrong). It is similar to pony witch came with the Mustang why there were other cars that can be considered muscle cars before the GTO the name wasn't around until the GTO.

On that same program...the barracuda,mustang,camaro,challenger were the "pony" class. The bottom line as I see it, The early SS cars were the first muscle cars...GTO copied them later, same idea for both...a standard stock production vehicle with a performance engine.

So the '57 Bonneville doesn't count? All of them were fuel injected, using a similar system as the '57 Chevy (Rochester "Ram Jet"). How about the '58 Bonny with the 370 Tri-Power? They dominated NASCAR and NHRA in the late '50s through '62, when GM pulled the money... I 've never seen a '63 Impala 409 car that would TOUCH a Catalina SD car.

But the bottom line is the first true muscle car was indeed, the '64 GTO. The phrase was coined to describe that car. Chevelles didn't get REAL power until '66. The handful of '65 BB cars shouldn't be considered, as the L-78 was a RARE car. Same is true of Thunderbolts, Ramchargers, and all the other wannabes. At least GM sold their cars in volume, to the general public. MOPAR didn't really have a good one until the '67 GTX or Hemi Charger, but again, Hemi cars are too rare to compare. Ford NEVER stepped up in volume. It's easy to say a car built in low volume (less than 2,000 cars) can beat a true stocker. Let's see what cars were built in excess of 30,000 units, that could compete with the '64 GTO IN '64. Or 80,000 units in '65, 90K in '66, 80K in '67, and so on. Badmouth GTO all you want. It's still "The Godfather" of muscle cars.

Badmouth GTO all you want. It's still "The Godfather" of muscle cars.

The term "musclecar" was not even used until the late '70's......performance cars of that era were called "supercars".

It makes me laugh when so called "experts" try to classify performance vehicles as musclecars or not.......when they know ALL the facts about ALL the cars and not just some of them perhaps then they would be qualified to make that judgement. :2cents:

My posts were opinions and to leave out other mid 50's cars as 'muscle cars" was not a mistake....just lumped in with the caddy's and early chevy's. I didn't submit that I was an expert...just submitted info and MY OPINION. I like all the cars....but when I'm on the street/track, the only cars I worry about beating my stroker Dodge is a 455 Buick and not a GTO.

i think it would be the 1957 Rambler Rebel, (1,500 were built and had the AMC 327 v8 ) ! ! the only car that was faster in 1957 was the fuel injection Corvette.

see my Hurst SC/rambler,
http://www.joiesjeeps.com/mattwilson.html
thanks,
matt

There's my case and point.......perhaps if 30,000 were made and everybody had one it would fit in.........I've never even heard of that car for '57. IMO, that's a musclecar too! :smokin:

The term "musclecar" was not even used until the late '70's......performance cars of that era were called "supercars".


(Joe?) :naughty:

I specifically remember the term musclecar being used back in the late 60's and early 70's.

My father would curse them.
"Damn kid's and their musclecars!" :mad: :iceslolan

According to Jim Wangers' book "Glory Days", John Z. DeLorean coined the phrase when pitching the idea to Pontiac management in 1963.
I have no idea what stroker Dodge you're talking about, but if it isn't at least 450 CID, you're not encountering any modern-built Pontiacs... And the Buick? Much more myth than fact. I ran a couple of those Stage 1s in olden times. My 400 ram Air III would smoke 'em every time. Of course, we're talking real street racing, not magazine tests.

You can build any car to go fast......and build another one to go faster than that......any car can be made into a killer, it doesn't matter what brand it is. If you can beat a Stage 1 Buick with anything, it certainly won't be by much. I've handed a few Pontiacs and Chevies their ass myself a few times.......does that make my car superior? No.

You guys who think Buicks are slow have never owned one.....and perhaps if you could look beyond the smokescreen created by people who couldn't tell a GS from a Chevelle you would be open minded enough to accept the fact there were other performance cars besides GTO's and Chevelles.

Cars that deserve to be called a "Musclecar" will forever be disputed, that's for sure. What is written in magazines or proclaimed by opinion, there is no clear definition without exceptions to the rule. They are all just that....OPINIONS. I don't race my car, so I could not care less how fast someone's Pontiac or Chevy can go........just don't discredit other brands because you don't know anything about them. :smokin:

440 stroked and bored to 493 cubes.

Obviously,
MrPbody has never ran his elusive Ram Air III against guys like Greg Gessler,Rob Chilenski or several others or he would have gotten spanked totally awful.Then he would see just what a myth that the Stage 1 car really is.I bet Greg would be all too willing to show you the taillight whenever you need to be put back in your place.. :loser:
Pat

According to Jim Wangers' book "Glory Days", John Z. DeLorean coined the phrase when pitching the idea to Pontiac management in 1963.
I have no idea what stroker Dodge you're talking about, but if it isn't at least 450 CID, you're not encountering any modern-built Pontiacs... And the Buick? Much more myth than fact. I ran a couple of those Stage 1s in olden times. My 400 ram Air III would smoke 'em every time. Of course, we're talking real street racing, not magazine tests.

:rofl:


Funny, I know a few people who have stock stage 1's that beat pontiacs all the time...including the Goaties.

A few years back they had a series of races at woodburn dragstrip in Oregon. the races were called the car club challenge. one of the clubs that participated was a portland area gto club. I ran my 70 GS455 4 speed (not stage 1) this club had a judge and a couple ram air III cars as well as your other common GTO's. not one of those cars i was paired up against in time trials could give me a close run and i was having a hard time launching the 4 speed. needless to say i am not at all convinced the performance of pontiacs is superior to all other cars.

You can build any car to go fast......and build another one to go faster than that......any car can be made into a killer, it doesn't matter what brand it is. If you can beat a Stage 1 Buick with anything, it certainly won't be by much. I've handed a few Pontiacs and Chevies their ass myself a few times.......does that make my car superior? No.

You guys who think Buicks are slow have never owned one.....and perhaps if you could look beyond the smokescreen created by people who couldn't tell a GS from a Chevelle you would be open minded enough to accept the fact there were other performance cars besides GTO's and Chevelles.

Cars that deserve to be called a "Musclecar" will forever be disputed, that's for sure. What is written in magazines or proclaimed by opinion, there is no clear definition without exceptions to the rule. They are all just that....OPINIONS. I don't race my car, so I could not care less how fast someone's Pontiac or Chevy can go........just don't discredit other brands because you don't know anything about them. :smokin:

Well said ! ! !
those Buick's were bad ! ! all the cars were great back in those days.
chevy ford and mopars would show up at the track in huge numbers , so the odds were great that one of these cars would win there class ,but it doesn't mean they were always the fastest car ! !
all the cars were fast and could beat any other car on any given day.
it was the driver that had more to do with it then anything, could he cut a good light, shift great,or was he fat so the rest didn't matter.

and for the first muscle car , i guess we should go by who was the first to advertise their car as such. i think that was the GTO (cool cars).

the SC in (1969 Hurst SC/rambler ) does stand for SUPER CAR .

http://www.musclecarcalendar.com/MyGarage2004/MattScrambler/ScramblerHome.htm
thanks,
matt
FREEDOM = AMC

The lemans/GTo is the same as an Impala/SS.....big engine in an ORIGINAL car. What's the difference except the year done.

lol thats funny..there is a whole bunch of differences, its a toataly different car. and how did we get into a buick discussion?

Well, that's what I was posting...the gto was not a trail blazer except for a catchy name...grand tourismo oligoto....the first muscle cars were born in the mid 50's...that's my opinion...and I'm stickin to it....uh oh....did that get stolen from somewhere else ??/ lol

The term "Musclecar" was coined when Pontiac stuck what was considered a "large" engine in an "intermediate" body. Nobody said they were the fastest things on the road. At any rate, Pontiac was already making the 389 and the Tempest body so it was simple for them to put these cars together and sell them cheap. That was what made these cars popular. You could run with a 409 Impala, if not beat it, for less money. They were fairly quick, and relatively cheap. Just because an old car has a big motor does not classify it as a musclecar. There are some gray areas but for the most part the mid-size cars using the manufacturers large displacement engines are what we call a "musclecar".

so then; where do pony cars figure in ???? mini size??/

How about the first Chrysler 300..............around 1955?

Hemi Motor, and though a large car had quite a top end speed!

swi66

And the hp on the early hemi ????(231 ci ? ) Not much to brag about. If they were so hot...alot of them would be in rods today.....Even the 392's are scarce.....and who can afford the 426 ??

All I can say is I saw maybe 10 Buicks over the years, actually racing. I saw twice that many GTOs on any given Friday night. And Chevelles? Even more, though production numbers of SS are much lower than GTO of most years.
My point wasn't that there were NO fast Buicks. I even saw a fast Studebaker once! My point is the volume of fast cars in general production, versus the one-offs and special ordered hot rods. While there may have been a few hundred Stage 1s built, there were THOUSANDS of Ram Air cars, and MANY more 350-horse cars.
So funny how everyone jumps up to swat the leader... And its STILL happening today! Even though '04 GTO could blow the freakin' doors off ANY other American company's offerings, there are nay-sayers attacking it for looks. GTO is NOT a car for those to be seen in. It's not even a car meant to beat up on the world. It's a car for those that love to drive a high performance car. And it fills the bill nicely.

GTO the leader...nice car.....but I've never seen the rearend ...only the front grill in my mirrors.....at a distance.....and the crap they make today gets the "privilage" of the gto name...disgusting.....an egg on wheels....

Come on Mr Pbody........04 GTO Muscle...............?
That new GTO has about as much in comon with the old GTO as the New Charger does with the legendary Charger of old..............

From what I've heard, the poor looks and lack of actual styling cues hurt the sales of that one..............
I'm a MOPAR guy, but I think the new Charger is going to sell more Mustangs than anything Ford could do to advertise it...........

If a muscle car can be defined through being a performance-oriented model incorporating a manufacturer's largest engine/lightest body combo, then why not 1936-on Buick Century aka 'The Banker's Hotrod'?

Buick's biggest engine (once exclusive to the big LWB Roadmaster and Limited) coupled to their lightest body (Special) and named Century in reference to the sustainable 100mph the model was capable of (100mph was high-performance for any production car back then)

swi66 i agree the new GTO sucks, i cant wait till 2006 for the new design. one thing i have to disagree on is the charger seeling out the mustamg. will not happen. The stang has the looks, the handling and not so much of the hp but its still good. Yeah im glad dodge re-made the charger but if they didnt make it some panzee lookin 4dr then maybe it will sell more, but as it stands right now, no way no how.

Ponch....re-read Swi's post.....interpreted means....by making the NEW charger....mustang sales will increase because of it....He didn't say the charger would out sell it...now I understand your posts and where they come from

Well, let's see. '64 GTO. Intermediate body, "big car" engine. '04 GTO. Intermediate body (smaller than GP, bigger than GA), LS1 (GM's "big" engine). '64 GTO, mid-14 second 1/4 mile, 130 or so, top end. '04 GTO. Mid 13s (I've seen them do it, stock as a rock), computer shuts them off at over 150 MPH. Both cars, 2-door (Sorry, Charger).
Okay, I guess the '04 wins. You're right. Not much similarity there...
Pontiac has submitted to the crybabies wanting more "styling ques" by adding scoops to the '05. Oh, one minute... Yup, another 50 horsepower, too! They threw that in just for us GTO guys...
You guys miss the point. It isn't that GTO is the mind-boggling supercar the mystique has made t. It never was. It was (and is), however, a viable platform for a true high performance car, able to perform in more than one venue. If your '70 SS could beat a GTO in a drag race, it wasn't going to beat it around the corners. If your small block Chevelle could handle as well, it certainly wouldn't have the balls to run in the straight line.
GTOs are not for everyone. This has always been true. The arch-type GTO guy isn't the least bit interested in how others see him (or her) in their car. They're interested in what the dash, the hood, the shifter, the tach and speedo look like AT SPEED.
Those that lament the styling, aren't going to buy GTO anyway, as Mustang offers more to them in the "Hey, look at me!" department.
We all have our preferences and dislikes. I prefer a car that "runs" as much or more than it "looks". I dislike a car that pretends to be something it isn't. I LIKE the modern car (of most descriptions), as they carry us into the future. I like the old cars, as they are pretty and have individual personalities. I'm not crazy about the "cookie cutter" approach to modern cars, but what works, works! I don't like the old cars due to all the work they need, and some of the lack of conveniences modern cars provide. I DO like the tire-shredding torque not seen since the last of the real ones in the late '70s (early '70s for you non-Pontiac people).
It takes all kinds to make a world. I won't rag on you guys for being "bandwagoneers" if you stop raggin' on me for liking something you don't seem to understand.

swi66 i agree the new GTO sucks, i cant wait till 2006 for the new design. one thing i have to disagree on is the charger seeling out the mustamg. will not happen. The stang has the looks, the handling and not so much of the hp but its still good. Yeah im glad dodge re-made the charger but if they didnt make it some panzee lookin 4dr then maybe it will sell more, but as it stands right now, no way no how.

Re-read my post.........What I meant was, the release of the new charger and it's feeble attempt at capitalizing on the Charger legend will cause the MOPAR faithful to run to their Ford Dealership and plunk down the money to buy a new Mustang.
I am a MOPAR guy, and if I was in the market, I would turn my backs on that new Charger and buy the Mustang. Mustang got it right with the styling. Ma MOPAR teased us for at least 5 years with styling concepts which brought back memories of the Charger of old. What they finally gave us was a corporate compromise..........4-doors! What a SHAME...

I don't care how fast it goes.......that 2004 GTO is just plain UGLY as is the Grand Ams and Grand Prixs that it is modeled after. Yuck!

But as we all well know, the GTO is really the only true musclecar. :rolleyes:

swi66 man im sry ive just had a lot on my mind lately and just keep readin stuff wrong. "now I understand your posts and where they come from", if thats supposed to be an insult, f off. i woulda made an exception with the 99 concept casue it had aggressive looks and i cant rememeber what they were going to use as a powerplant. oh did anybody see the one PHR "popular hot rodding" came up with?

While Mustang got the styling right, they too, are simply trying to capitalize on past glory with the "retro" look. I like old cars, and I like modern cars. I don't care much for modern cars trying to look like old ones. You end up with pure garbage, not unlike PT Cruiser (a Neon in drag).
No, GTO is NOT the only muscle car. Man, you guys sure are sensitive. You can read things into a conversation even my X-wife would be envious of! GTO is not the ONLY one, and not even the fastest one (back in "the day"), merely the first and most prolific.

PONCH-BOY I initiated the "now I know where you are coming from post" not Swii....and the F-off is bravely.....written...lol....Your Godly pontiacs with the low rpm/high torque way over 3400 pound boats were not even a match for a chevy II/ chevelle with a 327.....and of course the mopars with the max wedge and later 440's definetely embarrased the so called...self exclaimed first..so called muscle car...there might be a bunch of no nothing author's proclaiming the gto as the first muscle car...but it can NEVER be solidified because thre was too many high performance cars built way before 1964 and they FAIL to recognise that. AGAIN...what's the difference between a lemans with a 326..2 bbl/gto389..4 barrel...and an ss with a 409 or a sport fury with a 426 max wedge...or a 64 coronet 426 wedge....as I recall....I'll take the wedge car and kick the shit out of a 64 GTO with a 389...now check the specs and times on that

yes i no you did. i was aplogizing to swi66 for misreading his post..hmm now who reads them wrong ?... no kidding a 426 max wedge would whip a gto, i think everybody here knows that. Also do you have some evidence that a 327 chevelle would beat a 389 GTO?

My '70 Judge got beat by a 327 Malibu once! ONCE... It had the old Edelbrock T-1 intake (Tunnel Ram for the younger set), with 2 Holleys sticking through the hood. It also had a Racer Brown (from the "Way Back Machine") roller, 12.5:1, close ratio Muncie, 5.13 gears, and M&H Street Masters. If it hadn't absolutely SMOKED a relatively stock GTO, I think I would be looking for the man that sold me the motor!
But no relatively stock 327 Chevelle OR Camaro ever beat my GTO. Vern Shafer's "Mouse Factory" ('63 Chevy II) got me good one night! Another extensively modified 327.
In general, it took a 375 horse 396 to run with The Judge (mine, anyway). A 350 horse Chevelle SS wouldn't do it, at least in stock form. I never lost to a 383 Dodge, either, even a couple of 'Cudas. 440 Magnums were hell, though. Never saw a Hemi car that could get traction with street tires, so they stayed out of the light-to-light stuff. Southern California in the early '70s was a WILD place to street race. I got more "runs" on a Friday nght, than I did in a year of visiting Orange County Raceway...
Jim Wangers is hardly a "know nothing writer". He's the guy that brought us the Studebaker Hawk series, the GTO and TransAm. He was a marketing guy, who's agency was hired by Pontiac to promote their entire car line. When he met up with John Z. (not a writer of any kind, but one of the greatest automotive engineers in the history of the industry), they developed the car (GTO) on the "sly" between them. Read the book...

04 GTO fastest American car, not! You guys forgot the newest Cobra, and what about that Cadillac CTS-V? I think they were both faster. I actually like the new GTO though, I think it is a nice car, and will get better now with the LS-2 motor.

I've heard talk that Buick has on the drawing board a little competition for these guys. This is here say, and I don't even have any sketchy details, but I heard something along the lines of the comeback of a supercharged Grand National. Since they eliminated the Riviera model it's no surprise car sales are down. Nothing would excite me more than if they bring the Riviera back as a Riviera Grand National and made it a killer. :naughty: Would prolly be the same chassis as the GTO I'd think. But why get excited.......it'll prolly just look like a LeSabre anyway. Given the stupid concepts and crap ugly cars GM has been making for the past 15 years I'm not holding my breath on this one........I'm afraid Buick will die along with Olds if they don't stop calling their cars bad names like LaCrosse and Rainier. :disappoin

yeah that would be pretty nice if they came back with a GN, but the thing im wondering is if they will just slap a turbo on a 3800 and dump it in since they put the 3800 in just about every buick car. i mean its a good engine and all but its time for a change.

GM really needs to bring back the turbo. I think they were definately on to something with the GN Turbo Ta, and Syclone/Typhoon. Make no mistake about it turbo cars can run hard and without sacrificing much drivability

It is rumored that if this idea becomes reality, they will supercharge the ls6. :naughty:

I don't know anything about the reliability of the 3800, but aren't those the ones that GM is using in all their current cars? I hear the rod bearings knock in a lot of those when people start their motors in parking lots.......they can't be too good. And given GM's new product track record lately, I'm not holding my breath on this Grand National thing........and I cringe at the thought of what this thing might look like. It's time for GM to make a retro car like Ford has done with the Mustang.......at least when you look at it it has some resemblance to a real one (punn intended :p )

The 3.8 is usually a good choice for a gm motor..as with all...some good..alot bad but I would not hesitate to getting a 3.8.........I have a 3.1 in My Wife's malibu and it is ok but poor on mileage for a small 6

the 3.1's are reliable engines, i had one in my Lumina with 225,000 miles on it and they guy i sold it to says he drives it everyday. I havent herd much about the knocking of the 3800's. I dont think they would use the LS6 because its a GenIII engine, they might use a LS2 or a LS7 which are the new GenIV engines. hows a Twin Turbo GN sound guys? :)

As far as GM having quality issues I agree. Most front drive GM vehicles in the 90's are lacking in refinement. The car doesn't even have to be retro to me. They already have the platform in the GTO, why is there not a Chevelle, Skylark variant out yet. I hope the people at GM are listening. They could produce a Skylark GS and use that platform and hell put in a modern 6 with a good turbo, AND a manual transmission. As far as a Chevelle, LS2 racing stripes, SS badges you get the idea. If GM is ever to be successful again they need to bring this kind of thing back or performance minded people are going to look elsewhere. I mean that is why we like the cars that we have because they created a legacy that still stands today. I think Dodge has severely missed the mark with a 4 door charger. I know that some people say that you just have to be more open minded about it but come on, a 4 door Charger? Maybe call it a Monaco or something but that is like producing a new Camaro and giving it a user friendly 3rd door ala the RX8! Wake up and smell the Mustang because it will sell, and sell alot because people want that kind of car. Not necessarily because they want a Mustang, but because people can IDENTIFY with that type of vehicle. Bring back Camaro and make it a COUPE, not a 4 door, not a 3 dr, hell not even a hatchback. Make a GS we can all be proud of. Something we can throw threw the corners at nearly 1G, and bump the boost up to 20 PSI and go to the drags and knock out some 11 second times. Do you hear me auto makers? We've been patient for 30 years, it's time!

I wasn't old enough to remember it, but I never heard of people making this kind of fuss when Chrysler introduced the 4 cylinder Charger in the early eighties. If it happened, nobody talks about it now...

Dodge was changing the charger over time before it became an omni though. If you recall the last big Charger was essentially a cordoba then an omni. If you are going to bring it back after 18 years of not having it make it memorable. I had the last charger made, an 87 shelby charger, although I consider it an Omni and less of a Charger.

Was no "fuss" because the cars were so screwed up that what's wrong with really screwing them up.It was just the final nail in the coffin for that model. What stock car in 84 could run a sub 14 sec qtr ...

Another reason you don't hear about the '80s Charger/Challenger fiascos, is nobody took them seriously. They put out a TV ad that claimed they (Chargers) were faster than both TransAm and Z/28. They even showed cameos of the early Charger, T/A and Z/28, in the "background". Dodge people were VERY insulted they would try to captitalize on the real Charger, with a 4-cylinder ANYTHING.
And they (those 4-cylinder Chargers) WERE faster than T/A and Z/28, 0 to 60. Nowhere else...

agreed

i think the only car in the US that could run 14's in 84 was the GN, but im not toataly sure i remember seeing numbers for it somwhere. I think the charger isnt going to sell well, im guessing the main buyers for it will be the average family man looking for a somewhat powerful car. Now if they went with the 99 concept that would of looked real good and probobaly would of sold pretty good. The Omni charger...what a load of junk, 4 cylinders is just sad, i bet my tractor has more balls...

not a tractor

its a joke if you ddint understand

I know, I was just joking too. I wouldn't mind having a Charger Shelby GLHS though.

Getting back on topic........ :smokin:

Not to rock the boat any more than I already did....... :evillol: but I have in my hand a publication that proclaims Buick to be the first musclecar......"Buick centurys...Introduced in 1936 They were America's first Muscle Cars!"

Are you ready for this????

The 1936 Buick Century! 0-60 in 19.6 seconds........By 1938 they ran 100 MPH........light Special body, 320CI 120HP motor (a lot for that time period). The others had trouble going 90 MPH! By 1938, the motor was rated at 141HP and the car would do 0-60 in in 16.6 seconds.......not too shabby for 1938! And they went 101MPH with 3.90 rear end gears!

When Ford and Mercury realized they could not beat a Buick in 1939, the only way they could win at Daytona was by changing the rules......that effectively banned the Buicks from the competition.

Then in 1941 Buick brought out dual carbs, the engines made 165 HP and could go an unheard of 110 MPH.......these were the strongest cars in the country at that time. No wonder the engines were called "fireballs". :naughty:

The facts I stated here are from the article I have......Buick Bugle, February 2005.....I would copy and post it in it's entirety here if I knew how. (can anybody help?) Written articles prove nothing, I'm just sharing what I have read. :smokin:

More ammunition for first car "muscle" title. 16 sec times.....lol !!!

how in anyway does that compare to a muscle car? you have to have big cubes in a smaller body. the buick is ass backwards, smaller engine in a bigger body. Thats the first time ive ever herd 0-60 in 16.6 lol

I suppose, if we're going to go pre-war, we should mention Chord and Auburn. Both had BIG engines with blowers, and were a whole lot faster than anything else at the time.

There's an article in an obscure issue of Smoke Signals (the BIG Pontiac club newsletter) a few years ago, about the 1919 Oakland "war wagon" (an armored car for the military) that sported a V8 (Maxwell, I think) and was designed to outrun the enemy. They (POCI) jokingly called it Pontiac's first muscle car. It's stretch, agreed, but no more than the '36 Century...
And let's not forget the Hudson Hornet! Among the most dominant stock cars in history... Butt ugly, but very fast for it's day. And the Olds Rockets, and Silver Streaks, and the list can go on and on. None of it matters, as it all occured before 1964...